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.
[…]
Pffft…Clearly, “Catholic” Bob Ferguson never heard the story of St. John Nepmoucene.
Clearly.
Ferguson is NOT a Catholic. By approving this law from a position of authority, he is now an apostate, a traitor to the Faith. Disgusting. And REAL Catholics know that a priest will NEVER break the seal of the confessional. No matter what the crazed leftist nut jobs on the West Coast pretend to vote into law.
The left, hard at work again to prove they are more commie than the communists themselves in trying to destroy faith and religion in the US.
Ferguson is NOT a Catholic. By approving this law from a position of authority, he is now an apostate, a traitor to the Faith. Disgusting. As are the Catholics who voted for him. REAL Catholics know that a priest will NEVER break the seal of the confessional, no matter what the crazed leftist nut jobs on the West Coast pretend to vote into law. If people are ill-informed enough to vote Dems back into power over the next several years, this is an example of the very sick agenda we can expect them to continue pushing onto the American people. Add this piece of legislative idiocy to the same leftist basket pushing men into womens sports and locker rooms, trans surgery for minors and open borders.
He is “not a Catholic” when the Church says “he is not a Catholic “ . Do you go in and out between every confession? Are you no longer Catholic if you are still in grave mortal sin? Isn’t it the prerogative of the Magisterium to make such pronouncements iabout public figures? Many also made Such pronouncements about the late Pope. Are they not being Protestants?
Magisterium
Surely you know that certain actions result in self excommunication. I would think allowing passage of a law to undermine the sacraments would qualify. Some high churchmen cant see sin right in front of their nose. Thats how biden made hay with his supposed devout Catholicism.
Catholic Ferguson was included on the annual Time 100 list of the most influential people in the world (Wikipedia).
Indeed, ahead of his time. The new progressive Catholic who will reshape the Church to fit into its appropriate place in our world. An offshoot of the Biden, Pelosi, Durbin mindset. Although Ferguson is so advanced that even Cdl McElroy would condemn him on this matter. Apparently he’s well versed in the faith but obviously places his intellectual acumen above doctrine. All the more reason why the Church requires a saintly Roman pontiff with intellect to sufficiently address the challenges facing Catholic doctrine.
If I’m not mistaken, Donald Trump was also on that list! Birds of a feather?
TDS can be treated.
Did Ferguson consult a canon lawyer to see if signing such a bill, which attempts to undermine a sacrament, is grounds for excommunication? Is he ignorant enough to think that Catholic priests will comply with an unjust law?
One of the ways of sharing in another’s sin is “By command. Or, in other words, don’t force someone to do something sinful.”
So he certainly should qualify for the same penalty as the one that applies to a priest who breaks the seal of the confessional.
Right on.
This is a cock-eyed bill. What penitent would testify against a priest that he confessed abuse in confession? He would thereby incriminate himself. In the end, it would be a priest’s word against an abuser’s word.
That said, this law will likely cost the church a pretty penny, fighting and defending anyone charged through its enactment.
I live in Washington state. It has been my perception that in the Archdiocese of Seattle, there was not much rallying against the bill. There was more some seven or so years ago when the state legislature attempted to pass a similar bill and failed.
This time, private or ecumenical church-affiliated human rights grassroots groups did most of the heavy lifting against passage of the current law, to no avail. The fact that the institutional church seemed not too involved speaks to its complacency and failed zeal. It is perhaps preoccupied with consolidating parishes into families with the next step to determining feasibility–which properties and facilities are best de-sacralized and sold. That’s what’s happenin’.
For sure, this case will end in the Supreme Court. It infringes upon the free exercise of religion.
Sadly, in a worst case scenario, the Stalinist/gestapo/KGB state enforcers could send in “ringers” to the confessional, make a bogus confession, and then wait to see if the priest reports it in. If this bill is not suppression of religious freedom, I dont know what is. I think any Catholic who voted for the reps who approved this bill should be pronounced excommunicated immediately.
I would say now that priests will be in fear the law, as a recording can now be made of a confession by any number of small electronic devices, and a “reconciliation room” rather than blind traditional confessional particularly vulnerable since both parties can not help but be able to accurately describe one another.
As for who might do such a thing, a molester is already a twisted individual, and a recorded but unreported confession of molestation then leaves the priest vulnerable to manipulation/extorsion, and likewise vulnerable to any attempt by activist media who could make the rounds of confessionals with false confessions and then post “shocking exposés” on lack of compliance with the law.
These law attempts are clearly unconstitutional state attempts to regulate religious practices, and are bad juju for too many reasons to list. Hopefully, this will now make its way up to the Supreme Court. As without it being struck down, there is nothing to prevent the state from requiring recordings of all confessions, which would destroy anyone going at all, same as this law will stop molesters from confessing their sins.
This act could be a blessing in disguise. If the sacrament were to return to priest and penitent both shrouded behind a veiled screen, the priest could not know and could not certify the identity of anyone who confessed anything to him.
You mean to say that all confessions are not done behind the screen? How backwardist is that? Do those same people receive Holy Communion in the hand while standing as well?
Yes.
Very.
Yes.
😀
Actually, it’s what the late Pope would call “forwardist.”
I was thinking along the same lines. If X confessed behind the screen and the priest had no idea who he (or she — such things do happen) was, what’s the priest supposed to do? Go to the police and say, “Someone confessed to abusing a child.”
Police: Who?
Priest: I don’t know.
Police: Name of victim.
Priest: I don’t know.
Police: Where?
Priest: I don’t know.
Police: When?
Priest: I don’t know.
It might read like something from a Monty Python skit, except it’s not funny. Do people who craft such legislation even know how Confession works?
If I were a priest, I would go to prison before I would violate the seal of the Confessional!
Not to sound snarky, Karen, but if you were a Priest you would have NO CHOICE. To violate the seal of the confessional is to incur instant excommunication and your soul is in a state of mortal sin.
Any governor who calls himself a ‘catholic’ (small c) and who signs legislation like this has also excommunicated himself by an action like this, and if Bishop Daly doesn’t do the honors – ASAP – then he too is in serious (spiritual) doo-doo.
Are we to assume that perverts have such tender consciences that they will run to the confessional to seek forgiveness? Are there any cases of priests shielding confessed child abusers and freeing them to go on and on with their abuse? And how is the government going to discover what anyone confesses? Will the sinner blab to the police what he confessed? Surely the priest will not.
This law is an excuse for the government to intrude on the sacred, and an attempt to bully and intimidate the Church.
In a world where the price of truth is too often bartered in the marketplace of influence, we must all tread carefully among those who wield power — be they politicians, educators, or merchants of ideologies. Authority, when stripped of virtue, becomes an empty vessel, and titles, when proclaimed without deeds, ring hollow. If one professes to be Catholic, we should all learn to ignore the mere label affixed in conversation, “I am Catholic”. Instead, we need to evaluate each individual on the degree of light radiating through action — a faith lived, not merely spoken.
As an aside, I think this lens of seeking for Light should be used to evaluate all individuals; not to condemn, but to identify those that inspire and are empowered by the Holy Spirit to lead.
What’s disappointing is that Seattle archbishop Etienne has been relatively silent on this, whereas he was very vocal on his disdain for deportation of illegal immigrants (the three Washington bishops issued a joint statement that was read in all the parishes). He was also the first bishop to voluntarily close down parishes for covid. This mentality is rife in this diocese and Seattle Catholic schools are not helping tomorrow’s generation. Ferguson is a graduate of Bishop Blanchet H.S. so of course everyone thinks he’s adequately formed in the faith. Especially himself.
Any public comment yet from the apostolic successors in the Yakima or Seattle dioceses?
Spokane’s bishop did alert his diocesan parishioners to oppose the bill. I have not seen or heard Seattle’s archbishop say anything….the Heal Our Church group has been publicly calling for the archbishop to meet with them; he may have done so, and he may have urged parishioners to oppose the bill, but I have neither seen nor heard any such reports. I typically read bulletins and newsletters from three different Seattle parishes, and I have seen nothing in any of these in 2025. I do not read the diocesan newspaper, so perhaps there was something there….
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/262023/spokane-bishop-urges-voters-to-oppose-bill-that-forces-priests-to-break-seal-of-confession
This has the same likelihood of succeeding as seeing women priests in the future. They might as well sign in a law to do that too. Meaningless.
Kathleen. I admit that I am confused by your comparison of women priests and the proposed Washington state civil “law” on confessions. The Church has full control by suppressing gender specific prelates. I don’t struggle with the confession secrecy, but I object the not offering half of God’s creation and the heavy lifters’ Holy Orders.
Well, fortunately for all of us, Morgand,your objections, like your progressive ideology, are irrelevant to the discussion.
Here’s MorganD being patronizing again.
No, MorganB, the Church has absolutely no authority to ordain priestesses. It has never had the authority and never will. Our Lord did not will it or He would have made provision for it. And, please, spare us any “Oh, but it would just have been too much against the culture of the times and that’s why He didn’t!” drivel. Informing one’s followers that one is God the Son and that in order to have eternal life they must eat One’s flesh and drink One’s blood isn’t exactly in keeping with the culture of the times, either, and yet He did it. And many of his followers said what a hard teaching that was, and left him. Just as so many deeluded people now leave the Church because it doesn’t fit in with their particular culture of moronic feminism and mindless support of abortion.
God gave equal opportunity for salvation to men and women. Surprisingly, God, in His superior knowledge and will to morganD, created them in a manner to assume different burdens in life, even defining some specifics. Believing women are necessarily of greater burden than men is juvenile obsequious pandering, inherently insulting to women.
I, along with many others I’m certain, am eagerly awaiting seeing a Priest in handcuffs – which he should INSIST ON, on the evening news because he refuses to violate the seal of the confessional.
From there it will be quickly picked up by Newsmax, Fox News, MSNBC, and, I’m certain, those worthies on The View will be eager to share their wisdom on the subject with us – the gum-chewing public.
To quote Sonny & Cher – The Beat Goes On.
We could use a few martyrs these days. Persecution unites the faithful. Apathy & complacency have brought us to the low point we’re at currently.
Want to sign up to be one? Perhaps on some other issue?
A Catholic Reform Group called Heal Our Church gave testimony in the Wa. State Senate hearing, supporting the bill. Another member who testified in support of the bill was a priest, retired, from the Diocese of Milwaukee, who has publicly supported the breaking of the confessional seal in cases of abuse. Fr. James Connell was stripped by his archbishop of his faculty to absolve and hear confession in the RCC. You can find more info online about misguided Washington Catholics supporting this bill and subverting Catholic teaching, healing, reconciliation.
Members of the Heal Our Church group are about as Catholic as the Roman Catholic “Womenpriests” fringe group of radical leftist women attempting to seek “ordination”.
I am wondering how a confession can even be licit, if one’s Penance does not require that one makes restitution to the injured party when a criminal crime has been committed?
What, pray tell, is a “criminal crime”? That is, as distinct from a non-criminal crime, for instance.
Ferguson appears to be yet another ape in the ape of the church about which Fulton Sheen warned us.
There are a few hundred total priests in Washington State. It is very difficult to get a law passed. Note the maniacal focus on a few people. This is not a shot over the bow for Catholics. This a shot into the bow.
Wake up!
For the record, on May 4 Archbishop Paul Etienne of Seattle was quick to make a response (after testifying earlier). Part of which reads:
“Once the state asserts the right to dictate religious practices and coerce information obtained within this sacrament – privileged communication – where is the line drawn between Church and state? What else may the state now demand the right to know? Which other religious practices will it try to legislate? Why is this privileged communication between priest/penitent the only one singled out? Why not attorney/client? Doctor/patient? Spouses?”
There are laws that make exceptions to doctor/patient and attorney/client privilege. One issue here with Sacramental Confession is that it is not a civil matter but a soul matter. Those who have committed serious crimes, be they child abuse or murder or ? arson or …. and who may be legitimately struggling with remorse and fear will now be afraid to tell any priest to save his soul. A question I have for priests is what would you say to a penitent who confesses such crimes but has avoided civil responsibility for his crimes. A good priest may be the right person to guide such a sinner to true repentance and turn him/her self into the civil authorities to make restitution and accept his penance from the state as best can be so that he can be spiritually absolved from his sins.