Are diocesan priests supposed to change parishes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Going off topic for a moment – this isn’t about diocesan priests and it’s not about the United States – this discussion reminds me of a conversation a few years back in Capernaum, where the (larger) Catholic-run pilgrimage site and a (smaller) Greek Orthodox site stand side by side. Our group met briefly with both priests, one after the other. The Orthodox priest – in his thirties at the time, I would guess – was very pleased with the prospect of staying in the one place until his retirement, maybe thirty or forty years in the future, and he found it very strange that the Franciscans next door seemed to be equally happy with the practice adopted by the Custody of the Holy Land, under which they spend three years at one site and are then moved somewhere else.
 
My pastor has been at that church for around a decade. And that was far from his first assignment. The parochial vicars, however, come and go. I am willing to bet it varies based on diocese and need. On an unrelated note, I like our current parochial vicar, but I could talk to the Congolese guy in French! On a completely related note, he is now a pastor elsewhere in the diocese.
 
InThePew said:
You’d think but actually not. At @1ke has noted above, Canon 522 makes it clear that unless they’re appointed for a fixed term, their appointment is indefinite - meaning that it’s very difficult to move them if they don’t want to go!
Click to expand...
Hardly. There is a difference between a fixed term and termination for cause, which falls back to the jurisdiction of the Bishop. If Canon 522 is read rigidly, once appointed, removal seems illegal. However, there are a hosts of reasons dismissal can be simply and summarily acted upon by the Bishop. In today’s climate, sexual abuse comes to mind as easy justification for dismissal by the Bishop. Perhaps rigid, literate reading of the Code is what has compounded this recent Church dilemma.
 
westie said:
Perhaps rigid, literate reading of the Code is what has compounded this recent Church dilemma.
Click to expand...
I do not believe this to be the case. The canons 1740 and 1741 which provide the cause are pretty broad. They amount to, indeed 1740 makes it clear, there is a problem at the parish due to the pastor. So while the Bishop has to have cause, there is no literal reading of the canons providing the cause which would in any way lead to leaving an abusive priest in place. The bishops do not get off that easy.

Now, I will repeat, the Bishop does have to have cause. And the cause has to pertain to that parish, not to the needs of the diocese or other parishes. In the example I gave, the Bishop wanted to move our pastor because another parish had problems that he felt our pastor could solve. But that was not sufficient cause for the removal and transfer. Hence he simply asked the pastor to voluntarily transfer.
 
westie said:
They serve where they serve at the pleasure of the Bishop.
Click to expand...
I don’t have the citation, but a Pastor (not an associate) does have some level of right to not be removed without good cause.

hawk
 
midori said:
But it was also obvious that the things he was weak about got neglected for 25 years.
Click to expand...
I’m left wondering about those parishes that go 25 years without the sacrament of confession being encouraged.
 
westie said:
In today’s climate, sexual abuse comes to mind as easy justification for dismissal by the Bishop. Perhaps rigid, literate reading of the Code is what has compounded this recent Church dilemma.
Click to expand...
While a priest might be suspended for allegations of sexual abuse, he remains the pastor of the parish unless he resigns or is removed according to canon law. If he does not resign, the bishop cannot appoint a new pastor. Only a parish administrator can be appointed because the priest who has been suspended is still the pastor.

This happened locally a few years ago. The priest remains suspended, pending the outcome of the investigation. He resigned as pastor within a few weeks of the allegation, in order to allow the parish to move forward with a new pastor.
 
Last edited:
It’s because of this canon that our bishop appoints mostly “administrators” and very few “pastors”. He then has the leisure of assigning them as needed.
Of 28 parishes, only 3 have a “pastor”.

Our last pastor was appointed in 2012. He was the Chancellor for the diocese and when the bishop asked him to come to us he replied, “If I go, I’m never leaving unless it’s in a box.” Unfortunately, only 3 1/2 years later, in early 2016, that’s just what happened. A minor accident while visiting his Mission caused a blood clot that resulted in a pulmonary embolus which killed him.

Later that year an administrator was appointed. He’s a religious with nobody from his congregation anywhere nearby so the bishop advised us last time he was here that he would probably soon be moving him to a parish where he could regularly meet with fellow members of his congregation. They’re from India.
 
babochka said:
This happened locally a few years ago. The priest remains suspended, pending the outcome of the investigation. He resigned as pastor within a few weeks of the allegation, in order to allow the parish to move forward with a new pastor.
Click to expand...
Again, at the discretion of the Bishop.
 
westie said:
40.png
babochka:
This happened locally a few years ago. The priest remains suspended, pending the outcome of the investigation. He resigned as pastor within a few weeks of the allegation, in order to allow the parish to move forward with a new pastor.
Click to expand...
Again, at the discretion of the Bishop.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how that follows from what I said. The priest voluntarily resigned as pastor in order to allow the bishop to replace him with a pastor rather than an administrator. He would have had the right to keep his position as pastor pending the outcome of his case. This was the decision of the priest, not the bishop.
 
babochka said:
Pastors have rights under canon law. While their appointment is entirely at the discretion of the bishop, their removal is not. The removal of a pastor is subject to stringent procedural requirements outlined in canon law.
Click to expand...
I’ll concede, then…thank you for the clarification.
It is however, troublesome that a Bishop cannot overstep the Code, which seemingly sets the table for giving an institutional pass to sexual predators in the clergy if they are Pastors and not just parish priests…seems a change to the Code might be called for.
 
As far as I know…there is conversation bewteen priest and Bishop. Sometimes there may be that a priest has a parent under his care,and also personal preferences which may have to do with the spiritual that the Bishop may need to consider . And as far as I know,they do,.or try.
So it is talked over ,that is a bit of what I know.
I never had the impression of them being moved as pawns in a chessboard,“at will” or
" at whim" nor forgetting priests are persons.
 
Last edited:
Going back as long as I can remember in my Archdiocese (Seattle), parishes only have a single priest, the pastor, and they typically got moved around every 6-7 years or so, unless they were really old. They’d stay until they died or retired. Some priests are even responsible for multiple parishes.
 
I asked a young priest about that. He was being moved, and I said what would happen if you just told the bishop you don’t want to move?–he wouldn’t “fire” you or anything, would he? The priest said no, but that would never happen, anyway, because they are under vows of obedience, so when the bishop says Jump, you jump.
 
Our pastor never really wanted to be in our area, where he has been serving for about six years. And he wasn’t happy to be made administrator for our new three-church grouping, but he accepted it. I have the notion that he has made a deal with the bishop to get the three churches together over two years, if he is allowed to move back to the area he is originally from and where he owns property, after the two years are completed .
 
Last edited:
Late to the game, AFAIK many dioceses changed (unsure if Canon Law or not) and now priests usually stay a set term and can be renewed once or twice.

However, older priests who were already assigned parishes were grandfathered in, meaning the new law or provisions do/did not apply to them. This was usually at the Arch/bishop’s discretion.

These days there aren’t many priests around who were grandfathered in OR they requested to be moved, thus now the new rules apply to them.

At least, this is how it was explained to me by the parish priest who married me 2 years ago and who had been grandfathered in and was at his parish then around 30 years. He retired shortly afterwards.
 
westie said:
It is however, troublesome that a Bishop cannot overstep the Code, which seemingly sets the table for giving an institutional pass to sexual predators in the clergy if they are Pastors and not just parish priests…seems a change to the Code might be called for
Click to expand...
But this is not the case. Canons 1740 and 1741.1 would specifically apply to any pastor who was a sexual predator:

Can. 1740 When the ministry of any pastor becomes harmful or at least ineffective for any cause, even through no grave personal negligence, the diocesan bishop can remove him from the parish.
Can. 1741 The causes for which a pastor can be removed legitimately from his parish are especially the following:
1/ a manner of acting which brings grave detriment or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top