The following Lifesite story (through FreeDominion) has me fuming, particularly the following paragraphs:
DIOCESE UNABLE TO INTERVENE UNDER CANON LAW
The diocese says it is unable to act on the matter of Katelyn’s expulsion. Rev. Charles S. McDermott, S.T.D. Chancellor and Vicar Episcopal for Theological Affairs for the Diocese of Sacramento, explained to LifeSiteNews.com that the school is run by an order of nuns popularly known as the Loretto Sisters. Rev. McDermott described the order as “A religious institute in the church which is of pontifical right,” explaining that “they are subject in their internal affairs directly to the Holy See and not to the local bishop.”
In the matter of the pro-abortion teacher the bishop exercised special powers reserved to him in canon (church) law permitting him to intervene in cases of faith and morals, explained the diocesan Chancellor.
Rev. McDermott did however provide key information shedding light on the disagreement between the family and the school. He told LifeSiteNews.com that “The mother approached Loretto high school about it quite quietly, as far as I understand, and asked them to respond to the situation.” The school failed to act, and the matter was “eventually” brought to the attention of Bishop Weigand.
——————
This is incorrect in my opinion. Because the case concerns the common good, the girl can and should appeal through the local tribunal, which is more than competent to hear the case. She can also appeal to Rome. That being said, even if she wins, if she were my daughter, I wouldn’t send her back to that school. Rather, I would demand a tuition refund, financial compensation for additional damages, and an apology.
10 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is nice to see an opinion from a practicing Canon Lawyer. What canon(s) would come into play, in your opinion?
Pete, does the order need the bishop’s permission to operate the school?
At least, the bishop can speak about the case and urge parents to send their children to some other school. That might bring results faster than any lawsuit, especially if there’s another Catholic high school available.
Rich: The Order would definitely need the Bishop’s permission to operate the school. Not interfering in the internal ordering of the religious institute means the bishop cannot tell the sisters to elect a certain religious as Mother Superior, to wear a certain color in their habit, etc… Nevertheless, the bishop bears ultimate responsibility for what is taught in his diocese
Ron, here’s a few canons to consider:
Can. 801 Religious institutes whose proper mission is education, retaining their mission faithfully, are also to strive to devote themselves to Catholic education through their schools, established with the consent of the diocesan bishop.
Can. 806 §1. The diocesan bishop has the right to watch over and visit the Catholic schools in his territory, even those which members of religious institutes have founded or direct. He also issues prescripts which pertain to the general regulation of Catholic schools; these prescripts are valid also for schools which these religious direct, without prejudice, however, to their autonomy regarding the internal direction of their schools.
I’m just a regular lawyer (not a canon lawyer), but it seems to me that if a bishop can intervene because of an issue of faith and morals, he ought to be able to intervene when a student is retaliated against for raising an issue of faith and morals.
Isn’t that still “faith and morals”?
Of course. Not only that, but I would suspect there’s an issue of a broken contract — dismissing a student is not like dismissing a novice — which can also be enforced through the Church’s judicial system.
Does the school require some sort of permission from the bishop in order to operate as a ‘Catholic’ school? If yes, then can the Bishop withdraw that permission?
Dear Reluctant Penitent.
Yes to both questions
What if, as I suspect, the school is a non-profit corporation at which IBVM sisters teach and on whose board a certain number of IBVM sisters sit?
The blog traffic at Katelyn’s was more that just supportive of the girl. For two weeks prior to her expulsion, Bain was no longer working at the school, so the original mission was accomplished, right?
Loretto claimed they were the target of an internet campaign–they said e-mails, we can all read the blog posts. It might be that Katelyn’s internet friends keeping the issue alive were the ones who got her into trouble. The headline on this post, like those elsewhere in St Blog’s is inflammatory, especially if it was this kind of thinking that got the girl expelled.
Think about it: all it would take is one half-crazy e-mail threatening violence to set any school administration into crisis mode. Loretto was a clear target after they fired Bain. Katelyn almost surely didn’t churn up the talk, but her error may have been to keep her comment box on.
Thinking like schools do when it comes to alcohol or drugs, she didn’t consume any, but she left her house open to people who did drink. A teen who hosted a drinking party might well pay the legal consequences, even if she stayed clean and sober.
My suggestion would be to withdraw from this issue with dignity, while we still have it. Sure, there’s a spectre of unfairness. Let it play out among the people who have more facts than we do. When the issue is settled and the facts are aired, then there will be time for commentary.
It is obvious, the Bishop, like many, dont really feel that strong about the crime of murder and abortion or they would step in.
I guess they want to be loved by all, so sad.
The true barometer of the greatness of a leader and in this case a Pope is the Bishops and Cardinals they ordained, and with the likes of Levada, Law, etc…do you really think “Santo Subito” is justified?