Bishop Morris: “Denied Natural Justice”?
May 18, 2011, 2:01 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
We’ve all heard about the Australian bishop who was removed from office by the Pope. Here is an article about the bishop’s termination in the Australian It features commentary by Fr. Frank Brennan, SJ who is an extremely prominent human rights advocate and law professor in Australia. Here is a link to a sermon Fr. Brennan gave on the topic.
AD LIMINA BISHOPS: “Holy Father, if it please you, might you reconsider your decision to fire our colleague, Bishop Morris.”
POPE BENEDICT XVI: “How dare you question my judgment and prerogative!!!”
THE BISHOPS (kowtowing): “Holy Father, of course you were right. Please forgive us for even *thinking* of questioning your decision. Of course you were correct.”
THE POPE: “Now bend over, kiss my grits! And take 40 lashes from my servant’s knotted rope!”
THE BISHOPS (duly bending over): “O, please, Father of the Inquisition, not too hard, OK?”
FATHER XYZ (wielding his rope): Whack!!! “Take this, you insubordinate Ausies!” Whack!!! “I’ll put the fear o’ God in ya’!” Whack!!! ……..
THE POPE (to himself): “That will teach them that I’m their boss, by God!”
And things eventually returned to normal — with the good hierarchs living in a constant state of fear.
Deo gratias
(my ncronline response)
Well, any denial of “natural justice” certainly had nothing to do with rushing things. The Vatican gave Bp. Morris more than SIX YEARS to delay and evade responsibility. See timeline here:
http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2011/05/timeline-for-dismissalor-more-shooting.html
D’oh; “only” 4.5 years, sorry.
Maybe I’ve missed it, but where exactly does he define “natural justice” in either of the linked pieces? A concept I am unfamiliar with in both the civil and canonical legal context.
Moreover, I would ask Fr. Brennan that if he believes this: “Let’s pray for ourselves that we can maintain hope that our Church is the privileged place where we can expect to find gate, gatekeeper and shepherd working together in truth for our freedom, love and life to the full.”
Then wouldn’t a commitment to truth that at some point someone says “You’ve crossed the line”? Setting aside the substance of Bishop Morris’s opinions, it just isn’t clear to me that what the real objection to here is not the authority of the Bishop of Rome, which is a pretty non-negotiable thing for a Roman Catholic. Dunno, but truth to me seems to require some boundaries, and its clear Bishop Morris stepped over them, so it should be no surprise to see this action taken. (Cue the arguments the sexual abuse arguments).
Progressives have for a long time, while knowing about it, under-estimated the ‘righties’ letter writing effectiveness. Their deluge of complaints is effective in a closed circle that is the Curia. I witnessed this firsthand on a visit to the Congregation on the Family in 1987. Maybe CW should quantify the ‘rightie’ post complaints vs subscriber postings . Maybe No % of subscribers accounts for at least 50% of the rightie complaints. [see above]
Ed, when a coterie has receptive ears within the institutional power structure, it’s obvious that a small group’s influence far outweights its numbers. Add to this fact the fear and corresponding need for control within the power structure, and we can quickly understand why the powers-that-be would sanction anyone perceived as a threat to their power. Furthermore, the powers-that-be can count on financial and other kinds of support from their favored coterie. Agreeable beliefs within, and money from, the coterie are looked upon kindly within the institutional power structure.
The biggest problem for me with the bishop’s removal was that the one sent to investigate him was an extremely right-wing bishop. Sending Chaput makes it look like Morris was set up from the get-go.
Ed- Now, you know some of us non-subscribers may well support Commonweal financially, but don’t have time to read more than blog postings : )
The first thread about Bishop Morris was ( I thought prematurely) shut down.
I think a number of important questions exist here:
-”creeping infallibility” and the ability of members of the Church to question or criticize.
Obviously Mr. Landry holds to the Pope says something and that’s it, but that view is hardly unanimous and can be seen as a circular argument in the larger question.
-though this discusion wil probably get buried agin under the John jay report discussion, the questions of justice within the canonical and curail m.o. of governance wil continue to raise tensions.
The “temple police” issue raised above is not only troubling but probably commonplace.
Notions of “visitations” and “potecting the rights of all parties” are part of the semicanonical semantics used to cover what the curia wants done.
At the heart of this is a governanc estructure problem grounded in a CDF model of how the Church should operate.
How the Australian Bishops interact with Rome and the outcome will affect many in Australia and beyond in their view of the church ‘s Roman leadership acting as Christ’s representatives.
I’d like to add anothet thought.
Usually when a new Commonweal issue comes out, we have a thread and an announcement about it.
This time I didn’t see one about Peter Steinfels” magnificent (cover) article about Weigel and the triumphant “end of the Bernadin era.”
(parathetically, the letters section would make a great thread about seminaries.)
At any rate, I think the analysis of the “triumph” of the command/control Church spoken of there is deeply relevant to the notion of justice in the behavior and truthfulness of Church policy makers.
I don’t think Archbishop Charles Chaput is an “extremely right-wing bishop”. I think he is an honorable man, a good priest and a faithful disciple of Christ.
How many vocations get discouraged by hearing about such decisions?
I think a lot of people would disagree with Mr. Gobbons as to whether Abp. Chaput is “extremely right wing.”
His personal goodness is irrelevant.
This thread should also note how “justice” was meted out to Dr.
Johnson.
The processes used therea nd the subsrequen tletter by Fr. Weinandy to the Fordham school of Theology shows how wide the disparity is between actions generated by Temple police” types and how real servants of God’s people get pegged as they toil on loyally, but not always as deemed “faithful” by a few.
(The call for cooperation inside the Church between hierarchy and academe or media or even their own clergy is choaked by the “command/control” model curently operative.
It’s nice to see some requests for a retturn to a more Bernadin like m.o., but hard to see the necessary reciprocity in relationships happening with the current crew in the Law/Burke etc. model)
“Obviously Mr. Landry holds to the Pope says something and that’s it, but that view is hardly unanimous and can be seen as a circular argument in the larger question.”
Where, pray tell, did I say any such thing? I think I have a pretty good understanding on the vagaries of papal authority; however, that there are such vagaries doesn’t preclude the fact of papal authority. At a certain point, the pope is entitled to draw a line in the sand. Catholics incensed about Bishop Morris’ removal seem to acknowledge this in theory, but then object to any such line drawing. I am reminded in these battles of the examples of the theologians like de Lubac, Congar, Rahner, and Danilou who were all silenced right before the Council, but who all accepted the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and trusted in Divine Providence to guide the Church – and it did. All of their positions became accepted.
“His personal goodness is irrelevant.”
Priceless.
I don’t question Chaput’s personal integrity (though I’m not one of his admirers). I do think he is at least as controversial in his own way as Bishop Morris might be in his. I think common sense went out the door in selecting him to investigate;it made the conclusions suspect in a way they wouldn’t have been if a more mainstream bishop had been chosen.
An Australian Anglican perspective:
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=26363