- OLA in 2016, at a moment and under circumstances that aren't clear, elected to reverse a 2012 decision to stay out of the OCSP, which was itself a sudden reversal.
- Sources close to Fr Phillips since that time have made it known that Abp Garcia-Siller opposes this move.
- We are made to understand that some version of this issue has been before the CDF for some months, but since proceedings before the CDF are confidential, we know nothing else.
- On January 19 of this year, the archbishop notified the parish that he had effectively suspended Fr Phillips. Fr Phillips's allies and sympathizers then renewed a campaign asserting that the archbishop was doing this out of pique, at worst for racial motives, at best for money.
One matter that puzzles me is that if the credible allegation from 1994 reached the diocese only more recently, it appears that there was no formal move to remove Dcn Orr from the clerical state and separate him from the parish and any potential exposure to minors in 2016, though he was eased into retirement for unspecified reasons. That no more formal move took place at that time, while at least one allegation dates from 1994, raises its own set of questions. I would stress that we don't have answers, but there is certainly reason for concern, which the archbishop presumably shares.
One thing that feeds my overall concerns about this situation is that the archbishop is strictly bound by both a legal and canonical obligation to keep his investigation and any proceedings against Fr Phillips strictly confidential. He is clearly adhering to this obligation and releasing only a bare minimum of information on Fr Phillips's case, or that of Dcn Orr.
On the other hand, Fr Phillips's allies, certainly including Mr Wilson and the Save Atonement group, are under no such obligation, and some, like OLW Fr Hunwicke, have gone so far as to accuse Abp Garcia-Siller of racial bias. Mr Wilson most recently is clearly attempting to scotch unauthorized amendments to Fr Phillips's side of the story:
Over the past week there has been a spate of rumors concerning a possible decision about the future status of the parish. Even if such a decision has been made, I would urge you to avoid speculation about the details and await the official notification. Within the past few days, there have also been rumors about possible further adverse actions by the archdiocese. Again, I would caution about speculation until we see what actually happens.But my questions about the Save Atonement version go so far as wondering what case is actually before the CDF, or whether the nature of the case is quickly changing. Researching the canonical procedures that must be invoked following an allegation of clergy sexual abuse, I discovered that the CDF has ultimate authority over such cases and can take them away from the diocese. So just what is the CDF reviewing here?
The following is excerpted from the USCCB's Questions and Answers Regarding the Canonical Process for the Resolution of Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests and Deacons , especially as they may apply to the situation at OLA:
The Code of Canon Law stipulates that the first steps after receipt of an allegation of the commission of an ecclesiastical crime are usually taken by the local bishop. If the priest against whom an allegation is brought is a member of a religious order, his superior might take the first steps instead. Any allegation that has the semblance of truth (it is not manifestly false or frivolous) undergoes what is referred to as a preliminary investigation. During the preliminary investigation, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and his good name must not be illegitimately harmed.Regarding whether the CDF gets involved,
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does have sole competence in resolving allegations of sexual abuse of minors committed by clerics. But this competence does not yet “kick in.” The Congregation exercises its authority once a case is referred to it by the local bishop. The bishop makes the decision as to whether a case will be referred. In most instances, unless the allegation proves manifestly false, it must be reported to the Congregation.Further, on receiving an allegation (and this may apply to Msgr Kurzaj's current role):
The bishop appoints an investigator. The investigator has the obligation and authority to collect the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegation so that the bishop can make a determination about its truthfulness and what further action he would recommend to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The investigator often uses the expert services of others to assist with the investigation. In the United States, the bishop also makes use of the services of his Diocesan Review Board, a panel of experts, to help him review the allegation and associated information.Regarding the possibility that allegations may turn out to be false, we see:
As with all accusations brought to authorities, not all of them turn out to be true. In all cases, a thorough investigation is made to ascertain the truth of the allegation. The rights of everyone must be respected during this phase. If this process determines that the accusation was false, the good reputation of the cleric needs to be repaired. The Essential Norms state that every step possible must be made to restore the good name of those who have been falsely accused and whose good reputation might have been illegitimately harmed.Regarding confidentiality of the proceedings, we see:
The word “secret” is a literal translation of the Latin word “secretum.” The better translation would be “confidential.” Church law does require that formal trials and other processes that lead to the imposition of penalties be dealt with confidentially. This is meant to protect the accused, the witnesses, and the integrity of the Church process.I see in comments on various forums that people are calling Msgr Kurzaj a "nut". I see no indication of this, and in fact it appears that he is a much-admired figure in his native Poland. In the archdiocese he is clearly a senior priest of the sort who would be appointed by any archbishop to investigate a set of questionable circumstances in a parish, whether Anglican Use or any other flavor.
I don't buy into any particular narrative here, but I absolutely don't buy into a narrative that Abp Garcia-Siller is against reverent liturgy, against the OCSP, or has a bias against Fr Phillips. I am seeing a great deal that suggests there's much more to this story than we've seen, and in fact circumstances are probably changing rapidly. That Msgr Kurzaj should seem tired and even depressed when a visitor observed him on Monday seems to fit this version of events.
Mr Wilson has an obligation of confidentiality, as does everyone connected with investigating and pleading the case. On the other hand, I have a disturbing feeling that he's hiding behind the general obligation of confidentiality to give a false impression that there is no basis for a case against Fr Phillips. This would be false witness against Msgr Kurzaj and Abp Garcia-Siller and is reprehensible.
