ODIUM PLEBIS. – This is one of the causes envisaged by the Code of Canon Law for the removal (v. REMOVAL) of a parish priest.
Already in the Decretals (c. 10, X, de renuntiatione, I, 9) the case was contemplated of a legitimate resignation, transfer, or removal of one whom the people hate. Subsequently, the jurisprudence of the Roman Congregations upheld this principle, which, from the decree Maxima cura issued by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation on 20 August 1910 for the regulation of the entire matter concerning the removal of parish priests, was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law.
Since the proper and direct purpose of the parish priest is exclusively the spiritual welfare of the faithful (can. 451 § 1; can. 453 §§ 1, 2), he who, for any reason whatsoever—even without fault—has become incapable or has caused spiritual harm to the faithful entrusted to his care must be removed from his office. Thus, in the case where the parish priest has become an object of contempt, resentment, or hatred on the part of his people, it is evident that, since the prerequisites for a fruitful pastoral ministry are lacking, the Church, in the supreme interest of souls, must provide—even at the sacrifice of a private interest—for the restoration of conditions favourable to fruitful apostolic work.
Hence the legal norm established in can. 247 § 2, n. 2, which enables the legitimate ecclesiastical superior to remove from the parish the incumbent against whom there exists such hatred, even if it is unjust and not universal, provided that it is of such a nature as to impede the useful exercise of the parish ministry and is not expected to cease in the near future. As is easily seen from the text and as commentators unanimously explain, for removal to take place it is absolutely necessary that the hatred be directed against the person of the parish priest and not against his office, that it be of such a nature as to render the parish ministry effectively fruitless, and that it be foreseen not to 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 legal norm was not established to punish a fault, but rather, upon the ascertainment of a purely objective fact, to provide for the public good, otherwise compromised.
Nor is it required that the hatred be total—that is, that all the faithful be hostile to the parish priest; according to the Code of Canon Law, it is sufficient that it be sufficiently widespread to warrant removal. It must, however, always be of such a nature—this must be borne in mind even in determining its existence—that it renders the pastoral ministry practically fruitless. Thus, if the majority or a substantial part of the faithful, out of hatred for the parish priest’s person, refrain from receiving the sacraments, or for the same reason prevent their children from attending catechism, it is evident that the conditions laid down by the Code of Canon Law for removal are met. This is not the case, however, if only one or a few do so, while the majority still hold their parish priest in esteem and veneration.
The distinction between irremovable and removable parish priests has no bearing in the present case: removal on account of hatred by the people applies to both (can. 2147 § 2, n. 2; 2157 § 1).