Posted on 06/30/2002 10:49:00 AM PDT by Polycarp
| |
| Angered by information leaks, Bishop Joseph Adamec abruptly canceled planned transfers of priests this week, The Tribune-Democrat has learned. The cancellation affects a Centre County priest who has publicly disagreed with the bishop’s stance on homosexuality in the priesthood, and whose brother is a conservative Catholic activist and harsh critic of the bishop. Both brothers declined to comment, and Adamec was tight-lipped about his orders, issuing only terse written responses to a reporter’s questions. The cancellations appear to be the latest tear in the widening fissure between Adamac’s administration of the Altoona-Johnstown Roman Catholic Diocese and his conservative critics. Events leading up to the cancellations began June 18, when Altoona businessman George Foster’s laity group sponsored a visit by conservative author Michael Rose, whose book “Goodbye, Good Men” is critical of the Altoona-Johnstown diocese. Several priests attended a reception for Rose, and there were conversations of pending transfers and moving arrangements. On June 19, the Centre Daily Times newspaper carried a front-page story about Foster’s brother James, a Bellefonte priest, being reassigned next month to another parish, and diocese officials denying political motivations. On June 21, Adamec wrote to all parishes, telling priests that “a number of transfers scheduled to take effect on July 10, 2002, have been put on hold. There are several reasons for that, including breaches of confidentiality.” A new list of transfers was developed last week, but dated for release on June 28. Foster’s transfer was not included in the new list. In his letter, Adamec apologized to “those not contributing to the situation. “I am sorry that this places an unexpected inconvenience on those who were prepared for a move on July 10,” he wrote. When a reporter asked what motivated the letter, Adamec replied with a short, written answer: “It’s in the letter.” When asked if a copy of the transfer list obtained by The Tribune-Democrat early last week, but dated June 28, was a complete list, Adamec replied, “I don’t know.” Reassignments announced by the diocese on Friday were: Sister Mary Parks, spokeswoman for the diocese, declined to comment on Foster’s situation. But Adamec and Parks have clashed with the priest in the past over the issue of homosexuality. Some dioceses, such as Philadelphia, will not accept homosexuals as priests, and the Vatican bans homosexual priests. The homosexual lifestyle has been the subject of an ongoing debate at Penn State University in State College. Foster voiced his conservative views and was chastised by the diocese. That debate began in October 2000, with a Penn State ceremony titled, “A Service of Affirmation of the Human Dignity of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People.” Hlublik then wrote an essay saying: “Fortunately, with a few positive thought-provoking images of gays portrayed on television and movies and maybe even encounters with gays in our own lives, it is becoming common enough to be a topic of discussion.” Conservative Catholics, including priests like Foster, were outraged. Foster wrote a response calling Hlubik’s statements “false teaching.” Then Parks wrote back, rebuking Foster: “It is highly inappropriate for a Catholic priest to criticize publicly one of his brothers. [but its OK for a feminist nun to publicly criticize a priest--Polycarp] It is canonically inappropriate for a priest to suggest publicly that the diocese (ergo his Bishop) is somehow colluding to lead souls astray.” Foster’s brother, George, who is president of the Lay Stewardship Foundation, since has been engaged in a public war of words over the way the diocese has handled sex scandals. Both Parks and Adamec declined to discuss James Foster’s future as a priest, or any other transfers that might be made. |
My brief perusal found this section on bringing a suit under canon law, (copy below but without hyperlinks). There is more to this than just the section below, but it should give you an idea and you should definitely visit the links.
CHAPTER I : THE PETITION INTRODUCING THE SUIT
Can. 1501 A judge cannot investigate any case unless a plea, drawn up in accordance with canon law, is submitted either by a person whose interest is involved, or by the promotor of justice.
Can. 1502 A person who wishes to sue another must present a petition to a judge who is lawfully competent. In this petition the matter in dispute is to be set out and the intervention of the judge requested.
Can. 1503 §1 A judge can admit an oral plea whenever the plaintiff is impeded from presenting a petition or when the case can be easily investigated and is of minor significance.
§2 In both cases, however, the judge is to direct a notary to record the matter in writing. This written record is to be read to, and approved by, the plaintiff, and it takes the place of a petition written by the plaintiff as far as all effects of law are concerned.
Can. 1504 The petition by which a suit is introduced must:
1° state the judge before whom the case is being introduced, what is being sought and from whom it is being sought;
2° indicate on what right the plaintiff bases the case and, at least in general terms, the facts and evidence to be submitted in support of the allegations made;
3° be signed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's procurator, and bear the day, the month and the year, as well as the address at which the plaintiff or the procurator resides, or at which they say they reside for the purpose of receiving the acts;
4° indicate the domicile or quasi-domicile of the respondent.
Can. 1505 §1 Once he has satisfied himself that the matter is within his competence and the plaintiff has the right to stand before the court, the sole judge, or the presiding judge of a collegiate tribunal, must as soon as possible by his decree either admit or reject the petition.
§2 A petition can be rejected only if:
1° the judge or the tribunal is not legally competent;
2° it is established beyond doubt that the plaintiff lacks the right to stand before the court;
3° the provisions of can. 1504 nn. 1 - 3 have not been observed
4° it is certainly clear from the petition that the plea lacks any foundation, and that there is no possibility that a foundation will emerge from a process.
§3 If a petition has been rejected by reason of defects which can be corrected, the plaintiff can draw up a new petition correctly and present it again to the same judge.
§4 A party is always entitled, within ten canonical days, to have recourse, based upon stated reasons, against the rejection of a petition. This recourse is to be made either to the tribunal of appeal or, if the petition was rejected by the presiding judge, to the collegiate tribunal. A question of rejection is to be determined with maximum expedition.
Can. 1506 If within a month of the presentation of a petition, the judge has not issued a decree admitting or rejecting it in accordance with can. 1505, the interested party can insist that the judge perform his duty. If, notwithstanding this, the judge does not respond within ten days of the party's request, the petition is to be taken as having been admitted.
[end excerpt]
I think you see where this would lead.
If you were so inclined, a possible methodology would be to:
- study the relevant sections of canon law
- prepare a 'draft' suit
- have it reviewed by a canon laywer
- revise and or file the suit
Exactly what such a suit would allege, depends on you...presumably provable cases of homosexual behaviour, abuse, and/or cover-up of same. I assume laicization of the offending bishop is what you'd be seeking.
I would be willing to help dig up the relevant sections of the canon law, if you wished, but I'm not competant for much beyond that leg work, and what is alleged is not for me to say.
I have heard the priest was removed from the area after another abuse claim in a local parish where he was assigned because of the shortage.
God bless you in your attempt to clean some of this up...the devil is having a heyday..
Ps Your Bishops actions would make HIM very suspect..he has something to hide IMHO...sounds like he has been a part of the coverup BIG time
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.