More St. Stanislaus Fallout: Canon Lawyer Thomas Doyle Found Guilty of Abuse of Ecclesiastical Function and Ordered to Pay Restitution

The dissident's canon lawyer of choice, Fr. Thomas Doyle, has been found guilty by Archbishop Burke of two canonical delicts under Canon 1389: 1) Abuse of ecclesiastical function by act and omission, with malice; and, 2) Illegitimate placing and omitting of an act of ecclesiastical function, with harm to another, by reason of culpable negligence. The Decree of Extrajudicial Adjudication is published in the print edition of the Review.

This action stems from his attempted representation of excommunicated St. Stanislaus Board Members Bernice Krauze and Stan Rozanski. Fr. Doyle, himself a noted dissenter from Church teaching, has been deprived by His Grace, through imposition of a penalty ferendae sententiae, from any office as canonical procurator and advocate with the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The Archbishop has furthermore imposed upon Doyle the just penalty of restitution, ferendae sententiae, of any monies he may have received from Krauze or Rozanski.

In his Decree, the Archbishop recounts the facts underlying the decision. The dates are important:

Krauze and Rozanski were elected to the Board of Directors on August 12, 2007.

Archbishop Burke issued Summonses to Appear and Canonical Admonitions to them on September 4, 2007.

Because neither Rozanski nor Krauze appeared as scheduled and failed to communicate with the Archbishop in this matter, he issued Decrees of Forfeiture of the Exercise of the Right of Defense to Krauze and Rozanski on September 27, 2007.

Only after this did Doyle finally submit an "Appointment Agreement" for each Krauze and Rozanski to the Archbishop on October 17, 2007. Okay, but there are some problems with these documents:

1. The agreement signed by Rozanski bears a date of August 5, 2007, and the agreement signed by Krauze bears a date of September 5, 2007.


2. The Rozanski agreement (at least) references Rozanski as "Director"and under "Excommunication". However, how can this have been done on or before August 5, 2007, since Rozanski wasn't elected as Director until August 12, 2007, and no canonical summons had been issued until September 4, 2007?


3. Why the discrepancy yet similarity in the dates of the two agreements? One is dated August 5, one is dated September 5. Yet neither was submitted to the Archbishop by the putative canonical representative as required under canon 1484 until October 17-- approximately ten days AFTER the Archbishop issued Decrees of Forfeiture of the Exercise of the Right of Defense. Hmmm.


4. In light of the above, could there be a reason why neither Rozanski nor Krauze responded to the Archbishop's summons and admonition issued September 4, 2007? If Doyle had been hired to represent them on August or September 5, and had complied with canon 1484, he would have submitted the necessary documents to the Archbishop to be approved as the representative of the accused. But he did not, which means he either wasn't hired to be their representative on the putative dates of the later-submitted Agreements-- which calls their authenticity into question-- or that he was hired but did not fulfill his duties under canon 1484. Doyle gave a general excuse for this failure to file, citing "family and other obligations". But if he was hired on August 5, or September 5, why then would he not just submit the documents before his clients' rights to defense were forfeited?

Back to our timeline. After the Agreements were finally submitted to the Archbishop on October 17, 2007, the Archbishop issued three canonical summonses and admonitions to Doyle himself-- on November 3, 2007, December 5, 2007, and December 18, 2007. Each time Doyle failed to appear, and to date has not provided the Archbishop with a proportionate reason for having failed in his obligations.

Finally, on March 12, 2008, Krauze and Rozanski were declared to have incurred excommunication by an Extra-Judicial Decree of His Grace.

Thomas Doyle is a notorious dissenter from infallible Church teaching. As such his credentials were finally rejected by the Archbishop pursuant to canon 1483.

Also, ironically, he is being held accountable as being found guilty of abuse of ecclesiastical function with malice, and of a culpably negligent act or omission with harm to another. This from a person famous for claiming to demand accountability from Church officials against whom he testifies.

He has been order to pay back any money he received. He is forbidden from acting as canonical procurator in this Archdiocese. And as the Archbishop himself says: "As a result of the instant case, any solicitation, on the part of Rev. Doyle, to provide canonical advice or representation is deemed inept by the same Archbishop." Ouch. That has to hurt.

The Archbishop deserves a great deal of credit for having the will to address this issue. From what I can tell, this is the first time anyone has actually found Doyle guilty of canonical delicts and imposed punishment.

_______________________

The Archbishop's explanatory statement, from today's St. Louis Review:

Explanatory note on extra-judicial decree, to be found in its entirety in this issue of the Review

As the chief shepherd of the Church in the Archdiocese of St. Louis, I have the duty and moral obligation to uphold the teachings and practices of the Catholic Faith. Those teachings include the obligation of a bishop to safeguard the legal processes under which the Church operates. The decree of extra-judicial Adjudication that is printed in this week’s edition of the Review is one of many steps I have been obliged to take in the matter surrounding the situation involving the board of St. Stanislaus Kostka Corporation. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, it is my judgment that Father Thomas P. Doyle, OP, a priest and canon lawyer, has failed to represent two members of the St. Stanislaus Kostka Corporation board properly or effectively in connection with intra-Church legal matters.

Canon law requires a process by which to address issues of internal Church discipline, faith, and Church organization, which are involved with ecclesiastical rule, custom and law. As part of that process, I have issued the Decree, under which Father Doyle is obliged to repay any money he may have received from the two board members. Additionally, I am informing Father Doyle that, with the decree, he will not be allowed to represent anyone in any Church legal proceedings in the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

The archdiocese has offered in the past, and continues to offer canonical help to all board members to ensure their fair representation and due process. The Catholic Church holds dearly the idea of justice.

Please continue to pray for all those involved.

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke