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.
[…]
What woke nonsense. Wake up, people.
Actually, for the reasonably skeptical, any marriage between a rugged man and a beautiful woman, especially popular stars in their professions is like a jab of vitamin B12 in the arm of a morally weakened culture.
Know that the end of the world is coming upon us when we start looking to Taylor Swift for cues about how to live 🙄🙄. Lord have mercy.
Well, Athanasius, no one I look up to is perfect, and I myself am far from perfect, but I still attempt to help raise my grandson to be a godly little boy who loves Jesus and wants to serve him, and I have the audacity to confess my sins and approach Jesus in Holy Communion and hope that He will not turn His Face away from me and my continued struggles with certain besetting sins.
We’re all flawed people, and sadly, flawed people, including plenty of Catholic flawed people, get divorced. Sigh.
Taylor and Kelce are as flawed as the rest of us, but…it’s sure nice to see an old-fashioned dating relationship (for 2 whole years, not just 2 weeks!), a traditional engagement (complete with a on-the-knee proposal and an engagement ring!), and plans for a wedding that no doubt will include Kelce’s and Taylor’s mothers in the planning stages! I think a lot of young girls will be inspired to find a boyfriend who will treat them the way Kelce treats Taylor in public.
I hope their marriage lasts longer than most celebrity marriages (sadly, some only last for a few weeks), but there are some celebs that stay married and are faithful to the same person for decades–one example is Robert Patrick (the original Terminator!), who has been married to Barbara for over 25 years and still going strong! I think their active status in their church has something to do with this, along with his commitment to AA and staying sober–something that Barbara told him he had to do before she would even consider marrying him!
I think, or at least I hope, that the long-time dating relationship, the equality of their “celebrity” status, and the presence of very strong and involved moms will help Kelce and Taylor.
And of course, being billionaires hopefully won’t hurt either!
Have they both committed themselves to Christ? Are they committed to walking with Christ in obedience as His disciples? Are they committed to making Christ the center of their marriage? Are they both active in a local church?
These are, of course, rhetorical questions with answers that are quite clear. It’s not appropriate to celebrate or elevate this couple.
This seems rather harsh.
Do you not attend weddings of people who are not committed Christians? Of course that’s your choice, but marriage is certainly better than shacking up.
I doubt Taylor and Kelce attend or are “active” in any church because of the expense (millions of dollars and a staff that most cities and towns can’t muster) that would happen because of the need for security and the disruption to the church service or Mass that would ensue as the thousands of fans converge upon the church, the parking lot, and the church neighborhood. Both of these celebrities have to be extremely careful of criminals or mentally unbalanced folks who could easily do them harm if the celebrity lets themselves be too accessible.
But that doesn’t mean that they are not involved with “church” in some way, perhaps online as most of us were during COVID, or perhaps donating monies, probably with the admonition that no one knows who is actually donating except the church treasurer or accountant.
We cannot say whether they are Christians–both grew up in good homes, and the fact that they honor their mothers and families in public and private speaks well of them.
There is a very active group of Christians in NFL, but again, I doubt Kelce takes a visible role in any of these groups because he doesn’t want to attract a crowd of fans that might make it difficult (or dangerous, if the fan was unbalanced) for the group to meet and get anything done.
There are also groups of “stars” or “celebrities” that hold Bible studies and prayer meetings. Again, I can’t say whether Taylor is involved in any of these, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she stays away so as not to be disruptive, as she attracts so many fans–actual mobs–if she is in public.
I don’t think Taylor’s songs are “Christian” in any sense and I think her costumes are immodest, but if you go to Mass, you will see plenty of younger girls and even grown women wearing outfits that alarm you and make you wonder how they will ever be able to kneel or even genuflect or sit down! It’s not my place to tell the parents of these kids to step in, or to make a comment to another woman! And when you think about it, female stars have been pushing the boundaries of immodesty vs. modesty ever since women got involved with the performing arts–the flappers come to mind. It’s not right, but…our saying so won’t make any difference. And at least, she seems to be dating rather than shacking up.
I don’t want to elevate “stars” to an exalted level, but I think that they work harder and have more pressure to succeed than pretty much anyone, even doctors. I have a daughter who works in professional theater in stage management (and is very successful)–and she works harder than anyone in our family–long hours, different gigs going all at once, constant promotion and interviews with hopes of being hired for another gig, lots of pressure to make no mistakes, long times between meals or snacks, and lots of missed holidays and family gatherings. She is a Catholic, but she doesn’t shout it out to her co-workers–she just does a really good job, encourages her co-workers and the “stars”, and works hard to make sure everyone gets the support that they need to do a good job, too.
I guess until we are in a celebrity’s shoes, we can’t really understand their lives and judge their faith or lack of faith in God.
Diogenes above (1:24 a.m.) – There’s such a thing as being too cynical. If you look up Brad Wilcox, I think you’ll agree that “woke” isn’t a particularly accurate descriptor of him.