Saturday, May 14, 2011

Bishops' silence speaks volumes (Contribution)

THE most disturbing thing about the forced retirement of Bill Morris, Bishop of Toowoomba, is not the action of Rome but the silence of the Australian bishops.

The treatment of Morris has raised concerns about unjust processes and the centralisation of control in Rome.

The latter criticism may come as a surprise to many.

People may not realise that in the structure of the Catholic Church, each diocese (an area under a bishop) is an independent church.

The diocese of Rome through its bishop, the Pope has the added responsibility of promoting the unity and orthodoxy of all these dioceses around the world.

In the Catholic legal system, Rome is granted the authority to directly intervene in the affairs of another diocese if necessary to fulfil its unifying role.

This is what lies behind Morris's statement that bishops are becoming little more than branch managers.
What this statement implies is that Rome is destroying the traditional and legal structure of the Catholic Church by overstepping the mark and misusing its legal position.

So now we come back to the silence of the Australian bishops. We must ask what this silence means. Several interpretations offer themselves.

One is that they agree with Rome Morris is a bad bishop who ought to be removed to protect the people of the Toowoomba diocese and the unity of the church.

This would be a surprising position because Morris comes with the finest credentials as a priest who is so orthodox and talented that he was for many years the secretary to Archbishop Francis Rush.

He is hardly a rabid revolutionary but perhaps, in the eyes of the Roman administration, he is something worse: a pragmatist who is dealing with reality rather than a stubborn insistence that things in the Australian Outback should be done the same way as the city of Rome, with its concentrated population and glut of priests.

Another interpretation is that the Australian bishops just don't care. This too would be surprising as the bishops I know, mostly around Queensland, genuinely are concerned about other people.

Yes, some of the church's historical policies, such as child protection, have been disastrous, but we must not confuse a flawed policy with a lack of commitment to help.

Bishops are like the rest of us. They must make the best decision they can, based on the knowledge and advice available, even if hindsight shows it to be erroneous.

The third, and most probable, interpretation is that the bishops are scared of what Rome will do next.

They no longer see themselves as local leaders supported by the Roman ministry, but as local leaders acting as buffers against Roman excess.

Archbishop John Bathersby will soon have to offer his resignation when he turns 75. So Rome will be replacing two bishops in Queensland (Toowoomba and Brisbane).

Catholic dioceses can no longer select their own bishops.

This practice was extinguished a long time ago.

Rome itself appoints the bishops and the diocese must accept that appointment.

It may not be considered wise to offend the appointing authority just before it makes these two appointments.

There was once an enthusiastic theologian who celebrated the united stance of bishops against the Roman bureaucracy.

He reported how the bishops of the Second Vatican Council rejected the Roman process on day two of the council so they could do a better job.

As they took this stance the bishops broke the rules by applauding, which had been prohibited.

He then wrote: "The Council (the bishops) had shown its resolve to act independently and autonomously, rather than be degraded to the status of a mere executive organ." Sadly, as we can see by Morris's comment about bishops becoming branch managers, this spirit of leadership seems to be lost.

Now bishops can be dealt with, one by one, by Roman bureaucracy while collectively they remain silent. Their people are left disappointed.

As one Catholic from Toowoomba diocese said to me recently: "I still believe in God but the leadership of the church disgusts me."

A close reading of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church shows that the primacy of the pope is collegial he is first among bishops as their leader.

When a pope acts as an autocratic monarch he undermines his own authority. The papal office does not have arbitrary powers.

And when the college of bishops fails to call the pontiff to account for his conduct as the leader of their college, they undermine their own authority and collegial nature and create a usurper monarchy that has no place in Catholic tradition.

The enthusiastic theologian quoted above who published those comments in a booklet after the first session of Vatican II was Joseph Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI.

It appears he no longer follows the same beliefs. So if he can be wrong then, who are we to
believe today?

Paul Hegerty is a former Catholic priest and now director of Grevillea Consultants, an organisational consultancy business.

Source