« Missed this one | Main | Roaming Roman »
February 17, 2006
What to do with the priests in Chicago
George’s announcement came just days before a meeting in Austin, Texas of the National Review Board, a lay body set up to monitor the sex abuse scandals and craft policies for dealing with the problem. The Chicago policy shift is sure to dominate the agenda, especially since it could actually mark a break from canon law, which dictates that priests cannot be removed until they have legal representation and allegations have been substantiated. A spokeswoman for the archdiocese said: "Whatever the Cardinal decided to do, it will have to conform with canon law. But the Cardinal has said all along that he will find a way to do it, to remove priests immediately."
Soon after the charges were filed against McCormack, there was no shortage of finger-pointing between the archdiocese and police and prosecutors over who it was that actually dropped the ball. The original allegations were first made to the police, which ended up choosing not to press charges at the time, according to the Archdiocese. And when the church did ultimately talk directly to the boy's lawyer, they couldn't independently confirm the accusations against McCormack, who was allowed to stay on as pastor at the church and basketball coach in the parish school.
I'm sure some of our experts will come up with this immediately, but the point about this that puzzles me is the Canon Law caveat. Is it really true that a priest cannot be "removed" from a particular position until they have legal representation, etc. It seems that such would apply to removing a priest from active ministry, period or suspending his faculties (perhaps), but it strikes me that a bishop could move Fr. X from pastor of St. Abigail's to being the custodian/confessor on the 4th floor of the Chancery if he deemed it necessary at any time for any reason..or no reason. That's just the way the system works when there aren't accusations involved. Is it different if there are accusations?
Correct me.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834aa426269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What to do with the priests in Chicago:
Comments
Here in the Diocese of Phoenix, Bishop Olmsted has removed priests from their pastorates / vicarages (are these the proper terms?) publicly and (seemingly) very quickly. Though I don't know how much time passes between an accusation getting to his ears and a priest being removed, it has all of the appearances of a rapid series of events. Witness the sudden removal of Msgr. Fushek.
Posted by: InPhoenix at Feb 17, 2006 4:15:09 PM
InPhoenix,
The removal of Msgr. Fushek was sudden only in relation to the civil charges being filed against him. I would characterize the removal as prompt, and thanked the bishop personally for acting swiftly. He had known of allegations against Msgr Fushek since at least August, about 4 months prior to the suit being filed. So again, the action was swift in relation to the information being made public, but certainly not in response to the bishop knowing about possible abuse by Fushek.
As far as Amy's question - I don't know canon law, but Article 5 of the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People" (USCCB Dallas 2003) says "When the preliminary investigation of a complaint against a priest or deacon so indicates, the diocese/eparchial bishop will relieve the alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties."
The Diocese of Phoenix policy says that, after reporting the allegation to law enforcement, "the accused may be placed on Administrative leave. Administrative leave is not a presumption of innocence or guilt but is done to allow an unimpeded investigation and to protect the public as well as the accused and the Church."
Both sound very much in line with what Cardinal George is proposing.
Posted by: Paul Pfaffenberger at Feb 17, 2006 4:53:24 PM
I am so happy to see this post, it seems like people are calming down and understanding that "administrative leave" is not a canonical penalty but actually more of a "parliamentary procedure" similar to a CEO not being present at a board meeting discussing the CEO's performance. Fifty years ago the bishop would have told the priest to go on retreat immediately and indefinitely, and it would have felt like far more of a punishment. It is completely allowable under canon law; the 1983 Code actually gutted almost all pastor privileges like "irremoveability" after ten years in office. A priest is not in fact "removed" at all and remains the canonical pastor of his parish the whole time he is on administrative leave. Maybe "administrative leave" is an unpleasant and corporate-suit term, but it describes what needs to be done for the integrity of the investigation process. A priest falsely accused should return from administrative leave to the biggest welcome back party imaginable, but AL needs to be part of the program.
Posted by: Fortiterinre at Feb 17, 2006 6:11:05 PM
Canon Law: the law written by clerics for clerics.
Posted by: Jim at Feb 17, 2006 7:23:25 PM
My parish priest was removed from the parish due to "credible evidence". An administrator was appointed but the pastor remained pastor until he resigned 3 months later. That made it possible for us to get a new pastor rather than living in limbo (yes, this limbo still exists) with an administrator for the years left on this accused pastor's term.
Posted by: MaureenM at Feb 17, 2006 7:59:54 PM
Canon law protects the rights of accusers and accused. You can't just remove someone from their position without some valid reason. All allegations have to reach the level of reasonable cause. Just like the police can't arrest you or search your home without any reason. Due process is a part of both civil and canon law. Unless you want to simply throw out justice completely. How many people would want to be convicted without investigation or trial in our criminal courts system? How about you Jim? All allegations should be investigated, but if there is nothing to sustain the allegation then no action can be taken. You need testimony, evidence, and witnesses. Just like in our civil court system. It looks to me like they simply didn't have enough to take direct action. That may miff some people, but it happens all the time in other courts. It has nothing to do with the priests writing the law. We cannot violate rights and convict people without due process. And let's face it. If you remove someone they will be convicted in the court of public opinion forever. I would remind you that some priests have gone through investigations and trials and been found not guilty. We need to be just to everyone involved in these terrible situations.
Posted by: Fr. J at Feb 17, 2006 11:36:29 PM
You and I are in the same parish, MaureenM, and isn't it funny about that ``credible evidence'' against our pastor? Nobody will tell us what it is. The accuser, who gets to remain conveniently anonymous, says something (unspecified) happened 25 years ago. There are no - repeat, NO - other allegations on the pastor's record, and he was ordained 32 years ago. Our vicariate bishop, that fount of greasy insincerity, visits our parish and manages to be verbose, patronizing and uninformative. And they sent us an interim pastor whose reaction to the parish's outrage was basically, ``Will you people get over it already?''
``Credible evidence'' my aunt Fanny; this is Soviet-Show-Trial stuff. ``We regret to inform you that Comrade So-and-so has confessed to crimes against the Soviet State.'' More likely some clever ne'er-do-well has noticed that the Archdiocese is, in effect, paying people to make accusations of abuse and then settle out of court.
(Yes, I'm still seriously pissed off about this.)
Posted by: Annalucia at Feb 18, 2006 9:05:53 AM
The removal of parish priests does indeed fall under canon law. And no a bishop cannot remove one without due cause - and if the removal was contested a process, indeed a tribunal I imagine, which could be appealed to the Holy See. (It is different with religious priests who are under a solemn vow of obedience).
You will find that the law on the removal of a parish priest is among the most complicated part of canon law - for obvious reasons. Bishops have been trying to get rid of parish priests who annoy or obstruct them for centuries. All of those cases end up in the Code as law. This current crop of cases will no doubt precipitate eventually amendments, if not to the Code then to its application.
Posted by: Ephraem at Feb 18, 2006 5:08:01 PM
Canon Law has procedures for removing a parish priest (i.e. pastor). If these are not followed then the gate is left wide open for the priest to appeal to the Vatican and get their job back.
It was reported in The Sunday Age, page 1, on 9 December 2001 by Larry Schwartz: "Three Catholic priests accused of sexual abuse have successfully appealed to the Vatican about the way their cases were handled by the Archdiocese of Melbourne under a system implemented by the then archbishop, George Pell.
"The ruling by the church's Council for Clergy in Rome challenges the authority of the archdiocese's Commission into Sexual Abuse, which removed priests who were implicated in abuse from their parishes, and took away their rights to celebrate Mass publicly, hear confessions and administer Holy Communion. ..."
So why not have a system that follows the procedures of the the Code of Canon Law, which bishops take a oath to enforce before their ordination?
"Code of Canon Law, Section II
PROCEDURE IN REMOVAL AND TRANSFER OF PASTORS
Chapter I: The Manner of Procedure in Removing Pastors
Canon 1740 When the ministry of any pastor has become detrimental or at least ineffective for any reason, even through no grave fault of his own, he can be removed from the parish by the diocesan bishop. ..."
The procedures continue to 1752, with inquiry and discussion as part of the process.
Posted by: John Lilburne at Feb 18, 2006 5:18:54 PM
Administrative leave does not constitute any type of canonical removal from the priesthood or even any actual reassignment from the parish. As Amy says, the bishop could temporarily reassign any priest from Pastor of St. A to Chancery Desk Job B, for any reason or no reason. But administrative leave does not even go this far, it merely tells the priest to be gone during the investigation to decide credibility. Administrative leave certainly has the effect of an unfair and illegal suspension when they drag on for days, which is why I maintain the bishop needs to know his priests well enough to be able to make a gut check decision sooner rather than later. But even in the days of canonically irremovable pastors, bishops could and did impose all kinds of restrictions on pastors, from secretly appointing a curate to be "the responsible" (a charming term which usually meant the curate co-signed any and all checks) to grounding pastors inclined to vacation for weeks (and alas, months) on end. WHETHER a priest exercises his ministry is subject to all kinds of canonical protections; WHERE and HOW he exercises his priestly ministry is pretty much up to the bishop even outside the icky realm of sexual abuse allegations.
Posted by: Fortiterinre at Feb 18, 2006 7:19:29 PM
In the good old days, there would have been no need for "administrative" or "canonical" penalties.
But there WOULD have been a need for hospital-care for a predatory pervert.
Very effective and extremely efficient.
Posted by: dad29 at Feb 20, 2006 2:30:36 PM
