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.
[…]
Speaker Pelosi and Abp. Cordileone had a disagreement about who should decide this [family size and timing]? Really? That’s what she heard?
Funny. I’ve been impressed by the cardinal’s unfailing articulateness.
I agree that his articulateness has been outstanding, but his actions have been, to date, non-existent. For every Catholic who sees his remarks, ten, twenty, or one hundred will see “Catholic” Pelosi’s remarks. The Catholic Church will not “turn around” until our actions mirror our words.
I would guess that virtually every active Catholic knows someone who thinks they are a good Catholic, but who doesn’t follow Church teachings.
Speaker Pelosi’s remarks are rationalizations; she is a Catholic in name only and not practice. God will judge and I ask her to go back and study the 10 Commandments and the Bible.Dr.Maxine Turek
Nancy Pelosi is not a Catholic. She has other attitudes or free will choices that are in error with the fasith. She uses the mantle of of “Catholic” as dressing for being a good person. I am stopping here because I also am a sinner. I dread have Jesus as my judge but rejoice having Him as my savior. Mrs. Pelosi should consider these words.
Yes, God gave us free will to choose Heaven or Hell. Nancy has chosen the latter.
I note Erik Rosales’ frequent challenging questions in his capacity as EWTN’s Capitol Hill correspondent.
“…vigilantes and bounty hunters…” Silly me, I thought the Aztec Pelosi was referring to the well-paid Abortion Industry and other such head hunters.
God gave us a will to choose His good because His good leads to our eternal happiness. His sixth commandment was, is, and always shall be: “Thou shalt not kill.”
To enact laws, to proclaim a ‘right’ or a ‘freedom’ to kill, to require others to remotely participate all act against the sixth commandment. Killing a human being is a mortal sin. This life gives but a foreshadowed glance at eternity.
Jesus Christ will call Nancy to her reckoning whether she wills it or no. One prays that a spark of the Holy Spirit may inspire her intellect to glimpse the depravity underneath make-up and mask. A heart and soul at odds with God’s commandment count for more than make-up and a dress.
Always heartening reading your posts
Thank you to Gilberta for correcting my math! The FIFth commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Meiron, unless I’ve been misled, I believe it’s #5 you’re referring to.
Thank you, Gilberta. Good catch.👍
I have long suspected that abortion is the (I hate to use the word) “sacrament” of the liberals. I believe child sacrifice is what the devil demands to keep the liberals in power. Every single time the pro-life movement achieves any small amount of success, the liberals fight like those possessed to take that victory away from them. Child sacrifice must be protected at all costs!
Well, when a person hovers on either side of 80, she or he ought to consider that payment will soon be due. They have had their run, and Moloch will soon require payment for giving them a life of power, wealth, and prestige.
In 1998, Ginette Paris, PhD, who is a Jungian, published a book titled The Sacrament of Abortion that is a defense of, even homage to, abortion as a sort of pagan sacrifice.
Yes, a pagan sacrifice. Abortion is sometimes presented to young girls in trouble as a Rite of Initiation into “modernity.”
Of the same mentality as the late 1960s Red Guard Movement in China, which fully initiate a new generation activists into Communism, replicating the initiatory and costly Long March of 1934-35 into central China (of 100,000, less than ten percent survived), which galvanized the leadership role of Chairman Mao Zedong. Or, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge initiation of a Communist order in Cambodia in 1975-79 (two million victims, one fourth of the population). Or any smaller street-gang initiations in our cities.
And now, slow motion throughout the declining West (over 60 million in the United States since 1973). Spearheaded by Aztec Pelosi’s defense of late-term-abortions as “sacred ground” (June 2013). Once initiated with blood on one’s hands, there can be no “turning back”.
Wait, what? There CAN always be Redemption. Someone wrote a book about that, too.
Redemption even for the West as a whole, and for the whole world, and for the whole soul of each of us. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Mt 28:19).
A question for the successors of the Apostles: “synodality, yes, and what else”?
Thanks for that information, Carl. I am going to check into that.
Might be of interest: Carl Jung was a free mason and suffered as a child from abuse wherein his personality was split into multiples. The evidence cited for this is his posthumously published “Red book”. Red is the colour the Free Masons use to paint their Abuse Rooms under their lodges/temples according to the book by Alexandre Lebreton in French. The takeaway: “Psychology” was a Free Masonic psuedo-science founded to help the Rulers of the Novos Ordo study and learn how to more effectively abuse kids and keep their victims silent. A further piece of the Novos Ordo falls into place…? The book, is called “Franc-maçonnerie et schizophrénie.” ISBN: 9781913890049. It is not a source of feelgood joy in the beauty of creation, but an executive summary and tool for those trying to understand why the Sankt Gallen Mafia seek to destroy God’s Divinely Founded Institution well into their old age with no apparent fear of damnation… One has to conclude they are seriously sick. Why C9 Bergoglio? Nineth Inner circle?? A 5-Star Amazon rateed book has been published on one of Bergoglio’s remaining C6 Cardinals, with a foreword by Archbishop Vigano:
https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Betrayals-against-corruption-Francis/dp/1735267104/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=sacred+betrayals&qid=1632601124&s=books&sr=1-1
Very sad to see an old person, not long for this earth, clinging to their evil ways despite knowing they will have to answer to God very soon. I would be terrified rethink the errors of my life (as I did when I had Covid this year) instead of arrogant and defiant.
sorry but covid went a long time ago. these so called “covid tests” cant even tell the difference between covid and the flu. now it’s all just fear mongering scare tactics by the governemnt. Hitler did it with gas chambers and now the government is doing it with masks. the masks are useless and are causing more suffering and deaths. the government knows this yet does nothing but making history repeat itself from the Spanish flu to the SARS epidemic. they knew then that masks did nothing but make more people suffer and die and unfortunately people are following like blind sheep to a cliff.
🙏
I beelieve it is obvious. The natural inclination would to be worried about your soul at this late a stage. Apparently we do not have a Catholic here we either are dealing with angent of the evil one or she incorrectly beleives in predestination. She is not Catholic. Neither is the group of “Catholics” supporting her position.
Né a. Pelosi, you are NOT a Catholicin case you think otherwise!
Won’t she be surprised when she has her immediate judgement before Jesus! Will she give Him the same response as the Archbishop? Time for the Church to take a DEFINITIVE stand deny Holy Communion to her and all the phony catholic pro-aborts. But that won’t happen since the USCCB is so divided amongst itself.
Excellent comment, Monsignor, excellent comment! What is the USCCB for if not to support and defend the doctrines of the Church? The USCCB is a worthless organization for the defense of Church doctrine. Worthless!
…sorry. IMHO whether the USCCB is divided or not is immaterial. It is bought and paid for by the DNC and has been reduced to performing as the Ministry of Social Justice for the same.
This individual is chaos and lies. Simply demonic. She makes herself a sacrilege.
Why does the Church continue to allow those professing to be Catholic, who clearly defy the moral teachings of the Church, to remain in good standing with the Church? This continues to send a message to the world that we really don’t believe what we teach because we fail to defend it, and that the Church is whatever you want it to be.
Agree with you, Todd, about the Church’s duty to deal properly with quisling Catholics like Pelosi. Unfortunately we have the opposite tact taken by Pope Francis, who says that abortion is murder but at the same time offers effusive praise to politicians who actively promote it, like the President of Ireland.
Pelosi is truly flirting with the area of the afterlife where an ice cream cone won’t keep.
Ma Pelosi will have a Special boat waiting for her at the River Styx. Charon and his 1st Mate Blackmun on the tiller.Will smilingly pipe her aboard for the trip across.
When I read Pelosi’s comments of this sort, I wonder what she will say standing before God on Judgement Day. It’s not Pro-Choice she advocates but Pro-Death. We Pro-Lifers should start calling it what it is! Pro-Choice is having the child and raising it, or having it and giving it up for adoption. But that’s too “inconvenient” for people like Pelosi. How did a very straightforward concept get so convoluted? How did we, as a society come to be where we are on this issue? It seems so clear to me the right thing for a women and man to do in such a situation. The right thing when one is talking “life”. Holy Mother, pray for us.
God wills all of us to choose the good; however, He does not force us to do so. Nancy Pelosi is correct. God has given all of us free will to choose the good or the evil. What she is missing is that the choice for evil has dire consequences in eternity. Abortion is the worst evil this country has ever legalized. In writing that sentence, I started to think about our laws, which all, with one exception, protect life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness should never come at the expense of the life of another. Pelosi jeopardizes her eternal life in supporting the murders of the unborn.
This pathetic woman needs our prayers.
Ours is not to judge her – that will be soon enough.
Ours is not to judge her – (sic)
Our is to judge her behavior, just as Christ exhorted.
“And why even of yourselves, do you not judge that which is just?” Jesus Christ, Luke 12:57
I repeat – Ours is not to judge her – that will be soon enough. She needs our prayers.
Just now the US House passed its bill to enshrine the right to abortion in law. The Senate must pass the bill; Joe Manchin is said to be a pro-life Catholic….
All this does not bode well for this nation in the sight of God. No longer is it a majority of justices on the Supreme Court. Now the majority party in Congress has perfectly soiled their souls and stained our nation’s ground with the blood of holy innocents.
If it’s ‘none of our business’ in regard to others then the truth of life is merely a subjective construct and not an objective truth even in the Catholic Church. Is it not applicable to everyone and not just Catholics?
To construct, fund, and promote abortion is ‘making it your business’.
There is no ‘constitutional’ right to abortion but only, once again, judicial fiat and Pelosi knows it. To hide behind the vicious euphemism of ‘reproductive healthcare’ and claim ‘reason’ is the height of pride in the service of infernal, willful ignorance.
And the final straw is to pretend her ‘differences’ with Cordileone has to do with ‘family size’ and not the deliberate destruction of a human life.
Will that arrogance serve her standing before God?
Will it, Archbishop Cordileone?
@SpeakerPelosi is now an elderly woman. I hope she realises that power and notoriety will not save her soul. Pray she starts to do the right thing. We are all running out of time.
Yes he gave you free will and you chose to violate it by saying it is OK to kill a human being. Would love to be there when you explain to God when you die and justify your stand. Good Luck
Speaker Pelosi is of that breed that is perhaps best characterized as “autonomous.” The autonomous spirit does not need to consult anyone else or any institution in order to arrive at how the truth of things stands.
For this person the Church, Christ’s Body, is not in any sense an extension of Christ. It is merely an entity, which sometimes seems an obstacle, that nevertheless can be dismissed or ignored out of hand. The autonomous spirit is always free and is always right.
The corollary is that anyone who disagrees with this person is invariably wrong. This includes priests, bishops, archbishops, the Pope, as well as other lay Catholics who try humbly first to know and then to follow, that is, practice, what Holy Mother Church in Her wisdom teaches. That very idea would likely be novel to Speaker Pelosi, and if she even considered it seriously for three seconds would probably find it both silly and objectionable.
Is Speaker Pelosi beyond help or hope? Is hers a case of “invincible ignorance? I cannot say one way or the other. But we all can say, “Pray for us sinners, now and at the our of our death.” In that regard, she is one of us.
Speaker Pelosi is NOT beyond help or hope. She is nearing that point when she will answer for the damage she has done in her life, and she needs our prayers so that she will be granted the grace of contrition BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
Pelosi’s five children were a blessing, and it is commendable that she views her cooperation in creation as such. Yet, to paraphrase Obama, “She did not build that.” Neither does any woman have a right by natural law and Divine Authority to misuse her body to co create life outside of Holy Matrimony. Shame on Pelosi and those in worldly power to distort what should be a joyous privilege to gift back one’s body and welcome God in procreation.
As for free will–it comes with a cost when abused and squandered for evil. Pelosi’s intellect is warped; her conscience in darkness; and her exercise of will ruled by passion and unbridled temporal power. She has made herself a god.
Glad for the day of fasting and prayer and will be hoping for illumination of souls!
“…It is none of our business how other people choose the size & timing of their families.”
Hmh.
So then, by that logic, why is everyone so upset over the death of Gabby Petito? It’s none of our business if a man wants to limit the size of his family.
Steve K. above – I agree that, unfortunately, for every one who hears Abp. Cordileone, ten, twenty or a hundred will hear Speaker Pelosi. The MSM certainly won’t hear Cordileone except as the spokesman for the supposedly unenlightened, conservative American bishops. Nevertheless, I have hope that Cordileone’s thoughtful, clear and patient teaching will resonate with some of his readers, Catholic or not.
Day of wrath, that dreadful day, shall heaven and earth in ashes lay, as David and the Sybil say.
What horror must invade the mind when the approaching Judge shall find and sift the deeds of all mankind!
The mighty trumpet’s wondrous tone shall rend each tomb’s sepulchral stone and summon all before the Throne.
Now death and nature with surprise behold the trembling sinners rise to meet the Judge’s searching eyes.
Then shall with universal dread the Book of Consciences be read to judge the lives of all the dead.
For now before the Judge severe all hidden things must plain appear; no crime can pass unpunished here.
Oh, what shall I, so guilty, plead? And who for me will intercede when even Saints shall comfort need?
The judgment of those who vote in favor of abortion, most particularly the Catholics, will be horrible beyond anything we can imagine this side of eternity. Pray, pray for them. Blindness beyond comprehension.
Where Nancy Pelosi refers to reproductive healthcare, she is close to getting to the point, although she misses the mark. Georgetown University’s Institute for Reproductive Health, in cooperation with Cycle Technologies, has provided the research and tools for naturally preventing pregnancy. Thus, there is neither need, nor justification, for an abortion. It is, rather, a problem of educating clerics and politicians concerning these effective choices. There is the TwoDay Method of birth control, and the Standard Days Method — CycleBeads approach. These are featured at the Cycle Technology section on Youtube. Rather than debate ethics — which won’t change a politician’s mind — I suggest that Catholics focus on learning about these natural birth control methods, and then teaching as many people as possible regarding how to use them. These are effective, and totally destroy any woman’s justification for carelessly getting pregnant and feeling the need for an abortion. We are not here to condemn. We are here to bring to people the light of the Gospel, and to save endangered souls from a deep state of purgatory.
David,
You are very correct. Many of these cases are a metter of temperance on the part of both men and women. They are a matter of peer pressure, a matter of mistaken imporession of the needs to pleae, of the crime of eithanasia of the imperfect.
The problem here evidently is the messengers. Opponenets of choice loudly proclaimed control of a womans body, right to choose and now the Speaker of the House is proclaiming family size. It sounds like they are gewtting desperaate and are reaching for thin excuses.
Pelosi is a Catholic in name only. But then, so is the Pope. So she has his full support. That is where we are. I know 10 theologians who will tell you this is impossible. But they are wrong. It is delusional to believe otherwise.
Nancy Pelosi and company somehow manage to link the killing of late-term fetuses with “love-making.” I don’t see it that way. So, what is “right” Nancy?
Talk talk talk!! That is all one hears from the archdiocese of San Francisco. When is this man going to grow a spine and excommunicate the Speaker?
Ragging on pathetic Pelosi is an utter waste of time. Accusing our bishops of negligence is not much better. They know if they speak out forcefully and actually ACT for once, they will be slapped down by Pope Francis. She knows it as well. Bad news but true.
There is NO way that this woman can be so ignorant that she actually believes what she is saying on this subject – it has been pointed out to her innumerable times.
Why hasn’t this ghoul been ex-communicated?
An indisputable fact: abortion has been with womankind since antiquity, and probably also since prehistoric times of hominids, Neantherthals, and Cro-Magnons. The Latin Church has never managed, most likely never will be able, to end the female practice of aborting, for it is, above all, an act subject not only to economic factors but also to those of the unique experience, that of any pregnant woman, her wants, needs, culture, and intimate personal understanding, her sense of morality tested, and her cordial state of being in counterpoint with her existential crisis, in brief, her personal life at a momentous decision. If a woman decides to abort, condemning her decision, attempting to prohibit her from aborting, marshalling the law to do so would be on her an imposition, particularly in our post-Christian, secular age, and in a country such as the US where there is no religious consensus, therefore no enforceable law on any matter of religion beyond allowing citizens to practice their faith so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. One thing for sure, Roman Catholicism, coming down with doctrinal taboos misses the point and probably ends up being more impersonal, more distant, more irrelevant, more alien, indeed, more an intrusive, domineering hateful entity than it already is to many a woman, whatever her confessional persuasion, or lack thereof, pondering abortion or having in one incurred.
All possible compassionate succor and material aid to any woman who considers abortion, or aborts, the Church and State should offer and leave it at that, hands off, respecting the individual’s base freedom to live her life as she discovers or wills it to be, so long as she respects the rights of others. If any pope, prelate, priest, monk, nun, or politician be willing and able to die in the place of any woman who aborts, then maybe said individual -pope, prelate, priest, monk, nun, or politician- may have the right to dictate her life, indeed, to live It. Otherwise, when abortion is at play as a concrete possibility for a woman, it is not the time to marshall Christian ideological rhetoric and butt in, seeking to moderate behaviour, and poach the woman’s soul in distress.
MOIRAO, the point you are missing is, a life, a HUMAN life is being taken by another person for their comfort. If it truly was a “woman’s own body” then no one would be debating the issue.
Speaker Pelosi is the type of Catholic who interprets God’s laws to suit her way of believing, wanting others to follow her. For her, not to take the foolish chance of losing her soul, she should go to confession and speak to the priest who represents Jesus Christ to be assured her sins are not mortal. All Catholics should do the same when in doubt about following God’s commandments.