You don’t only have the right to remain silent. . .

A dear friend of mine, a cantor from St. Mary Byzantine Church in Van Nuys, came to visit my church, together with a friend of his, this last Sunday. While my wife, Beth, was feeling tired after the Divine Liturgy, and had to be taken home soon afterwards, my friends and I had the chance to speak about matters Carpatho-Rusyn. My cantor friend was and is the son and grandson of Carpatho-Rusyn cantors, and has probably forgotten more about that beautiful chant than I’ll ever learn about it.

Unfortunately, the conversation was not of entirely pleasant news: my friend told me about the closing of a Byzantine Catholic Church, Holy Trinity Church in Connecticut, which apparently had been closed by its bishop, His Grace, Andrew Pataki of the Eparchy of Passaic. What was remarkable about this closure was that it was apparently done without the knowledge or consent of the church’s parishioners, that the closure was announced at the end of a Divine Liturgy, and that the parishioners were forced out under armed guard directly after that Liturgy. News accounts of this forced closing may be found here and here.

If these accounts are correct, then it would appear that His Grace, Bishop Andrew, has acted in violation of several provisions of the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law.

In particular, Canon 873, section 1 states: “If a church in no way can be used any longer for divine worship and there is no possibility to repair it, the eparchial bishop can relegate it to profane but not sordid use.” Thus, under this canon, a bishop has the unqualified right to close a church only when it can no longer be used for divine worship.

But section 2 of that canon states: “If other grave reasons suggest that a certain church can no longer be used for divine worship, the eparchial bishop can relegate it to profane but not sordid use, after having consulted with the presbyteral council, and with the consent of those who legitimately claim rights concerning the church, and as long as the good of souls is not thereby impaired. (emphasis added).

While there is no evidence one way or the other whether His Grace Andrew consulted with his presbyteral council on the matter, it appears obvious that he did not seek the consent of Holy Trinity Church’s parishioners, who had legitimate rights under canon law. To begin with, Can. 15.2 states: “Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.” Thus, the parishioners in this instance had the right to request that they continue to maintain their church and their parish, even though it had dwindled in numbers.

Further, under Can. 16, “Christ's faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments.” And under Can. 17, “Christ's faithful have the right to worship God according to the provisions of their own rite approved by the lawful Pastors of the Church; they also have the right to follow their own form of spiritual life, provided it is in accord with Church teaching.”

Under these Canons, I believe that the parishioners had the right to request the bishop that he continue to allow the pastor and priests there to serve the parish, and that the parish continue to exist as such. These rights appear to have been violated when His Grace acted, without the parishioners’ consent or even knowledge, to force them out (under gunpoint!) of the church which they had financed and supported for many years.

Regardless of whether the parishioners of Holy Trinity had rights in that church, however (and I believe canon law is clear that they do), it should be obvious that the act of a bishop in evicting his flock under gunpoint is not to the benefit of souls, neither the souls of his flock, nor (through great scandal) to the many Christian souls (whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant) who happen to believe that Christ sent bishops into the world to feed His flock, and not to fleece it.

Under the circumstances, then, I believe that members of Holy Trinity Parish have the right under Title 22, Canons 996-1006 of their Code of Canon Law to seek recourse against the uncanonical decree of His Grace, Andrew, first by contacting his office directly, and if that is unsuccessful, in bringing an appropriate complaint to the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, his Grace’s immediate superior. If that is unsuccessful, there is always the final option of appealing to Rome.

It is important to note that the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law provides Roman Catholics with the same rights, and the same protections, as the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law. Thus, Roman bishops cannot legally close churches and evict their parishioners unilaterally.

And finally, I note that under both the Eastern and Roman Catholic Codes of Canon Law, the Christian faithful, “. . .In accord with the knowledge, competence and position which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the pastors of the Church their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence for the same pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.” (Eastern Code, Canon 15.3; Latin Code, Canon 212.3). Thus, all Catholics (indeed, all Christians) have both the right and the duty to let His Grace, Andrew, and His Grace’s superiors, know exactly what they think of His Grace’s actions.

I would only recommend that those who do so make their opinion known follow the above canon completely, and accord to His Grace the reverence due to a successor of the Apostles, and be considerate of the dignity of all people. In short, as Lucius Malfoy said to his son, Draco: Play nicely.