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

Mean-spirited, Bullying Bishops

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)

And what if they don’t teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff? What if the bishop is a mean-spirited bully with an ax to grind? What if the bishop takes advantage of his authority through actions that are detrimental to a targeted segment of the population?

I’m thinking of…hmm…just for instance…let's see…oh! how about the faithful who have expressed their legitimate desire to have access to the extraordinary form of the Mass. What do you do with a “shepherd” who takes steps to ensure that the EF Mass which has been available monthly to the faithful becomes suddenly unavailable? What if a mere lay person is aware of all the sneaky things said bishop can do (and does) to make it all look legit? You know, some of these bishops these days are pretty adept at not leaving a paper trail, of relying on the good-ol’-boy network, and of generally making mischief with impunity. It’s true. Sad, but true.

What do you do with this kind of perverse prelate?

Personally, I’m thinking along the lines of tar-and-feathers, and re-institution of the papal prison for wayward bishops.

Not that I know of a situation like this or anything…

But see that little "Reign of Terror" counter there in the side-bar? Please pray that that reign of terror ends soon!

Sitting in the Back of the Bus: the Extraordinary Form in the Diocse of Baker

The Society of St. Gregory the Great  is a membership association of Catholic laity formed in 2008 to promote divine worship in accordance with the Supreme Magisterium of the Church; the Society has sponsored a monthly Mass in the extraordinary form at the historic St. Francis Church in Bend, Oregon, since 2008. The past six months, the Society has had a very difficult time making that Mass happen.

Why? The primary reason is lack of a priest willing, able, and available to say the Mass. There are only a handful of willing and able priests in the Diocese of Baker, and they are spread far and wide. In July, Fr. Christopher Agoha traveled all the way from La Grande, OR (a 5-hour drive) to say the EF Mass in Bend on a Saturday evening, even though he was scheduled to say the same Mass in La Grande the very next day. His travel expenses were met only in part by the Society. It was a labor of love for Fr. Christopher.

There are other important reasons for lack of a priest, however. The main reason has to do with administrative decisions made by Bishop William Skylstad, currently (and temporarily) the Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese. These administrative decisions were: a) on March 22 to restrict the exercise of the sacerdotal faculties of the priest who had been regularly offering this Mass in Bend; and b) on September 17 to transfer to a remote corner of the Diocese the only other local priest (Fr. Joseph Levine) willing and able to assume the responsibilities of offering these Masses for the Society. 

In short, Bishop Skylstad's actions have served to prevent these Masses and frustrate the legitimate spiritual aspirations of the faithful who desire the Mass in the extraordinary form.

The Society is attempting to follow the guidelines laid out in Summorum Pontificum and the Instruction on that document in order to reverse the trend we are now seeing toward fewer EF Mass. The Society has repeatedly asked the pastor of Saint Francis of Assisi Church in Bend to provide Holy Mass in the extraordinary form at that church on a regular and frequent basis on Sundays and holy days of obligation. It has now referred the matter to the bishop.

In related news, the EF Mass in La Grande, Oregon, has also been curtailed. The EF Mass had been offered there on a weekly basis for almost a year. Administrative decisions (due to a priest being removed from priestly ministry in this diocese) again cut into the [willing-and-able] priest's available time, and the EF Mass was the first (and only) Mass to be "cut".

At this point, there are no easily accessible EF Masses for the faithful to attend in this Diocese. This situation is directly the result of the actions taken by our Apostolic Administrators.

--------------------------------

The Apostolic Administrator says that he doesn't have anything against the extraordinary form. Why, "we have one of those in Spokane," he told two members of the SSGG Board of Directors. Wow. Now that's saying something...

And he has nothing against Latin or Gregorian chant. Of course, he told us, it's obvious that the participation of the laity cannot possibly be as complete in Latin as it would be in the vernacular. Hmmm. I objected, and pointed out that the Society always provide a booklet with the English translation of the Latin prayers. "People won't read it," he said. He also said that, well, some people think the extraordinary form is...you know... "just a show". Yes. He said those things. Really.

Actions do speak louder than words. No matter what "positive" things he says about the "Latin Mass" (a term he used, but he meant the extraordinary form), his actions say that: a) it is not a priority for him to provide it for the people; b) he doesn't believe it is a worthy celebration of the liturgy; and c) he has no intention of making the extraordinary form easily accessible, regularly celebrated, or a part of the liturgical life of the diocese.

Why, yes, Your Excellency...yes...I guess I am feeling a little bitter about this.