Portland Bishop Richard Malone has issued a rare order banning an advocate for people abused by priests from his services and threatening to issue a rare Interdict — banning Paul Kendrick from the right of communion. The Maine diocese recently released the names of eleven priests in the state with credible allegations of abuse.
In a letter from the vicar general, the Rev. Andrew Dubois, Kendrick was informed that he is banned from the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Portland and must stay 500 feet away from Malone, including avoiding any Mass that he celebrates. If he does not comply, he was warned that he may be denied the right “to participate fully in the sacramental life of the church.”
Kendrick has been outspoken in his criticism and bombarded the church with emails. He has confronted Malone in public settings. He previously received a criminal trespass order barring him from the cathedral, the chancery and Malone’s residence as well as an order to cease and desist from harassing Malone.
Even assuming that Kendrick is a nuisance, the use of an Interdict is an interesting development under canon law. Kendrick is represented by Rev. Tom Doyle, a Virginia priest and advocate for victims who says that he was punished for his work by the Church — ending a career as a canon lawyer.
Portland is lucky that this is a personal interdict as opposed to a local interdict, which can apply to a whole state or country. Pope Innocent III placed the kingdom of England under an interdict for five years between 1208 and 1213 after King John refused to accept his appointee as Archbishop of Canterbury. The most recent interdict in the United States was issued by Bishop René Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, Texas who interdicted a Catholic state representative — who later died while under the Interdict without benefit of the sacraments. Here is how the good Bishop explained his actions:
In 1993 a member of the House of Representatives in the Texas legislature, who maintained a domicile in the Diocese of Corpus Christi, gave an interview to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, the major newspaper in South Texas. The paper profiled the state representative on two full pages. The Corpus Christi Caller-Times has always been, and remains today, a strongly pro-abortion newspaper. The wife of the founding publisher was one of the founders of Planned Parenthood of Corpus Christi. The paper was eager to reveal to the world that the state representative, who had voted in the Legislature for pro-abortion legislation was a “practicing Catholic.” In the course of the interview, as reported in the newspaper, the state representative admitted being a practicing Roman Catholic who felt justified in supporting abortion on demand.
Recognizing the scandal to the faithful which the publication of this interview would cause, I realized that it was my duty, as ordinary of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, to write to the state representative. I pointed out to him that grave scandal had been given in that interview. I proposed a meeting to discuss the matter with a view to obtaining a retraction which could be published.
There was no response to my letter.
On Sunday, January 30, 1994, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times published another interview with the same state representative in which it was stated that the representative, “a devout Catholic” had not backed away from advocacy of abortion rights. On February 4, 1994 I sent him another letter. In this second letter I warned that “unless you repent of your position, I will have no other choice for the good of the Catholic Church and for the salvation of souls but to impose the penalty of forbidding you from receiving the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick.”
Such an action is now frowned upon by the Church, which has reversed actions taken against pro-abortion politicians in the denial of communion. What is curious about Malone’s actions is that he would invoke canon law instead of simply rely on secular law for any nuisance or obstructive behavior. To the extent that Kendrick is disrupting services or stalking the Bishop, he can be arrested. It is a particularly bad message to send to victims of priest abuse that they had better behave or be banished.
For the full story, click here.
Leo:
“YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE CHURCH AS ABANDONED INTERDICT AS A CANONICAL PENALTY IS TOTALLY FALSE.”
***********
Who said that it was “abandoned.” I read it was rarely used.
YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE CHURCH AS ABANDONED INTERDICT AS A CANONICAL PENALTY IS TOTALLY FALSE. WHILE SOME BISHOPS MAY CHOOSE TO NOT INVOKE THE CANONICAL PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR IN THE 1983 CODE OF CANON LAW, THE CODE AND ITS PENAL SECTION HAS NOT BEEN ABROGATED IN ANY WAY.
You falsely claimed twice that Kendrick showed up at the Bishops home. He did not. Now you’re using his “showing up” to protest the Bishop at an out of state meeting as some sort of substitute for being proven wrong about him showing up at the Bishops home.
Its not. Protesters routinely “follow” the subjects of their protest to out of state venues. PUBLIC venues. There’s nothing at all unusual about that.
You were wrong about Kendrick showing up at the Bishops residence therefore your argument pretty much has collapsed. You’re just grasping at straws now with this “out of state” protest complaint.
People do it all the time. In fact both the RNC and the DNC actually BUS protesters in from around the country to heckle and badger opposition candidates. Its just not unusual. And your case pretty much collapsed when you discovered you were wrong about Kendrick confronting the Bishop at his residence. Kendrick sent mostly “email” and also showed up at some “PUBLIC” venues.
Not unusual behavior for a protester in any book.
mspo727272 1, December 31, 2008 at 2:10 am
“waynebro:
In this excerpt from the Norfolk Examiner, it appears our precocious Mr.Kendrick did not invade the Bishop’s residence but did confront him at an out of state conference:
“Kendrick has protested outside churches, inundated the diocese with mail and e-mail, participated in a public confrontation with Malone and even showed up at an out-of-state meeting the bishop attended, [Diocese Spokesperson] Bernard said. She called it a campaign of harassment that ultimately could undermine Malone’s ministry.”
He has made his point and now seems hell-bent on forcing action by the Bishop which he has no right to do. That is crossing the line between protest and harassment, and apparently at least one judge agreed. I suspect the Judge felt, as I do, that this guy is capable of anything.”
Sorry but I don’t see it. He showed up at an out of state meeting? So what? Where in your excerpt does it say he did anything even remotely threatening? It says he “showed up”.
Cindy Sheehan “showed” up at lots of “out of state meetings” with Bush and Cheney. She even showed up at his home. In fact, she camped in front of his home. For months.
Should Cindy Sheehan also be labeled dangerous? Should she be blocked from what she does? Sheehan protests public figures. The Bishop is a public figure. That Kendrick effectively took a “road trip” to “show up” at a meeting where the Bishop was attending is hardly an indication that he intended any harm. In fact the fact that he didn’t harm anyone indicates he did not.
I have a real problem with language like “this guy is capable of anything”.
It’s bad language and it’s bad law.
We’re ALL “capable of anything”.
But this isn’t the movie “Minority Report” and we don’t try people on what they “might” do. We try them on what they do. And so far you’re still batting zero producing any evidence to suggest this guy is anything more than a run of the mill protester. And protesters are a key ingredient to a free democracy.
Just as a point of interest, I don’t think the Corpus Christi interdict was the most recent one in the US. Archbishop Raymond Burke (formerly of the Archdiocese of St Louis) issued an interdict last summer against a nun who publicly advocated womens’ ordination. See http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2008/06/archdiocesan-materials-on-lears.html.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=230213&ac=PHnws&pg=3
from page 3
‘…But Kendrick, while obeying the police warning to stay away from Malone physically, has already sent the bishop yet another letter.
” Am I to understand this to be part of a canon law process in which I am a defendant?” he wrote on Tuesday. “If so, why was I not informed of any rights I might have according to the pertinent laws of the Church?”… ‘
—————–
As I mentioned previously, Kendrick has already violated the
‘no contact’ order – just by sending the recent letter…
Being a ME resident and a member of both the medical and legal and communities, I am more than a smidge familiar with this issue.
waynebro:
In this excerpt from the Norfolk Examiner, it appears our precocious Mr.Kendrick did not invade the Bishop’s residence but did confront him at an out of state conference:
“Kendrick has protested outside churches, inundated the diocese with mail and e-mail, participated in a public confrontation with Malone and even showed up at an out-of-state meeting the bishop attended, [Diocese Spokesperson] Bernard said. She called it a campaign of harassment that ultimately could undermine Malone’s ministry.”
He has made his point and now seems hell-bent on forcing action by the Bishop which he has no right to do. That is crossing the line between protest and harassment, and apparently at least one judge agreed. I suspect the Judge felt, as I do, that this guy is capable of anything.
mespo727272 1, December 30, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“The restraining order bars him from coming onto Malone’s residence as well as the church. I assume this was due to the risk that he might or had done so in the past”
I realize you assumed this but a restraining order usually includes all areas a person is likely to be confronted at, not necessarily places where a person “has” been confronted at.
No where in the article nor in anything I can find does it state Kendrick approached Malone at his residence. In fact, it seems to state the opposite quite clearly when it states “He has confronted Malone in public settings”. Not private settings. Public settings is what the article indicates so unless you can produce other evidence that Kendrick went to Malone’s home, then the information we have so far just doesn’t support your assumption.
waynebro:
“However the real straw man here is your claim that Kendrick harassed the Bishop at his home. I see no evidence of that from the article.”
**********************
The restraining order bars him from coming onto Malone’s residence as well as the church. I assume this was due to the risk that he might or had done so in the past.
Paul Kendrick has already violated the restraining order, forbidding contact, which is probably why he has a Portland attorney making statements about his unwillingness to challenge the order
– at this time.
Too bad neither he nor Marie Tupper ever mastered speaking in tongues, projectile vomiting, or making their heads turn 360 degrees.
Then they may have gotten Bishop Malone’s private audience to speak about the other victims of Father Lee.
I guess they’d actually have to be making money off it huh? Prostitution is apparently included for the monetary gain and not the moral turpitude factor.
I don’t think professor Turley is endorsing breaching a criminal order however I think his focus, and rightfully so, is on the unseemliness of such a powerful church having been exposed to be guilty of rampant child abuse and having compounded that by conspiring to conceal this abuse now whining about a heckler.
Kind of like OJ complaining about poor book sales.
By the way, ss an attorney what do you think of the applicability of RICO and the church management conspiring to conceal these abuses? The Catholic Church is after all incorporated.
mespo727272 1, December 30, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“Waynebro:
It’s a straw man to take on the RCC for sexual abuse or its participation in the cover-up–no sane person will defend or deny that debacle. The complaint is in the method employed by the protester. Kendrick was more than rude by harassing the Bishop and confronting him publicly at Church and at his home”
Well I agree you shouldn’t have to defend the RCC for the overall sexual abuse issue in making your position.
However the real straw man here is your claim that Kendrick harassed the Bishop at his home. I see no evidence of that from the article.
The article indicates Kendrick mostly “emailed” the Bishop. It did state that Kendrick confronted the Bishop “in public settings”, but it says nothing about Kendrick confronting the Bishop at his residence. That appears to merely be one of the restrictions of the criminal trespass order.
Waynebro:
It’s a straw man to take on the RCC for sexual abuse or its participation in the cover-up–no sane person will defend or deny that debacle. The complaint is in the method employed by the protester. Kendrick was more than rude by harassing the Bishop and confronting him publicly at Church and at his home. One Judge found Kendrick’s activities so obnoxious as to issue a cease and desist order against him. Those are uncalled for actions against a person not responsible for the problem complained of, and should not be encouraged or tolerated. He may have a point to make but correctness of position is not license to behave boorishly. There are lots of ways to protest without being rude and thus undermining your credibility.
I’m not judging the methods employed by Kendrick. I’m merely addressing the attempts by the Bishop to silence him which is a common practice by the Catholic church to cover up and conceal their abuses of children.
Bishop Malone a public figure and should expect a degree of confrontation regarding the heinous crimes his church. From what I’ve read Kendrick hasn’t been out of control, and this interdict spawned from an “email” that Kendrick sent to Malone in which he said he hoped to attend midnight mass and would “pray for the tolerance to remain seated in spite of your hypocrisy.”
I don’t see any over the top behavior by Kendrick nor do I contemplate rudness as being factored in. To say a protester is being rude is like saying a boxer is hitting hard.
Protesters always seem rude to the ones they are protesting. Its just no a benchmark I’d use to measure this in anyway.
The Catholic church has been sexually molesting children for a thousand years and only recently has anyone called them on it. Their response has been to try and cover it up more, shuffling abusive priests around to avoid prosecution and generally acting like a corrupt organization involved in a massive conspiracy. And now it seems like they just want it to “go away”. It’s like “ok, we’ve been caught, can’t we just move on now and stop talking about it?”.
That Kendrick may be percieved as rude takes a backseat to the level of rudeness of a priest groping a 9 year old altar boy and then having his superiors work to conceal it.
waynebro:
I do not believe that an advocate has the right to be rude to get his point across regardless of the merit of his position. There are other more persuasive means to accomplish his goals. I suspect that Prof. Turley might agree that among the most dangerous weapons that any advocate possesses are his humanity, his dignity, and the respect for the other side’s argument that he demonstrates as he makes his points. (BTW I use the masculine form only for ease in writing as women tend to be better at this than men.)
People tend to tune out zealots regardless of the correctness of their possessions–me included.
I disagree. I think right now considering the virtual cornucopia of abuses we have discovered in recent years and the churches attempts at covering them up (pointing to a conspiracy to conceal) the LAST thing a Bishop should be doing is anything remotely smelling of silencing or hindering an advocate for the abused.
The Catholic church has no high holy ground to stand on here and like a convicted sex offender their collective lives are and should be open to scrutiny until at which time we feel the church has been rehabilitated from this vile and heinous practice of abusing children and then using the power of the church to conceal it.
I part company with Professor Turley on this one. I have no problem with the restraining order on Mr. Kendrick given his rather vociferous method of getting his point across. On the issue of indict, I express no opinion since this is an internal matter between a private organization and its member. I am a vocal critic of the Church and its seemingly increasing hypocrisy on various issues not the least of which is the scurrilous priest sexual abuse, but I do believe that private organizations have the right to deny membership or benefits to whomever they please. That, to me, is the essence of freedom of association. That said, it does not immunize the Church or its Bishop from criticism for their actions, nor insulate them from public scorn. It’s just that in this case I perceive a zealot (Kendrick) who may be deserving of an audience for his views, but clearly not support for his rather ungentlemanly actions.
take the money away and watch the tune change.
The best course of action is to stop going to the church and stop all monetary donations and encourage as many others in the partish and diocese to withhold funds. Unfortunately, the money issues will get more traction with the Church than anything else. These guys are running from the truth of their own scandals and trying to hide behind their robes. WWJD?