TOPIC IV, Module 6, Part 2

Okay.

We turn now to a couple of other topics regarding administrators of temporal goods,

administrators other than than than ordinaries.

And the first thing that we want to look at is the notion of liabilities liabilities,

what are the liabilities for administrative acts or of administrators?

In other words,

who's responsible for the acts, good or bad, that is done by administrators?

Well,

we divide these up by whether these acts are valid uh and licit or valid illicit,

those types of things.

So for an act that is valid

and licit

those types of administrative acts placed by administrator,

the juristic person

is responsible for it. What are we talking about here?

We're talking about, let's say an administrator,

say of the diet of a of a parish,

let's say an administrator places an act of

administration that is within his purview to do.

And that act is not only valid then. And listen,

so let's take an example that the administrator enters into a

certain contract of employment or contract of service or something.

He hires a group to do the landscaping whatever.

But it's a terrible contract.

It's not an invalid contract, it's not an illicit contract,

it's under a certain dollar amount.

So the administrator clearly has the ability to enter

into that contract on behalf of the juristic person,

but it's just a really bad contract cost a lot of money.

The workmanship wasn't good, you know, those types of things.

Um And so it was imprudent, but it's clearly valid.

And listen, who's responsible for that, Who's responsible for the the,

the excessive payments that has to be done.

Uh and the bad quality of workmanship and those types of things.

The answer is the parish is responsible if an act

is valid and licit

the juridical person

is responsible for that act,

uh maybe unwise, imprudent, but it's a valid illicit act.

So the juristic person is held responsible.

But what happens uh if there is an invalid act,

let's say the administrator went outside of his ability outside of his purview,

For example,

if something was above a certain dollar amount or

outside of what the statutes allowed him to do,

what happens, then who is responsible for that mess

that that's done?

And the answer is, the juridical person is not responsible

economically,

that you really person

has the right to make a recourse an administrative

or judicial action against the Administrator for damages.

So let's say you have a public juridical person, some sort of an a postulate.

Uh and the Administrator,

the person who has the canonical duty of administration of

Administrator goes outside of his purview listed in the statutes.

The statutes listed very clearly that he can't enter into a contract of her service

above a certain dollar amount.

The Administrator does it, anyway, that is chronically invalid.

Who's responsible for that? Uh The answer is that you're a good person,

the the the Apostle, it is not responsible for that,

but what can they do?

Because there's clearly damages and clearly a mess that's going on here,

that Jared IQ person

can make a recourse canonical e

against the Administrator saying, hey look, you did this.

It was it wasn't a mistake.

You clearly did this and you intended it, you owe us your response.

You need to be responsible for this.

The Administrator may be subject to an

appropriate penalty than uh an ecclesiastical authority.

Remember we're talking all canonical here. These are canonical process here.

The ecclesiastical authority and the tribunal, for example,

that goes into that type of a case

can say, hey, no, yeah, we're gonna put, we've determined this case,

we've adjudicated it and there can be a penalty.

There should be a penalty of restitution of whatever against this person,

according to the gravity of the delay.

In other words, according to how bad this was taking, all things considered.

Let's say this was a an intentional malfeasance of some sort.

Then the the authority can say no.

The penalty also is that you removed from

office and that you need to pay restitution.

All that is possible in a an action,

a recourse against the Administrator by the public charity person.

What about for acts that are valid,

but he'll licit.

In other words, the act is valid,

but the Administrator didn't follow the norms of law

that that that were required to go with it.

So, validity wise, it still happened.

But now there's all these other problems that are that are popping up here

is the juridical person responsible and the answer is yes. The juristic person is

responsible still

for the acts of an administrator that is valid but is also illicit.

However, once again,

the jury person has the right of recourse against the Administrator for damages.

The the the the genetic person itself can go after that administrator saying, look,

this is still a valid act.

We know that, but you're still responsible because you willingly did the X, Y Z.

And that has to be weighed and adjudicated.

Either judicial process or possibly in an

administrative process by the ecclesiastical authority.

The administrator

may be subject once again

to appropriate penalty

according to the gravity of the act. All things considered

the derelict,

That's here. And now we turn to book six of the code.

The derelict is the dialect of the abuse of ecclesiastical power

because the administrator is in a sense exercising a

sort of ecclesiastical power and in doing this validly.

And if intentionally illicitly,

the diuretic person is still responsible.

But there's some problems, There's damages here.

Uh, and that person, if done intentionally has,

has done an abusive of ecclesiastical power or at least of negligence neglect,

that caused damages.

And so the person can be gone after in that sense,

but the genetic person is responsible.

The juristic person can, in a sense,

quote unquote sue for liability to use a civil law term.

But once again, remember we're talking under canon law.

All right, uh, in 2000 and four,

the pontifical Council for Legislative text came out with, uh,

with a communication that says this,

the diocesan bishop

cannot be held juridical responsible

for acts, which a diocesan prayers better

performs in transgression of universal and particular canonical norms.

What's the question that's going on here? The question is,

what if a priest

acts in a certain way with regards to, to to temporal goods, uh, for our purposes,

here

is the diocese and bishop responsible?

Now, this is wider than just temporal goods, but for our purposes,

can the diocese and bishop be held responsible

for something that a presbytery priest does?

And the answer back in 2004,

was that the diocese and bishop cannot be held theoretically responsible?

Once again, remembered, theoretically, here means under canon law,

under canon law.

So, we're not talking about civil law,

can the diocese and bishop be held canonical

e liable for something that a priest does?

You can see given the dates and things like that.

This was in the context of the clerical sexual abuse scandal.

Uh, that is the under civil law, uh,

lots of lawsuits we're going because there's a responding at

superior and agency law and those types of things that holds

the higher level of administration responsible for under certain circumstances

for the acts and malfeasance of the of the subordinate.

What about in canon law, then, can the bishop then be held responsible

for crimes, canonical crimes committed by a priest.

Uh, and the answer is no, he cannot under and that covers temporal goods.

That comfort covers other things as well. But there are some exceptions.

There are some exceptions.

The exception is this threefold.

If the bishop does not provide the priests with necessary information or helps

if the diocesan bishop

requires that the priests act in a certain way,

whether putting him in an office to do so, giving him duty to do so,

but doesn't provide him the necessary.

In other words, the essential information.

Now, that's going to be adjudicated,

that's going to be weighed to see what's essential information or not.

But he if he does not give the essential information and a priest

does something that becomes invalid or that

act transgresses universal particular canonical laws,

the bishop can be held responsible then because it was his fault,

he didn't give the priest enough information or the adequate information.

If the bishop does not provide adequate pastoral

remedies when he is aware of a press,

bitters misconduct.

Very interesting, this comes, doesn't directly come from,

but it's implied in canon 1341.

If a bishop doesn't require, that doesn't provide the adequate pastoral remedies,

pastoral tools that that that can address a certain situation

in certain cases, depending on the the the, the, the particulars of the case,

he can be held responsible.

Now, of course, in 2019, vos

lux mundi came out,

which is the document and the procedures by which cases

are being handled of different types of negligence or,

or cover up those types of things dealing with diocese and bishops,

particularly for cases of sexual abuse of minors,

um, that, that, that kind of lays out the liability of bishops.

Up until then, things were a little more more vague. Vos

lux mundi really lays out more clearly that sort of responsibility that sort

of liability that redounds to the dialysis and bishop for these cases,

let's talk about charitable donations by the Administrator.

Is it permitted that the administrator give charitable

donations to, in other words, terrible donations to other things on behalf of the,

of the, of the diuretic person.

And the answer is, yes, the administrator, in theory, can give

charitable donations on behalf of or decide that

the charity person is giving charitable donations,

but only within his ordinary administrative abilities.

He cannot act

extraordinarily. He can't go outside of the slain.

This is where the statutes really need to lay this out.

What dollar amount can he do charitable donations?

Yes, up to a certain dollar amount. The statutes can define that.

The statutes can determine that. And I think the statutes should do that.

Otherwise, we don't want a very generous administrator to just give away the farm,

uh, giving to

charity, but we don't want to clamp that ability either.

So I think the statutes need to lay it out very clearly.

Universal law wise, it also requires

that it only those funds can only come from what's called movable goods

and not from patrimony.

In other words, he can't sell the essential

property of the postulate or of the parish or something like that.

Pastor certainly can give charitable donations to things on behalf

of the parish in the name of the parish,

but he can't sell the parish church in order

to do so that's patrimony all that's a patrimony,

That is, that is an immovable good.

So therefore, that's outside of his purview to do so. And if he does so,

that is an invalid act that we talked about beforehand,

The purposes have to be for piety or christian charity.

That's a wide net, but that he's able to do it.

Yes, but that needs to be defined very clearly in particular law.

And the statutes, uh, economically speaking,

it can only be from the movable goods and not from patrimony.

Yeah.

Let's look at the issue of the Administrator as employer.

The administrator as employer administrators

must observe civil laws concerning labor

and social policy that do not conflict with canonical laws.

This is basically comes down to, yes, as an employer,

the Administrator has to not only follow canon law,

which should also follow civil law where those civil laws don't

conflict with the canonical laws or the doctrines of the church

according to the principles headed on by the church,

it conforms to dictate to the church teaching, unemployment and justice,

not only to those embodied in canon law.

So here catholic social teaching kick in and things like that,

particularly with things like Justin decent wages to the employees can

12 86 is very clear so that they're able to provide fittingly

for their own needs and those of their dependents.

Of course, following catholic social teachings on it.

Pretty straightforward.

Yeah.

What about lawsuits, lawsuits Can administrators deal with enter into lawsuits?

And the answer is the administrator have to have written permission

of their own ordinary in order to initiate or contest a lawsuit

in the civil forum in the name of the public genetic person.

So pretty straightforward.

Yes,

the the administrator can act on behalf of the of the jury person in order to do this,

but they have to get permission.

But of course, remember legal representatives

also have to be involved. They are the ones that legally represent,

but the administrator can make that decision

to enter into initiate contest a lawsuit in the name of the public juridical person.

And then finally, what about withdraw and abandonment?

Can the administrator just quit?

Uh And the answer is even if the administrators

role is not an ecclesiastical office per se,

uh Such as somebody who voluntarily does it.

Uh administrators cannot relinquish their function of their own initiative.

This is very important to realize.

The administrator cannot just quit.

The Administrator can't propose can withdraw,

but it has to be approved and they have to be

removed from the office or let release from the office.

If the church is harmed by their arbitrary removal from office,

they are bound to restitution.

They are liable for those types of damages

that that can inflict harm upon

the public juridical person. So can they withdraw? And the answer is no. They can't.

If they do, they arbitrarily are responsible.

TOPIC IV, Module 6, Part 2

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated