WASHINGTON (DC)
Crisis Magazine [Manchester NH]
November 13, 2025
By Fr. John Lovell
The vast majority of bishops see their priests as potential liabilities, lawsuits waiting to happen, and they treat their priests accordingly.
In this age of the unrelenting back and forth of social media, where people lob insults and accusations like mortars, it is hard to find genuine charitable rebuttals to another person’s work. This article will endeavor, with charity, to rebut the article “Can Fallen Priests Be Restored to Ministry? Yes—Here’s How” recently penned by Mr. Matt Robinson. Until reading his article, Mr. Robinson and his company, The Shepherd Within, were unknown to me. I applaud his efforts, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. If you haven’t done so already, I encourage you to read Mr. Robinson’s article first, then return and read this rebuttal.
Let me start with our principal agreement: the relationship between a bishop and priest is “critical to a flourishing priesthood, and a flourishing priesthood is critical to a flourishing Church.” This is certainly true! However, throughout his article, Mr. Robinson implies that there are only two reasons why a priest is out of ministry. First, for having committed a serious crime such as abuse of minors. He notes, and I agree, that this group is a small percentage, and I will say that some credit needs to be given to the exposure of the abuse and steps taken to remedy it in the last 25 years.
Second, priests are removed from ministry because they have “fallen into a serious sin, crisis, addiction, and the like…issues that are not permanently disqualifying from public ministry.” This group is larger and varies in size depending on the diocese and the health of the presbyterate. But there is a third group that Mr. Robinson fails to mention. This third group has come to be called “cancelled priests,” and I have dedicated the better part of the last several years to helping this group.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
The term “cancelled priest” is confusing to some because, at face value, it seems to include priests who belong to one or the other of the two groups identified by Mr. Robinson. Despite this, I remain convinced that the word “cancelled” remains the best term to use when referring to faithful priests who have been unjustly sidelined by their bishop. Why? Because the term properly describes how these priests have been treated.
“Cancelled priests” are a species of the cancel culture of our day; a culture which attacks people who speak the truth, even when that truth offends the gatekeepers of political correctness. It may be said that this third group is the 800-pound gorilla in the room; and, as such, “cancelled priests” are neither identified by nor addressed in Mr. Robinson’s article.
In his article, Mr. Robinson states that “according to The Catholic Project, 82% of priests regularly fear false accusation.” Having spoken to cancelled priests all over the country and the world, I would say this number is accurate, if not low. He notes that many bishops do not agree with this number. But this should not surprise us, since most bishops do not have a father-son relationship with their priests. Rather, the vast majority of bishops see their priests as liabilities, lawsuits waiting to happen, and they treat their priests accordingly.
How do I know this? Because this is the consistent testimony of myriad priests who have sought help. I first noticed this as a pattern in how the priests in my diocese were treated; but I later discovered the same pattern around the country. In fact, the consistency of the firsthand reports that I received from many priests led me to believe that the bishops in the United States of America were all playing from the same playbook.
In times past, before the Boston scandal erupted and the Dallas Charter of the USCCB, a bishop would allow a priest with whom he did not get along to find work outside of his diocese or would send him to an out-of-the-way part of the diocese. In those days, the priest would retain his faculties and a sense of dignity.
Today, almost every diocese has at least a few “cancelled” priests—or if you prefer, “unprofitable servants.” While some priests today may be given the option to find work or (indefinite) study somewhere, many bishops are weaponizing the Dallas Charter, Canon Law, and anything else they can find, to keep priests out of ministry. And the bishops are doing all this under the cover of the quarter-century-old mantra: “If the priest is removed from ministry he must have done something wrong to warrant it.”
If a name were to be given to the bishops’ anti-priest playbook, it would be “The Liability Ledger.” Whether for fear of being accused of protecting predators or just from sheer vindictiveness against a spiritual son, many bishops are using the same plays to remove and humiliate priests.
Here’s how the play typically runs: the bishop calls the priest in for meeting, a meeting for which no reason is given and for which the agenda is unstated. In attendance will be the bishop, or one of his vicars, the diocesan attorney, and, perhaps, a canonist representing the diocese. (N.B. Never attend a meeting where the other side has counsel present and you do not.)
During the meeting, a vague accusation or two will be made or a psychological or spiritual concern will be mentioned. A series of vague questions will follow. While details remain obscure, the bishop and his entourage will generously employ many adjectives: “not pastoral,” “arrogant,” “rigid,” “uncaring,” etc. After that, a psychological evaluation will be encouraged, usually at St. Luke’s in Washington, D.C., or St. John Vianney’s in Pennsylvania, or some other such place. Assurances will be flowing that if the evaluation goes well, everything will be fine.
The team at the institution will be given documents from the diocese to which the priest is not privy, and the priest will be required to give written permission granting access to anyone the bishop deems worthy to see the findings of the evaluation. After the evaluation, an oral and a written report will follow. Then, the priest will be called back in to the chancery and, more often than not, told that he is in need of “in-patient therapy.”
This consists of several months of living at one of these institutes. Cost to the diocese: $800-$1000 a day over several months. If the priest is a pastor, he will be asked to resign his parish. (Fathers, if asked to resign, do not comply. A pastor loses numerous rights in Canon Law if he resigns his office; and the bishop cannot, under obedience, compel a pastor to resign. And, if the bishop attempts to compel your resignation, you have the right of appeal to Rome.)
Pastor or not, the priest will be asked to vacate his residence. If he exercises his canonical right to refuse to go to the institution, the priest will be placed in a residence outside of his parish. Sometimes the bishop will let him live with family.
Whether the priest goes to the institution or not, the parish will be told a vague reason for his removal, asking for prayers. And, in the current climate, this is a death sentence for the priest’s good name, for the first thing that goes through peoples’ minds is that the priest did something horrible.
Yes, the priest can submit an Appeal to hierarchical recourse to Rome, but this can take years. And, if the priest eventually wins his appeal, his reinstatement by the bishop is not guaranteed. In fact, if the priests wins his appeal, many bishops will simply hide behind the line “You are uninsurable.” Meaning, the diocesan insurance company will not allow them to take the priest back into ministry.
Does every bishop in this country act this way? No. However, I have heard so many accounts of this scenario from around the country that I find it hard to believe that there is a single American bishop who has not heard stories about priests being treated in this way by one or another of his brother bishops.
Please know that this rebuttal is not against sound Catholic psychology. Many—if not most—priests would benefit from Catholic therapy at some point in their ministry. However, locking a priest up for months in a “psychological gulag” in order to find a problem to keep him out of ministry is not the solution.
In his article, Mr. Robinson states, “can we at least imagine feeling so unsafe in our lives on a regular basis? If ‘psychological safety’ is the number one organizational predictor of effective work…then we are in big trouble.”
Yes, Mr. Robinson, we are in big trouble. This is why so many priests act the way they do. Ever wonder why your pastor does not preach more on contraception or some other hot-button topic? Now you know! Priests live in a culture in which they are told to keep their heads down! Do not cause waves or else. How can anyone flourish like that? How can a holy priesthood even hope to be born in that kind of ecclesiastical culture?
Most of Mr. Robinson’s recommendations for what he calls the “antidote”—i.e., solutions to fix the problem—would be good for group two, priests who have a problem but have not committed a serious crime. He thinks each bishop should create a process for each diocese; but in this instance, a single process, with independent third-party oversight that governs all dioceses, might be best.
The following solution I propose will help eliminate group one, prevent priests from falling into group two, and abolish group three altogether while helping the bishop be a spiritual father to his presbyterate. Keep in mind that we live in a fallen world, and perfection only comes with the general resurrection.
First, when a bishop is consecrated for a diocese, he should be required to remain there until retirement or death. An episcopal transfer should be so rare that it is almost unheard of. Let St. Francis de Sales be the model, as he famously resisted transfers to prestigious dioceses. Careerism in the clergy is a cancer; a cancer that helped to form predators like McCarrick.
Second, pastors need longer tenures in a parish. It took St. John Vianney ten years before he started seeing results in Ars. Many dioceses shuffle priests around so often that it is impossible for them to put down roots. Stability is a good thing and will help cure the cancer of ecclesiastical careerism.
Third, at all costs, priests should be forbidden to live alone. The diocesan priesthood should adopt an Oratory model for priests. Ideally, this would have priests living in a central house easily accessible to their parish—a place where three or four pastors live together, eat together, and pray together. This would not be a monastery but, rather, a place to which priests can come home after their priestly service for that day is over. Even from “conservative/traditional” priests I get pushback on this. Many priests have grown comfortable living alone, but priests are not bachelors, and priests need to learn the importance of living in a community of prayer.
Fourth, a priest’s term on the chancery staff or his service on the tribunal should be limited to a maximum of five years. Having the priests of the diocese rotate through these positions would decrease the temptation to power, nip the tyrannical mentality in the bud, and deepen the presbyterate’s understanding of the diocese.
Fifth, the bishop needs to live among his priests. He should visit parishes regularly—not only to say Mass, but also to spend time in the local nursing homes, schools, and make sick calls. He should have regular “open houses” in parish halls, where he is able to field questions from his flock. Today, too many bishops hide from their flock and dodge the “hard” questions.
Sixth, if the diocese does not have a seminary, each new seminarian should spend a spiritual year living with the bishop. In fact, this should be the case even if the diocese has a seminary. If there is a seminary, the bishop should be seen as a regular fixture of that institution.
Finally, since we do not live in a perfect world, if and when a priest does need to be removed, the utmost care must be given that justice is sustained. This includes (but is not limited to) protecting the priest’s good name, making sure the priest knows that he is being loved and taken care of during the investigation.
All such investigations should be executed without delay, promptly, and thoroughly. And, if the investigation justly establishes the innocence of the accused, then the priest’s restitution should be greater than the accusation. All too often, if a priest is restored to ministry, the publicity of his restitution pales in comparison to his removal.
There is so much more that could be said, but I hope this charitable rebuttal serves as a reminder to Mr. Robinson and others that there is a third group of priests who need support and the attention of the faithful. May it also be a reminder that bishops need to embrace the fact that they are called to be spiritual fathers to their priest-coworkers and the faithful entrusted to their care, that their priests make only a promise of obedience to him, and that this is not identical to the vow of obedience which religious profess. They are the Chief Shepherd of their dioceses, not its boss, nor its CEO.
Author
Fr. John Lovell is a priest of the Diocese of Rockford and the National Mission Director for Unprofitable Servants.