Brotherhood or Balance Sheets?

Our last post discussed diocesan care and compensation policies for disabled clergy.

Today’s will address the policies in this regard for unassigned clergy. Both policies were signed in June and are currently in force.

Three months have now passed since the diocese announced the suspension of Fr. Theodore Rothrock, who, one must surmise, is subject to these policies.

The full policy may be read below this post.

Readers will note many similarities to the one previously discussed, but there were a few things that stood out to us here, notably the discussion of sustenance (sustentatio):

Remuneration (remuneratio) is compensation owed a cleric who dedicates himself to ministry. All clerics, regardless of their ability to do ministry, are entitled to sustenance (sustentatio). Sustenance is support necessary to provide for basic needs. A diocesan bishop is obliged to see that sustenance is provided for all priests, even for priests under canonical penalty, if they are not receiving remuneration. He may make provision for sustenance indirectly, such as through government programs (Social Security, Medicare) or even private sources.”

(emphasis added)

Rothrock’s suspension was announced initially to be in accord with canon 1333 (the legality of this has since been questioned), but he would still be owed sustenance. The statement referenced here indicates that the diocesan bishop could consider himself to have discharged his responsibility to provide sustenance to a sanctioned priest by pointing him to the nearest welfare or unemployment office.

What does one say at this point? Even if one supported sanctioning priests in circumstances like Rothrock’s, would one also support pulling the plug on their living and leaving them to drain whatever savings they might have, find secular employment or apply for government benefits?

To us, this position, however it was intended, seems mean in every sense of the word, managing to be both embarrassingly Scroogey and unnecessarily harsh–especially when those affected by the policy may have served the Church for many decades before falling into disfavor for dubious offenses. It again begs the question of whether our diocese adopts such policies because of a bad financial situation or because of bad blood.

Let’s pass over the policy statement’s final assurance that this is all fully in accord with Catholic moral teaching.

With all due respect and charity: This is not going to end well.

Sure, we don’t need to promise to keep priests credibly accused of serious offenses on payroll for life, and it’s reasonable and even necessary to have policies to address that. But what happens when these policies hang over everyone’s head for much more minor infractions, or arguably, no real infraction at all?

This is not a selling point for vocations. This is the kind of thing that would send sensible young men running for the hills. Who wants to consecrate himself to God, to a life of celibacy, eschewing family and home, only to find himself years later expelled from his community, prohibited from sacramental ministry, and without practical support, for preaching too hard? How must the awareness of this type of policy be affecting those who currently serve as priests?

Opportunely, a reader just shared an article that articulates well the worldly spirit we must address and avoid:

“Mammon” is not just money. It is a whole way of looking at the world that cannot see beyond business plans, balance sheets, and newspaper headlines. The church leaders are too often held hostage by a materialistic and utilitarian understanding of the Church—as if it were just another 501(c)(3) government-approved charity, such as the Girl Scouts, the Rotary Club, or the United Way.

As such, the ecclesiastical structures are dominated not by Their Eminences, but by éminences grises—grey-suited men like Mother Teresa’s millionaire, who are laden with financial sense but no faith sense. The secular triumvirate that dominates our whole society also dominates the Church. That unelected triumvirate are the lawyers, the financial advisors, and the public relations experts. Deadly afraid of being sued, losing the Church’s assets, and losing face, the members of the hierarchy make cowardly decisions that have little do with the Faith and everything to do with protecting assets and asses.

Fr. Dwight Longnecker, “Mammon’s Grip on the Catholic Church.”

We ask you: Don’t stop praying for both the discernment and the courage needed to confront this wherever it is found.

_________________

Policy and Procedure for Unassigned Priests
Diocesan Policy Clergy 2020-02

Policy Purpose Statement:
Remuneration (remuneratio) is compensation owed a cleric who dedicates himself to ministry. All clerics, regardless of their ability to do ministry, are entitled to sustenance (sustentatio). Sustenance is support necessary to provide for basic needs. A diocesan bishop is obliged to see that sustenance is provided for all priests, even for priests under canonical penalty, if they are not receiving remuneration. He may make provision for sustenance indirectly, such as through government programs (Social Security, Medicare) or even private sources.

This policy defines sustenance, situations in which it applies, and outlines the procedures to be followed for priests who receive sustenance for reasons other than health.

Policy Scope:
This policy is applicable to all clergy of the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana.

Policy Adherence:
Adherence to this policy is mandatory for all clergy ministering in Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana.

The Policy
Priests Waiting to be Assigned
A currently unassigned priest, provided that he is unassigned for other than health-related reasons, shall be given an assignment as soon as is reasonably possible and practical as determined by the Ordinary provided that such assignment will not cause scandal among the Christian faithful.

For so long as a priest is unassigned for up to three (3) months for reasons that are imputable to the history or actions of the priest himself, the priest is still to be provided for. However, if he was otherwise eligible if he were assigned, it may be established from time to time by the Ordinary that such salary shall be reduced to the extent that such priest is the recipient of any income from other sources.

A priest that remains unassigned for more than three (3) months shall receive sustenance equal to forty percent (40%) of base salary for which he would otherwise be eligible if he were assigned, as established by Diocesan policy; provided, however, that such sustenance shall be reduced to the extent that the priest is the recipient of any income from other sources (reduction shall be at a rate 50% of amount secured from other sources (every dollar earned will lower base salary by $.50).

The priest will also be provided with health insurance and appropriate
Diocesan housing or the in the case he lives in his own residence, the
established monthly housing allowance. The monthly housing allowance will be set from time to time by the Ordinary.

If appropriate (as determined by the Ordinary in consultation with the
appropriate Diocesan staff), he shall also be strongly encouraged to engage in structured counseling as coordinated with the Vicar for Clergy or Diocesan staff. The counseling costs shall be submitted to the Diocese of Lafayette medical insurance provider. Alternatives must be approved by the Vicar for Clergy or Diocesan staff.

A priest who is supported under this section must confer monthly with the appointed designee of the Bishop.

Upon reaching the age of sixty-five (65), the priest shall, with the assistance of the Diocesan staff, apply for Social Security, Medicare, Parts A and B and any other federal and/ or state benefits for which he may qualify.

Those Declared Irregular for the Exercise of Orders
A priest who has been declared irregular for the exercise of orders pursuant to canon 1044 52, 20, if eligible, with the assistance of the Diocesan staff, shall first apply to the federal and/or state government for benefits for which he may qualify. As stated in canon 1044 20: The following are impeded from the exercise of orders: a person who is affected by amentia or some other psychic illness mentioned in canon 1041, n. I until the ordinary, after consulting an expert, permits the exercise of the order.”

If it is appropriate, the priest shall make every effort, with the assistance of the Vicar for Clergy and the Diocesan staff, to obtain employment in some other position that is in keeping with the dignity of the clerical state and will not cause scandal to the Christian Faithful. To the extent that this position provides a salary, the priest shall be entitled to retain this amount. However, should the priest be unable to pursue other employment positions, the Diocese will, pursuant to this section, provide sustenance to the priest in an amount equal to 40% of the full base salary for which he would otherwise be eligible if he were assigned; provided, however, that such sustenance shall be reduced to the extent that such priest is the recipient of any income from
other sources (reduction shall be at a rate 50% of amount secured from other sources). Accordingly, he must provide his most recent income tax return, or such portions of the income tax return to establish his total income on an annual basis and at such other times as may be requested by the Vicar for Clergy. This information will be used solely to provide the most effective means of assistance to the individual priest. Such information will otherwise remain confidential.

Such a priest will also be provided with health insurance and appropriate Diocesan housing or housing allowance.
Upon reaching the age of sixty-five (65), the priest shall, with the assistance of the Diocesan staff, apply for Social Security, Medicare, Parts A and B and any other federal and/ or state benefits for which he may qualify.

A priest who is supported by the Diocese under this section must confer
monthly with the appointed designee of the Bishop.

Those Unwilling to Accept an Assignment
Priests should undertake and fulfill faithfully any function which the Ordinary entrusts to them (c. 274 52). If an individual priest refuses to accept such a function, he shall receive a warning in writing that this failure could result in canonical penalties.

The priest shall be given 15 days from the date of the written warning either to assume the new assignment, or to offer reasons explaining his refusal. In the latter case, the Ordinary will judge whether or not the reasons suffice.

Given that the individual, through his refusal to exercise legitimately his priesthood at the service of the Diocese, has placed himself in an interim state (that is, not fulfilling an assignment nor on recognized retirement or leave), he cannot receive Diocesan financial support.

If appropriate, other sanctions and penalties may apply as well. Priests are reminded that they have the right to seek canonical advice from a canon lawyer approved by the diocesan bishop (canon 1483) and, in addition, when appropriate, to hierarchical recourse as determined by canons 1732-1739.

Policy Approval
By this directive, I hereby affirm that the processes and policies adopted with regards to the Policy and Procedure for Unassigned Priests are in accord with Catholic Moral Teachings and Principles.

This policy will periodically be modified or updated and all clergy will be responsible for following the most recent iteration.

Given at the Chancery of the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana on this 12th day of June in the year of Our Lord, 2020.
Most Reverend Timothy L. Doherty, S.T. ., Ph.D.
Bishop of the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana
Very Reverend Theodore C. Dudzinski, J.C.L.