> Vatican Diary / The “who’s who” of the deposed bishops
A few days after the publication of this article, another case of this kind emerged in Slovakia.
The news is in a terse statement from the Vatican dated July 2:
“Il papa ha sollevato dalla cura pastorale dell’arcidiocesi di Trnava (Slovacchia) S.E. Mons. Róbert Bezák, C.SS.R.”.
The deposed archbishop, 52 years old, a Redemptorist, has left his post and has also been obliged to reside outside of the archdiocese. But his case appears to be far from closed. It is invading the Slovakian media and dividing public opinion, Catholic and not. Leading intellectuals and artists have closed ranks in defense of this “bishop with a human face,” according to them unjustly driven out for having wanted to expose the malfeasance of his predecessor Jan Sokol, who retired in 2009 after reaching the age limit.
In effect, Archbishop Sokol, in addition to being suspected – like many others – of collaborating with the secret service of the previous communist regime, had been hit by a crescendo of accusations concerning the administration of the assets of the archdiocese, which he had put under his name and which only he could control.
These were significant sums, of several million euro, coming from the restitution to the Church of property that had previously been confiscated by the communist regime, from donations from wealthy Slovaks residing in the United States or other countries, and from returns on financial investments abroad.
The attorney general of the Slovakian state has opened a case for fiscal fraud. And as soon as he was appointed archbishop, Bezák himself lashed out noisily against his predecessor’s management, coming to the point of testifying against him in 2010 in a lawsuit between Sokol and the magazine “Tyzden,” which had published confidential information about the administration of the archdiocese.
Bezák informed the nunciature in Slovakia and the Vatican secretariat of state about what he believed to be Sokol’s malfeasance. And he also requested an apostolic visitation of the archdiocese.
But he obtained the opposite of what he was expecting.
The nuncio in Bratislava, Mario Giordana, conducted the investigation of the case. But he concluded that Archbishop Sokol had not personally appropriated anything. If anything, he had acted as many other archbishops of the former Soviet empire, who, not trusting the new leadership classes and fearing new confiscations and harassment, put under their own names the assets of the diocese and donations from abroad, in accounts “protected” as much as possible, like those of the Institute for Works of Religion, the Vatican bank. In any case, today the Vatican authorities no longer see such behavior as justifiable, in a political context that has been stabilized.
As for the apostolic visitation, this took place during the latter half of January of 2012. But instead of being against Sokol, it backfired against Bezák himself. For administrative infractions, this time his own, but also doctrinal and disciplinary violations.
The apostolic visitation had been ordered from Rome by the congregation for the clergy headed by Cardinal Mauro Piacenza.
The inspector selected was the bishop of Litomerice in the neighboring Czech Republic, Jan Baxant.
In one week, Baxant interviewed all of the bishops of Slovakia, and many other religious and lay witnesses.
According to the final report of the visitation, Bezák, after firing all of the administrative personnel of the archdiocese in office with his predecessor, had entrusted the substantial diocesan portfolio to two commercial companies, Ninett and Hanalex, created and directed by two administrator friends of his, Ondrej Studenec and Anna Húst’avová, already responsible for the slipshod management of the assets of the neighboring diocese of Banská Bystrica, where Bezák was a pastor before being promoted as archbishop of Trnava.
The fact is that in a few months of management, before the relationship with Ninett and Hanalex was broken off, these two companies accumulated a debt with the archdiocese of almost 600,000 euro, for loans not repaid and revenue not deposited. A debt that the Vatican authorities view as “unrecoverable.”
But no less grave are the doctrinal and disciplinary failures that the Vatican authorities have detected in Archbishop Bezák.
After breaking off relations with his own auxiliary bishop and alienating all of the pastoral management directors inherited from Sokol – vicar general, chancellor, judicial vicar, treasurer, dean – Archbishop Bezak is believed to have entrusted “positions of responsibility to unworthy priests, some of them from other dioceses, in that they are living in situations of open immorality and violation of discipline.” Read: homosexuality and concubinage.
Not only that. Bezák is thought to have distinguished himself – still according to the Vatican authorities – “in blatant lack of observance of liturgical norms, in the support given to ideas contrary to Catholic doctrine consistently taught by the sacred magisterium with regard to the indissolubility of marriage, euthanasia, and the sacrament of Holy Orders, showing little respect for the Roman pontiff.”
Not to mention his “public mockery of clergy in clerical dress” and “wearing inappropriate secular clothing even on official occasions like visits to parishes to impart the sacrament of Confirmation.”
Bezák has repeatedly complained that he has not been informed by the Vatican authorities about the real accusations brought against him, and that he has not been able to explain his reasons to the leading authorities of the Roman curia and to the pope. And because of this, he has refused to resign.
In reality, at the end of the apostolic visitation in January, the visitor Baxant listened to him once again, presenting the accusations gathered and asking him to reply.
On May 3, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the congregation for bishops, sent him a list of 11 questions concerning doctrine and discipline. To which Bezák responded in writing, in very argumentative terms.
Bezák has also had the opportunity to meet with the nuncio in Slovakia on a number of occasions.
Of course, the Vatican authorities have not made any of this public. Nor has the Slovakian episcopal conference, unanimously allied against the deposed archbishop.
And this gives Bezák and his supporters a way to complain of the violation of the right to defense, to maintain that the pope has been “misinformed” or even “deceived,” and to turn the case of a single “relieved” bishop into a question of mismanagement of the universal Church.
Meanwhile, Benedict XVI has appointed as apostolic administrator of Trnava, pending the designation of the new archbishop, the auxiliary Jan Orosch.
Slovakian archbishop’s removal remains contentious item
In Slovakia, a public controversy continues to swirl around the case of Archbishop Robert Bezak, who was removed the leadership of the Trvana archdiocese in July by Pope Benedict XVI.
Archbishop Bezak remains popular in Slovakia, and the open discord between the deposed prelate and his predecessor, Archbishop Jan Sokol, has been the subject of a lively continuing discussion. Sandro Magister of L’Espresso tells the story.
When he became Archbishop of Trvana in 2009, after Archbishop Sokol retired at the age of 75, Archbishop Bezak quickly distanced himself from his predecessor, claiming that the archdiocese had been mismanaged and criticizing the chancery staff.
Eventually he asked the Vatican to conduct an apostolic visitation or the archdiocese, to investigate the claims of fiscal irresponsibility and perhaps also the reports of collaboration with the old Communist regime.
However, the Vatican investigation uncovered evidence that Archbishop Bezak himself had mismanaged archdiocesan funds.
Moreover, the apostolic visitation found that the new archbishop had shown a “blatant lack of observance of liturgical norms,” a cavalier disregard for Church teaching, and a reliance on priests who were openly engaged in sexual relationships. Thus the Vatican’s decision to remove him from his see.
While supporters of Archbishops Bezak and Sokol continue to bicker, and journalists in Slovakia question the management practices of both prelates, the post of Archbishop of Trvana remains unfilled.
THE LAITYTUDE 
Pingback: The Case of the “Bishop with a Human Face” Dismissed by the Pope and Slovakian archbishop’s removal remains contentious item | Christian Reforms
This case is really bringing the shame to roman catholic church and Rome, Slovak believers hurt, but still did not deny Rome authority. But just about. I do deny. Not the Christ, but those wolves in sheep skin. Until bishop of rome and pope in one will not allow ANY other bishop to meet him in person, until that time words pope and baphomet will mean to me the same.