Impromptu gathering

After word went out yesterday via email to Society members about the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dismissing Roy Bourgeois from Maryknoll and laicizing him, Fr. Jim Lynch, vicar general, invited Society members to an impromptu meeting in the Asia Room at 7:00 p.m.

Word of mouth informed those who, like me, hadn't yet checked my email, and 45 of the house's 85 residents attended (many having already left for the holiday.)

So we'd all be on the same page, Jim read the official Maryknoll statement to those present. Then he opened the floor to questions.

The mood ranged from sadness to anger, but I don't think anyone was surprised. The anger, too, was spread around from anger at the Vatican for taking this extraordinary step to anger at Roy for dragging Maryknoll through this mess. Several points of clarification surfaced.

• As with other members who leave the Society, Maryknoll will continue to financially assist Roy "in his transition" (meaning for as long as Roy needs and requests it).

• Although Maryknoll is under the Congregation for the Evangelization of the Peoples, because of Roy's public action at the "attempted ordination" of a  woman, the CDF felt it had cause to directly intervene in his dismissal and laicization, even though the canonical requirement of a "decisive majority" of Council Members (two to dismiss, three abstentions) had not been met.

• Since Roy gave up directing the School of the Americas Watch some time ago, the action by the CDF should not prevent the SOAW from requesting funds to help with their many newsletters, all of which emphasize peace and justice issues in the Latin America.

• We do not know what canonical recourse Roy has and only he can answer whether he will continue to employ the services of Fr. Tom Doyle as his canon lawyer.

For what it's worth, Roy has already changed his voicemail message, stating his affiliation with the School of America's Watch and WomenChurch

********


Here is the Maryknoll statement:

The Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith
Canonically Dismisses Roy Bourgeois

Maryknoll, New York – November 19, 2012 – The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on October 4, 2012, canonically dismissed Roy Bourgeois from the Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, also known as the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers. The decision dispenses the Maryknoll priest from his sacred bonds.

As a priest during 2008, Mr. Bourgeois participated in the invalid ordination of a woman and a simulated Mass in Lexington, Kentucky. With patience, the Holy See and the Maryknoll Society have encouraged his reconciliation with the Catholic Church.

Instead, Mr. Bourgeois chose to campaign against the teachings of the Catholic Church in secular and non-Catholic venues. This was done without the permission of the local U.S. Catholic Bishops and while ignoring the sensitivities of the faithful across the country. Disobedience and preaching against the teaching of the Catholic Church about women’s ordination led to his excommunication, dismissal and laicization.

Mr. Bourgeois freely chose his views and actions, and all the members of the Maryknoll Society are saddened at the failure of reconciliation. With this parting, the Maryknoll Society warmly thanks Roy Bourgeois for his service to mission and all members wish him well in his personal life. In the spirit of equity and charity, Maryknoll will assist Mr. Bourgeois with this transition.

Maryknoll votes on Bourgeois' dismissal from order

Maryknoll votes on Bourgeois' dismissal from order

Well, troops, the above article in the National Catholic Reporter (click the headline to read) certainly shattered the cyber and actual silence around Maryknoll these past few days.

U.S. Regional Superior Mike Duggan returned from an otherwise uplifting meeting with other religious superiors and Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany only to learn his (Mike's) name was quite prominently and erroneously linked to certain quotes in the NCR article.

Long story short, ignoring that the vote was supposedly a secret ballot and who exactly voted how and that Fr. José Arámburu and not Fr. Paul Masson is our vicar general and who said what to whom and when, the fact remains: Yes, a vote was taken last December 12 (The Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, if you're into irony) on whether or not to dismiss Fr. Roy Bourgeois from Maryknoll and the result was two votes for dismissal and three abstentions.

How does canon law regard abstentions?  If they don't count at all, do two "yes" votes constitute an "absolute majority" of those present?

The upshot of this continued ambiguity is that the proverbial ball (or long knife, if you will) is now back in the Vatican's court, as only they have the final word.

But just for the record, as I have read all kinds of misinformation on the blogosphere:

1) Fr. Roy's excommunication has already occurred "in latae sententiae" (automatically, on performance of a forbidden act). In this case, it was his active participation in the attempted ordination of a woman to the Roman Catholic priesthood back in 2008. The two warning letters were sent to fulfill canonical mandates in order to drive home the seriousness of the action. There is no "formal declaration of excommunication."

2) Our constitutions notwithstanding, Maryknoll will not deny Fr. Roy his living allowance and health coverage. I heard this directly from our superior general himself. I blogged this and posted this on NCR's comments section after several notable people expressed shock and disappointment that Maryknoll would "cut Fr. Roy loose" after decades of dedicated service. The cynic in me would suggest that such an allegation only serves to garner sympathy and evoke outrage by casting the Society as the villain. Our constitutions state that a dismissed member has no claim on support for past services, they do not prevent the Society from acting in a compassionate way toward a former member.

3) If the dismissal is approved by Rome, and there is still some doubt given the inconclusive vote, the only thing that will actually change is the addition of the word "former" to Roy's title of Maryknoll Father.

4) The question of women's ordination will not go away or die.

(And I'll bet some of you wish I had maintained cyber silence even longer.)

Not yet a done deal

A NYT article dated Aug. 8, 2011 (and countless subsequent blogs and posts notwithstanding), the formal dismissal of Fr. Roy Bourgeois from Maryknoll is not a done deal, Superior General Father Ed Dougherty told a gathering of Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers last Tuesday evening.

I watched a video of that meeting this morning. You get a different feel for the tenor of that gathering by seeing and hearing the questions that even my facility for twisting words and phrases beyond recognition can capture.

Although the Second Canonical Warning has indeed been delivered, the law requires a minimum of 15 days before the final letter requesting dismissal is sent to Rome for review and validation. And, of course, canon law allows Roy to formally challenge this.

In response to one question, Doc said the Society is not compelled to act within a given time frame. "We are a people of hope," he said at one point, and expressed his desire that some sort of accommodation may yet be worked out. He saw a small glimmer of hope the last time he spoke with Roy over the phone and Roy said he did not want to be dismissed.

Complicating the discussion considerably, however, has been the refusal by Roy in recent days to take any phone calls from the superior general, referring him instead to communicate through his canon lawyer. Roy also asked all future correspondence be in writing, something Doc said he felt uncomfortable doing, given Roy's penchant for maintaining an open hotline to the NCR and other publications.

At last Tuesday's meeting, other salient points that were raised which I did not report on in the previous post, dealt with the impression that Roy has somehow been denied due process.

Yet some years ago when other members were dismissed from the Society, the process was quite rapid, while in Roy's case it has gone on close to three years. Following his excommunication in 2009, "The Vatican wanted to give Roy time to reflect on his actions," Dougherty said, so they were willing to give Maryknoll time.

The case of an Augustinian priest was compared to that of Roy. The priest voluntarily stopped saying public Mass until such time (if ever) women are called to orders. The main difference is that the Augustinian acted privately and did not drag his order into the fray, whereas even to this day Roy continues to speak out openly with the MM firmly, albeit tentatively, affixed to his name.

So there you have it, folks. Less than five years after the Holy Father did away with Limbo, Maryknoll seems to be embracing it as our newest mission territory. (Is there a flag for that?) And therein we presently dwell.

*****************
Maryknoll Society Members who want to learn the INSIDE inside scoop on this meeting may log onto Maryknoll.net and read Knollnews 2.0 in the Missioners' Forum section on the Bulletin Board! (Hint: I name names!) Hey, this might entice more men to join, just to find out what Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers are really like!

Letter of the Law

An expert in canonical matters informed me over the salad bar that I, and by extension former superior general Fr John Sivalon, are mistaken as to what vote by the council is required. Sivalon used the term "unanimous" but the expert contended it only need be "decisive."

He then "invited" me to look it up for myself, which till now I had been loathe to do as this blog was originally created to report on what guys were saying rather than fact-checking their groundless rumors.

Since this issue is serious enough, I took said expert up on his suggestion and looked it up on Google under "Dismissal from Apostolic Life." That being said, I reread this three times and could not find the word "decisive" nor, for that matter, any reference to involuntary laicization as a punishment. (It's a good thing Our Lord vacated his grave, or else he'd be spinning in it.)

Here, then, is the crux of the matter, with salient parts highlighted:

++++++++++++++++
Art. 3.

DISMISSAL OF MEMBERS

Can. 694 §1. A member must be held as ipso facto dismissed from an institute who:

1/ has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;

2/ has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly.

§2. In these cases, after the proofs have been collected, the major superior with the council is to issue without any delay a declaration of fact so that the dismissal is established juridically.

Can. 695 §1. A member must be dismissed for the delicts mentioned in cann. ⇒ 1397, ⇒ 1398, and ⇒ 1395, unless in the delicts mentioned in ⇒ can. 1395, §2, the superior decides that dismissal is not completely necessary and that correction of the member, restitution of justice, and reparation of scandal can be resolved sufficiently in another way.

§2. In these cases, after the proofs regarding the facts and imputability have been collected, the major superior is to make known the accusation and proofs to the member to be dismissed, giving the member the opportunity for self-defense. All the acts, signed by the major superior and a notary, together with the responses of the member, put in writing and signed by that member, are to be transmitted to the supreme moderator.

Can. 696 §1. A member can also be dismissed for other causes provided that they are grave, external, imputable, and juridically proven such as: habitual neglect of the obligations of consecrated life; repeated violations of the sacred bonds; stubborn disobedience to the legitimate prescripts of superiors in a grave matter; grave scandal arising from the culpable behavior of the member; stubborn upholding or diffusion of doctrines condemned by the magisterium of the Church; public adherence to ideologies infected by materialism or atheism; the illegitimate absence mentioned in ⇒ can. 665, §2, lasting six months; other causes of similar gravity which the proper law of the institute may determine.

§2. For the dismissal of a member in temporary vows, even causes of lesser gravity established in proper law are sufficient.

Can. 697 In the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 696, if the major superior, after having heard the council, has decided that a process of dismissal must be begun:

1/ the major superior is to collect or complete the proofs;

2/ the major superior is to warn the member in writing or before two witnesses with an explicit threat of subsequent dismissal unless the member reforms, with the cause for dismissal clearly indicated and full opportunity for self-defense given to the member; if the warning occurs in vain, however, the superior is to proceed to another warning after an intervening space of at least fifteen days;

3/ if this warning also occurs in vain and the major superior with the council decides that incorrigibility is sufficiently evident and that the defenses of the member are insufficient, after fifteen days have elapsed from the last warning without effect, the major superior is to transmit to the supreme moderator all the acts, signed personally and by a notary, along with the signed responses of the member.

Can. 698 In all the cases mentioned in cann. ⇒ 695 and ⇒ 696, the right of the member to communicate with and to offer defenses directly to the supreme moderator always remains intact.

Can. 699 §1. The supreme moderator with the council, which must consist of at least four members for validity, is to proceed collegially to the accurate consideration of the proofs, arguments, and defenses; if it has been decided through secret ballot, the supreme moderator is to issue a decree of dismissal with the reasons in law and in fact expressed at least summarily for validity.

§2. In the autonomous monasteries mentioned in ⇒ can. 615, it belongs to the diocesan bishop, to whom the superior is to submit the acts examined by the council, to decide on dismissal.

Can. 700 A decree of dismissal does not have effect unless it has been confirmed by the Holy See, to which the decree and all the acts must be transmitted; if it concerns an institute of diocesan right, confirmation belongs to the bishop of the diocese where the house to which the religious has been attached is situated. To be valid, however, the decree must indicate the right which the dismissed possesses to make recourse to the competent authority within ten days from receiving notification. The recourse has suspensive effect.

Can. 701 By legitimate dismissal, vows as well as the rights and obligations deriving from profession cease ipso facto.

Nevertheless, if the member is a cleric, he cannot exercise sacred orders until he finds a bishop who receives him into the diocese after an appropriate probation according to the norm of ⇒ can. 693 or at least permits him to exercise sacred orders.

Can. 702 §1. Those who depart from a religious institute legitimately or have been dismissed from it legitimately can request nothing from the institute for any work done in it.

§2. Nevertheless, the institute is to observe equity and the charity of the gospel toward a member who is separated from it.

Can. 703 In the case of grave external scandal or of most grave imminent harm to the institute, a member can be expelled immediately from a religious house by the major superior or, if there is danger in delay, by the local superior with the consent of the council. If it is necessary, the major superior is to take care to begin a process of dismissal according to the norm of law or is to refer the matter to the Apostolic See.

Can. 704 In the report referred to in ⇒ can. 592, §1, which is to be sent to the Apostolic See, mention is to be made of members who have been separated from the institute in any way.

I stand corrected...sort of

A phone call today from a concerned and well-informed Maryknoller convinced me my contention that L'Affair Bourgeois is all about our oath of obedience and not women's ordination is not quite accurate. Or may not be accurate at all.

He deftly laid out the case that MANY Maryknollers over the years have disobeyed orders from superiors and then went on to enjoy blissfully undisturbed lives sans threat of dismissal. He also mentioned that those few Maryknollers (four, by my count) who were dismissed in recent years had other issues and extenuating circumstances.

He contended that had the Super G actually ordered Roy either to return to the Center or take an overseas assignment and then had Roy refused, the disobedience card might have been more convincingly played. What removes the disobedience fig leaf (my words, not his) from the argument is the double whammy of dismissal AND laicization. Other guys who were dismissed were not laicized, even though most did not join another diocese or order. This lays to rest the apparently false notion that a dismissed priest must be laicized because you can't have priests freelancing, as it were.

My caller insists it's all about Rome equating ordination of women with child molestation as equally offensive to the Church and wanting to make an example of him by putting the screws to Maryknoll (again, I am paraphrasing).

OK, so it's not about obedience. But the anger remains among some Maryknollers (I never took a poll) who resent Roy's consistently dragging Maryknoll's name into his crusades, from his disappearing act in El Salvador in the 1980's to his inviting a woman to concelebrate Mass in Minneapolis to the more widely publicized actions of recent years.

They point to Father Miguel D'Escoto's equally impressive actions on behalf of justice with nary a mention of Maryknoll's name and wonder why Roy didn't or couldn't do that.

Then we have the canonical conundrum that the unanimous votes for dismissal might not even be there. Perhaps that's the strategy. Father General could then tell his superiors in Rome that he did all that canon law requires and if they want to be rid of this "meddlesome priest" (a la Thomas Becket) they might have to do the deed themselves.

Granted the Fourth of July is a slow news cycle, but the drama contues.