So, it looks like the parish priest has some options as far as “extensions”, and the bishop is to be charitable in granting them.
Next, we find that the priest has further rights if he opposes the action. The bishop has some responsibilities if this is the case. They are outlined in this canon:
I know there's a lot more to interpreting and applying Canon Law than just reading the canons, but at the same time, there are some things in the above sections that seem pretty straight-forward. You can decide for yourself. Maybe we could run it by Dr. Ed Peters... In the meantime, I think Bishop Skylstad has some explaining to do, and I hope he is called upon to do so by his superiors.
If Bishop Skylstad wants to be canonically correct, there are a number of steps to go through, and he’s already skipped a couple of them.
If Bishop Skylstad wants to be pastoral, he should not be rushing through this procedure, skipping steps, and trying to force his own agenda on the priest, the parish, and the diocese. Canon Law is there for a reason. Bishop Skylstad is not above the law, and it is scandalous for him to take actions that appear to indicate that he thinks he is.
If Bishop Skylstad wanted to be charitable, he would not be allowing Fr. Radloff to flaunt his new “pastorship” before it is even a reality. He would be taking the process seriously, which means that there might not be a vacancy at St. Francis Parish in Bend after all.