1859 K Sun 5 May 2002
Today at the Cathedral in Melbourne there was a "Mass of Thanksgiving for the Neophytes".
Archbishop Hart gave the instruction "Please sit" before the Kyrie and Gloria, as he did last week.
Two particularly interesting things happened. Firstly there was a Crowning of a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Secondly Archbishop Hart announced that Monsignor Mark Coleridge is to be ordained as a bishop on 17 June 2002. He will be an auxiliary bishop in Melbourne.
I found out about his ordination yesterday:
Strangely this appears on www.ewtn.com before it gets posted on www.vatican.va. From the internet I found out that he was a Master at Catholic Theological College, where I have been studying for the past five years. He has been working at the Vatican and giving talks as a biblical scholar on "Catholics Listening to God". He has been a consultant to the National Liturgical Commission.
Yesterday there was an article in The Age by Peter Ellingsen, with the headline on the front page: "Priest's sex-abuse victim sues former archbishop". Part of it was:
I think what Archbishop Hart said is wrong. According to Canon 1395.2:
According to Canon 290:
It would be fair to say that it is easier to dismiss someone when you are the Pope, you just sign a rescript. But Archbishop Hart can do it as a penalty in a tribunal case.
It concerns me that Archbishop Hart is either unaware of his powers or creating an incorrect impression of them in The Age newspaper.
The US cardinal's in their communique of 24 April 2002 said:
A case can be argued that the procedures should be streamlined. But this does not alter the fact that an Archbishop's tribunal can impose the punishment of dismissal from the clerical state. This punishment also means that the Catholic Church stops financially supporting the priest and providing accomodation. I see it as an approach that should be taken more frequently.
I believe that if the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state were imposed, then there could be an appeal. Then, I think, Canon 1353 would take effect:
So perhaps Archbishop Hart would be correct in saying: "Only the Pope cannot remove someone from the priesthood, without any possibility of the decision being appealed, and the penalty thereby suspended." I think that would have been a better statement to have made than the one he did.
1027 K Mon 6 May 2002
I have been thinking more about this. Maybe people will believe: "Its in the power of the Tribunal, not in the power of the Archbishop".
According to Canon 1419:
It seems to me that the bishop can be the sole judge:
And in Canon 1425:
So I believe an Archbishop could choose to be the only judge for a case.
1816 K Tue 7 May 2002
My belief on Monday above was wrong. The Archbishop cannot be the only judge in a case of dismissal for the clerical state, according to Canon 1425.1:
Copyright J.R. Lilburne, 5 May 2002. Last updated 7 May 2002. Extracts from Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition, Canon Law Society of America, Washington DC, 1983.