George’s announcement came just days before a meeting in Austin, Texas of the National Review Board, a lay body set up to monitor the sex abuse scandals and craft policies for dealing with the problem. The Chicago policy shift is sure to dominate the agenda, especially since it could actually mark a break from canon law, which dictates that priests cannot be removed until they have legal representation and allegations have been substantiated. A spokeswoman for the archdiocese said: "Whatever the Cardinal decided to do, it will have to conform with canon law. But the Cardinal has said all along that he will find a way to do it, to remove priests immediately."
Soon after the charges were filed against McCormack, there was no shortage of finger-pointing between the archdiocese and police and prosecutors over who it was that actually dropped the ball. The original allegations were first made to the police, which ended up choosing not to press charges at the time, according to the Archdiocese. And when the church did ultimately talk directly to the boy’s lawyer, they couldn’t independently confirm the accusations against McCormack, who was allowed to stay on as pastor at the church and basketball coach in the parish school.
I’m sure some of our experts will come up with this immediately, but the point about this that puzzles me is the Canon Law caveat. Is it really true that a priest cannot be "removed" from a particular position until they have legal representation, etc. It seems that such would apply to removing a priest from active ministry, period or suspending his faculties (perhaps), but it strikes me that a bishop could move Fr. X from pastor of St. Abigail’s to being the custodian/confessor on the 4th floor of the Chancery if he deemed it necessary at any time for any reason..or no reason. That’s just the way the system works when there aren’t accusations involved. Is it different if there are accusations?
Correct me.
Read Previous Post