Canon lawyer to Houston, where the bishop resides: Please reconsider your excommunication of Father Treco

Strong argument here on the priest's behalf, based on rules by which the Church protects the rights of the accused, limiting a bishop's power, vs. kangaroo court approach

April 11, 2019: Fr. Treco’s lawyer explains to Bishop Lopes why he should reverse his suspension and excommunication of Fr. Treco for his 11/25/18 homily:

First: No recognized legal procedure was followed, it was a conviction decided by the Bishop, who in a “pastoral action” lawfully made his complaints and gave instructions to his priest.

He did not treat Fr. T. as “accused” with concomitant safeguards (for his rights). This was no legal procedure. It was a rebuke of a subordinate.

The bishop ruled himself out as judge in the matter by telling Fr. T. he had to send the case to Rome for an “authoritative consideration . . . “

Second: The warranties of the accused (guarantees of fair treatment) were denied. The bishop simply decided the matter on the basis of informal meetings with Fr. T. and the bishop’s “personal idea” about the matter, without any formal litis contestatio (deciding the facts of the matter) and in no way involving the (Vatican) Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

Third: Fr. Treco’s homily of November 25, 2018, was not ‘schismatic’: the Priest explained what he said and what it meant. [Consider the odd interrogation, the first, in which the bishop said almost nothing and his two assistants seemed not to understood what Fr. T. had said in the homily.]

Fourth: The essential components of schism are lacking. Fr. T. did not even fantasize about non-submission to the Pope, as Pope, or about not being in communion with others who are subject to him. Neither did he show a pertinacious (unbending) will in that: in fact, after the homily was criticized, he sent a written ‘Oath of Obedience’ to his Bishop. [Not the response of a contumacious schismatic.]

Fifth: It is also impossible to define Fr. T.’s statements as “formal heresy.” His prompt sending of a ‘Profession of Faith’ applies also here. Not to mention from what the Bishop wrote on January 15: “Your most recent letter states that you do not understand how your statements constitute public dissent or an act of schism.” He didn’t mean it that way.

Sixth: The alleged crime of schism was ‘de facto’ remitted. We can read in the same letter: “Now that you have affirmed Catholic faith, we may proceed towards regularizing your canonical status.” The Bishop furthermore wrote that he was “willing [on his own] authority [to] remit the automatic penalty [Fr. T. had] incurred,” but felt obliged to “forward documentation regarding this incident to the Holy See for their authoritative consideration.” Not before, however, “the public nature of this denial of Catholic faith and communion be effectively remedied.”

The lawyer hopped on this. “A very controversial statement,” he said. “If the Bishop acknowledged that Rev. Vaughn Treco affirmed (as he did) his Catholic Faith, there wasn’t any need to ‘regularize’ his status and to remit the automatic penalty’.

As for “the further remedies” that the Bishop required, these were not to reinstate a never broken or restored communion, but to turn the scandal off and allow Fr. T. to resume his ministry.

This is in the bishop’s saying, that “the Profession of Faith you have reaffirmed is a necessary and important step for the good of your immortal soul. The other measures outlined in my earlier letter and reiterated here are in view of salvaging your priesthood.”

Moreover, if the Bishop believed that Fr. T. was already under [automatic] excommunication latae sententiae, he could not have added that his faculties remained in effect, though modified, so that he was “always welcome to concelebrate the community Mass with him.”

Seventh: Fr. T. could not satisfy further requests by the Bishop because he never received an answer to his explanation of his homily. The bishop had asked for “a statement of retractation” in a letter to him and publication in his congregation’s bulletin, as well as in “whatever social media” he managed.

His reaffirmation of the Profession of Faith was also to be made known to his congregation. And he was to send “a brief note of apology” to his fellow priests of the Ordinariate.

He could have reaffirmed the ‘Profession of Faith’ together with his congregation, “and we guess he did,” said the lawer, in that ”every member of the Christian Faithful does that in every Mass.” But how could he ‘retract’ what he tried to explain as right, never having gotten any contrary explanation?

. . . . To get the result he wanted, the bishop should have refuted the arguments that his Priest used to justify himself, instead of moving forward with excommunication because of the mistaken assumption that Father Treco “will not recant from this schism and return to the Roman Catholic Church.”

Eighth: Disobedience is not schism. We explained why Rev. Vaughn Treco did not satisfy all the Bishop’s requests; we also noted that such further requests were not to reinstate a never broken (or, at least restored) communion, but to turn the . . . scandal off and allow Rev. Treco to prosecute his Ministry. The bishop could have complained about this omission, but he could not go from it to a delict (transgression) of schism.

Ninth: The decree of excommunication is lacking administrative requirements. It is based on an incorrect evaluation of the facti species [the deed itself];

Its motivation is inconsistent with the premises and is simply based on personal beliefs and opinions of the Bishop;

It is inconsistent with his allowing Fr. Treco to celebrate Mass, as above;

The procedure did not respect the warranties of the accused Priest and the rules about collecting evidence; Fr. T’s rights as accused were denied.

=================================

On the next day, April 12, the lawyer sent this appeal to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, via the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, with a note, of which these are the opening and final two paragraphs:

“. . . I write today on behalf of the Reverend Vaughn Treco . . . through this letter and the accompanying attachment to Bishop Stephen Lopes, I am seeking from him the revocation and/or emendation of the Decree of Excommunication issued by [him] on March 30, 2019.

. . . we submit . . . both the substantive . . . and procedural arguments that we . . . presented to Bishop Lopes, against the Decree of Excommunication within the peremptory timeframe as established by Bishop Lopes . . . .

. . . Father Treco has complied with the wishes of Bishop Lopes and has signed anew the Profession of Faith that he first signed prior to his ordination. This not only demonstrates Father Treco’s adherence to the authority and unity of the holy Catholic Church, but it also shows his willingness to cooperate with the bishop. Rather than merely issuing a decree, we would welcome greater dialogue in which any issues or confusion may be peaceably resolved.

Based on the foregoing, I present this . . . to Your Eminence, along with the corresponding documentation, for a full retraction of the Decree of Excommunication imposed upon Father Treco. I know that this is a very difficult and delicate matter. I thank Your Eminence for the time and consideration of this appeal. Should Your Eminence have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.”

— End of correspondence by canonical advocate for Fr. Treco. —

Meanwhile, the wheels of justice ground small. Fr. T. reports:

On January 16th, 2019, the Archdiocese of Saint Paul-Minneapolis did in fact follow Bishop Lopes’ lead, suspending his faculties — removing his ability to perform priestly ministry — depriving him “in a matter of days” of 40-45% of his income.

A little over two weeks later, on January 30th, the Archdiocese of the Military Services, notified that Bishop Lopes had suspended Fr. Treco a divinis, from ministry, did the same.

With these acts, Fr. T. was deprived of all means of income.

“At no time has Bishop Lopes or any member of the Chancery staff of the Ordinariate expressed any concern over this loss of income, about the immediate impact that it would have upon my ability to properly care for my wife and family or intimated that the income lost would be replaced by the Ordinariate during the canonical process that was to ensue.”

— Yet more on what became of Fr. (and Mrs.) Treco in the intervening months and years. —