Odium Plebis

ODIUM PLEBIS. - It is one of the causes provided for by the CIC for the removal (v.) of a parish priest.

Already in the law of the Decretals (c. 10, X, de renuntiatione, I, 9) the case was contemplated of legitimate resignation, transfer or removal of him quem mala plebs odit. Subsequently the jurisprudence of the Roman Congregations held this principle valid, and from the decr. Maxima cura issued by the S. Congr. Concistoriale on 20 Aug. 1910 for the regulation of the entire matter relating to the removal of parish priests, it passed into the CIC.

Since the proper and direct purposes of the parish priest are exclusively those of the spiritual good of the faithful (can. 451 § 1; can. 453 §§ 1,2), he must be removed from the office of parish priest who for any reason whatsoever, and even without fault, has become incapable, or has made himself the cause of spiritual harm for the faithful entrusted to his care. Thus in the case in which the parish priest has become the object of contempt, resentment or hatred on the part of his people, it is evident that, lacking the preconditions for a useful pastoral ministry, the Church, in the supreme interest of souls, provides — sacrificing perhaps a private interest — to recreate the favorable conditions for fruitful work

(out of charity of Dr. L. S. Cesana)
ODOACRE - Coin.

apostolic. Hence the juridical norm laid down in can. 2147 § 2, n. 2, which gives the legitimate ecclesiastical superior the possibility of removing from the parish the incumbent against whom there exists the o. p. quamvis iniustum et non universale, dummodo tale sit, quod utile parochi ministerium impediat nec brevi cessaturum praevideatur. As is easily gathered from the text and as the commentators unanimously explain, in order to carry out the removal it is absolutely necessary that the hatred be in personam of the parish priest and not in munus, that it be such as effectively to render the parochial ministry fruitless, and that it be foreseen that it will not cease within a short time. From what has already been said, and as the cited canon moreover establishes, it is not necessary that the hatred be just on the part of the faithful: the juridical norm was not born to punish a fault, but, having ascertained a purely objective state of fact, rather to provide for a public good that would otherwise be compromised.

Nor is it required that the hatred be total, that is, that all the faithful be hostile toward the parish priest; it is sufficient, according to the CIC, that it be sufficiently widespread for the removal to take place. It must however always be such — and this must be kept in mind also for determining its extent — as to render the pastoral ministry practically fruitless. Thus if the majority or a good part of the faithful, out of hatred toward the person of the parish priest, abstain from frequenting the Sacraments, or for the same reason forbid their children to attend catechism, it is evident that the conditions laid down by the CIC for removal exist. Not so in the case of one or only a few, while the greater part still nurture esteem and veneration toward their parish priest.

The distinction between irremovable parish priest and removable parish priest has no value in the present case: removal propter o. p. applies to both the one and the other (cann. 2147 § 2, n. 2, 2157 § 1).

Vincenzo Fagiolo