Catholic bishop suspends priest and issues trespass order for disobedience and defying direct instructions

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The original article you posted is behind a paywall for US readers, and furthermore the WaPo is not known for stellar coverage of Catholic issues.

Here is a better article from a respectable Catholic publication.


Seems like a clear-cut case of:
  • Bishop told priest to take down his blog
  • Priest obeyed and took down his blog for a little while
  • Priest used COVID-19 as excuse to put the blog back up
  • Bishop gave the smack down to disobedient priest
  • WaPo claims it’s all because the priest criticized his diocese’s position on sex abuse.
First, I fully expect the diocese to punish disobedient priests. The church is not a democracy.

Second: If the priest has any actual evidence or reporting to do about sexual abuse cases then he should contact the police, not write a blog about it.
Otherwise, if his blog was just to give his opinions complaining about his bishop, then yes it is divisiive, and I can totally understand the bishop. It’s also totally unnecessary as we’re all very, very, very well aware of dioceses mishandling sex abuse cases and where that has led. It’s not some new thing that Father is revealing as a whistleblower.

Third: If I write a blog complaining about how my employer is handling some hot button issue, my manager is going to punish me too. I might even be fired. And I’m not even under a duty of obedience to my manager.
 
Last edited:
I also have no idea how he thinks writing blogs bashing Pope Francis and his bishop are going to encourage people who don’t go to church.

I am sorry if he and his friends had some bad experience with McCarrick, and I don’t like that McCarrick was a bad egg apparently, but McCarrick has been gone for almost 2 years. Time to move on.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I also have no idea how he thinks writing blogs bashing Pope Francis and his bishop are going to encourage people who don’t go to church.
Click to expand...
I tried unsuccessfully to find his website. I wonder what proportion of his posts were actually negative? He seems to have the respect of (at least some of) his parishioners. I think there is more to the story that we have been told.
 
It’s not surprising for a controversial priest to “have the respect of (at least some of) his parishioners”. Often these types of priests have quite the little fan club, and often their defiant behavior is motivated in large part by a group from their parish supporting them or egging them on. In extreme cases they break away from the Bishop and take a couple hundred parishioners with them. It doesn’t make it okay.

“Obedience” is not a popular concept in US culture. Like I said, the Church is not a democracy and US Catholics often find that very hard to accept. I doubt there is “more to the story” than the fact that his diocese has had the usual batch of abuse cases and people don’t like Bishop Knestout, who was previously an aide to Wuerl and a secretary to McCarrick and has stated he didn’t know anything about the allegations against McCarrick. In a perfect world, Bishop Knestout could perhaps have had some assignment where he wouldn’t be having to deal so much with the public, but the reality is that we are not chockablock with bishops and also, it’s entirely possible that he can do a decent job as bishop if people do not constantly dwell on the past. (Without naming names, I’m aware of another bishop in a similar situation whose diocese does seem to have moved on and he is doing well as bishop now.) This priest bashing him in a blog is not helping the diocese to move forward.

 
Last edited:
It is linked in the WaPo article. I just flipped through, but the focus seems to be criticism of the Church heirarchy.

I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, I do think that parish priests and lay people need to speak up about abuse and corruption in the Church when they see it. On the other, I am not sure that is really what this is about. The blog seems more focused on fighting than informing, with links titled things like “Our Archbishop is even more dishonest than I thought.” So there is that.
 
TMC said:
The blog seems more focused on fighting than informing, with links titled things like “Our Archbishop is even more dishonest than I thought.”
Click to expand...
Like I said, even in companies where they don’t require obedience from employees, any employee who started an online blog about “Our District Manager is even more dishonest than I thought” or “Our CEO is even more dishonest than I thought” would be fired, and he might even be sued for defamation. The priest getting told to take it down and getting a suspension is entirely reasonable.
 
I couldn’t get past much of the comments of the “guest speaker,” or understand why she directed the writing to the archbishop. She is clearly on a mission and has an agenda. Sorry. Can’t read any further.
 
Thanks. This is a very sad case, and I doubt there will be any winners in the ongoing fight.
 
I continually find it strange that some priests in the public eye (like those who head anti-abortion groups…) aren’t disciplined by their superiors. Obedience is an essential characteristic of our hierarchy. This seems to be an issue between a priest and his bishop. The laity’s (name removed by moderator)ut is out of place.
 
Pastors have rights (assuming they’re formally appointed) and removing one is a tricky business if a bishop isn’t well versed in Canon Law. That said, when I was a seminarian, a very wise old priest gave me two rules - never divide the people and never be disobedient to your bishop. Obedience is probably the hardest promise to keep but also arguably the most important,
 
I strongly suspect that Bishop Knestout has been consulting with his legal advisors about this, given that Fr. White has already “lawyered up” long ago, and Bishop Knestout is from the DC area (Native of PG County) as well as having worked there for years and had a father who was director of the office of the permanent diaconate in that area. In that area there’s a lawyer every 2 feet and people in power have a heightened awareness of the need for legal counsel.

The question in my mind is whether Fr. White consulted with his own lawyer before he decided to start blogging again, or did he do so against legal advice. I suspect the latter and also suspect that the bishop has the canon law on his side, which is why the priest (and his lawyer) are using the media to make all sorts of emotional arguments to the public.
 
Last edited:
This Fr. White should request incardination into another diocese and put the past behind him.
 
Unfortunately, since he’s chosen to advertise the fact that he can’t get along with his bishop in the public eye, including a big article in a major secular newspaper, and furthermore appears to be pursuing some kind of legal action against his bishop, I don’t think any other diocese is going to be welcoming him with open arms. Just like how an employee who acted the same way at their company and then went looking for a job at other companies in the field probably wouldn’t get any offers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top