Bishop Bling

[Kelmon]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-927944.html

It's quite the scandal in Germany at the moment. Bishop Tebartz-van Elst of Limburg has been spending 31 Million Euro ($42 Million) in church tax money for his personal residence. (A church tax is levied by the German gouvernment from all people belonging to either the catholic or protestant church, and given to those churches).

Additionally, the Bishop lied under oath about some first-class flights he took to India, making it very likely he will be prosecuted by a criminal court.

This has caused protests by catholics in Germany, including projecting "Thou shalt not lie" in large letters onto church walls, calling for the bishop to step down, and led to a surge of people leaving the catholic church for good.

I'm anxious to hear what the current pope, apparently an enemy of luxury within the church, will have to say to the bishop after having been summoned to Rome.

[Panacea]

So am I

I hope the Pope makes a public example of him by encouraging him to "resign" as bishop and enter a monastery, so someone else can move in and clean up the mess.

[Racket_Man]

I believe he was "recalled" to Rome by the Pope sometime last week. For what they did not say.

[crashhelmet]

The Pope has expelled him, temporarily, from his position while they investigate whether or not he broke Church Law. There's a definite ethics violation, but if Canon says he was permitted to do it, he may "get away with it" while they work to reform it.

Pope Francis has said repeatedly that he wants all of the Bishops to live a humble life, as he and others in the Franciscan Order do. We'll see what happens.

[s_stabeler]

that's actually fair. It would be unfair, for example, if your work said "We believe your company car is too expensive, so you are fired" you'd be pissed off. Did he go too far- yes. But if it's not actually a breach of the rules, then he should not be fired, but SHOULD be told to obey the new rules.

[Kelmon]

It would be unfair, for example, if your work said "We believe your company car is too expensive, so you are fired" you'd be pissed off.

But that's not the situation. The situation is that he could have spend - say - $20.000 on his "company car", but instead spend $200.000 of "company" money on it, because Ferraris are cool.

Besides, this is not about church laws or some rules (no one cares if he broke them or not), this is about "practice what you preach". People are tired of bishops living like kings, and having to pay for it.

Some good came out of it already, at least. In the wake of this scandal, many dioceses laid open their finances to the public (they're not obliged to do this), and the expensive building will probably now be used for a good cause, like a shelter for the homeless or refugees.

[HYHYBT]

Isn't a bishop's residence called a palace, regardless of size or furnishings?

[Kelmon]

That used to be the case, but only because bishops (and their staff) always happend to live in grand buildings that certainly seemed like palaces, and not because the building had to be given some sort of "title".

For example - the city of Mainz has a bishop's palace (next to the cathedral), which had been the bishop's residence for ages. But the current bishop of Mainz lives in a normal house in a residential area, and there is no obligation to call this a palace.

As you can imagine, many bishops are currently quite happy to point out to our newspapers how very, very modestly they live ...

[s_stabeler]

But that's not the situation. The situation is that he could have spend - say - $20.000 on his "company car", but instead spend $200.000 of "company" money on it, because Ferraris are cool.

Besides, this is not about church laws or some rules (no one cares if he broke them or not), this is about "practice what you preach". People are tired of bishops living like kings, and having to pay for it.

Some good came out of it already, at least. In the wake of this scandal, many dioceses laid open their finances to the public (they're not obliged to do this), and the expensive building will probably now be used for a good cause, like a shelter for the homeless or refugees.

um, actually, my point stands- if you were allowed to spend $200,000 on a company car before, and they then turn around and say " the new management believe you should have only spend $20,000 on a company car, so you're fired" you'd be pissed off. Here, if he was acting within church rules, he should not be fired. Criticized for his profligacy, yes. But firing a bishop for something not actually against the rules? not a good idea. NOTE- I am NOT saying he should be let off scot-free. Investigate to check he actually was obeying the rules ( which is what they are doing) and if he breached the rules, fire him. But if the rules need updating, do NOT make the update retroactive.

again, I do NOT believe he is right to be so profligate. but to fire him? too far if he was acting within the rules.

[HYHYBT]

That, too, depends. If there is a general expectation that you will spend the organization's money responsibly (perhaps formalized, but without spelling out exactly what is and isn't allowed) and the average car purchase is around 20K, you might expect it to be OK to spend 25, or even 30. You could not reasonably expect 200 to get by without trouble.

[Kelmon]

if you were allowed to spend $200,000 on a company car before, and they then turn around and say " the new management believe you should have only spend $20,000 on a company car, so you're fired" you'd be pissed off.

Ah....wrong situation. This is how it went:

You're his boss now. He asks if he can have a car for 20.000. You say "okay". Then it turns out the car will cost 190.000 actually. He doesn't tell you. Then he decides that he wants the luxury package for an extra 10.000. He doesn't tell you that either. You only hear about it when you start losing shareholders, since they decided that your company must be completely mismanaged in giving your employees such expensive cars.

What would you say to him now?


Apart from that, I don't really see what this has to do with any "rules". It's not about if he used money he wasn't allowed to (He had it, and he was), it's about "doing the right thing". The unwritten rules. Acting like that middle-eastern guy wo was nailed to that piece of wood by some soldiers long ago. And all that.


Oh, and since the catholic church in Germany is allowed to and does fire people from their jobs in their institutions (hospitals, kindergartens, teaching,...) for "not being loyal to catholic teaching" (getting pregnant out of wedlock, getting a divorce and remarry, being gay, etc.) you better believe I think a bishop that spent so much money for personal aggrandizement should be fired.

[s_stabeler]

then that is a clear breach of the rules. However, you would be fired for lying about the cost of the car, not for the actual cost of the car. THAT is what I am getting at.

and what do rules matter? everything. You should NOT be fired for any reason except an actual breach of the rules. ( which, while I find it deplorable, the firings for not being loyal to catholic teachings are, in fact covered by- the rule is you have to be a loyal catholic.)

[siead_lietrathua]

then that is a clear breach of the rules. However, you would be fired for lying about the cost of the car, not for the actual cost of the car. THAT is what I am getting at.

but he would have been. he wasn't just fired for the lying about it, but for buying an expensive car in the first place. when told that his budget was $XYZ, that was the preffered expense. if someone had been given a budget of $20G, and spent $21G, they probably wouldn't be canned. but the $200G car is begging for a firing.

[s_stabeler]

but he would have been. he wasn't just fired for the lying about it, but for buying an expensive car in the first place. when told that his budget was $XYZ, that was the preffered expense. if someone had been given a budget of $20G, and spent $21G, they probably wouldn't be canned. but the $200G car is begging for a firing.

Again, that would be an actual breach of the rules. What I was saying was if he had been given a budget of $200G, and spent it, then he should not be fired for it. If he was given a budget of $20G and spent $200G, then he should be fired.

[siead_lietrathua]

he effectivly was given a small budget for personal or company expenses. he works for a "company" that has the rule put down by their "CEO" (Christ) to spend as little as possible on the "company" and as much as possible to charitable works, and "upper management" (pope) that is known to support those rules. so doing something as stupid as blowing money on frivolous shit? he shoulda known better, and deserved the punishment.