Abp. O'Brien removes priest for grave liturgical and disciplinary abuses

Update: The Baltimore Sun has posted an update to their original story here which provides more details about the nature of Father Ray Martin's abuses and (not-surprisingly) plenty of one-sided reactions.

An exclusive to the Baltimore Sun (underlining mine):

Baltimore's new Roman Catholic archbishop removed a priest who was pastor of three South Baltimore parishes for offenses that include officiating at a funeral Mass with an Episcopal priest, which violates canon law.

Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien personally ordered the Rev. Ray Martin, who has led the Catholic Community of South Baltimore for five years, to resign from the three churches and sign a statement yesterday apologizing for "bringing scandal to the church."

Martin led the funeral Mass on Oct. 15 for Locust Point activist Ann Shirley Doda at Our Lady of Good Counsel with several clergy, including the Rev. Annette Chappell, the pastor of the Episcopal Church of the Redemption in Locust Point, Martin said.

{snip}

Sean Caine, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Baltimore, said this was one example of repeated administrative and liturgical offenses Martin had committed in more than a year."

Father Martin's received advice and counsel on numerous occasions from the archdiocese, and he has repeatedly violated church teaching," Caine said. His major offense was not complying with hiring and screening policies, but he also allowed dogs in the sanctuary and did not show up for a baptism, Caine said.

The penalized Rev. Martin gives us his take on Canon Law and "extremism":

"I think that canon laws exist to protect the church from extremism. I don't find that this is such an extreme situation," Martin said.

Martin, who has not been defrocked, said he has been barred from celebrating Mass publicly. He will go on an extended retreat and counseling at a monastery in Latrobe, Pa., he said.

Liz F. Kay and Kelly Brewington, the Sun reports who wrote the piece, focus all of their "human interest" attention on those who opposed Abp. O'Brien's decision. This opposition ranges from the tearful and outraged to the laughably-ignorant ("What, are we in the Dark Ages again? This is absolutely ridiculous.") Of course, not a single person who supports the Archbishop's decision or wrote letters to complain about Rev. Martin's abuses is given a chance to speak in the article.

Lessons learned?

• When a bishop takes action against a priest in accord with Canon Law (say, in cases of sexual abuse), he's routinely criticized for not acting with more forcefulness
• When a bishop takes action against a priest in accord with Canon Law (say, in cases of liturgical abuse), he's guilty of extremely overextending the ministry of his office.

We are sure to hear in the upcoming days and weeks a great deal of complaining from certain sectors that Archbishop O'Brien has acted vindictively and oppressively. But I would submit that what these people actually dislike is not that Archbishop O'Brien has invoked Canon Law, but that he has invoked it primarily to discipline a wayward priest in liturgical and disciplinary matters (Martin, it strikes me, has been treated more than fairly).

O'Brien has been installed as the head of the Baltimore archdiocese for all of six weeks, CWNews informs us.

Ph/t to the reader who notified me.