As part of the attached decision of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura regarding the Rev. William C. Graham’s appeal of his removal as pastor of St. Michael Church in Duluth, the Apostolic Signatura has directed Bishop Felton to publish the decision in Latin in the diocesan newspaper. Also published is a statement by Bishop Felton that is approved by the Vatican Dicastery for the Clergy.

Update regarding Father William C. Graham

I wish to update the faithful of the Diocese of Duluth on the status of one of our Diocesan priests, Father William C. Graham, the Pastor of St. Michael’s Catholic Church in Duluth, MN.

In 2016, the Diocese of Duluth was notified of an accusation having been made against Father Graham of sexual abuse of a minor, which was alleged to have occurred in the 1970s. Father Graham was subsequently placed on administrative leave from his priestly duties.

On August 28, 2018, the late Bishop Paul Sirba removed Father Graham from the office that he held as Pastor of St. Michael’s.

Exercising his right under Catholic Church law, Father Graham appealed this decision of Bishop Sirba to remove him from the office of Pastor of St. Michael’s. The Dicastery for the Clergy, which is the governing body in Rome to oversee such matters concerning priests, rendered a decision in 2019 which upheld Bishop Sirba’s removal of Father Graham from the office of Pastor of St. Michael’s.

Further exercising his right under Church law, Father Graham appealed this decision of the Dicastery of the Clergy, taking his case before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, which acts as the Church’s highest court.

In a decision rendered in 2022, the Apostolic Signatura overturned the decision of the Dicastery of the Clergy, and thus overturned the decision of Bishop Paul Sirba removing Father Graham as Pastor of St. Michael’s Catholic Church.

The decision of the Apostolic Signatura stated that the decision to remove Father Graham as Pastor erred in two ways. First, the Dicastery of the Clergy made an error in its own internal procedures while prosecuting the case in Rome. Second, Bishop Sirba made an error in discernment in that, although Bishop Sirba rightly placed Father Graham on administrative leave and limited his ability to actively minister as priest pending the outcome of an investigation of a credible accusation of a minor, Bishop Sirba erred in removing Father Graham from the office of Pastor of St. Michael’s due to the credible accusation without an intervening procedural process to further determine the truth of the accusation. The Apostolic Signatura reasoned that a credible accusation of sexual abuse of a minor was not a sufficient cause, by itself, to remove a priest from the office of pastor.

The result of the 2022 Apostolic Signatura’s decision is that Father Graham is and remains the canonical (lawful) Pastor of St. Michael’s Catholic Church in Duluth.

In a related development however, in 2021, the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the governing body in Rome that oversees matters of potential misconduct by members of the clergy, instructed the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis to conduct a canonical process in order to attempt to discover the truth of the accusations made against Father Graham. A decision in that case was rendered in 2022. Father Graham exercised his right to appeal a part of that decision to the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith. A decision of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith in that case was rendered in 2023.

Given that Father Graham’s appeal of the decision of the 2023 Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith is currently ongoing, I have limited Father Graham’s faculties to exercise his ministry as a priest until such time as the appeal initiated by Father Graham has been resolved.

Thus, while Father Graham is the canonical (lawful) Pastor of St. Michael’s, he is not currently able to exercise that office. Therefore, to ensure ongoing priestly presence and active priestly ministry to the parishioners of St. Michael’s, a priest has been assigned as the administrator of St. Michael’s. To be clear, Father Graham is exercising his rights as a priest, as he should. Once the appeal process that Father Graham initiated has been completed, I will update you regarding Father Graham’s status.

Most Reverend Daniel J. Felton
Bishop of Duluth

Prot. n. 54162/19 CA
DULUTHEN.
Amotionis ab officio parochi
(Rev.dus D.nus Guillermus C. Graham — Congregatio pro Clericis)

Excellentissime Domine,

hisce adjunctum litteris Tibi mittitur examplar Sententiae definitivae ab H.S.T. in causa, de qua supra, latae.

Occasionem nactus, Excellentiae Tuae cuncta fausta adprecor ac permaneo

addictissimus

Andreas RIPA
Secretarius

Excellentissimo ac Reverendissimo Domino
D.no Danieli J. FELTON
Episcopo Duluthensi

(cum adnexo)

SUPREMUM SIGNATURAE APOSTOLICAE TRIBUNAL

Non licet hoc documentum reservatum tertiis tradere eiusve aliquam partem typis edere aut quovis alio modo publici iuris facere absque explicita licentia Supremi Signaturae Apostolicae Tribunalis.

Prot. n. 54162/19 CA
DULUTHEN.
Amotionis ab officio parochi
(Rev.dus D.nus Guillermus C. Graham — Congregatio pro Clericis)

SENTENTIA DEFINITIVA

IN NOMINE DOMINI. AMEN.

FRANCISCO PP. feliciter regnante, Pontificatus sui anno IX, die 3 decembris 2021, Supremum Signaturae Apostolicae Tribunal, videntibus Em.mo ac Rev.mo D.no Dominico Card. Mamberti, Praefecto et Ponente, atque Exc.mis et Rev.mis D.nis Philippo Iannone, O. Carm., Francisco Daneels, O. Praem., Aegidio Miragoli, Andrea Migliavacca, atque interventientibus Cl.mo A. Errera, utpote Patrono Recurrentis, Cl.mo Ae. Artiglieri, tamquam Patrono Congregationis pro Clericis, Cl.ma M. Wegan, tamquam Patrona Exc.mi Episcopi Duluthensis, atque Rev.do D.no Ioanne DeWitt, Promotore Iustitiae deputato, in causa, de qua supra, hanc definitivam tulit sententiam.

FACTI SPECIES

1. Progrediente processu civili adversus quasdam paroecias scholamque dioecesanam ad refectionem damnorum obtinendam inchoato, die 23 maii 2016 Exc.mo ad Rev.mo D.no Paulo Sirba †, Episcopo Duluthensi notitia criminis pervenit in Rev.dum D.num Guillermum Graham, presbyterum eiusdem dioecesis, de delicto contra sextum cum minore. Ipse denuntians rettulit adserta facta evenisse abhinc 45 fere annos («in the mid-70s»). Ideo, die 26 maii, huius notitiae causa, Exc.mus Episcopus Duluthensis presbytero praeceptum poenale imposuit, una cum petitione reliquendi officium parochi.

2. Sequenti anno, die 29 augusti, idem Praesul investigationem praeviam perfecit, et omnia acta ad Congregationem pro Doctrina Fidei transmisit, quae die 6 februarii 2018 responsionem dedit. Ita illud Dicasterium hortatum est Episcopum ad praeceptum poenale imponendum, iuxta can. 1319 CIC, asserens Congregationem ipsam libenter praescriptioni derogaturam esse, si sacerdos vel Episcopus voluisset, ad processum administrativum inchoandum.

Ideo, auditis duobus parochis ad mentem can. 1742, § 1 CIC, Exc.mus Episcopus praeceptum imposuit, prohibens exercitium publicum ministerii Rev.do Graham per unum annum, eum monens ad officio parochi renuntiandum intra sequentes kalendas maii. Die 18 aprilis sacerdos petivit ut aliqua in praefato praecepto immutarentur et, adiuvante Procuratore-Advocato Diacono Jorgensen, negavit se officio parochi renuntiaturum esse intra mensem augusti. Rev.dus Graham enim malebat exspectare conclusionem causae civilis ad damnorum refectionem, a se inchoatam mense iulio 2016, adversum virum denuntiantem. His minime obstantibus, Exc.mus Episcopus, omisso uno articulo prioris, novum praeceptum imposuit, et denuo sacerdoti proposuit officio renuntiationem, intra diem 31 maii. Eodem modo, Rev.dus Graham per Procuratorem — Advocatum denegationem iteravit.

3. Postea, die 14 augusti 2018, Tribunal Civile sententiam emisit pro Rev.do Graham, eidem pecuniam refundens, scilicet $ 13.500. Nihilominus — processu ad parochos amovendos iuxta can. 1745 CIC mense iulio perfecto — decreto diei 28 augusti 2018 Exc.mus Episcopus Rev.dum Graham a parochia amovit. In praefato decreto, enim, Praesul ministerium illius presbyteri inefficax evasisse asseveravit ob praeceptum poenale eidem impositum.

Die 11 septembris 2018, censens se immerito ab hac decisione gravari, per suum Procuratorem, Rev.dus Graham adversus decretum amotionis remonstrationem proposuit, petens eius revocationem. Quae instantia ab Exc.mo Ordinario die 20 septembris 2018 reiecta est. Ideo, die 2 octobris presbyter ad Congregationem pro Clericis provocavit, quae autem decisionem Exc.mi Episcopi confirmavit, decreto diei 14 januarii 2019, nunc apud H.S.T. impugnatum.

Memorari iuvat Congregationem in suo Decreto arbitrium in modo decernendi in actu episcopali impugnato — scilicet, ministerium parochi ante prohibitum, postea inefficax declaratum — agnovisse, nec non eius illegitimitatem, cum praeceptum causa diuturna non constitueret. Quamobrem, Congregatio decisionis motivum emendavit (iuxta can. 1739 CIC), et statuit causam amotionis revera fuisse notitiam delicti, scilicet credible accusation, secundum legem particularem vigentem in territorio illius Conferentiae Episcoporum, ex art. 9 Essential Norms (2006).

4. Proinde, recursus apud H.S.T. die 14 februarii 2019 porrectus est. Re dein rite discussa inter Cl.mos Patronos partis recurrentis, Congregationis pro Clericis, atque Exc.mi Episcopi Duluthensis necnon Rev.dum Promotorem Iustitiae deputatum ac sedulo examinata in Congressu coram Em.mo Praefecto H.S.T. habito, recursus ad disceptationem admittendum esse die 30 octobris 2019 decretum est.

5. Ideo, nunc Collegio Iudicum dubio concordato die 21 novembris 2019 respondendum est: An constet de violatione legis in procedendo vel in decernendo relate ad decisionem a Congregatione pro Clericis die 14 ianuarii 2019 latam.

IN IURE ET IN FACTO

7. In causa disputanda apud H.S.T. duae legis violationes emerserunt relate ad impugnatum decretum Congregationis pro Clericis, altera in procedendo ob debitam proceduram omissam, altera in decernendo ob illegitimam causam amotionis.

8. Relate ad iudicium in procedendo, in recursibus circa parochi amotionem, iuxta H.S.T. iurisprudentiam, cum aliqua Congregatio ut Superior hierarchicus novam decisionem tulit, vel funditus motiva immutat (cfr. can. 1739 CIC), denuo procedura a lege statuta observanda in toto non est, sed partim saltem, «in tuto positis tam iure defensionis Rev.di Recurrentis quam causis amotionis in can. 1741 recensitis» (cfr. sent. def. diei 30 aprilis 2005, coram Cacciavillan, prot. n. 34723/03 CA, n. 12). Inde surgit necessitas Recurrenti exponendi novas probationes vel rationes, una cum facultate ei tributa sese defendendi, nam: «Ius defensionis Recurrentis in tuto servatur, si ei significatae sunt rationes probationesque amotionis et ipsi facultas data est exhibendi defensionem apud Superiorem, qui de recursu videt» (cfr. dec. def. diei 1 decembris 2009, coram Rouco Varela, prot. n. 39689/07 CA, n. 4). Autem, ex actis constat huiusmodi citationem Recurrentis a Congregatione peractam in casu non esse.

Patrona Exc.mi Episcopi Duluthensis contendit rationem expositam a Dicasterio novam non esse, cum argumentum sequens tulerit: «non agitur de causa nova, quia accusationes iam in actis inveniuntur, immo, ad impositionem praecepti poenalis diei 3 maii 2018 conduxerunt» (Restrictus Patronae Exc.mi Episcopi, p. 8, n. 27), immo motivum tacitum esse contentum in ratione ab Exc.mo Epsicopo exposita. Eodem modo, in Restrictu pro Congregatione legitur: «Magis quam ‘causa nova’, illa a Congregatione pro Clericis proposita, consideranda est ut causa magis profunde, praesertim sub adspectu iuridico, considerata, sed, certo certius, non totaliter alia» (Restrictus Patroni Congregationis pro Clericis, p. 13, n. 6). Congregatio pro Clericis enim non putat se causam novam ferre, sed illam iam implicite iacentem solummodo prosequi. Tamen, uti Promotor Iustitiae deputatus adnotat, tale argumentum valde difficile asseveratu est, cum ipsa Congregatio arbitrium illegitimitatemque recognovisset in Exc.mi Episcopi ratiocinatione: «The Congregation agrees that this would lead to arbitrariness if such a precept in itself were the only foundation on which such a decree was based […] Although the penal precept makes it impossible for the Recurrent to carry out the ministry of his office effectively (cf. can. 528), it is not indefinite, and may not be considered prolonged» (Summ. n. 2, p. 201).

9. Alia ex parte, H.S.T. iurisprudentia illegitima tenet motiva in decisione summarie saltem non expressa (cfr. can. 51 CIC), ideo actum cassavit suffultum motivis mere implicitis: «Qua re etiam in hac causa voto P.I. adstipulati violationem legis in procedendo patratam esse dicimus, quia decretum Magni Cancellarii Universitatis […] motiva decisionis neque summarie, prout lex praecipit expressit» (cfr. sent. def. diei 24 martii 2001, coram Agustoni, prot. n. 27795/97, n. 11). Ceterum, citatio seu invitatio partis recurrentis ad novam causam contestandam omni modo in actis a Congregatione pro Clericis transmissis deest et ideo ubique in iisdem caret disputatio de motivo a Congregatione allato, id est de notitia criminis, tam in phasi dioecesana quam apostolica.

Omnibus bene perpensis, immutata ratione ad amotionem sustinendam, omissa debita Recurrentis citatione, ius defensionis denegatum evadit, ideo de violatione legis in procedendo constat.

10. Relate postea ad iudicium in decernendo, H.S.T. constans iurisprudentia elenchum causarum ob quas parochus amoveri potest, de quo in can. 1741 CIC, taxativum non esse autumat, immo invenire alias posse, dummodo in primis relatio cum bono fidelium maxime servetur: «At vero, etsi Episcopi dioecesani potestas amovendi parochos non limitetur causis taxativis, id tamen minime secumfert Episcopum ad amotionem procedere posse propter causam diversam a bono fidelium in relatione cum ministerio paroeciali» (cfr. sent. def. diei 3 decembris 2005, coram Echavarría Rodríguez, prot. n. 33236/02, n. 8).

Eodem modo, H.S.T. Iudices docent delictum considerari posse in parochi amotione, quia vera causa de delicto promanat ob quam ministerium parochi noxium vel inefficax factum est: «In casu praeviso a citato canone (can. 1740 CIC, ndr) parochus quidam aliquid negativum fecit ex quo eius ministerium noxium iam evasit. Hoc negativum potest etiam esse delictum» (cfr. sent. def. diei 30 novembris 2002, coram Coccopalmerio, prot. n. 28499/97, n. 25); vel, delictum causam directam esse in officii privatione tantum: «Causa motiva in casu amotionis est noxia vel inefficacia exercitii eius ministerii (fortasse delicti causa), in casu privationis directe ipsum delictum commissum; causa finalis in casu amotionis est bonum fidelium tuendum, in casu privationis ipsum delictum puniendum; ratio procedendi in primo casu est mere administrativa, in altero poenalis» (cfr. sent. def. diei 28 aprilis 2006, coram Grocholewski, prot. n. 37937/05 CA, n. 10e).

11. Uti Promotor Iustitiae deputatus sublineat, in H.S.T. iurisprudentia repercutit formulam causae amotionis de qua in can. 2147, § 2, n. 3 iuxta Codicem 1917: «Bonae existimationis amissio penes probos et graves viros, sive haec […] ex antiquo eius crimine quod nuper detectum eximatur iam poena ob praescriptionem […]». Revera hic canon causam in specie respicit, id est delictum inventum, sed iam praescriptum. Verumtamen causa vera et directa alia est, sicuti in vigenti Codice, scilicet amissio penes paroecianos vel aversio in parochum (can. 1741, n. 3 CIC). Ideo, Promotor Iustitiae deputatus concludit eadem de delicto relate ad amotionem ab officio parochi, a fortiori merae denuntiationi accommodare.

12. Hoc in casu, Congregatio ad amotionem sustinendam unico motivo sese refert notitiae delicti, scilicet credible accusation. Ad argumentum roborandum, Dicasterium legem particularem commemoravit, id est Essential Norms promulgatas a Conferentia Episcoporum anno 2006, recognitione a Santa Sede recepta. Hic est fulcrum praefatam legem particularem interpretandi, ea quae auctoritatem ecclesiasticam competentem semper ad proceduram in parochis amovendis praesertim ad causas amotionis legitimas in lege universali remittit. Ideo plus quam novam legitimam amotionis causam praescribit, lex particularis modum quo delictum iuxta legem universalem tractandum est porrigit.

Clare patet praefatas normas legem universalem non immutare, immo ad hanc reicere, uti etiam in iurisprudentia H.S.T. quoque dictum est: «in earum (scil. Essential Norms) versione recognita in praeambulo explicite statuitur agi de normis additiciis ad ius universale et in ipso n. 9 explicite statuitur agi de normis additiciis ad ius universale et in ipso n. 9 explicite nunc affirmatur rem interpretandam esse intra ambitum iuris universalis (“within the parameters of the universal law of the Church”)» (cfr. sent. def. diei 28 aprilis 2007, coram Grocholewski, prot. n. 37937/05, CA, n. 14). Nam constat illam legem particularem proceduram praeviam, vel praeparatoriam censendam esse ad applicandas proceduras vel praecepta in lege universali statuta. Accuratius, tales normae proceduram et motiva ad parochos amovendos (cann. 1740-1747 CIC) complectuntur, uti in nota 7b, praefati articuli 9 (cfr. Guide to the Implementation of the U.S. Bishop’s Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons, Canon Law Society of America, Washington, D.C. 2003, 18-19; T. Green, “Clerical Sexual Abuse of Minors: Some Canonical Reflections” The Jurist 63 [2003] 418-419).

13. Rebus sic stantibus, interpretatio et applicatio Essential Norms a Congregatione adhibitae — ita ut credible accusation causa legitima amotionis censeri possit — re poenam privationis officii inferunt, sine praevia procedura poenali iudiciali (cfr. can. 1342 § 2 CIC). Ceterum, attento quod nec Congregatio pro Clericis nec Exc.mus Episcopus aliam referunt causam ad amotionem sustinendam, nisi praeceptum et sic dictam credible accusation — utraque illegitima — constat de violatione legis in decernendo quoque.

14. Relate denique ad petitam damnorum reparationem, cum canones de modo procedendi in amotionem a paroecia nihil de bona fama referant, canon in normis generalibus hic valet (cf. can. 220 CIC). Hoc in casu, de asserto delicto seu de notitia criminis tractatur, de qua iuxta can. 1717, § 2 CIC: «cavendum est ne ex hac investigatione [de qua in § 1] bonum cuiusquam nomen in discrimen vocetur». Exinde praescripta legis, quae in processu poenali, etsi phase praevia, ab Ordinario observanda sunt, a fortiori in procedura administrativa amotionis ab officio parochi vigent. Eapropter, procedura incepta, attestatio publica quoad delictum assertum ab Exc.mo Episcopo Duluthensi die 24 augusti 2018 peracta laesionem bonae famae recurrentis constituit (cf. Summ. n. 15). Proinde, haec sententia ab Exc.mo Episcopo Duluthensi publicanda est, modis ab hac Signatura Apostolica infra indicatis.

Conclusio

15. Omnibus sive in iure sive in facto aeque rimatis, infrascripti Patres pro Tribunali sedentes ac solum Deum prae oculis habentes, dubio proposito respondendum esse decreverunt atque respondent:

Affirmative, seu constare de violatione legis in procedendo et in decernendo relate ad decretum Congregationis pro Clericis diei 14 ianuari 2019.

Sententia haec affirmativa, ab Exc.mo Episcopo Duluthensi publicanda est in tabulis publicis dioecesanis.

Quoad expensas processuales cautio in arca H.S.T. retineatur. Partes suo Cl.mo Patrono congruum solvant honorarium.

Hanc definitivam sententiam cum omnibus quorum interest communicandam et exsecutioni mandandam decernimus, ad omnes iuris effectus.

Datum Romae, e sede Supremi Signaturae Apostolicae Tribunalis, die 3 decembris 2021.

(Signati) Dominicus Card. MAMBERTI, Praefectus et Ponens

✠ Philippus IANNONE, O. CARM.

✠ Franciscus DANEELS, O. PRAEM.

✠ Aegidius MIRAGOLI

✠ Andreas MIGLIAVACCA

Et notificetur.

Die 4 maii 2022

Andreas RIPA
Episcopus tit. el. Caeretanus
Secretarius

Marius LEITE DE OLIVEIRA
vices Praepositi Cancellariae gerens