As Carolyn says, “Our most potent force is the truth.” Amen. The truth has a way of bubbling up.

Our small church here in western massachusetts was closed very abruptly and unfairly, with little to no lay involvement. We protested. The track record of all that happened went to the bishop, who did nothing. He would not even send us a copy of the decree. We were encouraged to collapse in a heap, “nothing you can do”, yada yada. Instead, we went to Rome.

You must understand that the Roman Catholic church has a very peculiar set of rules. As Carolyn says, you are encouraged to “tell no one” and send information only to the Congregation for the Clergy (who supposedly watch over the parishes). This is ostensibly for propriety and to avoid giving scandal, but the real purpose appears to be to keep everything within the loop.

If changes are warranted, the higher ups simply tap the offending bishop or priest on the shoulder, pass the word, and, very quietly, changes are made. For example, Fr. Abuser might be shuffled off to another parish. Or, in the case of a disputed merger, Fr. My-Way-Or-The-Highway might suddenly have an epiphany and do a 180 on his opposition to the merger. The laity are left scratching their head, and wondering why, but what has really happened is that the laity have been listened to. They just don’t know it. This hiding of information keeps the laity off-balance and weak.

We did file an appeal, but decided to go against the grain by also informing those at the local level (bishop, pastor, parish council), so that the flow of information was not restricted. This was done in the belief that the information is as important as the dispensation from on high. We copied everyone everything of importance.

What happened next was sort of interesting. The papal nuncio in Washington (though whom you file the papers) was prompt, efficient and fair, processing paperwork faithfully within days. Within a few months we had our answers from Rome, wheraras the local bishop had ignored us and dragged us out for years. I know “months” is not much better than “years”, but still.

In the decree which denied our recourse (you knew that was going to happen, didn’t you?) we received some very interesting information. In substantiating the decree, the Congregation repeated the falsehoods that we had already heard from the local clergy, no doubt relying on their word, but more interesting, we learned that our pastor, who had steadfastly maintained that the decision to close was all because of the bishop, and that he (the pastor) opposed it, had actually sent a letter to the bishop recommending our closure! This was one of the “proofs” cited to us to justify the closing!

Naturally, we are appealing the decree. Will we win? Probably not. However, our experience does prove that the truth has a way of bubbling up. We know that our bishop has plans to close more parishes, indeed there is a very large movement in the U.S. to ignore “parishes” altogether. Many bishops now define them as “communities” or sometimes “established communities”, because that makes it a whole lot easier to control them. Nevertheless, parishes have rights.

Our experience also proves that new information may come to light. Finally, it proves that if you keep plugging away, you can chip away at this system. When we started, we were told that no lay people can file a recourse, and that we would not hear back one word from Rome. Not true.

So, if you have been wronged, say so. Tell them off, and state the case. It won’t hurt, and it may help. Don’t give them the satisfaction of collapsing in a heap, because that’s exactly what they want you to do.

At any rate after much searching, here is the rite for getting rid of a cardinals, bishops and archbishops

Website for Latin:
http://members.aol.com/liturgialatina/pontificale/092.htm

Website for English and Latin
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/March00/Inbox.html

These rules were written by Benedict XIV. This is what the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia had to say about Benedict XIV who wrote these procedures for getting rid of errant bishops: “Benedict XIV is best known to history as a student and a scholar… his enormous application coupled with more than ordinary cleverness of mind made him one of the most erudite men of his time and gave him the distinction of being perhaps the greatest scholar among the popes.”

It looks to me like this guy was well aware of the evil that could exist under a red hat. It also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is precedent for removing bishops who sexually abuse and those like Law who have abused their office. The following are the first two deprivations cited in the text:

“We deprive thee of the rights and privileges of the episcopal dignity, symbolized in this pallium, since thou hast abused them.”

[Then, even if the degradandus be a mere bishop, the degrading prelate removes his miter, saying:]

We strip thy head of this miter, emblem of the episcopal dignity, since thou hast befouled it by thy ill government.

The simple reason for “failure” was that the Vatican would not accept the premise that canon law is a means of recourse for laity use toward this end.

As you have stated above, no bishop or cardinal “with a spine” is present in church hierarchy.

Simply said, they make the law, and they enforce the law – or not!

The full text with supporting documentation is online at http://www.nhcatholics.org/download3May2005.htm , the website of NH Catholics for Moral Leadership. NHCML itself did not file the case, but a number of signatories were members of the group.

When it comes to Rome, secrecy prevails. We were told not to tell anyone we even filed the case, and indeed we did not until it became clear it was a futile exercise. There is no trial hearing as we understand it, where live testimony and cross-examination take place. It is all done in exchanges of written papers. If decisions are rendered, they may not be revealed for months, or who knows how long. Forget transparency.

For a more complete account of the delays and politics of canon law, read “Vows of Silence” by Jason Berry and the late Gerald Renner. The book relates the case of sexual abuse charges by survivors of Marcial Maciel, the recently deceased founder of the Legion of Christ religious order. The merits of the case, the facts on the ground, are hardly the focus. The impact on the “faithful” and how things appear relative to the power and reputation of the hierarchy are far more germane.

What makes our canon case worth the effort (and by inference yours, should you proceed) is to have the full record on the record, so there can be no question of what the Vatican was informed about, when, and the inaction that followed. Making sure there is internet access to whatever is filed and eventually ignored also helps researchers in the future. Our most potent force is the truth. Also, your efforts might make a personnel file, or alternately, diocesan secret archives. Exposing lies is always a good of its own.

One ancillary point to bear in mind is that a bishop holds the plenitude of all executive, legislative and juridical power IN HIS PERSON. More than one canonist has pointed out to us that essentially, canon law means what a bishop wants it to mean. Straining gnats of interpretation and jurisdiction and technicality and liability and procedure mock the real as it exists in God, leaving but a shadow of the substance of a claim.

Rarely is there what I would define as justice. It’s their game, not ours. Still, every once in a great eternity, a case might prove to be the exception. But when it is, watch for the bishop to spin his participation in the winning side.