Was Canon Law Followed?
“The diocese declined to respond.”
An interesting question has been raised by Catholic News Agency’s JD Flynn, (himself a canon lawyer):
“While Doherty said that he had observed Church law in suspending Rothrock, it is not clear that the bishop’s action was undertaken in accord with canon law on the subject.
The bishop’s decree indicated that he had suspended the priest in accord with canon 1333 of the Code of Canon Law. The canon describes the formal penalty of suspension issued after a formal penal process- a canonical trial or an administrative penal process. Such a process determines whether a person has committed a “delict”- a crime in Church law.
CNA asked the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana to clarify whether the priest was accused of a particular canonical crime, and whether he had been formally sanctioned with suspension following a canonical process- a procedure which ordinary takes weeks or more to complete.
The diocese declined to respond to CNA’s questions.”
Users Today : 14
Total Users : 152646
Total views : 501087
Who's Online : 0
40 Replies to “Was Canon Law Followed?”
Speaking of canon law, I have heard the bishop is not performing confirmations this year and is delegating the task to the pastors at the church. It would seem canon law 884 allows this it necessity requires it. I am interested in knowing the what the necessity is that requires the bishop to delegate confirmation to his priests, when canon law says the bishop is to perform that duty, or ensure another bishop performs it. Is it his busy schedule attending car shows? Is it the dangers of COVID-19?
Is it too dangerous to come a parish and administer the sacrament of confirmation, but not too dangerous to spend 2 days in Carmel saying all the Masses there and meeting with groups that support BLM, while refusing to even say hello to his own parishioners who were there to defend the his own diocese?
This is getting completely out of hand. He is running out of friends quickly, and he has irreparably damaged his relationship with a large number of the laity, his own employees, as well as the clergy. Oh, and now he is no friend of BLM either after his latest statement. Game over man.
Has anyone else noticed how bishop likes to reference the Catholic “rules books”, like Canon Law or General Instruction…? I recall 3X recently and when researched, he is “misleading” at best.
Note his June 25 10 page document to re-open Churches.
Page 3, #2-x-v where it says it’s the norm in the US to receive Holy Communion in the hand….per the General Instruction of the RomanMissal. I checked on USCCB and it says nothing of the sort.
What do you do when your shepherd is a “mis-leader”???
You pray like Heaven for the guy. It doesn’t go down well at their personal judgments for shepherds who cause the flock to stray. The Master kind of takes it personally. Ever hear of the millstone? It’s our Blessed Lord at his “pastoral” best. Matthew 18:6
“…but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Yep, it is very sad. It is either ignorance, or intentionally misleading. Either option is very bad for a bishop.
I read in today’s Catholic Moment of a few priest assignments. Notable were 2 priests assigned to Holy Spirits Geist, neither of which are Fr Richard Doerr, who initially was assigned there when assignments were announced. Curious as to why he is now not going there and if he is staying at OLMC. Of course, no explanation from Bishop Doherty.
I saw the new assignments, too. But, we’ll never get an explanation. If Fr. Richard stays at OLMC, then they should leave every. single. priest. in. the. diocese. exactly where they are. They would be breaking their own explanations of why priests had to move if they let him stay. Of course, they’ve lied and been dishonest this whole time about UinH. Why should any of it surprise me? We are orphans, all.
Fr. Richard Doerr to Kokomo. Fr. Schocklee to OLMC, Fr. Rowland to HSG.
Check that, source says he was wrong. I apologize for the mistakd
This beautifully sums up what I’ve feared for Fr. Rothrock: that surely a priest can’t just be thrown into “priest jail” indefinitely simply because the bishop disagreed with him. There are clear procedures the bishop must follow, and clearly this bishop did not.
The Bishop said: “serious consequences of that article are still playing out among us, and in the wider community. I chose the suspension provided for in church law. ” They seem to be now downplaying that church law was invoked. The article says “Removing a pastor from office involuntarily requires a specific canonical process.”
The Bishop wants to cover his behind after he realized what a mess he was in. How can anyone trust him as a father?
This article is just the tip of the iceberg. The removal of EVERY pastor for the Uniting in Heath plan is being done almost certainly without following canon law. A bishop has to follow canon law in order to remove a pastor from his assignment. In order for a pastor to be removed there is long list of requirements. These include being able to demonstrate that the pastors ministry has been harmful or ineffective.
Nowhere does it state that a pastor can be moved because the a bishop is upset that the pastor thinks the bishops pastoral plan is a hot mess. Which it is. This is dictated under canon 1740. It must be proven that a pastors ministry has resulted in damage to the faithful.
There are 5 causes for the removal of a pastor in canon 1741.
1. Detriment or Disturbance to Eccliastical Communion
2. Ineptitude or Infirmity
3. Loss of Good Reputation or Aversion to the Pastor
4. Neglect or Violation of Parochial Duties
5. Poor Administration of Temporal Affairs
Notice there is a NOT a #6 stating: “Disagreement with New Corporate Pastoral Plan and Parish Modeling Programs
Also, I should note, it is good for the bishop that canon 1741 lists the reasons that a PASTOR may be removed, and not a BISHOP. Because I think a strong case could be made for EVERY single one of those reasons.
What can we do? Can the laity engage a canon lawyer on their behalf and on behalf of priests?
There is probably a difference between giving a new assignment and actually suspending/removing.
I wonder what it means to move a pastor to a new assignment that is no longer a pastor role. Would that be considered a removal, or still just a new assignment?
Yes. Canon lawyers can be hired by anyone at anytime.
This article brings up several questions. We find out that there is a canonical process for suspending Fr Rothrock and one for removing him as pastor. Did this happen in the course of three days? The bishop only alluded to a conversation, so how is this due process? Is there any longer due process allowed to any of our priests in this country? Are they simply at the whim of their bishops and the bishops’ temper? How many priests around the country have been exiled with no due process? And if there is a canonical process for removing pastors, than why has been ignored in this diocese’s Uniting the Heart? Consider how many pastors were relieved of their parishes! My last question concerns the canon lawyers in this diocese. They are surely aware of how the chancery is not following canon law. How have they been silenced? What is the price they pay if they object to how priests are treated? What have priests suffered who tried to have this conversation with the bishop? All of the diocesan statements will not help at this point. The heart is broken. And it’s not the laity or the priests who have broken it.
Wow, just wow. Does anyone know if there is a way to request some kind of audit of whether the diocese has broken canon law with Fr. Rothrock and the other priests? Does anyone higher up provide oversight? How do we get the ball rolling?
An appeal can be made to Archbishop Thompson of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis and the papal nuncio in Washington D.C. can be copied.
Unfortunately there won’t be much traction.
The bishop is more sensitive to civil law than ecclesial (canon law), having spent most of his priesthood in school and hospital administration.
Huh. Your comment got me thinking and actually helped me today. The part about the bishop seeing things more through civil law and the type of school/hospital admin work he was used to. I do and always have prayed for our bishop but I could not understand the approach he has chosen to diocesan governing. But this makes sense. People high up in admin of hospitals and schools are focused on systems, uniformity, regulations, etc. Which can be a strength in those places. But if your mission becomes about souls and being their pastor and for priests a father, then just trying to build or enforce regulation heavy, uniform systems does not fit. Well, I will still keep praying but thank you for giving me a piece of insight.
I dimly remember a private group called something like “The St Joseph Foundation” (?) a group of canon lawyers who carry the laity’s just complaints to the Vatican if they are ignored after going through “regular” channels. Search for them and get them to read this blog and advise you, work out how to present your case in Rome.
AAAND here we go again.
The Congregation for the Bishops
Palazzo della Congregazioni, Piazza Pio XII,
10, 00193 Roma, Italy
Bishop Timothy L. Doherty, S.T.L, Ph.D.
610 Lingle Avenue
Lafayette, IN 47901
The Most Reverend Christophe Pierre
Apostolic Nuncio to the United States
3339 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20008-3610
The Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez
President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 Fourth St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20017
The updated Bishop’s statement from July 8 makes no mention of canon 1333, but claims that “Bishop Doherty *ASKED* Father Theodore Rothrock to step aside from public ministry because of the division and damage” (emphasis added). I think the change in tune is precisely because they realized how badly they have stepped in it in so many ways. In addition to bowing to the mob, betraying their flock and siding with anti-Catholic Marxists, they have violated Canon Law with regard to Fr. Rothrock’s treatment. But then, isn’t that par for the course? I feel so bad for priests in this diocese… they must all be be so demoralized right now.
Well, he is on record, in writing, TWICE, saying it was a suspension according to canon law. The receipts are right there for everyone to see, I don’t know how the diocese can now pretend they just nicely “asked” Fr. Ted to step aside like it was a voluntary mutual thing. Nice try though!
It sounds like he says whatever he needs to make people on both sides happy. To BLM and CARI, he says he suspended him according to canon law. Several days letter, he says Fr. Ted agreed to step aside with a mutual understanding to try to appease the people within the diocese who are upset with the suspension.
Which one is it? It can’t be both.
My brother is a priest in the diocese, and demoralized is a good, if understated way of putting it. The day after the announcement after Fr. Rothrock’s defenestration, he texted me:
“To borrow from Capt. Jack Aubrey: “’The simple truth is that not all of us become the men we hoped we might be.’ There are many such men like that, and when there are difficult decisions to be made, it is revealed who those men are.”
Tell your brother that every priest called in for an interview by the bishop should invest in one of those pocket tape recorders disguised as a pen, and record the interview. Keep it save and give one or more copies of it to trusted friends, preferably lay friends, for safe-keeping. Don’t let on about it until / unless the bishop lies about what went on in the interview. Then he has the choice of telling the bishop he recorded the interview (but don’t tell him how!) or just giving a transcript to the authorities he appeals to.
Every priest under a bishop they can’t trust should invest in one of these “spy” tape recorders. And in the interests of TRUTH< a bishop has no right to forbid this; if he does, he's afraid of the truth.
PRIEST LIVES MATTER!
PRIEST LIVES MATTER!
Let’s watch our grammar – it’s either Priests’ Lives Matter, or Priest’s life Matters.
Then “Black Lives Matter” is bad grammar?
The diocese is starting a new fundraising program. I can’t support this in light of our Bishop’s actions
I was already not giving to Fruitful Harvest because of UIH. Now I’m feeling ultra cautious in giving to my parish — where I want my money to stay. I do not want to contribute further to the folly of the overpriced Tipton center. I pray that the bishop and vicar general understand the hurt they’ve caused!
WHERE FOR THE LOVE OF MONEY ARE THE DETAILS ABOUT TIPTON. I’VE HEARD THEY WENT OVER BUDGET BY MILLIONS!! RED WOLF, CAN YOU DO YOUR MAGIC HERE?
Yes, yes, yes!! Please look into this if at all possible. Lots of rumblings about this construction/renovation project. Best case scenario is gross mismanagement of the construction budget–the diocese is in a deep hole because of ridiculous overspending on this one project.
Perhaps the supporters of the once “Biennial Fruitful Harvest Appeal” should reconsider their future donations to this new “Annual Appeal”! If they “diocese” claim they will be forthcoming in where exactly those donations are allocated to perhaps they need to start with the salaries of bishops employees.
How totally and completely predictable…”The diocese declined to respond to CNA’s questions…”
The diocese declines to respond to anything that matters. The diocese declines to listen to us. The diocese declines to do anything but tell us to pray, pay and obey.
This diocese is IN decline. Fr. Rothrock — you are NOT forgotten. You and ALL OUR PRIESTS are in our prayers!
Agree!
I think you have those steps wrong. “Pray, Pay and Obey”
The diocese wants those steps to be,
PAY, Pray and Obey”!
Besides the Sunday Mass collection there is the diocesan appeal to the tune of several almost 10 million dollars (used to be biannually). Wonder what it will be now that their appeal will be Annual? I’d guess 5 million.
So after the tithing and mass collections comes at least 12 special collections for various causes throughout the year. Oh… not to mention the Seminarian Fund Appeal annually.
Seems to me their hands are out all the time!!!
American bishops don’t need our money. They’ve got Uncle Sam dishing out covid-dough. Maybe they can get him to enact a religion-tax like in Germany; Then they’ll be on the gravy train for life: Empty churches. No annoying laity. No vocations. No real work to do. Money in the bank. Jetting around the country attending lots of well-catered, talky-synods. A fawning press doing stories about how progressive and erudite they are. What’s not to like? …. if your objective in life, as Matthew 4:8-9 points out, is to obtain: “…all the kingdoms of the world and their glory…”
…if only you: “…fall down and worship me.” – Satan
If they only knew the very short count of years that lie ahead for most of them…
Pray for the bishops.