The Worst Diocese on Earth

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
March 13, 2015

http://canonicalconsultation.com/blog.html

If the shoe fits, wear it, or so they say, and so I have concluded that the designation of W.D.O.E. (Worst Diocese on Earth) should be formally conferred upon the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The tipping point? This week's announcement to priests of the dismissal of Curtis Wehmeyer from the clerical state.

During the same week in which I began a series of posts describing how there is a witch hunt underway in Saint Paul (more to come on that), with many priests being targeted supposedly as a result of the Kinsale file review and almost all living in fear that they are just one unfounded accusation away from public humiliation and an end to their ministry, the Archdiocese took a novel approach to informing the presbyterate at large of Wehmeyer's dismissal: it sent them the news release, which included the statement 'all priests and parishes of the Archdiocese have been notified'.

There was a brief email along with the attachment which read:

Subject: Update - Curtis Wehmeyer

Dear Reverend Fathers and Deacons,

Attached is a statement to be publicly released shortly regarding the dismissal of Curtis Wehmeyer from the clerical state.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and please keep all affected in your prayers.

Thanks!

Anne

Anne Steffens | Interim Director

Office of Communications

Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

T: 651.291.4525

Contact: steffensa@archspm.org

Nothing further.

So, what is so bad about this? Well, first, it did not come from the Archbishop, who really should be the one to inform his priests of something as serious as the dismissal of one of their brothers.

More importantly, however, this means of communicating the decision fails to acknowledge how troubling priests find the idea of ex officio dismissal which, as an exception in the legal system of the Church, confers the most serious penalty possible upon a priest or deacon without any formal process. When there is a witch hunt taking place, notice of an ex officio dismissal can be perceived as a validation of the 'shoot first' mentality that already has many priests on edge.

For that reason, in announcing such a decision many bishops will take pains to reassure their clergy that such decisions are made rarely, under very limited circumstances, and only when the cleric's guilt is well established. I think many priests would have found it very helpful to hear, for instance,

that it is only in a few instances that canon law permits a priest to be returned to the lay state without a formal trial or administrative process. Given the current climate of fear and intimidation, I think they would have taken comfort in learning that canon law puts great emphasis on the judicial protections that we have come to associate with the right of defense, and that, therefore, the requirement for a judicial or administrative process can only be set aside when the offense of which the cleric is accused falls under the category of a grave delict, as outlined in Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, and when the cleric’s guilt is well established. Most bishops, I believe, would also have reminded their priests that in Curtis’s case, his guilt was established through his own admission and guilty plea.

Unfortunately, many priests are unaware of what is possible and impossible under canon law. Many were ordained at a time when penal sanctions were so rare that to even refer to the possibility as part of a seminary curriculum would have seemed a waste of time. The general confusion has only been made worse since the adoption of the 2001 procedures of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, because most of the practical information about those processes has been disseminated by accused clerics who are not reliable when it comes to the way in which their rights have or have not been violated. Therefore, many bishops would have seen this announcement as a teachable moment, when misconceptions could be addressed and some fears put to rest.

That would not be expedient, however, if those in authority wish to maintain an atmosphere of distrust and coercion. And, where the canonical basis for action is questionable or non-existent, providing such information can be counter-productive. So, allow me to point out some additional information which might be beneficial to the presbyterate in this Archdiocese and elsewhere.

First, the list of grave delicts for which the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state can be imposed sans trial or administrative process is exhaustive. If you are not accused of one of the crimes mentioned in Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 of the Substantive Norms of SST, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will not proceed. Moreover, while the Congregation has the ability to set aside prescription (the statute of limitations), they do not have the ability to derogate from other substantive laws. In other words, cases of sexual abuse of a minor can only be prosecuted as such if the victim's age at the time the offence was committed corresponds with the canonical age of majority at that time. Prior to 2001, the age of majority differed throughout the world. Since 1994, the age of the canonical crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the United States has been 18. Prior to 1994 it was 16. This is significant because the ages of the victims of some priests who have been publicly identified as having sexually abused minors, or whose file has been flagged for the same, might not support this designation.

There is also the question of which acts constitute sexual abuse. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People/Essential Norms suggests such a determination should be made in consultation with moral theologians. However, early on (2003) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provided American canonists with a list of acts recognized as contact and non-contact forms of sexual abuse. Non-contact acts included making sexual comments, exhibitionism, voyeurism, possessing and/or showing minors pornographic images. Contact acts included open-mouthed kissing, handling or fondling, oral sex, frottage, creating pornographic images of a minor, intercourse, bondage, sodomy, and bestiality. In addition, six factors were listed that were characteristic of sexually abusive situations: a lack of consent, ambivalence, exploitation, secrecy, force, and intent. Priests who are informed that their file has been flagged should insist on an explicit statement of what has been alleged, and then should compare that with what has been outlined here.

The national sexual abuse scandal of 2002 forced most dioceses to undergo a comprehensive file review at that time, to identify who would be restricted from ministry under the Charter (the lack of such a comprehensive review prior to 2013 is another argument in support of the W.D.O.E designation for Saint Paul and Minneapolis). As a result of those reviews, many bishops were anxious to see an abbreviated process for dismissal of clergy who had committed other serious acts of abuse (such as sexual abuse of adults, or- prior to 2010- sexual abuse of those who habitually lack the use of reason or, in other cases, men who had walked away from ministry years ago but who might still create liability for the diocese). After a great deal of controversy, in 2009 the Congregation for Clergy announced that it had been given special faculties to utilize a new, faster, administrative procedure for dismissing such priests. However, once again the criteria as to whom the procedure could be applied was extremely limited: those priests who had abandoned ministry more than five years previously, those who had attempted marriage, or those who had committed grave sins against the Sixth Commandment not including the sexual abuse of minors.

Unlike the CDF, the Congregation for Clergy was not able (nor was it willing) to set aside the canonical statute of limitations. So, the use of the special faculties for priests who had committed grave acts of sexual abuse was restricted to incidents that had occurred since 2004, approximately the same time period for which the longer, traditional penal trial to impose dismissal would be a possibility. And, the Congregation for Clergy insisted on the strict application of its procedural norms when applying the abbreviated process, including providing the right of defense to the cleric and giving him every opportunity to repent and return to active ministry.

Basically, what I have outlined here are the only ways in which a bishop can seek the dismissal from the clerical state of a priest who is unwilling to be returned to the lay state. Dismissal can also be imposed as a result of a penal trial, but in that case it is up to the turnus of judges to determine if and what penalty should be imposed. A bishop can impose other penalties upon a priest using his administrative authority (such as removing faculties), but those penalties cannot be perpetual and always must occur with the priest being given the right to respond to the accusations. Even removing a priest from his pastorate requires that the bishop employ the canonical process, including consultation with two experienced pastors whose opinions must be sought. And, any penalties imposed by the bishop are subject to appeal. If the bishop has not followed the rules or procedures established, his decision will always be overturned.

Given the extremely limited reasons for which a priest can incur a penalty, and given the even more limited means and time period in which such a penalty can be imposed, I suspect that in 'flagging' 250 files the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis has bitten off far more than it can chew. But then, what else would you expect from the Worst Diocese On Earth?