The Continuing Saga of Fr. Despard: Canon Law Perspective

Fr. Matthew Despard’s current plight continues to be of great interest to the world. A follow-up article here describes parishioners’ reactions to the suspension of Fr. Despard’s faculties: many walked out of the Mass being said by the acting bishop, and many signed a petition demanding that Fr. Despard be reinstated.

Dr. Ed Peters has an interesting look at the situation from the canonical point of view (of course!). He notes that:

A priest’s removal from ministry could be effected under Canon 1722, a norm that authorizes such action against persons under certain circumstances (who knows whether those circumstances were satisfied in this case), and there is canonical provision, even preference, that ecclesiastical penalties be imposed or declared in a judicial (instead of administrative) penal process per Canons 1314 and 1341-1342.

The question is: what canonical crime could have been committed (not was committed, but could have been committed) by publishing the kind of book described above? Remember—against the backdrop of Canon 212 and its protection of the qualified right of Catholics to publish their opinions on matters impacting the welfare of the Church—that a canonical crime is being alleged here, not just the canonical equivalent of a tort (Canons 128 and 1491); that is, the priest is being treated as suspected of having violated a canonical provision to which a sanction is attached. That’s a very serious matter.

Dr. Peters says that of the four penal canons that could be called into play in this sitatuion, the two most likely candidates are:

Canon 1369, for perhaps the priest’s book gravely injured good morals [nb: not morale], expressed insults, or excited hatred or contempt against religion or the Church.

Canon 1373, for perhaps the priest’s book excited animosity or hatred against ecclesiastical authority on account of its governance acts [or lack thereof?] or provoked the faithful to disobey ecclesiastical authority.

Dr. Peters does not mention the fact that the prelate who is taking this canonical action against Fr. Despard is an acting bishop. In my diocese, when we had an “acting bishop”, or Apostolic Administrator, some of us were under the impression that there were limits to what actions could be taken by such an administrator, according to Canon Law (you can begin reading some of the applicable canons here). There are some very specific limitation that don’t apply here, but I’m not sure whether or not canons fully address the general concept of not taking action that would have a lasting effect on the diocese and cause problems for the incoming bishop. In particular, I’m thinking of this canon (my emphases):

Can. 428 §1 While the see is vacant, no innovation is to be made.

§2 Those who have the interim governance of the diocese are forbidden to do anything which could in any way prejudice the rights of the diocese or of the Bishop…

 At any rate, the previous bishop of Fr. Despard’s diocese had stated that Fr. Despard would not be suspended, but the acting bishop has decided otherwise. Whether or not that action is within his rights as an acting bishop is probably a moot point, since he’s doing it regardless.

Still, here’s one other note from Dr. Peters, which I find quite an interesting thought:

I might mention, though, one other penal canon possibly relevant in this matter. Canon 1389 threatens with sanctions those who abuse office in the Church. Invoking, on frivolous grounds, a formal penal process against a priest might qualify as abuse of ecclesiastical office

Regardless of canon law, the double standard concerning the accusation of priestly crimes continues, as is noted by this blog post which tells us:

The Scottish homosexual crisis continues unabated as Fr. Matthew Despard is suspended, while admitted pervert priest Paul Milarvie is a priest in "good standing" and even in the local curia. 

Follow the link in the quote to learn more about Fr. Milarvie’s past shenanigans…and the fact that despite admissions of homosexual behavior, his faculties have never been suspended.

Personally, I’m glad that Fr. Despard wrote his book. He’s paying the price, and I seriously doubt he will find justice, but if he is telling the truth, and following his conscience in bringing the situation to light, then God will surely judge him favorably. That’s what counts.

St. Francis Parish Council Email: A Few Comments

I’ve been made aware of an email which some say was sent out by the St. Francis Parish Council; the opening paragraph reads:

TO ALL OUR ACOLYTES, SACRISTANS, EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS, AND MEMBERS OF THE LITURGY COMMITTEE:

  We know that some people in the Parish have received e-mails, or have seen items on face-book (or other social media) which express anger at the Diocesan decision to replace Father Francis with such little notice. Tragically for Fr. Francis himself, and for our entire Parish family, many of these messages are inflammatory, or include statements that are not based on fact. In some of these messages Bishop Skylstad is vilified as prejudiced and uncaring. Most show a lack of the very love of Christ that Fr. Francis has made a hallmark of his time here as Pastor.  All of us who minister to our brothers and sisters should recognize that one of the most damaging things that can be done to the Body of Christ is to generate or spread false rumors about the Shepard [sic] sent to lead us.  Bishop Skylstad, by virtue of his Office, is charged with the care of his flock (all the priests and parishioners in the Diocese) and because of that, we need to be respectful of his decisions. 

Well, I don’t know anything about inflammatory messages, statements not based on fact, or false rumors; I haven’t seen any of that myself. But I do know these facts.

1) Bishop Skylstad violated Canon Law in the manner in which he dismissed Fr. Fancis Ekwugha.

2) Bishop Skylstad violated Canon Law in initially saying that he would install Fr. Radloff as parish administrator; administrators are not installed.

3) In a number of significant cases, Bishop Skylstad’s actions over the last 10 months have gone beyond what an Apostolic Administrator should do while a diocese awaits the appointment of a new bishop. (I have heard that he was given “all the powers of a bishop” with this appointment; even if that is true, his actions are creating problems for the in-coming bishop, and he should arguably have shown some restraint).

4) Bishop Skylstad has acted against the directives of the Holy Father expressed in Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae (the motu proprio and its accompanying instruction, which liberalized the celebration of the “traditional Latin Mass” and made clear that the faithful who desire it should have access to it.

These are facts. They can be substantiated. On each count, it doesn’t matter whether or not Bishop Skylstad had the good of the parish or the good of the diocese in mind; his motivation is not the issue. The fact is, he has violated Canon Law, and he has acted against the Holy Father’s expressed desires and directives.

Bishop Skylstad is not the bishop of this diocese; he is the administrator. However, I imagine he still has the duty to care for the flock – ALL of the flock, as indicated in the email statement above. Certainly, a bishop cannot please all of the people all of the time. However, he is not called upon to please the people. He is called upon to care for their souls. Violating Canon Law is not a good way to go about caring for the souls of the faithful. In addition, when a bishop actively works against the directives of the Holy Father, he is being disobedient. A disobedient bishop cannot expect obedience from the sheep of his flock.

As I have written previously, a bishop’s general authority over his diocese is very evident in even a cursory reading of Lumen Gentium (Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church):

• Bishops preside “in God’s stead over the flock of which they are the shepherds…” (LG, §21).

• They are “teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people assigned to them, the faith which is destined to inform their thinking and direct their conduct” (LG, §25).

• They “have the obligation of fostering and safeguarding the unity of the faith and of upholding the discipline which is common to the whole Church…” (LG, §23).

The faithful are also reminded of their duty toward their bishops. Notice, though, the qualifier at the beginning of the paragraph (emphasis added):

Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. (LG, §25)

When a priest is acting and/or teaching contrary to the magisterium of the Church, a lay person can discuss the issue with the priest, and can report the misconduct to the bishop. What should a lay person do when the bishop acts in ways contrary to the faith? Just as with a priest, and just as in dealing with secular officials, one goes to the offending party’s superior. Who is a bishop’s superior?

Let me relate a little story about a discussion I and another person had with Bishop Skylstad. As representatives of the Society of St. Gregory the Great, we were unhappy with actions he had taken. We noted that Canon Law says:

Can. 1737 ß1 A person who contends that he or she has been injured by a decree, can for any just motive have recourse to the hierarchical Superior of the one who issued the decree. The recourse can be proposed before the author of the decree, who must immediately forward it to the competent hierarchical Superior. (emphasis added)

Bringing this canon to Bishop Skylstad’s attention, I asked him to identify his hierarchical superior. He answered, “I am my own superior.”

Not so. A bishop is not his own superior. Even though the Holy Father is considered “first among equals”, he does in fact have the power to appoint bishops and to remove them from a particular see. So, a bishop must still listen to the Holy Father. Bishop Skylstad, when pressed, did admit that his superior was “probably” the Congregation for the Clergy. If we wrote a letter seeking recourse regarding his actions, I asked, would he then “immediately forward it to” his hierarchical superior, as the law dictates? His answer: “Probably not.”

These are facts, observed by two individuals.

While we are certainly called to obey our pastors and bishops, it is also important – and required of us – that we know our faith. And this leads to other rights and responsibilities.

Canon 212 ß3 [The faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals. (emphasis added)

There is much more to be said about the statement in that email.

Stay tuned.

In the meantime, if you haven’t read the entire email, simply click on “read more” to see the whole thing.

Bishop Skylstad, There Oughta Be a Law! Oh...wait...

The situation in Bend gets curiouser and curiouser, and it does indeed seem like we are headed through the looking glass, where things are all backwards. Be sure to see the guest commentary, too.

A message making the rounds from Fr. Radloff says:

Although I will officially become pastor of Saint Francis Church on December 17, 2011, the Installation Mass HAS BEEN MOVED to the Octave of Christmas, Thursday, December 29, 2011, 7:00 PM at the new Saint Francis Church on 27^th Street. 

So…even though Bishop Skylstad has “granted an extension” to Fr. Francis, and wants to be “pastoral, charitable, and canonically correct”, Fr. Radloff maintains he’s already been guaranteed the position of pastor at St. Francis. And I expressly recall that Bishop Skylstad used the term  “Administrator” in his previous communiqué. Perhaps he has changed his mind.

But what about “due process” – acting in a “canonically correct” manner? Or is the bishop simply going through the motions, acting upon his own foregone conclusion? That does not sound like a just process to me.

I’m not a canon lawyer, but I can read. Let's take a look at Canon Law in the section entitled, “The Procedure For The Removal Of Parish Priests”. The pertinent canons are 1740 through 1741.

Can. 1740 When the ministry of any parish priest has for some reason become harmful or at least ineffective, even though this occurs without any serious fault on his part, he can be removed from the parish by the diocesan Bishop.

Canon 1741 lists a number of grave reasons for which a parish priest can lawfully be removed, but the bishop doesn’t necessarily have to have one of those reasons for the dismissal; any one of them would strengthen the bishop’s case, though.

Bishop Skylstad himself has said in an email that “the reasons for making my decision were not based on inappropriate behavior or violation of personal boundaries”. And I have heard from a source close to Fr. Francis that Bishop Skylstad offered no reasons for the dismissal beyond “it’s time for a change”.  

Here’s the next few canons (all emphases mine):

Can. 1742 ß1 If an investigation shows that there exists a reason mentioned in Can. 1740, the Bishop is to discuss the matter with two parish priests from a group stably chosen for this purpose by the council of priests, at the proposal of the Bishop. If he then believes that he should proceed with the removal, the Bishop must, for validity, indicate to the parish priest the reason and the arguments, and persuade him in a fatherly manner to resign his parish within fifteen days.

Can. 1743 The resignation of the parish priest can be given not only purely and simply, but even upon a condition, provided the condition is one which the Bishop can lawfully accept and does in fact accept.

Can. 1744 ß1 If the parish priest has not replied within the days prescribed, the Bishop is to renew his invitation and extend the canonical time within which a reply is to be made.

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:

Can. 1745 If, however, the parish priest opposes the case put forward and the reasons given in it, but advances arguments which seem to the Bishop to be insufficient, to act validly the Bishop must:

1ƒ invite him to inspect the acts of the case and put together his objections in a written answer, indeed to produce contrary evidence if he has any;

2ƒ after this, complete the instruction of the case, if this is necessary, and weigh the matter with the same parish priests mentioned in Can. 1742 ß1, unless, because of some impossibility on their part, others are to be designated;

3ƒ finally, decide whether or not the parish priest is to be removed, and without delay issue the appropriate decree.

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.

Usquequo, Domine?

More on Fr. Francis: And They Call That Justice?

A Guest Commentary by Jerry Boyd

I’ve spent over 45 years working in the criminal JUSTICE system.  The operative word here is JUSTICE and, yes I understand that how the Church operates under Canon Law is a bit different than in the lay world’s justice system.  The term JUSTICE, however does not have differing definitions depending on whether a Judge or a Bishop is applying it.

Consider the following facts and then ask yourself whether the particulars seem JUST to you under any definition of that term.

On November 29, 2011 the Administrator of the Diocese of Baker (we do not have a Bishop at this point) announces that he has dismissed the Pastor of St Francis of Assisi Parish in Bend and has directed that Priest to return to his home Diocese in Africa.  Note, the Administrator is on the record as saying the Pastor has done nothing wrong…it is just that the Administrator wants to make a change.  Note also that the Pastor is not simply being transferred to another Parish.  He is being dismissed from the Diocese.

For those that care, and the Administrator seems not to, Canon Law has some very specific provisions regarding the removal of a Pastor.  It is clear that Canon Law was violated by the Administrator’s actions.

On that same date, November 29^th, the Administrator announces that he is installing another Priest, Fr. Radloff , as Administrator of St, Francis of Assisi Parish on December 8^th, 2011.

On December 3^rd, 2011 the Administrator announces that for a variety of reasons, Canon Law requirements being one of them, he has granted the Pastor whom he summarily dismissed an “extension”…apparently to allow the Pastor to present his case (something which Canon Law provides).

Now just two days later Fr. Radloff announces that his installation as “Pastor” (not Administrator as originally announced by the Bishop) will take place on December 29^th, 2011 though he will actually assume his duties on December 17^th, 2011.

Now let me see if I can understand this.  The dismissed Pastor was given an extension on December 3^rd but just two days later his apparent successor announces when he will take over.  It seems like the extension was meaningless as the outcome was/is a foregone conclusion. 

So my question?  Where is the justice?  More importantly, where is compliance with Canon Law?  The Administrator surely realizes that he has left an electronic paper trail which proves abuse of the dismissed Pastor’s rights, handing those who care to pursue it a ready -made case for violations of both Canon Law and Civil Rights under the Constitution of the United States.   Such a ready-made case could lead to financial losses to the Diocese which might rival the losses incurred by the current Diocesan Administrator when he served as Bishop of Spokane.  Please Lord give us a real Bishop and soon.

Jerry Boyd- a concerned Catholic of the diocese of Baker

Update on Fr. Francis in Bend, OR

The situation involving the dismissal of Fr. Francis Ekwugha in Bend has taken a turn that is hopefully in the right direction. A message from Bishop Skylstad indicates the following:

…[R]especting Father Francis Ekwugha’s desire for an extension of his decision to respond to me, a right he has in Canon Law, I will grant him that extension. I am sorry for the confusion in this matter but I need to address it in a manner that is pastoral, charitable and Canonically correct.

I’m a little lost as to what this actually means, but I have my speculations. Suffice to say that it appears that the Apostolic Administrator has perhaps received some good advice concerning the rights of a priest to due process under Canon Law. This is a good thing. The Church has rules and regs! There’s a reason for that!

There is still a pressing need for letters to the Apostolic Nuncio. It has been almost 11 months since Bishop Vasa was transferred and the current Administrator was appointed. A number of questionable actions have been taken; I’ve alluded to some of them on this blog, but I am not able to go into a great deal of detail. Anyone who has questions is welcome to email me at drjayboyd@msn.com, and I will respond as seems appropriate to the question.

The point is, we really need a bishop – but not just any bishop. We need a bishop who is passionately faithful to the teachings of the Church, who has the fortitude to stand up to dissenters, who will exemplify a holy life, and who will be a compassionate shepherd to the people as well as a caring father to his priests.

Please pray for this intention. Go here for a prayer for the election of a bishop, in both English and Latin.

In addition, please send a letter! Now! Today!

Your letter need only ask for a holy bishop. It need not mention Fr. Francis Ekwugha, Diocesan finances, or any other issue, but of course you can mention any concerns you may have. The bottom line is, we need a shepherd who will look after our spiritual good.

Below is an example of a letter that could be sent to the Apostolic. Adapt it as you wish.

December XX, 2011

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano
Apostolic Nuncio to the United States
3339 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008-3687

Your Excellency:

My name is _____, and I'm a parishioner of _______ Parish in _______, Oregon.

The Diocese of Baker, Oregon, has been under the direction of Apostolic Administrator Bishop William S. Skylstad since the transfer of our Bishop Robert F. Vasa last January (almost 11 months). Some actions taken by Bishop Skylstad have resulted in turmoil and confusion in our Diocese. We very much need a new bishop who will look after our spiritual good.

We implore Your Excellency and His Holiness, Pope Benedict, to send us a bishop who will support the true teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, who will exemplify a holy life, and who will be a compassionate shepherd to the people as well as a caring father to his priests.

This is a pressing need, and I hope it can be met without any unnecessary further delay.

Thank you, and may God bless you,

Sincerely,

Name

Contact information

The Catholic Church Has Rules and Regs!

One of the things I appreciate most about the Catholic Church is that we have authoritative statements of the Truth, of the beliefs and teachings of the Church, and of the rules and regulations that guide the human, earthly operation of the Church.

There’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which tells us what we need to know and believe in order to be good Catholics. One of the main reasons I came into the Church, I suppose, is that I tried to prove the CCC wrong. (The MAIN reason I came into the Church was because of the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, though.)

There’s the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, which tells us how the Mass should be celebrated. It was hidden from me for a while; I have often told of how, in my RCIA year, I became a religion teacher at a Catholic high school, and was in charge of the monthly Mass held at the school. Since I was not even Catholic yet, and knew very little about the liturgy, I protested that I wasn’t a good choice for this particular aspect of the job. Wasn’t there a book or some guidelines I could study? “Don’t worry,” I was told. “The kids know how to do it. They’ll show you everything you need to know.” Uh huh.

There are tons of “documents” – papal encyclicals, motu proprios, instructions, and other papers that may or may not have official names. In particular though, I found the papal encyclicals important because of the authority of the Holy Father in regulating the life of the Church.

And there’s Canon Law, which Dr. Edward Peters tells us, is “the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the western world, is the internal legal system of the Catholic Church. It affects virtually every aspect of the faith life of some one billion Catholic Christians throughout the world.”

So, we have lots of rules and regs, which really irritates some people, but which is actually a huge blessing. Having an authority to turn to enables us to avoid squabbling over things like what we can or cannot sing at Mass, whether we’re required to believe abortion is always a grave sin, and how often we are required to go to confession or receive Holy Communion. If we didn’t have the Church’s authority to lead us, then we would be reduced to a divided community of Catholics, some of whom would be saying, “But the Church says…”, while others would be saying, “I have the right to believe what I believe.”

Oh…wait. That last sentence…um…I think we pretty much have been reduced to that these days. Now, how can that be?! What about those rules and regs?!

Stay tuned for more thoughts on this subject.

Dr. Ed Peters on Fr. Pavone

I think it is well worth reading all of Dr. Peters's posts on the Fr. Pavone situation. See his blog, In the Light of the Law. Dr. Peters explains the issue from a canonical viewpoint, and his comments are enlightening with respect to the general principles at stake in the conflict between Fr. Pavone and his bishop.