14 November 2005

By e-mail

Justice Normand Glaude and/or Mr. Peter Engelmann

Cornwall Inquiry

Sylvia MacEachern

(email address)

Justice Normand Glaude and/or Mr. Engelmann:

Several inaccuracies became part of the record during the public hearing last Monday (07 November 2005).  These statements misrepresented (1) the actions of the Citizens for Renewal regarding efforts to amalgamate, and (2) Church law regarding retired clergy and bishops, specifically as it relates to issues of attaining standing and funding for Father Charles MacDonald and Bishop Eugene Larocque.

In the event that you are unaware of the following misrepresentations, I believe I have an obligation to draw them to your attention.

1.  The actions of Citizens for Renewal regarding efforts to amlagamate:

Mr. Wardle stated:  “We have communicated with [Coalition for Action] and asked whether we could work together with them and the response we got was they would not.”  This general idea was repeated my Mr. Wardle on several occasion, namely that Paul Scott had formally undertaken efforts to amalgamate with the Coalition.

This is false.  Mr. Scott never contacted Carson Chisholm to inquire about amalgamating the two groups.  I addressed this issue with Mr. Scott during a break in the hearings.  He informed me that he didn’t know who to contact.  In other words, contrary to the repeated impression conveyed by his lawyer, Mr. Scott did not contact Mr. Chisholm to pursue amalgamation.

2.  Church law regarding retired clergy and bishops

I am not a canon lawyer, but I am a Roman Catholic who has been actively researching and writing on Church-related issues for fifteen years.  During those years I became aware that, regardless of the circumstances, the Church in general, and individual dioceses in particular, do not hang retired clergy out to dry.  These men are not severed from the diocese, and individual dioceses continue to be held accountable for the well-being of their retired clergy and bishops, and retired clergy continue to be accountable to their diocesan bishop.

However, I got the impression from David Sheriff Scott’s presentation that he is simultaneously seeking to gain individual standing and funding for Bishop Eugene Larocque while excluding Father Charles MacDonald from diocesan representation based on his arguments that they are both retired and therefore somehow severed from the diocese.  That is not the case.  Both Father MacDonald and Bishop Larocque still “belong” to the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, and the diocese is responsible for the welfare of both.

Mr. Sheriff-Scott stated that retired priests  “may be priests but not under the auspice of the Diocese when they retire.”  He also stated: “Once your employment stops, you are not – you are no longer incardinated by that diocese and you have no priestly functions or duties or pastoral duties.”  

1. As indicated below, these statements are false: Although he is retired Father MacDonald is still incardinated in the diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, that, to my knowledge, being the diocese in which he was incardinated a the time of his  retirement. 
2. Every priest MUST be incardinated somewhere.  See Canon 265 (below). Retirement does not change that.
3. Many retired priests do not cease their pastoral activities upon retirement.  Those who have the health and canonical faculties to do so frequently assist in the diocese by hearing confessions, saying Masses, conducting retreats, providing spiritual direction, assisting in the diocesan centre and/or conducting workshops.
4. The diocese has a responsibility to its retired priests and must make provisions for their maintenance and residence.  See Canon 538§3 (below).
5. Various commentaries on Canon 538§3 make clear that the age of 75 is not a fixed requirement, and retirement may be sought sooner or later depending upon circumstances.  They also address the requirement for the diocese to make provision for its retired clergy:  The Code of Canon Law: a Text and Commentary states: “”When retirement occurs, the diocesan bishop must provide suitable room and board for the retired priest,” and; The Canon Law Letter & Spirit states: “When the resignation of such a priest is accepted, the bishop must provide for his pension and accommodation.”

According to Mr. Neville, Father Charles MacDonald “was essentially forced into retirement with the allegations made against him.”

If indeed Father MacDonald was “forced” into a premature retirement by the bishop, his situation would probably be governed by Canons 1740,1741 and 1746 (see below).  It is clear from various commentaries on the Code that even under these circumstances the bishop (read diocese) is obliged to provide for his priests.  The Code of Canon Law:  A Text and Commentary states, “If it is not possible or prudent to assign the removed pastor  to another office, canon 195 obliges the Bishop to provide for his subsistence by means of a pension,” and The Canon Law Letter & Spirit states, “Removal from office does not substantially alter the Bishops’ obligation to provide for the parish priest’s welfare.”

And, while Mr. Sheriff-Scott’s arguments seem designed to exclude Father MacDonald from the diocese and thereby from representation with the diocese, they also serve to ensure that  Father MacDonald has no apparent recourse but to turn to his former defence lawyer, retain him, and then, like Bishop Larocque, seek standing and funding as an individual.

As for Bishop Larocque, Mr. Sheriff-Scott stated that he is “no longer the Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall,” “ no longer employed by the diocese,” and  “He lives in Windsor,  He’s no longer a priest of the Diocese.  He’s a priest, but he’s not employed by the Diocese which is a special act corporation.” 

As with Father MacDonald, Mr. Sheriff-Scott seems intent on separating Bishop Larocque from the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall.  And, while at this time I don’t understand the legal quibbling over whether or not he is “employed” per se, I do understand the following:

1.      Upon retirement, bishops remain attached to the last diocese in which they served.

2.      It is true that Bishop Eugene Larocque is not the Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall, but he has been conferred with title of  Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, and the primary responsibility for a retired bishop’s material needs rest with that diocese.   See Canon 402 §1 (below).

3.      A retiring bishop resides in the diocese from which he retires, unless he chooses otherwise, or unless the Holy See for some specific reason decides otherwise. (Canon 402 §1)

4.      Health and circumstances permitting, retired bishops continue to assist with ordinations, confirmations, installation of bishops, and/or saying public Masses. 

5.      With reference to canon 402, The Canon Law Letter & Spirit (1995) discusses  “recent norms” for retired bishops which states: “Zealous and careful provision is to be made for his financial well-being and, within the limitations of the diocesan resources, to be generously afforded.”  The Letter & Spirit adds: “These norms make clear that the responsibility of the diocese does not end with financial provision; there is a positive duty to supply him with diocesan documents and generally keep him informed....The link with his former diocese is maintained by his title.”

For your convenience I have attached the referenced and other relevant canons below.

Yours truly,

Sylvia MacEachern

Canon 195:  If by a decree of the competent authority, and not by the law itself, someone is removed from an office on which that person's livelihood depends, the same authority is to ensure that the person's livelihood is secure for an appropriate time, unless this has been provided for in some other way.

Canon: 265:  Every cleric must be incardinated in a particular church, or in a personal Prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or a society which has this faculty: accordingly, acephalous or 'wandering' clergy are in no way to be allowed.

Canon 267 §1:  To be validly incardinated in another particular Church, a cleric who is already incardinated must obtain a letter of excardination signed by the diocesan Bishop, and in the same way a letter of incardination signed by the diocesan Bishop of the particular Church in which he wishes to be incardinated.

Canon 281 §1:  Since clerics dedicate themselves to the ecclesiastical ministry, they deserve the remuneration that befits their condition, taking into account both the nature of their office and the conditions of time and place. It is to be such that it provides for the necessities of their life and for the just remuneration of those whose services they need.

§2 Suitable provision is likewise to be made for such social welfare as they may need in infirmity, sickness or old age.

Canon 402 §1:  A Bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted, acquires the title 'emeritus' of his diocese. If he so wishes, he may have a residence in the diocese unless, because of special circumstances in certain cases, the Apostolic See provides otherwise.    §2 The Episcopal Conference must ensure that suitable and worthy provision is made for the upkeep of a Bishop who has resigned, bearing in mind the primary obligation which falls on the diocese which he served.

            Canon 538 §3:   A parish priest who has completed his seventy fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the diocesan Bishop who, after considering all the circumstances of person and place, is to decide whether to accept or defer it. Having taken account of the norms laid down by the Episcopal Conference, the diocesan Bishop must make provision for the appropriate maintenance and residence of the priest who has resigned.

Canon 1740:  When the ministry of any parish priest has for some reason become harmful or at least ineffective, even though this occurs without any serious fault on his part, he can be removed from the parish by the diocesan Bishop.

Canon 1741:  The reasons for which a parish priest can lawfully be removed from his parish are principally:

1. a manner of acting which causes grave harm or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion;

2. ineptitude or permanent illness of mind or body, which makes the parish priest unequal to the task of fulfilling his duties satisfactorily;

3. the loss of the parish priest's good name among upright and serious-minded parishioners, or aversion to him, when it can be foreseen that these factors will not quickly come to an end

4. grave neglect or violation of parochial duties, which persists after a warning;

5. bad administration of temporal goods with grave harm to the Church, when no other remedy can be found to eliminate this harm.

Canon 1746 When the parish priest has been removed, the Bishop is to ensure that he is either assigned to another office, if he is suitable for one, or is given a pension in so far as the case requires this and the circumstances permit.