Vatican Has Lost its Investiture Struggle
In the press release of the 26th of March 2014, Rome has stated that Limburg Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst has tendered his resignation. -- Thus the anti-Clerical media and the anti-Roman laity decide over Episcopal appointments.
.jpg) |
In the Diocese of Limburg Enemies of the Church
|
"Press Release in Reference to the Diocese of Limburg
From the Vatican, March 26th 2014
Unnecessary pseudo-transparency
Press Release
Diocese of Limburg: published audit report on the construction projects on the Limburg Cathedral Hill
The report retained since February 14, 2014 report
Introductory Remarks
Final report in text
The third white flag is from the diocese of Limburg: It plans to release the Diocese Finance Report
Diocese wants to disclose assets
Counter-statement of SE Tebartz van Elst A reply to the audit report can be found at: Opinion on the report of the examination committee of the German Bishops' Conference [kathtube] Which follows in English, here:
Limburg Bishop Franz-Peter van Elst has criticized Tebartz the report of the German Bishops' Conference - The opinion in his own words
Limburg (kath.net) Regarding contradiction to statements of DBK-test report that were made in statements by the Bishop Emeritus (since March 27th) of Limburg, Franz-Peter Tebartz van Elst, which were reported on Wednesday evening by a variety of media. With remarks on five subject areas as well as the St. Georg work he refers unexpected counter-position to the report of the German Bishops' Conference.
Opinion of Bishop Franz-Peter van Elst Tebartz the report of the examination of the German Bishops Conference in text
1 Complex: Regarding the imputed discrepancy between the understanding of the bishop and the data compared from His Eminence Cardinal Lajolo (. NG. p. 46; p. 51 para 25 and 29; p.103) is as follows:
Already in October 2013, I had responded to the questions asked me, submitted under No. l | 6. that I was truthfully informed during a conversation with His Eminence Cardinal Lajolo, on 10 September 2013, that the differentiated total sum calculation was not available. In the previous meetings of the Financial Board of Directors of the Episcopal chair it was of the necessity and the effort to discuss again and again, possible depreciation be taken into account, which would then lead to reductions in terms of the construction cost total.
In the report referred to by the meeting of the Board of Directors of assets on 28 August 2013, after I had a discussion about which informed regarding expansion of the scope of credit, I wasn't present for the report because I was at a meeting with the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, His Eminence Marc Cardinal Ouellet in Rome.
Already in October 2013, I had responded to the questions asked me, submitted under No. l | 6. that I was truthfully informed during a conversation with His Eminence Cardinal Lajolo, on 10 September 2013, that the differentiated total sum calculation was not available. In the previous meetings of the Financial Board of Directors of the Episcopal chair it was of the necessity and the effort to discuss again and again, possible depreciation be taken into account, which would then lead to reductions in terms of the construction cost total.
In the report referred to by the meeting of the Board of Directors of assets on 28 August 2013, after I had a discussion about which informed regarding expansion of the scope of credit, I wasn't present for the report because I was at a meeting with the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, His Eminence Marc Cardinal Ouellet in Rome.
Also the assertion of the report, according to the signing of the minutes of the meeting of the Finance Board of 28 August 2013 was made by me on 11 September 2013, can not be cited as proof of my knowledge of the differentiated sum of total construction costs. The conversation with His Eminence Cardinal Lajolo took place the day before and on the day the minutes of the meeting of 28 August 2013 were delivered to me Vicar General Dr. Kaspar, so that only at that time that an assessment on my part in any detail was possible.
Rome's approval was shown to be a unnecessary precaution, however, by the representative of the Holy See in Germany, who was Archbishop Jean-Claude Périsset, since the start of construction in 2010/2011, who was informed several times by Vicar General Dr. Kaspar (see the attached in the appendix letter of attorney Professor ignor forward November 5 2013, and my answer to the specific questions that were put to me in October 2013 by the Congregation for Bishops, see here: Nr. | .5, 6).
2 Complex:
As far as canonical concerns are expressed, they are based on compliance with the written form (see test report p 15 and p 37) and related to the respect of the business meeting.Both objects formal nature fell under the responsibility of the Vicar General. As a non-expert in the field of church administration since my expertise is in pastoral theology, I had to leave the responsibility for this to the Vicar General, Dr. Kaspar, the "as the only (besides the Managing Director of the Diocese) was found to have a comprehensive insight into the asset structure the Episcopal chair."(cf., audit report p. 50 para. 21).
Incidentally, the path taken represents a continuation of the preceding exercise of the cathedral chapter in this field.
3 Complex:
On the alleged ultimate responsibility of the bishop in the report, I understand this has always been so that they themselves as the successors of the apostles are to head the Church by the Lord (witness to the truth), not just as an expression of administrative detail and total competence. A differing understanding would invest the dignity of the Episcopate with criteria where it is seen primarily as an administrative professional, engineering and accounting profession, instead of focusing on its doctrinal, pastoral, spiritual and charitable mission.
4 Complex:
The responsibilities of the Vicar General (see p 35, p 39 and p 101): At the beginning of my episcopal ministry in the diocese of Limburg in January 2008, I arrived in a situation that was in many ways unordered, primarily of a personal aspect of administration. This prompted me not least on the explicit advice of my predecessor in the episcopate, Bishop Emeritus Dr. Franz Kamphaus, back in September 2009, recommending Vicar General Dr. Franz Kaspar for the social and public recognition of his management experience and his standing in the office of vicar general.
He urged for greater administrative efficiency that directly allocated the building department and care for art in the Diocese which had become detached from integration to the financial department.
He also stressed the role of the diocesan economist in the diocese, contrary to the previous practice of the appointment of the head of the finance department with this responsibility.
He has taken in its jurisdiction and the banking business. Based on the construction of the Bishop's house, he has operated the change from the second design (architect Hamm) to the design of Professor Schattner as essential.
Regarding the art assigned in the bishop's house, he took the initiative to engage the artists Professor Johannes Schreiter (glass window), Karl-Matthew Winter ( Features of the chapel) and Professor Thomas Duttenhofer (gate), with which he had complete personally awareness.
Among the existing historic furniture from storage, he had acquired furniture on his own initiative and without my knowledge.
As to the supposition of the requirement of secrecy it is known, that the relevant provisions in the service contracts between the Diocese and the Episcopal chair are identical (see the attached in the annex two service contracts). Also, in practice, there was no divergent handling by me.
Specific issues in the diocese of Limburg, which was characterized before my arrival by indiscretions (see letter from Professor Christoph Mackler of 20 August 2008 on the construction of the cathedral chapter, see also audit report S . 100), it nevertheless suggested to repeatedly refer to a self-evident confidentiality obligation. Because also the previous history of the construction of the the Bishop's House demonstrates how difficult transparency was to come by, which came out later only with difficulty.
Deciding to undertake the settlement with KPMG (see p 69 and p 88 ), struck me as a forward-looking measure (outsourcing) as well as to counter the allegation of a mere internal self-control.
Moreover, the administrative capacity of the Episcopal Ordinariate was not enough to accomplish this task.
5 Complex:
On listing the drivers of cost and cost-increasing issues (pp. 79-82) is noted:
In the audit report a representation of the total cost, which is exaggerated in a methodological error, that names the absolute amounts as constituting additional costs, while they are proven to be the total cost of individual positions. The impression thus is created that leads to orders of magnitude, which must irritate.
For each of the points mentioned in the report, a position could be taken by the responsible employees. As for the responsibility as a bishop, while the constraint has to be seen that I, as bishop, am neither a financial nor a construction expert. In so far as the specific information with the individual items mentioned in the report for which I was personally responsible, I have this spoken on this in the discussions 4 and 5 March 2014 at the Congregation for Bishops. On the background of my predicament with experiences of other construction projects in the Diocese, I was involved with from the beginning in terms of the quality and sustainability to be considered in the overall project.
Digression to the St. Georg work (p. 32f.):
True, the report notes that "the judgment, that the statutory purpose of the work in 2011 can not be met, which falls to the bishop. (Cf. 5:32). The report's authors consider a need to clarify whether the Episcopal See’s funds were used for the specific purpose of the founding. You see in the abolition decree of the bishop there is a restriction of the original purpose.
For this purpose, however, it is different from the external repeal Decree of 27 September 2011, the minutes of the Board of Directors of the assets Episcopal chair of 2 November 2011 shows that even after the dissolution of the St. Georg Work, that the assets devolving to the Episcopal See will and must be used furthermore for "religious, charitable or benevolent purposes".
This shows that there is nothing in the foundation's intention of the St. Georg work that has changed, regardless of the question whether the work's foundation in the immediate postwar period foresaw the construction of a diocesan meeting center. The open question of law in this context, the demand by the authors of the report to clarify, considers the fact that there can be no accusations of an intentional violation of the purpose (See minutes of the VVR November 2, 2011).
The person responsible for the decision, Vicar General and Diocesan Economist Dr. Franz Kaspar, was in fact obviously aware that the founding intention of the work is still covered by the assets of the Episcopal See and is guaranteed. I was sure of this certainty.
The opinion in its text as a PDF file: http://www.kathtube.com/player.php?id=34231
Link to Kath.net...
Edit: the good Bishop has since apologized of course. We haven't seen the apology, but are certain that all of this is sensible and unnecessarily complicated by the media's nastiness.
AMGD
Rome's approval was shown to be a unnecessary precaution, however, by the representative of the Holy See in Germany, who was Archbishop Jean-Claude Périsset, since the start of construction in 2010/2011, who was informed several times by Vicar General Dr. Kaspar (see the attached in the appendix letter of attorney Professor ignor forward November 5 2013, and my answer to the specific questions that were put to me in October 2013 by the Congregation for Bishops, see here: Nr. | .5, 6).
2 Complex:
As far as canonical concerns are expressed, they are based on compliance with the written form (see test report p 15 and p 37) and related to the respect of the business meeting.Both objects formal nature fell under the responsibility of the Vicar General. As a non-expert in the field of church administration since my expertise is in pastoral theology, I had to leave the responsibility for this to the Vicar General, Dr. Kaspar, the "as the only (besides the Managing Director of the Diocese) was found to have a comprehensive insight into the asset structure the Episcopal chair."(cf., audit report p. 50 para. 21).
Incidentally, the path taken represents a continuation of the preceding exercise of the cathedral chapter in this field.
3 Complex:
On the alleged ultimate responsibility of the bishop in the report, I understand this has always been so that they themselves as the successors of the apostles are to head the Church by the Lord (witness to the truth), not just as an expression of administrative detail and total competence. A differing understanding would invest the dignity of the Episcopate with criteria where it is seen primarily as an administrative professional, engineering and accounting profession, instead of focusing on its doctrinal, pastoral, spiritual and charitable mission.
4 Complex:
The responsibilities of the Vicar General (see p 35, p 39 and p 101): At the beginning of my episcopal ministry in the diocese of Limburg in January 2008, I arrived in a situation that was in many ways unordered, primarily of a personal aspect of administration. This prompted me not least on the explicit advice of my predecessor in the episcopate, Bishop Emeritus Dr. Franz Kamphaus, back in September 2009, recommending Vicar General Dr. Franz Kaspar for the social and public recognition of his management experience and his standing in the office of vicar general.
He urged for greater administrative efficiency that directly allocated the building department and care for art in the Diocese which had become detached from integration to the financial department.
He also stressed the role of the diocesan economist in the diocese, contrary to the previous practice of the appointment of the head of the finance department with this responsibility.
He has taken in its jurisdiction and the banking business. Based on the construction of the Bishop's house, he has operated the change from the second design (architect Hamm) to the design of Professor Schattner as essential.
Regarding the art assigned in the bishop's house, he took the initiative to engage the artists Professor Johannes Schreiter (glass window), Karl-Matthew Winter ( Features of the chapel) and Professor Thomas Duttenhofer (gate), with which he had complete personally awareness.
Among the existing historic furniture from storage, he had acquired furniture on his own initiative and without my knowledge.
As to the supposition of the requirement of secrecy it is known, that the relevant provisions in the service contracts between the Diocese and the Episcopal chair are identical (see the attached in the annex two service contracts). Also, in practice, there was no divergent handling by me.
Specific issues in the diocese of Limburg, which was characterized before my arrival by indiscretions (see letter from Professor Christoph Mackler of 20 August 2008 on the construction of the cathedral chapter, see also audit report S . 100), it nevertheless suggested to repeatedly refer to a self-evident confidentiality obligation. Because also the previous history of the construction of the the Bishop's House demonstrates how difficult transparency was to come by, which came out later only with difficulty.
Deciding to undertake the settlement with KPMG (see p 69 and p 88 ), struck me as a forward-looking measure (outsourcing) as well as to counter the allegation of a mere internal self-control.
Moreover, the administrative capacity of the Episcopal Ordinariate was not enough to accomplish this task.
5 Complex:
On listing the drivers of cost and cost-increasing issues (pp. 79-82) is noted:
In the audit report a representation of the total cost, which is exaggerated in a methodological error, that names the absolute amounts as constituting additional costs, while they are proven to be the total cost of individual positions. The impression thus is created that leads to orders of magnitude, which must irritate.
For each of the points mentioned in the report, a position could be taken by the responsible employees. As for the responsibility as a bishop, while the constraint has to be seen that I, as bishop, am neither a financial nor a construction expert. In so far as the specific information with the individual items mentioned in the report for which I was personally responsible, I have this spoken on this in the discussions 4 and 5 March 2014 at the Congregation for Bishops. On the background of my predicament with experiences of other construction projects in the Diocese, I was involved with from the beginning in terms of the quality and sustainability to be considered in the overall project.
Digression to the St. Georg work (p. 32f.):
True, the report notes that "the judgment, that the statutory purpose of the work in 2011 can not be met, which falls to the bishop. (Cf. 5:32). The report's authors consider a need to clarify whether the Episcopal See’s funds were used for the specific purpose of the founding. You see in the abolition decree of the bishop there is a restriction of the original purpose.
For this purpose, however, it is different from the external repeal Decree of 27 September 2011, the minutes of the Board of Directors of the assets Episcopal chair of 2 November 2011 shows that even after the dissolution of the St. Georg Work, that the assets devolving to the Episcopal See will and must be used furthermore for "religious, charitable or benevolent purposes".
This shows that there is nothing in the foundation's intention of the St. Georg work that has changed, regardless of the question whether the work's foundation in the immediate postwar period foresaw the construction of a diocesan meeting center. The open question of law in this context, the demand by the authors of the report to clarify, considers the fact that there can be no accusations of an intentional violation of the purpose (See minutes of the VVR November 2, 2011).
The person responsible for the decision, Vicar General and Diocesan Economist Dr. Franz Kaspar, was in fact obviously aware that the founding intention of the work is still covered by the assets of the Episcopal See and is guaranteed. I was sure of this certainty.
The opinion in its text as a PDF file: http://www.kathtube.com/player.php?id=34231
Link to Kath.net...
Edit: the good Bishop has since apologized of course. We haven't seen the apology, but are certain that all of this is sensible and unnecessarily complicated by the media's nastiness.
AMGD
No comments:
Post a Comment