ODIUM PLEBIS. — This is one of the causes provided for removal (v.) of the parish priest.
The case of the legitimate resignation, transfer, or removal of one quem mala plebs odit was already contemplated in the law of the Decretals (c. 10, X, de renuntiatione, I, 9). Subsequently, the jurisprudence of the Roman Congregations held this principle to be valid; from the decree Maxima cura, issued by the S. Congr. Consistorial on 20 August 1910 for the regulation of the entire matter concerning the removal of parish priests, it passed into the CIC.
Since the proper and direct purposes of the parish priest are exclusively the spiritual welfare of the faithful (can. 451 § 1; can. 453 §§ 1, 2), anyone who, for any reason, and even through no fault of his own, has become incapable or has become a cause of spiritual harm to the faithful entrusted to his care must be removed from the office of parish priest. Thus, when the parish priest has become an object of contempt, resentment, or hatred on the part of his people, it is evident that,
in the absence of the conditions necessary for a fruitful pastoral ministry, the Church, in the supreme interest of souls, should act—perhaps sacrificing a private interest—to restore the conditions favorable to effective work
(by courtesy of Dr. L. S. Cesana)
ODOACRE - Coin.
Apostolic. Hence the juridical norm established in can. 2147 § 2, n. 2, which gives the legitimate ecclesiastical superior the possibility of removing the incumbent from the parish when odium plebis exists against him, quamvis iniustum et non universale, dummodo tale sit, quod utile parochi ministerium impediat nec brevi cessaturum praevideatur. As can easily be inferred from the text, and as the commentators unanimously explain, for the removal to be effected it is absolutely necessary that the hatred be directed against the person of the parish priest and not against his office, that it be such as to render the parish ministry actually fruitless, and that it be foreseen not to cease within a short time. From what has already been said, and as the cited canon itself establishes, it is not necessary that the hatred be justified on the part of the faithful: the juridical norm was not devised to punish a fault but, having established a purely objective 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; according to the CIC, it is sufficient that it be sufficiently widespread for the removal to take place. It must, however, always be such—and this must also be kept in mind in determining its extent—as to render the pastoral ministry practically fruitless. Thus, if the majority or a substantial portion of the faithful, out of hatred for the person of the parish priest, abstain from receiving the Sacraments, or for the same reason forbid their children to attend catechism, it is evident that the conditions established by the CIC for removal are present. This is not so in the case of one person or only a few, while most of the faithful still esteem and venerate their parish priest.
The distinction between irremovable and removable parish priests has no bearing in the present case: removal propter odium plebis applies to both (cann. 2147 § 2, n. 2, 2157 § 1).