http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/03/really-bad-news-from-st-john-cantius-in-chicago-sjcantius/

I wouldn't be so harsh on Card. Cupich. Removal of a priest having a homosexual encounter seems to be fairly common in the USA since 2003, even though there is no specific canon addressing the offense. Some bishops go even further -- removing the priest from all future ministry.

I will pray for all concerned.

I am of two minds on matters such as these.

I believe that any priest or prelate found guilty of crimes such as these should be summarily defrocked and turned over to the civil authorities. I can hardly think of a punishment that would be too harsh for ruining the lives and minds of youths or adults - not to mention their superiors who protect them. These acts are criminal and any who perpetrate them are criminals.

However, it seems strange, exceeding strange to me that we, living in a land in which one is presumed innocent until proved guilty, should punish or disgrace someone before his or her 'day in court'.

"Homosexual encounter"? Who said anything about that, RonK? Not the Archdiocese....

Based on further reports--none of which are confirmed--it seems that Fr. P. may have used terminology which was offensive to someone or some two people.

MJO, there is no "crime" here at all. There are no children, nor teenagers (the favorite target of homosexual predators.)

Cdl. Cupich was looking for an excuse to get rid of Fr. P., and he found one.

Cdl. Cupich was looking for an excuse to get rid of Fr. P., and he found one

Do you mean that the course of action was already decided, but the proximate excuse hadn't been yet found to accomplish it?

Does Cardinal Cupich strike you as the sort of man who would look for a fig leaf in a situation such as this?

"living in a land in which one is presumed innocent until proved guilty"

Then again, the "land" here is not America but the Church.

Wow. "Improper conduct involving adult men" doesn't mean what it used to

Precisely why it's such a useful phrase. Once it's used the inference many will make is that the conduct was homosexual, (although the archdiocesan spokeswoman's mention of sensitivity training, or some such, indicates it just as likely that the "offense" was using language to which homosexuals objected.)
The effect of slander without the effort of slandering...
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Defamation by insinuation or implication is apparently somewhat difficult to prove legally, but that's clearly what's taken place when even conservative commentators such as Fr. Z. assume an "improper relationship (emphasis mine) with an adult male." In my opinion, Cupich is directly and solely responsible for grave damage to Fr. Phillips's reputation on account of a public written statement. Is it rash judgment to presume that he is in mortal sin until he publicly clarifies that the allegations did not involve a violation of the sixth commandment or the vow of chastity?

Before I worked for the church, I have often said I had a much higher opinion of it. The same things happen in the east but the lack of centralization tends to limit it to specific areas.

It is perhaps telling that the Canons were not interviewed and were left out of the investigation. Rumors have flown for years concerning Fr. Phillips’ conduct among the canons; not being a Canon myself, I cannot prove or disprove them, but I have heard them from multiple people on several occasions.

I would like to point out what could, in one way, be a situation that permits hope.

1) +Cupich did not dissolve the Canons Regular of SJC, nor did he expel them from the church.
2) Nor did he mandate changes in the liturgical life of the church, or attempt to suppress the EF.
3) Nor, it seems, did he appoint a hostile pastor who would do #2.
4) Since the Canons were not publicly caught up in the investigation, they are free to continue their ministry in the parish as previously, without any defamation or assasination of their character.

To me, therefore:

– if Fr. Phillips did indeed conduct himself in an immoral and unfitting way, the parish may now be able to reach greater heights, without the spiritual kryptonite of a leader fallen into grave sin.

– if Fr. Phillips did not act wrongly, the parish may suffer unjustly, but can survive, as it ultimately would have to do, should he retire or become incapacitated.

If +Cupich really wants to close or “modernize” SJC, he could have found far more efficient and effective ways to do so, without removing the pastor.

If +Cupich really wants to close or “modernize” SJC, he could have found far more efficient and effective ways to do so, without removing the pastor.

Not really.

First off, the pastor in this case was an excellent fund-raiser. It remains to be seen whether any of the other Order members can step up and fill that hole.

Secondly, Cupich is not stupid. He would NOT simply shut down that church--which would be very efficient, indeed. That would cause a conflagration which could backfire on him. (I need not expand on that comment.) Similarly, he would not send in a new pastor who would rip apart that parish's structure, or the music program, or the EF/OF-Latin Masses. Same reason.

What Cupich did was fire a warning shot--not only at SJC, but at any other priests who might have ideas like those of Fr. P.

By the way, this is NOT to say that Fr. P. may have (or not have) used intemperate language in describing certain classes of sin. But whether true or not is now irrelevant.