Hello, and kind regards,
I don't know who you are, but there's a slight chance you may remember me or know of me. I'm the fellow who, at last year's conference, backed his old, red Camaro into the ditch.
I'm a little bit stuck on Feeney. Can you please tell me, succinctly, why Feeney didn't go to Rome when summoned?
Yes, we remember you and your red Camaro! This is Brother Andre Marie.
Father Feeney did not go to Rome because the Cardinal who summoned him, Cardinal Pizzardo, refused to give him a list of offenses against which he could defend himself. He was also not told the nature of the proceedings against him. This was a complete violation of his canonical rights as explicitly laid out in the Church's law.
See this source, from which I quote:
A. On October 25, 1952 Father Feeney was summoned to Rome for a hearing by Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office, without being told why.
B. On October 30, 1952 Father Feeney responded by requesting a statement of the charges being made against him — as required by Canon 1715. The summons by Card. Pizzardo, in violation of this canon, failed to either state the reason for the summons nor give a formal statement of charges against the defendant.
C. According to Canon 1723, any proceeding based on citations as defective as the Cardinal’s letter, are subject to a complaint of nullity; and also renders a non-canonical summons null. The complaint of nullity is allowed under Canon 1680. A compliant of nullity was formally filed by Father Feeney. Yet, it was never responded to nor even acknowledged.
D. Instead, on November 22, 1952 Father Feeney was threatened by Card. Pizzardo with an imposition of a canonical penalty, without stating the crime for which it is imposed. This is in violation of Canon 2225. Canon 1959 forbids penalties without a trial.
For more on Cardinal Pizzardo -- a very corrupt chap who defended the clerical serial rapist, Marcial Maciel -- I suggest you read this:
US State Department Interference in Papal …