CathInfo.com

There is a case oddly similar to the Feeney case a few decades earlier in France. I think if people read about other similar cases of rogue priests and how they are handled, it will give the Feeney case some context and make it more understandable.

In the first decade of the 20th century there was a priest named Fr. Ernet Rigaud, who published a magazine commenting on the condemned false secret of La Salette, which Catholics are forbidden to discuss and which is on the Index of Forbidden Books. The Osservatore Romano published a note indicating that this priest was violating numerous rules, and that his publication was scandalous on several levels, and warned the faithful not to read it. In response, apparently, Fr. Rigaud said this notice was inauthentic and did not accept what it said. (much like Feeney and his followers issuing various quibbles about seals, docuмents, legal chicanery and so on). In response, Cardinal Merry del Val, the head of the Holy Office, wrote to Rigaud's bishop and told him that yes, that statement in the Osservatore Romano was true and authentic, and to see to it that he enforce it in his diocese.

The bishop, in response, suspended Rigaud a divinis and forbade him to publish this newsletter any more. Rigaud ignored all these things, and kept saying Mass in violation of this. Finally, St. Pius X sent him a personal letter asking him to obey. As I recall, Rigaud said the letter from St. Pius X was inauthentic, and would eventually died in that state.

The point is that there have been priests who got a bee in their bonnet about something or other, refused to obey their ecclesiastical superiors due to pride, used all kinds of legalistic sophistries to explain away their punishments and explain why they would ignore their censures, and normally never repented. Feeney is just the only one Americans have heard of.

So...if you found yourself on trial for murder, and you're innocent, you would say "I didn't do it" -- and someone would likely come back with "Hah! That's classic. Every criminal claims they didn't do it!"

In other words, that's neither here nor there.

.

We're not talking here about someone who is currently on trial, but someone who has been condemned by competent authority. Feeney was excommunicated. In the example you are using, this would be equivalent to someone who has been found guilty saying he is innocent. That's a very different thing.

This is completely false. He appealed for redress to the superior of the Jesuit order, who in response sent a Jesuit to speak with him, who (if I recall correctly) would assess the situation. Feeney refused to so much as speak with this man.

Ok, but did the Jesuit Superior (and we all know how liberal the Jesuits are) follow canon law?  Probably not, which is why Fr Feeney didn't speak with him.


Example:  If you're arrested out-of-state, and you ask the police for a phone call to call your VERY powerful lawyer friend, but they deny your phone call and appoint you some local 2-bit "defense lawyer", wouldn't you refuse to speak to this guy?  Because legally, if you speak to him, then (in some states) this constitutes acceptance of your defense, which means the local judge can then call a trial and charge you.  The smart/legal thing to do is to refuse to talk to this lawyer, avoid the trap, and wait to call your lawyer friend.

Outsiders who don't know the rules, who don't know all the details, will exclaim, "Man, that guy is guilty, he doesn't even want to talk to a lawyer."  That couldn't be further from the truth.

I believe the archdiocese also summoned Feeney in to discuss his dispute as well.

If rome has charged you, and the main heretic behind your charge is +Cushing, the head of the archdiocese, why would you talk to him?  He already thinks you're guilty...he's the one who told rome about you.  

And when Feeney appealed to Rome, he was summon to Rome to discuss the matter and refused to go.

He appealed to rome to ask them 1) give me a formal notice and 2) explain what I did wrong.  He never received this, in violation of canon law.  He was just told to "go to rome". 


Defendents have rights; canon law must be followed.

Yes, he had numerous opportunities to explain his side to various levels of ecclesiastical superiors, and refused to do so.

And all these superiors were acting in suspect ways, violating laws, and the rights of the defendent.  It was a setup.