Bishops sad not mad over Morris sacking

The sacking of Bishop Bill Morris by Pope Benedict XVI could well become legendary in the way that the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government by Governor General Sir John Kerr in 1975 has become part of Australian folklore.

There are surface similarities, in that they are both polarising events that evoke considerable passion.

And they both represented the use of reserve powers in a manner that was felt to be out of order by people at the grass roots level.

But there is an important difference. Gough Whitlam was nothing if not angry. Bill Morris, on the other hand, declared, in one of his first interviews after the sacking, that he was not angry, just very sad. 

In so doing, he set a tone that was reflected in the media release of the National Council of Priests (NCP), and then the letter of the 40 Australian Catholic bishops, written in the name of their Conference President Archbishop Philip Wilson, and issued on Thursday.

The NCP detailed what it found 'appalling' about the circumstances of the sacking, but acknowledged the Pope's role as 'first among equals and the source of communio within the Church'.

Similarly, the bishops stressed their respect for the office of the Pope. They explained he had 'found it necessary to exercise his Petrine care for the whole Church' (Petrine refers to the acknowledged lineage from St Peter, the first Pope, who is believed to have been anointed by Jesus Christ himself).

Notably The Australian newspaper got it wrong, and misrepresented the bishops, when it reported on Friday that they were 'locked in behind the Pope's sacking of former bishop of Toowoomba William Morris'.

The bishops were undeniably 'locked in' behind the Pope (the 'Petrine' office). But that is not the same as being 'locked in' behind Morris' sacking.

The office itself has a divine lineage, and bishops would support that because it's the foundation of their own ecclesiastical authority.

However positions arrived at by the Pope's advisors are humanly fallible, and often politically motivated.

That is surely the explanation for how one bishop who mentions women's ordination can be sacked while others who protect priests accused of sexual abuse priests remain in office.

Earlier this month, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who would be in charge if the Pope died, dismissed church sexual abuse as 'peripheral'.

While the letter indicates that the Australian bishops accept the decision to sack Morris, there is nothing to suggest that they agree with the assumptions and reasoning on which it was based.

In fact they carefully distance themselves from the decision, and indeed disown it. Their letter reads: 'It was judged that there were problems of doctrine and discipline.' If they were 'locked in' behind Morris' sacking, they would have simply declared: 'There were problems of doctrine and discipline', without the qualification that 'it was judged'.

The Australian wrongly portrays the bishops' reaction as combative, in that it implies a censure of Morris by his brother bishops.

In fact it was an exercise of religious obedience in a sense not widely understood. That is, an obedience that is humble and respectful, but not mindless.

Sister Clare Condon, leader of the Sisters of the Good Samaritan, put it well when she wrote last week in her congregation's online publication The Good Oil.

Reflecting on obedience — though without specific reference to Morris — she said it 'does not come from a battle of opinions, or a superimposing of one will over another, but from a place of profound humility and respect'.

She refers to the damage caused by medieval and hierarchical structures that can distort the true meaning of obedience.

'In such a structure of power and dominance, reinforced by a divine legitimacy, obedience can be seen to be simply saying yes to the 'magisterium' or the 'lawful' authority, in an unthinking and unintelligent manner. The Latin foundational word for 'obedience' is oboedire, which correctly translated means — 'to hear or to listen'.'

Most importantly, she says, this translation implies that the listening is mutual.

However at this stage there is little indication that Bishop Morris has been listend to.

As indicated in last week's letter, the Australian Bishops intend to raise questions with the Vatican authorities when they make their ad limina visit to the Vatican in October this year.

We can only hope that they will find evidence that Bishop Morris has been heard.

If not, the sadness may well turn to anger.

Source