Chicago, Ill., Sep 29, 2018 / 09:30 am (CNA).- The recent case of Chicago’s Fr. Paul Kalchik has generated considerable publicity, and left more than a few questions unanswered.
Kalchik was “temporarily” removed from his post at Resurrection Parish in northwestern Chicago last week, following a Sept. 14 incident in which a rainbow banner which had previously hung in the church building was burned by parishioners, with Kalchik in attendance.
Kalchik announced Sept. 2 that he planned to burn the flag publicly on Sept. 29. He acknowledged recently that the archdiocese had instructed him not to proceed with that plan.
Almost everything else about the case remains disputed.
The Archdiocese of Chicago told CNA recently that Fr. Kalchik had agreed not to burn the banner. Kalchik, in a recent interview, claimed that he was told not to conduct the specific Sept. 29 public event he had previously announced.
An archdiocesan spokesperson also told CNA that Kalchik’s departure from the parish – which the archdiocese says is temporary – was not linked to the banner burning at all, but had been “in the works” for some weeks.
Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich was apparently concerned about “a number of issues” at the parish. The archdiocese added that Kalchik’s departure was arranged by “mutual agreement” and that he is presently receiving “pastoral support” for unspecified needs.
Kalchik says his departure was anything but a mutual decision.
The priest says that two diocesan officials, priests, arrived at his rectory and ordered him off the premises, threatening to call the police if he refused to comply. According to Kalchik, the priests said that he would be sent to St. Luke’s Institute, a Maryland psychiatric assessment and treatment center for priests.
The Archdiocese of Chicago declined CNA’s request for confirmation or denial of those claims.
What are a pastor’s rights?
Amid the conflicting narratives surrounding Kalchik, a question emerges: what canonical rights does a parish priest actually have?
While a priest’s ministry is dependent upon that of his bishop, and every priest promises respect and obedience to the bishop at ordination, it is a common mistake to think of a pastor as a kind of branch manager or tenant farmer of the bishop. The pastor’s canonical role is much different than that.
Canon law treats the subject of a parochus – the pastor of a parish – very explicitly.
Canon 515 §1 of the Code of Canon Law says that each parish is to be entrusted to the care of a parochus, who serves as the shepherd of the community under the authority of the bishop.
The same canon makes clear that the parish itself is not a piece of land, a church, or any other collection of buildings. A parish is properly understood as a group of the faithful, usually defined as those living in a particular area.
The relationship between the pastor and his parish is, in a technical sense, personal: a relationship between persons, defined and circumscribed by law.
In canon law, every parish has its own “juridic personality,” meaning that is a freestanding legal entity, with its own property, and its own rights and obligations.
The Code clarifies that the pastor represents the parish “in all juridic affairs,” and it is his responsibility to lead the community and decides what is in its best interests.
Of course, the bishop is free to establish policies for all parishes in his diocese- called particular laws- provided that they do not conflict with universal canon law or divine law. But within the boundaries established by canon law, divine law, and civil law, it is the pastor’s job to lead the parish, and to determine, prayerfully and consultatively, how best to govern the community with which has has been entrusted.
There have been cases where the pastor and the bishop disagree about parish needs, and canon law provides mechanisms to address such conflicts, including processes of appeal from episcopal decisions and directions, and canonical courts in which they can be adjudicated.
A bishop and pastor might disagree, for example, about parish property. A bishop may direct a pastor to sell a piece of property, or to give it over to meet a diocesan need, and the pastor may judge that to be a bad idea. Such a dispute could become a matter of “hierarchical recourse,” if the pastor appeals a decision he does not support. When disputes over such matters are appealed to Rome, the Congregation for Clergy is often obliged to remind the bishop to respect the rights of the pastor.
Similarly, within the scope of universal and particular canon law and the teachings of the Church, a pastor also has the autonomy to teach and preach in a way he believes is best suited to the needs of the people.
This does not mean, of course, that bishops have no authority over parish pastors. In addition to establishing particular laws for his diocese, a bishop has the authority to oblige any priest or member of the faithful to do, or not do, a particular thing he may determine to be detrimental to the wider community. He can do this through a precept- a kind of canonical induction directed at a specific person or situation.
Since a precept is a formal legal action, a pastor has the right to appeal it, provided he does so according to the procedures established by canon law. But he does not have the right to simply ignore a legitimately issued precept.
Bishops also have the authority to appoint pastors. Except for very exceptional cases, canon law gives the diocesan bishop a free choice to appoint whatever priest he thinks is most suitable for the job. This is understandable, since the pastor carries out his role “under the authority of the diocesan bishop in whose ministry of Christ he has been called to share.”
A bishop is not free, however, to remove or transfer a pastor from his office without following a detailed and non-negotiable process defined by canon law. This procedure can only be initiated if a priest has met one or more conditions for removal outlined in the law, which include actions “gravely detrimental or disturbing to ecclesiastical communion,” along with permanent infirmity of mind or body, a loss of good reputation among his flock, and neglect of his duties in the parish.
Even if a priest has met those conditions, before he can be removed from the office of pastor, the bishop must formally consult with certain priests appointed by the diocesan priests’ council, he must allow the pastor the opportunity to see the evidence against him and make a defense, and he must discuss that defense with the priests appointed to consult with him.
During this whole process, the bishop can neither remove the pastor, nor appoint a replacement.
If the bishop does issue a decree of removal, the priest has the right to appeal his case to Rome, where the Congregation for Clergy, or eventually the Apostolic Signatura, can examine the decision and the process used to reach it.
A bishop also has the prerogative, in certain limited circumstances, to declare that a priest is impeded from exercising priestly ministry, but that must be done through a delineated process as well. A bishop could also withdraw certain faculties for ministry from a priest, but only if he has good reasons, and only if he has followed the procedural requirements of canon law.
In short, while no priest has a right to an assignment or to ministry, once a priest is appointed a pastor, he cannot be removed from his office, or from his ministry, without serious cause, and without observation of the law’s procedural requirements. Similarly, prohibiting a priest from residing in a certain place can only be done in the limited circumstances allowed by canon law.
This also means that, except in very limited and unusual circumstances, a bishop is not within his rights to attempt to remove the legitimate pastor of a parish from its property, or to threaten to have the police do so. Were a bishop to do such a thing without observing canonical requirements, and the priest appeal to Rome, it is likely that the Vatican would order the pastor to be reinstated.
Neither can a bishop compel any priest to undergo a psychological evaluation or engage in psychological treatment. While a bishop might condition future assignments on a “clean bill of mental health,” he can not force a priest to be diagnosed or treated against his will, or to disclose the details of his mental health if he does not wish to do so.
Canon 519 says that the pastor exercises “the pastoral care of the community committed to the pastor under the authority of the diocesan bishop in whose ministry of Christ he has been called to share, so that for that same community he carries out the functions of teaching, sanctifying, and governing.”
The authority of the diocesan bishop is not absolute. Nor is the autonomy of the pastor. But both exist, as defined by canon law, for the service of the Church, and the salvation of souls. Understanding the authority of bishops, and the rights of pastors, is important at a moment in the Church’s life when so much seems unclear, and when many questions remain unanswered.
[…]
This clearly tells us hatred against Trump is more important than the Mass to Archbishop Gregory.
Praying at the White House isn’t actually praying; it’s what’s called “virtue signalling,” and aiming a message at the President.
If they really wanted to pray, they’d kneel quietly before the Blessed Sacrament and ask Him for help.
““Let us gather to rededicate ourselves to the defense of all life and recommit ourselves to an anti-racism agenda,” Carson said. Clergy were instructed in the email to “please wear (a) cassock, habit, or black clerical shirt,” and to bring a bottle of water, a mask, and a hat, as well as “appropriate signs/posters.””
Oh, yes? And when is the last time he invited them to go, so clothed, to pray in front of an abortion clinic?
What Catholics want across the nation is for the right to peacefully assemble in the Catholic churches, and to have the sacraments restored to us without so many of senseless restrictions imposed by Democratic Governors and Mayors. This is the “hill” that Catholics want to die on, namely our rights to practice our faith, worship our God inside of our churches, aka religious freedom. This cause is supported by President Donald Trump who is married to a Catholic and whose son Barron is a Catholic.
Catholics do not want their priests demonstrating in front of the White House to sooth the wounded ego of Archbishop Gregory, whose nasty words he spoke when the President held up a Bible in front of a burned out Church, and then went to the JPII Shrine and signed an executive order supporting world-wide the right to freedom of worship. Archbishop Gregory was soundly rebuked by Archbishop Vigano as one of the Evil Shepherds in the Church.
The fact that the US Catholic Bishop’s Conference has only one black Archbishop is their own evidence of racism and this is something the White House cannot fix except to revoke the tax exempt status the the US Catholic Bishop Conference because they Bishops violate the Civil Rights Act. The White House cannot make the US Catholic Bishop’s Conference a non-racist institution full on non-white Bishops and Cardinals. Only the US Catholic Bishop’s Conference can reform itself, not the President.
It is not missed on anyone that Archbishop Gregory was rebuked by Cardinal Vigano as an Evil Shephard this past week. It is not missed that Archbishop Gregory worked in 2002 with then Cardinal McCarrick to exempt Bishops and Cardinals from the rules imposed on clergy for sexual abuse. It is not missed that Archbishop Gregory has not released the report on the misconduct of former Cardinal McCarrick after 2 years. It is not missed that the Department of Justice is looking into complaints under the RICO Act of a systemic cover-up of former Cardinal McCarrick’s conduct and has been doing so for several years after the Philadelphia Grand Jury report (2018). It is not lost on anyone that Richard Sipe viewed Archbishop Gregory as an admitted sexually active homosexual.
This stunt motivated by self-serving vanity will not work, but will expose further the evil within the clergy who are being asked to ignore the sacramental church and worship instead on the altar of BAAL I am sorry for the good priests who want to minister to the flocks of Christ that they are being asked to participate in this stunt. My Jesus, Mary, Joseph deliver us from Evil in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
This is nothing more than a cheap political gesture orchestrated by an openly leftist hack who happens to wear a bishop’s mitre. Wilton Gregory has apparently decided to go on the warpath against Donald Trump. I suspect this is only the beginning of his campaign to help deliver this country into the hands of the political heirs of Mao.
This certainly puts a new twist on the Deblasio line about “protests” being essential, while religious services are not. Gregory must be thinking that not administering the sacraments gives priests plenty of time for political agitation. What else should we have expected from a protege of Bernadin and a close friend of Ted McCarrick?