RAIMLINDUS LEO Divina Miseratione et Aoostolicre …archstl.org/.../archstl/images/stories/pdfs/04-09-08-decree_doyle.pdfDivina Miseratione et Aoostolicre Sedis Gratia ARCHIEPISCOPUS

RAIMLINDUS LEO

Divina Miseratione et Aoostolicre Sedis Gratia

ARCHIEPISCOPUS SANCTI LUDOVICI

DECREE

EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADJUDICATION

In the Matter of theRev. [Thomas] Patrick Michael Doyle, O.P., J.C.D.

REGARDING THE DOUBTS:Wether the Reverend [ThomasJ PatrickMichael Doyle, O.P., J.C.D., has committedthe canonicalcrimes of: I) Abuse of Ecclesiastical Function (cf can. 1389, $ I); and 2) the Culpably Negligent andIllegitimate Placing or Omitting of an Act of Ecclesiastical Functionwith Harm to Another (cf, can.1389, S2).

In fulfillment of my solemn duty to exercise vigilance over any human matter, so that abuses do notcreep into ecclesiastical discipline, and in so far as this is required for the safeguarding offundamental human rights or the salvation of souls (cf. cann. 392 $1; and747, $2), the presentDecree is issued as follows.

Considering that the Reverend fThomas] Patrick Michael Doyle, O.P., J.C.D., [hereinafter "theAccused"] was baptized a Roman Catholic on August 27 ,1944, and is, therefore, obliged to observethe norms of the Code of Canon Law (cf. can. 11);

Considering that the Accused is domiciled at 9700 Woodland Glen Court, in Vienna, Virginia,22182-t938;

Observing that on August 12,2007 , Mr. Stanley Rozanski and Mrs. Bernice Krauze were elected byvote of the members of the Polish St. Stanislaus Kostka Comoration sect to the Board of Directorsof that entity;

Recalling that two Summonses to Appear and Canonical Admonitions were issued by theUndersigned to both Mr. Rozanski and Mrs. Krauze on September 4,2007;

Noting that on October 17, 2007, the Undersigned received a letter from the Accused, with an"Appointment Agreement" signed by Mr. Rozanski, dated August 5,2007, and an AppointmentAgreement signed by Mrs. Krauze, dated September 5,2007;

DECREE OF ADJUDICATION: REV. ITHOMASJ p. M. DOYLE, O p. - 9.1V.08

Considering that both "Appointment Agreements" failed to confer upon the said Rev. Doyle anyauthority to act on behalf of Mr. Rozanski or Mrs. Krauze before the Archdiocese of Saint Louis;

Considering that both "Appointment Agreements," agreed to in the aforesaid factual representationsby the Accused and mailed by the Accused to the Archdiocese, are deemed suspect in theirauthenticity, by reason ofthe "Appointment Agreement" referencing Mr. Rozanski as "Director" andunder "Excommunication," before his effective election as Director, and several weeks before anywarning of excommunication was even communicated to Mr. Rozanski by the Undersigned;

Considering that the Rev. Doyle, charged by Mr. Rozanski and Mrs. Krauze to represent theirinterests, failed to communicate any response to the Archdiocese of Saint Louis on their behalfbefore October IJ,2007, more than two months after the Accused was charged to function as acanonical procurator and advocate before the Archdiocese of Saint Louis;

Noting, particularly, that Decrees of Forfeiture of the Exercise of the Right of Defense in respect toboth Mr. Rozanski and Mrs. Krauze were issued by the Undersigned on September 27 ,20A7, in theextra-judicial processes for schism, initiated in their regard, precisely because the Rev. Doyle failedto communicate his appointment to the Archdiocese of Saint Louis in an effective and timelymanner; that grave harm, as a direct result, was inflicted to the substantive and procedural interestsof the Accused's two clients; and that, as such, a connection clearly exists between the omissionsof the Accused and the harm inflicted upon the integrity of the extra-judicial penal processesconcerning Mr. Rozanski and Mrs. Krauze;

Observing that can. 13 89, $ 1, provides that "a person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or functionis to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding the privation ofoffice, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse";

Observing, furthermore, that can. 1 3 89, $2, provides that "a person who through culpable negligenceillegitimately places or omits an act of ecclesiastical power, ministry, or function with harm toanother is to be punished with a just penalty";

Recalling that three Summonses to Appear and Canonical Admonitions (cf. cann. 1339 and 1347,$ 1; and 1720, l'), were delivered to the Rev. Doyle, respectively on November 3, 2007; December5,2007; and December I 8, 2007; and that the Accused failed to comply with the requirements of theAdmonitions, set forth legitimately by the Undersigned, in accord with the norm of cann . 1342, $3;1507, $ 1; and 1589, $ 1, without having demonstrated lawful, grave and proportionate reasons to theUndersigned;

Noting furthermore that, although the Accused maintains that he was unable, during the timebetween August 9,2007, and October 17,2008, to fulfill his obligations and duties as appointedProcurator and Advocate of Mr. Rozanski and Mrs. Krauze, due to "family and other obligations

DECREE OF ADJUDICATION: REV. ITHOMASI P. M. DOYLE, O.P. - 9.1't/.08

v,hich prohibited me from responding until most recently, " he has utterly failed in his obligation todemonstrate, with full proof, the veracity ofthis alleged excuse, according to the requirements oftheLaw; and" consequently, that the Accused has never demonstrated to date the existence of aproportionately grave cause, sufficient to overcome the canonical presumption that his objectivefailings are imputable to him according to can. 1321, $3;

Considering that the appointment of Rev. Doyle was finally rejected and not approved by theundersigned Archbishop of Saint Louis, because, against the requirements of can. 1483 of the Codeof Canon Law, the Accused has, in a habitual manner, publictry committed objective denials ofdefinitive truths of the Faith, and repeatedly failed in his objective obligations to Mr. Rozanski andMrs. Krauze, without providing to the Court demonstration of any proportionately grave cause;

Having that jurisdiction provided for in can. 14 1 1 , $ 2, because the Archdiocese of Saint Louis isthe place in which the obligations incumbent upon the Accused were to be fulfilled by reason of an,at least, irnplied-in-fact agreement and quasi-contract with Mr. Rozanski and Mrs. Krauze, and theassumption of responsibility "to act as a canonical advocate and procurator" by the Accused;

Having that jurisdiction provided for in can. I4l2,because Rev. Doyle has been accused of certainacts and omissions of ecclesiastical frrnction, which constitute delicts and which have occurredwithin the iurisdiction of the Archbishop of Saint Louis;

Recalling that the Accused at the time that he placed and omitted the objective acts at issue wasobliged to maintain a very high degree of professional honesty, expertise, and diligence in thefulfillment of the mandates given to him by Mr. Rozanski and Mrs. Krauze;

Taking into account that a summons (cf. can. 1720,7') and canonical admonition (cf. can. 1347, $ 1),extending the faculty to exercise the right of defense (cf. can. 7720, l"), was delivered to theAccused, requiring him to appear before the Undersigned, so that the Accused might take cognizanceof the accusation, with relative proofs, made in his regard, and so that he might be held accountablefor his very grave failings and violations against universal ecclesiastical law; and that, by the samesummonses and canonical admonitions, an extra-judicial penal process (cf. can. 1720, 1o) wasinitiated against the Accused;

Noting that, three times, the Accused failed to appear before the Undersigned as duly summoned,in compliance with the three Summonses, without having demonstrated to this day the existence ofany grave and proportionate cause justiffing the Accused's failure to appear; and that, consequently,a decree of contumacy and forfeiture of the exercise of the right of defense was lawfully notified tohim, because ofhis failure to withdraw fiom his now verified, pertinacious contumacy in the mannerrequired by can. 1347, $2;

Considering that nc exempting (cf. can.I323)or mitigating (cf. can. I324)circumstances have beendemonstrated to exist with respect to the external (cf. can. 1330) and habituai aileged conduct of theAccused;

Considering that the Accused committed the aforesaid delicts without any exempting or mitigatingcircumstances (cf. cann. 1323-1324\. but indeed within the time limits established 6v the Code ;f

DECREE OF- ADIUDICATION., REI,/. ITHOMASI P. M. DOYLE, O.P. - 9.IV.O8

Canon Law, conceming both criminal (cf. can. 1362, $$1-2) and penal (cf. cann. 1363, $$1-2; and1720,3') actions and, therefore,that the conduct of the Accused is fully punishable.

Therefore, invoking my lawful jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, after having weighedall of the proofs and the arguments with the help of two assessors (cf. can. 1720,2"), and withGod alone before my eyes, I, by this my definitive decision, declare and pronounce, to thedegree of moral certitude (cf. can. 1608, $1), that the Reverend [Thomas] Patrick MichaelDoyle, O.P., J.C.D. is guilty of having committed the canonical delicts of: 1) Abuse ofecclesiastical function by act and omission, and this with malice (cf. can. L389, $1); and 2)Illegitimate placing and omitting of an act of ecclesiastical function, with harm to another, andthis by reason of culpable negligence (cf. can. 1389, $2).

Wherefore, in the rnost sincere hope and with the prayer that the application of the due canonicalpenalties vrill lead the guilty party to seek the remedy of his very grievous sins and canonical delicts,I decree and pronounce the following:

1) Upon the guilty party is imposed theferendae sententiae penalty of deprivation of any officeas a canonical procurator and advocate within the entirety of the Archdiocese of Saint Louis,for his commission of the delict foreseen under can. 1389, $1; and 2) Upon the guilfy party isimposed the justferendae sententiae penalty of restitution of any and all monies which he mayhave received from Stanley Rozanski or Bernice Kranze, for his violation of can. 1389, $2.

Wherefore, the guilty party is notified that, if he desires to file recourse against this Decree, that heis required, ad validitatem, to submit a petition to the Undersigned within ten useful days from thedate of publication of this notice in the St. Louis Review;

Wherefore, the entinety of the Catholic faithful of the Archdiocese of Saint Louis arc notifiedthat the Rev. Doyle is not approved to serve as a canonical procurator ad advocate anywherewithin the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Saint Louis. As a result of the instant case, anysolicitation, on the part of Rev. Doyle, to provide canonical advice or representation is deemedinept by the same drchbishop.

So that all may know the present Decree, I order its publication in the next edition of the St. LouisReview, which publication, in accord with our decree ofparticular legislation issued on the ninth dayof November, in the Year of the Lord 2007, constitutes notif,rcation by edict of this Decree ofAdjudication.

lssued and read aI Saint Louis, on the ninth day of April, in the Year of the Lord 2008.

(Most Rev.) Raymond L. BurkeArchbishop of Saint Louis

(Rev.Notary

nry J. Breier