Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst: "The Holy See considers it appropriate to authorise a period of stay outside the diocese."

Rush to judgment? Limburgers protested the
renovation of the bishop's residence.

MSM headlines claim the Bishop was suspended.*

Ousted? Run out of town?  Exiled?  Secular reports here and here.

Why?  Because he spent a lot of money and an investigation is under way.  But according to the Vatican website, it doesn't say he was  suspended, it appears he is just on a break, 'a period of stay outside the diocese'.  (It is reported the Bishop waited 8 days to finally meet with the Pope.) 
The Holy Father has been continually informed in detail and objectively on the situation regarding the diocese of Limburg. In the diocese, a situation has arisen in which Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst cannot, at the present moment, continue to exercise his episcopal ministry.

Following Cardinal Lajolo's 'fraternal visit' in September, the German Bishops' Conference, in accordance with an agreement between the bishop and the Chapter of Limburg Cathedral, has constituted a Commission to carry out a detailed examination of the matter of the building of the bishop's residence. Pending the results of this examination and of an analysis of responsibility for the matter, the Holy See considers it appropriate to authorise for Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst a period of stay outside the diocese.

By decision of the Holy See, Stadtdekan Wolfgang Rosch is today appointed as vicar general, an appointment that had previously been announced by the diocese of Limburg as taking effect from 1 January 2014. Vicar General Rosch will administer the diocese of Limburg during the absence of the diocesan bishop, within the sphere of competence associated with this office”. - Vatican News
That's all they wrote.

Bling Bischof-nacht.
A new tradition for German Catholics.

 * When a suspension is total, a cleric is deprived of the exercise of every function and of every ecclesiastical right. When it is partial, it may be only from the exercise of one's sacred orders, or from his office which includes deprivation of the use of orders and jurisdiction, or from his benefice which deprives him of both administration and income. When a suspension is decreed absolutely and without limitation, it is understood to be a total suspension. A partial suspension deprives a cleric of the use of that power only which is expressed in the sentence. - Source

Paging Dr. Peters.


  1. I'm picturing the revised Ross and Rachel scene with Bling Bishop and Pope Francis. Bling Bish to Francis after being found having breakfast at Tiffany Studios, where he was discussing new, custom-designed light fixtures featuring his coat of arms in art nouveau style "But we were on a break!"


  2. "But the Holy See has not made a definitive decision regarding the bishop’s future and the fact that is chose to entrust the running of the diocese to the new Vicar General whom Tebartz-van Elst chose and who was supposed to officially take up his duties next January, is a sign that the Vatican trusts him."

    How all of this will be resolved will be interesting. I will pray for a good outcome so that the faithful will no longer be scandalized and the Bishop, well, may God's will be done.

    I still do think though that there is a hidden agenda that is not going to be revealed as to why they went after this Bishop. He was appointed by Benedict, right? Does he tow the Benedict line? Is he deemed too conservative for their tastes? And what of the Limburg faithful? DO they not need to pray and reflect?

    It takes two sides to every story. May God's will be done over across the seas...we have enough to deal with here in the L.A. archdiocese.

  3. We've had calls for our bishop to step down. I think it's ridiculous; payback for supporting marriage.

  4. Nan I respectfully disagree with you here.

    From what I see its a call because Neistedt is getting a call for his resignation because of, for lack of a better word, his screw up of the sex abuse scandal. People , both conservative, liberal and outside of the church are sick of it. True, a lot of people think its shows hypocrisy that the guy was so busy working against "civil unions," which would include gay couples (and have nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage) while (maybe) protecting pervert pedos in his own ranks (not saying he did, I am saying that is the preception.) But a lot of people outside of that are calling him on the carpet

    "St. Peter’s is considered a conservative church and was among those that supported Nienstedt’s efforts for the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Amid growing scrutiny from law enforcement and the faithful, Deziel’s letter is the most vocal public criticism from the ministry of Nienstedt’s leadership. "

    So you can't blame it all on the "Gay Activist Agenda," out there. No matter how "pastoral," Nienstedt is, he is also an administrator who needs to do his job. If he didn't he needs to man up and admit it. Now the question is, did he actually know what was going on? Finding the facts with all this emotion is going to be hard. As I said I don't envy all of you going through this.

    And has anyone seen pictures of this Bishop Franz guy? Good God..even in pictures the man looks like a prancing priss pot of a queen!

    1. Yes, he has an interesting look to him not one I find attractive but this picture, attached to RP's article, he looks like he's gloating as he gets out of the fancy roadster.

      Take a close look at the background, especially the man on the right...he does not look impressed..nor am I for that matter.

      What a contradiction of a Bishop especially after today's' homily by Papa Francis:

      Pope Francis: "A bishop is to serve, not dominate",_not_dominate/en1-740400

    2. Your closing comment regarding the Bishop of Limburg is not only uncharitable but irrelevant. His sexual orientation, perceived or otherwise, is not the issue; one presumes that he is celibate. It is his apparent lavish lifestyle which is understandably causing scandal.

    3. Mack,

      There is no cover up. All of the cases in the media are old; the recent ones are glossed over as action was taken. The three cases focused on are:

      1. Porn; someone got the priests old computer, saw porn, assumed it was child porn and turned it in to the chancery but only after making a copy. If the guy thought there was a crime why not call the police? Even weirder is that he made a copy of the hard drive. The church investigated the images and their 3rd party investigator found that there was no child porn; there were 4 popup images that were borderline but weren't porn.
      That was under the previous administration.

      2; a priest who was ordained under the previous Abp. lacked a background check and had convictions for DUI (and trying to get young people to invite him to parties), cruising at a park and was alleged to have hit on a couple of guys at a book store (I don't think that was a criminal matter but was reported to someone at his parish). In this case, he later abused boys and was only prosecuted because one of the boys abused his sisters. If you look at the article on that one, it's spun to make the Church look bad but I wondered what the hell was wrong with the mother who a) let her son go camping alone with the priest in violation of church policy and which is contraindicated by training she had; b) didn't report her son for abusing her daughters to the police but to a priest and c) once she found her son was abused by the priest called a priest instead of the police. I find her behavior reprehensible as she took no immediate action to safeguard her daughters. I think she knew or suspected her sons were being abused and didn't want to call the police.

      3: the parents didn't notice anything wrong, the chancery investigated, the county investigated and nobody found any criminal activity; the girl thought that the mere allegation of abuse was sufficient and is now suing I wonder if the priest has had a change in financial circumstances.

      Note that the priests speaking against Abp. are a) a religious priest who isn't under his authority and b) a known dissident priest.

      The rest of the cases are things taken care of under the previous administration. I agree with Abp. that he has a duty to support his priests, even when found unable to continue public ministry, espe. in cases where they're unlikely to get secular employment.

      Note also that the call for release of names of accused flies in the face of innocence until proven guilty. The police don't release the names of the accused typically either so I see no issue with refusing to release, particularly in cases where the priest was exonerated.

      The Archdiocese says that there are many errors in the news reports and that they send corrections but nobody cares. This is a smear campaign. The issue is that a woman who is strong-willed and difficult to work with thought she knew better than her boss, who was a civil lawyer, thus was trained in criminal law, evidence and criminal procedure, and went to the media because she didn't get her way. Oh, and I know someone who used to work with her who is about the nicest man in the world so I believe his analysis of her.

  5. Terry...double post but I had to add this...I went back to look at the picture of the Bishop from Limburg and well, I have to give him the benefit of doubt since it occurred to me that perhaps, maybe, just maybe, he was asked to pose in that fancy roadster and I am wrong in assuming he drove up in it for all to see.

    I am sorry for coming off judgemental and assuming too much regarding the poor Bishop.

  6. Nan - thanks very much for your clarifications.


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.