The energies of Catholic Australians in recent
years have been absorbed by contradictory approaches to being faithful.
The first is the church’s institutional integrity (requirements of
obedience, orthodoxy and conformity); the second is its moral integrity
(what should it be doing, for whom and how), writes Chris McGillion in NCR Online.
The church’s top leadership and its ordinary members have been
concerned about these issues in almost inverse proportion.
Pope Benedict
XVI, like the late John Paul II before him, has been at pains to
strengthen the church against the influences of secularism by insisting
on stricter discipline in its ranks and a greater acceptance of official
teachings on the part of the faithful.
Many Australian clergy and laypeople, on the other hand, regard the
declining number of regular churchgoers, the shrinking number of priests
and religious, and the scandal of clerical sexual abuse as compelling
reasons to move away from old ways of being church and pursue
fundamental reform.
The result of these contradictory approaches is often conflict.
The most recent casualty in
Australia has been a popular 67-year-old bishop from a rural diocese in
the state of Queensland. Earlier this month, Bishop William Morris
announced he was retiring, after 18 years in the job, because of Vatican
pressure.
Morris endured Vatican scrutiny of allegations that he encouraged
debate about ending mandatory celibacy for priests, ordaining women, and
recognizing Anglican and Lutheran ministerial orders and - possibly -
that he permitted communal confession (the Third Rite of Reconciliation)
to be conducted in his parishes in ways that contravened Canon Law.
Morris says he was “deliberately misinterpreted.” He also says that
he stands by his conviction that the church needs to be open to
discussion about the challenges it faces but instead is being suffocated
by “creeping authoritarianism.”
The treatment of Morris has generated expressions of outrage and
despair from many Catholics across the country.
“I am deeply saddened by
this event, and the lack of transparency in the process,” was one of
the more restrained comments from a member of the laity.
This case, however, is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg.