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.
[…]
Once again hasty statements set down on paper before a full investigation is rolled out. How juvenile – or is politically motivated?
That which has been reported by investigators gives people in high positions an opportunity to speak seriously about the motivation admitted by Mr. Long for committing murder of eight persons.
Atlanta Shooting Suspect Told Police He Targeted Massage Parlors Because of Sex Addiction – WSJ
By Valerie Bauerlein and Cameron McWhirter
Updated March 17, 2021 7:58 pm ET
TEXT
“ATLANTA—Robert Aaron Long, the suspect in the killing of eight people at three massage parlors in the Atlanta area, told investigators that he targeted the businesses because he blamed them “for providing an outlet for his addiction to sex,” law-enforcement officials said.”
“Mr. Long, who is in custody, took responsibility for the shootings and said he acted alone, according to the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office.”
“It’s a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate,” Capt. Jay Baker said. “He said it was not racially motivated.”
Here is an opportunity for those in high places to speak to the damaging effects of pornography addiction which apparently according to Mr. Long’s statement was his motivation for the terrible slaughter he perpetrated. Mr. Long was a customer at massage parlors, he was deranged in his addiction and he killed eight people in cold blood “because he blamed them ‘for providing an outlet for his addiction to sex,'”
Why are our leaders(?) not addressing this serious issue of pornography plaquing our society. Guess it is easier or more politically appealing to blame it on race. Where’s the right thinking? – gone out the window. In other words, right thinking has become very unpopular – so go with the flow, people. After all, swimming up stream requires the vision of a goal to be reached, motivation and strong muscle. Softies in high places are flabby, unable to address the issues when it comes to the “seamy side of the garment” These spineless softies are unfit for strong leadership, and grasp at straws rather than “take the bull by the horns.” Where are the John the Baptist, Thomas Moore and St. Paul types when we need them? Gone, I guess. Instead we have elites sitting in their plush offices setting down politically palatable baloney.
That the victims were all Asian probably had nothing to do with it, I presume.
“I must eliminate temptation by killing asians in their massage parlors”
Is a pseudo-religious reason so much more palatable, or non-exclusive to racism? I wonder why it’s almost always white people who are the first to say “it wasn’t racist!” when minorities are killed. Look, you aren’t being impugned here Rosemarie; it’s ok.
Why are you assuming Rosemarie is white? What does her ethnicity have to do with her basic argument? Nothing at all, actually. Why are you also assuming that the motives had to be racial when there is no evidence to support that at present? Check your own biased and privileged assumptions first please.
Not all the victims were Asian. Get your facts straight. Do you have any familiarity at all with crime statistics? Do you know who commits disproportionate shares of violent crime in the US? Hint: It is not white males. A casual review of interracial crime statistics is even more revealing.
J.K.
From what I read, these particular targeted parlors were not illegal.
1) Mr. Long was deranged in his addiction and he killed eight people in cold blood–that is as insane as if an alcoholic tried to eliminate liquor stores because they were a temptation for him to buy liquor.
2) Some congressional and clerical leaders jumped to conclusions as to what Mr. Long’s criminal motivation was before a full investigation has been carried out. That kind of hasty exercise does not exhibit right thinking.
What happens so often with congressional and clerical leaders is that the immediate crux of the problem is laid at the doorstep of firearms or race.
Anyone interested in viewing a sliver of the ugly underbelly of human or drug trafficking can look at the billion dollar industries in a few of the links below:
Chinese moms in America’s illicit massage parlors – SupChina
New solutions for the old problem of illegal massage parlors (apnews.com)
(U) Drug Trafficking Organizations – National Drug Threat Assessment 2010 (UNCLASSIFIED) (justice.gov)
Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations (fas.org)
https://news.trust.org/item/20210301101717-gtrmv/
Canned tuna making ‘glacial progress’ in tackling modern slavery (trust.org)
“The global fishing sector is rife with allegations of abuse – human trafficking, debt bondage … and even murder,” BHRRC’s Pacific representative Amy Sinclair told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
“But despite continued high demand for canned tuna, our research found there had been glacial progress on action by leading brands when it comes to workers trapped in modern slavery in the Pacific,” she added.
See – it’s all about money and power. Human lives are expendable at the trafficking scene. What a tragedy! That is the problem which needs to be addressed.
I eagerly await the bishops’ statement denouncing the murder of white Christians by a Muslim immigrant terrorist in Colorado yesterday. Of course, no such thing is in the works. The response to this one will be a call for gun control and more funding for mental health services. There also will be warnings against any backlash or scapegoating. Under no circumstances, will it be acceptable to argue against letting more of the adherents of the “religion of peace” into the country.