Doesn’t matter. All priests in South Bend must have faculties from the bishop of South Bend, and are under his authority in other ways as well.
And a cleric living in concubinage is in violation of canon law. The only thing protecting McBrien from laicization is the absence of testosterone in the bloodstreams of the relevant authorities.
McBrien is a priest of the Diocese of Bridgeport, IIRC. Which is an indictment of the bishop of Bridgeport, as well as the bishop of South Bend.
You wrote:
“Doesn’t matter. All priests in South Bend must have faculties from the bishop of South Bend, and are under his authority in other ways as well.”
You still don’t see the simple point. I check and McBrien is not a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. He also, however, is not a diocesan priest. At least he’s not a diocesan priest in Indiana! He’s incardinated in CT, not IN. Even if the Indiana ordinary denied him faculties, that would not stop him from teaching because he is from another diocese. Anything of any seriousness would be appealed to Rome and might take years to resolve.
“And a cleric living in concubinage is in violation of canon law.”
Agreed. Now prove that that is the case - that he is living in concubinage. Who’s going to do that?
“The only thing protecting McBrien from laicization is the absence of testosterone in the bloodstreams of the relevant authorities.”
No. No bishop in Indiana can do that by canon law. They could only request that and only after a long, long legal process.
“McBrien is a priest of the Diocese of Bridgeport, IIRC.”
Hartford.
“Which is an indictment of the bishop of Bridgeport, as well as the bishop of South Bend.”
Maybe, but he’s even further removed from the scene and even less able to prove anything.