Canon Lawyer: Publicity alone won't remove Bishop Grahmann

At last, a few Catholics in the Diocese of Dallas are crying out for the removal of Bishop Charles Grahmann. Their effort may help the rest of us see how far from the Catholic Church our diocese has been torn. But odds are that it won't remove Bishop Grahmann.

We all have seen that the Holy See ignores popular protests against clergy, as well it should: The enemies of the church protest, too, and so do totalitarian governments around the world. The church can't remove a bishop because of protest any more than it can back down because of persecution.

But history also shows that the church comes down hard on bishops who violate the church's law – canon law. Bishops swear an oath before God and man to obey those laws. When they persistently flout canon law, they show themselves unfit for office.

The thing is that the Vatican can't remove a bishop on rumor, either. You have to file suit with the church's own courts. "A judge cannot investigate any case unless a petition, drawn up in accordance with canon law, is submitted," Canon 1501 says. Not protests, not publicity, but petitions get rid of unworthy clerics.

Petitions (libelli, in the jargon of canon law) give evidence to the proper authorities in a form that their agencies can use. It stands to reason. If your neighbor committed a crime – certainly if he raped your son or aided his rapist – you wouldn't take out an ad or paint a picket sign. You would take the case through the courts, filling out all of the forms and observing all of the procedures.

The church has its own courts, forms and procedures, and popes practically have been begging Americans to file libelli against bad bishops since at least 1852, when Archbishop Gaetano Bedini, the first papal ambassador here, recommended that the pope "remove all of these men and replace them with suitable candidates."

Americans took the hint and indicted scores of bishops and priests for the same crimes we see today. The network of cronyism that is choking our church today had a stranglehold on the promotions process even then.

The response was so powerful that St. Pius X issued a decree in 1910 that made it even easier for Americans to remove bad bishops, and John Paul II further streamlined the procedure in 1983 in his edition of the Code of Canon Law (available in paperback).

All you have to do is connect the bishop's practices with a specific canon and other binding regulations, write a letter following the outline laid out for you in Canon 1504, put an 80-cent stamp on it and mail it to Rome. You never may hear the outcome yourself, but a steady stream of valid libelli properly presented is the only way that the American laity ever has removed a bad bishop.

There certainly are plenty of grounds for libelli here. Even before we get to the financial and sexual scandals, there are the abuses in the liturgy – the church's most sacred and binding communal action – which bishops and priests are forbidden to change.

Just to take the most obvious example, if your parish has "eucharistic ministers" at every Mass, your bishop has repudiated the authority of the Holy See (check Canon 751) and already has proved his unsuitability for pastoral office (see Canons 1041 and 1364, as well as the papal encyclicals Immensae caritatis of 1973, Inaestimabile donum of 1980 and Ecclesiae de mysterio of 1997, which absolutely prohibit the practice).

There are scores of more outrageous abuses in Dallas liturgy today, of course: The point is that a bishop who ignores liturgical laws announces that he refuses to run things as Catholic bishops are required to do. But any act that stands against the principles of Christianity stands against the church's laws, too, and it isn't that hard to figure out which law and to get things rolling in a Vatican tribunal.

Of course, Bishop Grahmann should have resigned if only one Rudy Kos had slipped through the system even accidentally. A media campaign may wake Dallas up to that fact. But unless it triggers a hail of libelli pelting Rome with valid demands, publicity won't remove him.

Kevin Orlin Johnson of Dallas is an associate of the Canon Law Society of America. To contact him, visit www.pangaeus.com.

Sinkspur, basically anyone who works in canon law can become an associate member of the CLSA. What is of interest to note is that the author is not a full member, even though the dues are the same for both categories.

Going through the CLSA's membership directory, I imagine it might have something to do with the fact that no degree in canon law from a Pontifical institution is listed after Mr. Johnson's name.

A media campaign may wake Dallas up to that fact. But unless it triggers a hail of libelli pelting Rome with valid demands, publicity won't remove him.

Johnson's wrong about this.

If the collection baskets suffer even a 20% drop-off, Grahmann will be gone.

Patrick Madrid asked: So does that mean you disagree with Johnson's comments?

Absolutely. First, no tribunal would have competency over such a case, since a penal case in which the bishop stands accused is reserved to the Holy Father personally. Secondly, EMs are just a silly issue over which to try and get a bishop fired. Given the past year, could he not have thought of something a little more substantial?

I don't disagree with your view on canonical grounds (to the limited extent I could comment on such matters, as someone who is not by any means an expert in canon law), but if you disagree with his argument, why not simply say so? Why skate along the edge of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem by raising the fact that he doesn't have a pontifical degree? After all, there are canon law experts who would scoff at canon laywers who don't yet have an advanced degree in that field (e.g. a J.C.D.). Let's be fair, yes?

Pat asked: "Why skate along the edge of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem by raising the fact that he doesn't have a pontifical degree?"

Because the piece insinuates he's a canon lawyer through the use of "Canon Lawyer" in the title and the reference to being an associate member of the Canon Law Society of America in the bio accompanying the piece. Thus his crentials are fair game.

After all, there are canon law experts who would scoff at canon lawyers who don't yet have an advanced degree in that field (e.g. a J.C.D.). Let's be fair, yes?

Okay. Would you publish a piece on civil law written by a civil lawyer who did not possess at least a LLB or a JD? I'm not trying to be disagreable here; I very much respect what you do for the Church. But my spouse is a canon lawyer and I probably know more canonists and more about canon law than most Catholics. This does not make me a canon lawyer.

Yes, I agree with you and I can see the point you're making. No disagreement on that. It just seemed that your initial post should have been more up front (like your last one was) about the misleading title. See what I'm saying? It came across as if you were criticizing his argument indirectly by raising the other issue.

If I understand you correctly, you're asking why I raised the issue of his credentials firt without addressing the substance of his arguments? There's a couple reasons for this: 1) This was published in a major newspaper and "Canon Lawyer" is the first thing that comes to mind in the title, and 2) I did not want to comment on the substance of his argument until I could talk it over with a canon lawyer.

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.