Excommunication And Laicization Of Dale Fushek

[HisChild]

I used to be a member of the parish where this man was once pastor. Actually, I was a member of this parish before he was assigned here. The pastor before him left the priesthood to marry. (I'm no longer a member as I moved about 2 hrs away.) Back in 07 when all this started, it blew my mind the comments on both sides of the fence, as it were. Some were placing him in shackles before the ink dried on the article. Others proclaimed that even if he was found guilty, they'd still follow him wherever he went. It was pretty creepy.


Anyway... I wanted to share this because many people know him or of him since he was the CO Founder of Life Teen (I emphasize CO because many don't acknowledge his co-founder, Fr. Jack Spaulding, an amazingly holy priest).

Please join me in praying for this man's soul.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://catholicsun.org/2010/february/16/fushek.html

Vatican dismisses Fushek from clerical state following investigation
By Robert DeFrancesco | Feb. 16, 2010 | The Catholic Sun

A former East Valley pastor has been officially dismissed from the priesthood, officials for the Diocese of Phoenix announced this week.

Dale Fushek was recently notified of his dismissal from the clerical state, a process most often referred to as “laicization.” The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had been investigating the former pastor of St. Timothy Parish in Mesa and one-time vicar general for the diocese for his alleged sexual abuse of minors. The Vatican’s findings in that investigation resulted in his removal from the priesthood.

Questions and Answers: On being dismissed from the clerical state

Pope Benedict XVI ordered the dismissal, according to a diocesan statement. This means Fushek is no longer bound to the duties and obligations he incurred upon ordination to the priesthood in 1978, and he no longer has the rights of a cleric under Church law. As a result, Fushek can no longer refer to himself as “reverend,” “monsignor” and “father.”

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted received the “Decree of Dismissal” in January from the Vatican congregation, notifying him that the laicization had been imposed on Fushek as a penalty for acts of sexual abuse of minors.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addresses “sexual sins” perpetrated by priests and deacons against minors, according to Church law.

Fushek, 57, currently faces charges on several misdemeanor counts of sexual misconduct in San Tan Justice Court. The findings by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith relate to Fushek’s status as a priest only, and have no bearing on any criminal or civil case that he may be involved in.

“The Catholic Church is very concerned about the welfare and spiritual health of the alleged victims of sexual abuse by clergy,” said Fr. Chris Fraser, judicial vicar for the Diocese of Phoenix.

The investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was initiated a few years ago, according to Fr. Fraser, who is an expert on Church law. The Diocese of Phoenix cooperated with their investigation once the allegations were found to have credibility.

Fushek was made aware of the investigation and of his right to defend himself. He was also invited to have canonical counsel.

Fushek was excommunicated from the Church in 2008 for his continued involvement with a small, Mesa-based faith assembly called the Praise and Worship Center — a censure that carried with it the consequence of being forbidden from receiving the Eucharist, celebrating Mass or participating in other sacraments of the Church. He was also barred from representing himself as a priest. Despite his dismissal from the clerical state, the penalty of excommunication remains in place, according to diocesan officials.

“There is no doubt that the Church has been scandalized by the abuse of minors by Catholic clergy,” Fr. Fraser said. “What makes this case unique is that there is an additional scandal related to the schismatic activities of the Praise and Worship Center. Consequently, those who support and promote Fushek’s public ministry must be mindful of the spiritual danger and grave harm their actions create by supporting and attending his services.”

Fushek gained prominence throughout the 1980s and 1990s for co-founding Life Teen, an international youth ministry program. Bishop Olmsted suspended his faculties in late 2004 after an allegation was made that Fushek engaged in inappropriate behavior in the presence of a minor at the Mesa parish in 1985. Fushek later resigned as the pastor on June 30, 2005.

In the diocese’s statement this week, Bishop Olmsted expressed his concern for Catholics who may be misled or confused by the continuing actions of Fushek, particularly as they relate to the Praise and Worship Center. Diocesan officials reminded Catholics that any ceremonies — baptisms, weddings, confessions, and the anointing of the sick — performed by Fushek or others at the Praise and Worship Center, are not legitimate sacraments for Catholics and would not be recognized by the Catholic Church.

The bishop asked for the diocese’s Catholics to pray for reconciliation and healing in this situation.

[add]

what took so long to diss Fushek? better late than never, i guess.. i find this Fushek's, fall from grace (and lack of faith) quite Disturbing


i have not heard of Fr. Jack Spaulding, were can i find info on him?

Edited February 17, 2010 by apparently

[CatherineM]

I'm glad that we are beginning to deal with these "priests" in a more open manner, and quicker.

[Archaeology cat]

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChild' date='17 February 2010 - 07:08 AM' timestamp='1266419296' post='2058314']
Diocesan officials reminded Catholics that any ceremonies — [b]baptisms[/b], weddings, confessions, and the anointing of the sick — performed by Fushek or others at the Praise and Worship Center, are not legitimate sacraments for Catholics and would not be recognized by the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

Baptisms would still be recognized.


Aside from the above, this is a very sad story. He is a man who needs many prayers

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Slappo' date='17 February 2010 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1266426012' post='2058350']
Baptisms would still be recognized.


Aside from the above, this is a very sad story. He is a man who needs many prayers
[/quote]

it would still be an illicit baptism though.

[mcts]

I am 99% positive that he was excommunicated last year or the year before. Lifeteen had an official statement on their website and everything.

[HisChild]

Fr. John "Jack" Spaulding is interestingly enough now the pastor at St. Timothy where Mr. Fushek used to be pastor. I guess Bishop Olmsted believed he would be the best balm for their souls. You could go to their website, or to diocesephoenix.org, or just google him.

As for Fushek, he was excommunicated in 07, laicized this month. May our Lord heal those souls that were devastated to learn this of him as like I said, he had quite the string of followers.

[Slappo]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='17 February 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1266426908' post='2058357']
it would still be an illicit baptism though.
[/quote]

Illicit, but still valid and therefore the Church would recognize them to be a Christian. If it was not recognized, the baptized person would not be considered a Christian by the Church.

It may edge on semantics, but the truth is it is a huge theological difference.


Regardless, I just hope he isn't trying to do things in the name of Catholicism, and leading those who he is dealing with astray from what Catholicism really is.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Slappo' date='17 February 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1266426012' post='2058350']
Baptisms would still be recognized.


Aside from the above, this is a very sad story. He is a man who needs many prayers
[/quote]

Actually, Baptism is only valid if the baptizer intends to do what the Church does when he baptizes. It is doubtful whether that would be an excommunicated person's intention, considering the fact he is excommunicated.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' date='17 February 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1266441250' post='2058475']
Actually, Baptism is only valid if the baptizer intends to do what the Church does when he baptizes. It is doubtful whether that would be an excommunicated person's intention, considering the fact he is excommunicated.
[/quote]

In the same manner you could say it is doubtful that there is a single protestant ecclesial community that intends to do what the Church does when baptizing.

The intentions don't have to be explicitly "I intend to baptize you as a Catholic," as none other than the Catholic Church's baptisms would be valid if this were the case.

[tinytherese]

As far as I know, the intention must be that the person being baptized will live the life of a Christian and that they be raised in the faith. The example that one of my professors gave is if a couple came to ask for a baptism claiming that it was only for the grandparents, but that they would raise the little one Hindu would definitely not have the right intention.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' date='17 February 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1266441250' post='2058475']
Actually, Baptism is only valid if the baptizer intends to do what the Church does when he baptizes. It is doubtful whether that would be an excommunicated person's intention, considering the fact he is excommunicated.
[/quote]

If an excommunicated priest performs the rite correctly and seriously, it is assumed that he has the correct intention and that the baptism was valid.

"The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament." (Pope Leo XIII, [i]Apostolicae Curae[/i], 33)

Edited February 17, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='17 February 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1266443093' post='2058487']
As far as I know, the intention must be that the person being baptized will live the life of a Christian and that they be raised in the faith. The example that one of my professors gave is if a couple came to ask for a baptism claiming that it was only for the grandparents, but that they would raise the little one Hindu would definitely not have the right intention.
[/quote]

The minister is the only person whose intention matters for a sacrament to be valid (unless the recipient has attained the age of reason, in which case, his intention matters, too). A baptism will be valid even if the parents do not want their child to be baptized. This is clear from the [i]Code of Canon Law[/i], which states that, in certain circumstances, a child may be baptized even if the parents are opposed to his being baptized (see Can. Can. 868 § 2).

Edited February 17, 2010 by Resurrexi

[cmotherofpirl]

It would also depend on the form of baptism used.