Knestout Threatens Defrock White
Rev. Mark White and his supporters are coming to D.C. to appeal to the Pope’s representative for help.
WASHINGTON — A Catholic priest in southwest Virginia is refusing to be silenced.
Father Mark White said his bishop has ordered him to stop writing about clergy child sexual abuse and the actions of Catholic leaders.
The Bishop of Richmond, Barry Knestout, has relieved White of his priestly duties, kicked him out of his parish house, and threatened to have him defrocked, White said.
But Rev. White and his supporters are coming to Washington Friday to appeal to the Vatican Embassy for support.
“As of this writing, this is not just about Fr. Mark’s blog,” Deborah Cox, a spokeswoman for the Richmond Diocese, said. “Fr. Mark continues to refuse to accept the assignment and the new job he has been given.”
In a letter published in the Martinsville Bulletin in March, Bishop Knestout wrote: “Numerous efforts urging Father White to refrain from inflammatory comments or ‘posting’ on his blog have resulted in his attempt to publicly ridicule or embarrass his bishop.”
The bishop has reassigned White to work in Virginia prisons, but White has yet to accept that reassignment from the parishes of St. Joseph in Martinsville and St. Francis of Assisi in Rocky Mount.
White was ordained in 2003 by former Washington Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. He said his faith was shaken in 2018 when McCarrick was accused by multiple boys and seminarians of child sexual abuse.
“The danger that he posed to young people, to teenagers and young men, had become pretty obvious by the 80s,” White said. “And instead of taking action, the whole thing was covered up, over and over again.”
Father White blogged and spoke to parishioners about the crisis.
2 thoughts on “VA Catholic priest blogged about child sex abuse. Now, he says bishop is threatening to defrock him”
Bp. Knestout, through his spokeswoman, has doubled back on his previous statements. First he forbade Fr. Mark from writing in his own blog. He was then removed AFTER The Wuhan Virus struck when Fr. Mark wrote on his blog following the church closure as his only means of staying in contact with his his flock. NOW Bp. Knestout says, if his spokeswoman is to be believed, that Fr. Mark is being sanctioned because he wouldn’t accept a reassignment (which reassignment was sparked by Fr. Mark’s blog in the first place). This is all double speak.
On the other hand, maybe here is the chance for Bp. Knestout to resolve the situation nobly for everyone. If reassignment is the cause of Fr. Mark’s removal of his faculties rather than the blog ban then how about Bp. Knestout removing the blog ban and Fr. Mark accepting the transfer in the interim while his appeal is being processed in Rome? Seems to me as parishioners we then acknowledge the Bishop’s authority to transfer Fr. Mark for JUST reasons and allow Fr. Mark to minister to us through his blog. Sounds reasonable to me.
Thankyou Art.
I see this follow up note from Father Mark White on his blog:
After WUSA aired the story, the Diocese of Richmond made a comment. Mr. Leshan dutifully included the diocese’s statement in the on-line, written version of the report:
“As of this writing, this is not just about Fr. Mark’s blog,” Deborah Cox, a spokeswoman for the Richmond Diocese, said. “Fr. Mark continues to refuse to accept the assignment and the new job he has been given.”
I asked Ms. Cox to correct this statement, because it mis-characterizes the situation. As of this writing, to the best of my knowledge, she has not done so.
I very much want to work as a priest. I appealed my removal as pastor in Rocky Mount-Martinsville to the Holy See. Last month, the Congregation for the Clergy dismissed my appeal on a questionable technicality.
In the meantime, Bishop Knestout suspended my priestly faculties–that is, my authorization to minister as one of his priests. I cannot minister in any assignment without that authorization.
Bishop Knestout wrote to me last month to inform me that I cannot have my priestly faculties back while I still have a blog. Bishop Knestout himself made it all about this blog.
I pointed out to him then that his stipulation violates both canon law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to no avail.
If the bishop had not imposed his stipulation, I would have proceeded to my new assignment last month, as instructed by the Congregation for the Clergy. I would continue to fight to return to Rocky Mount-Martinsville, to be sure. But I would do so while working as diocesan prison chaplain, as assigned.
I cannot do this, however, because Bishop Knestout has not lifted my suspension.
I just want to be clear about this, because, at least to me, it’s the difference between being an obedient priest and a disobedient one. Refusing to submit to silencing does not violate priestly obedience. But refusing a legitimate assignment does.
Ms. Cox did me wrong in the way she characterized the situation. She owes me, and the readers of Mr. Leshan’s story, a correction.
Comments are closed.