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.

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 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. 

At the Pastoral Council meeting last night, the Bishop explained that he considers our parish to be the "anchor parish" of the Diocese.  Since he was appointed to his Office, he said he has carefully reviewed the magnitude of our debt situation in the Parish and in the School, and the great potential he sees in this Parish.  He felt that more dynamic leadership was needed.  He spent considerable time praising Fr. Francis for his deep faith, his dedication to the Church, and all he has done for the Parish while here.  The reason he is leaving so quickly is so that he can be with his mother in Nigeria for Christmas-a visit she has not enjoyed for years. The Bishop's  presentation clearly demonstrated that any action he takes in his duties as a Shepard reflect his prayerful concern for all of his sheep, priests and laity alike.  Bishop Skystad is not new to this responsibility having served as Bishop for over thirty years in two Dioceses in Washington State. 

As we look forward to the arrival of Fr. Radloff as our new Shepard, we as a Parish might be best served if each of us does all we can to heal the wounds that are being imposed on the Body of Christ by unfounded rumors. When you are in receipt of a rumor, please do your best to inform the rumor-maker that he / she is doing a real disservice to the Bishop appointed by the Holy See and to the peace and love that Fr. Francis has tried so hard to instill in all of us.

The installation of Fr. Radloff as our new Pastor will be on Thursday, December 29, at 7:00 PM.

Please pass this e-mail on to those parishioners who are on your e-mail list, and if you wish to the cc addressees on this message. .

Let us all pray for those--past, present, and future--who come to be our Shepard in the Diocese or in our Parish..

God is Good-All The Time

John and Betty