Minor OLA Updates

My regular correspondent has pointed me to this document covering the canonical removal of an "ineffective" pastor who is not guilty of misconduct. He notes that the initial 15-day period of reflection assigned to Fr Phillips has expired, which brings Canon 1742§1 into effect, which gives the bishop the ability to request that the pastor resign within a further 15 days.

Regards the removal of a priests [sic], “It is certainly appropriate that the bishop warn the pastor of problematic behavior or his deficiencies prior to invoking the canonical process. Moreover, the bishop will take care to provide remedial assistance to the priest if such assistance will likely enable the priest to overcome the deficiencies which point to a cause for removal” (eds. Calvo and Klinger, Clergy Procedural Handbook (Canon Law Society of America, Washington, D.C.), 1992, p. 124). Remedial assistance could include, but is not limited to, educational and formation programs, the appointment of a parochial administrator, or both. The appointment of a parochial administrator should be a temporary measure with the administrator being given limited authority in areas where the pastor is ineffective (eg: administration of school or parish patrimony). This arrangement must end when one of two possibilities occur: (1) the pastor improves, or (2) the pastor is legitimately removed because he does not improve over a reasonable period of time.

Further,

The second step is to establish that a grave cause exists after remedial efforts have failed. This is done through a preliminary investigation referred to in Canon 1742§1. Though not explicitly stated, this inquiry should take a form similar to the inquiry required in Canon 1717. Certainly, if the bishop has delegated someone to complete this inquiry, that person has the powers of an auditor. When completed, a document summarizing the investigation, the proof attained, and recommendations made should be drawn up and notarized (Canon 483§1) to authenticate that this first step in the formal process has taken place. This document should carefully note the grave reasons for which the pastor could be removed.

If the removal process continues, the bishop is to discuss the situation with two pastors selected by him from a group established by the presbyteral council for this purpose (Canon 1742§1). A summary of that discussion should also be preserved and notarized for the acts of the case. It should be noted that the choice of pastors for this step should be carefully made. Use of those who have a bias against the pastor for personal reasons should not be used lest the pastor’s good name and reputation be wrongly injured and the objectivity of the process compromised.

“If the bishop then judges that removal must take place, he paternally is to persuade the pastor to resign within fifteen days, after having explain, for validity, the cause and arguments for the removal” (Canon 1742§1). This fourth step is of great importance as regards both pastoral solicitude and due process. “He paternally is to persuade” implies that a meeting between the bishop and the priest take place at this stage of the process. Because of the vague and broad manner Canon 1741 uses to suggest causes for removal, Canon 1742§1 requires the bishop to explain to the pastor both the immediate cause and an argument for the process. A letter quoting from Canon 1741 and suggesting the pastor resign under threat of removal does not constitute an effort of pastoral persuasion explaining cause and argument. Interestingly, the validity of the process depends on this step. The meeting should be carefully documented with an accurate representation of the dialogue put in writing and witnessed by a notary. This becomes part of the acts of the case.

The appointment of Msgr Kurzaj as administrator provides a reference point to what stages of the process are currently taking place, but comments suggest it has been underway since summer 2016. Interestingly, a commenter at the Texas Public Radio site says, "[T]here is no pattern of this kind of disciplinary action by the Archbishop during his tenure here in San Antonio, or in Chicago. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, whatever actionable cause precipitated this decision cannot be without merit."

Beyond that, Archbishop Garcia-Siller is scheduled to be at the parish this evening (February 21) for Confirmations and First Communions. The Confirmations presumably would then make those people ineligible for membership in the Ordinariate.