In case you've not been following the dramatic saga of William Morris, the Australian bishop (of the Diocese of Toowoomba) removed by the Vatican after an apostolic visitation led by Archbishop Charles Chaput, and brought on by Morris's comments on women's ordination in 2006, here's one of the original stories in The Australian. This story includes a link to his letter to his diocese. Here is an earlier story on CathNews, from 2009, outlining the Vatican's investigation. And his latest comments, released today:
“I’m not angry,’’ he told radio. “I’m just sad, that’s all."
“I’m sad for the local church, but not for myself. I’m not angry but I’ve been trying to get a process of justice… if it affects me it affects the wider community."
He said he doesn’t think the Vatican likes being questioned and that his leadership was questioned because he was seen as being too open and too inclusive.
“When I had a meeting with the Pope in 2009 he quoted back to me basically what cardinals had quoted back to me - and that was a misinterpretation of my pastoral letter.”
He says he has concerns about the way he was treated by the Vatican.
Just because Mother Angelica attacked him didn't suddenly convert him into a progressive.
And Religious Ed conferences should never be taken as a marker of liturgical taste; progressive liturgists often battle mightily with their parochial DREs over liturgical desiderata.
The assumption that Cdl Mahony is a progressive is more a product of circumstances, insinuation and myth than reality.
What he reports about the papal words are indicative of a waspish ,sinful vatican that is in need of a virile sweep.
In Rome it it is said that the Vatican is the head of Archigay(leading gay movement) and anybody who lives here would never disagree with this.One cannot move without meeting a limpwristed cleric.
My thoughts are not against those with such inclinations but those who see a holiness in play-pretend.
Nietzsche is the true liberation of Christianity, those who attack him are or would be the defenders of Ceasar or whatever is the ruling power.
Nonetheless,t?o make women bishops would be to put me?n in short skirts??.
???E??a?c?h? ?o???f?????? ?u?s? ?s?e?e?k?s? ??C????hr?i?s???????t?? ?a?n?d? ?i?t? ???i?????s?? ??????? ??C??h?r?i?s?t? ?a?l?o?n?e? ?w?h?o? ?d?o?e?s???? ?n?o????t? ?f?a?i?l? ?u?s?????????!
God has willed otherwise....................
At least he is now free to stop being so cautious in what he says and speak more boldly about this ideas and thoughts.
I hope he doesn't think that eventually some one of the Vaticanes will say: Gee, we made a mistake: mea maxima culpa!
Fat chance of that.
Vatican take note..
Long live Pope Benedict XVI!
A bishop of a city of 128,000 on an isolated continent: just 15 years ago, this story would have been completely unnoticed. But abuse survivors, progressives, and Benedict-apologists alike will fan this for awhile.
Enter the cheerleaders-what a way to do theology.
Todd, I have a couple of Aussie replies to that but IAT has a "no swearing" policy.
Thanks for the advice :).
@Fr Martin,
Thanks for taking the effort. I preferred the theological interpretation that somehow God was monitoring my anger.But you and David Smith are probably right that it is a technical fault.
No, nothing of importance to reprint.
Pax
The irony seems to escape this commenter, that in 1970 there were many, many Catholics saying ". Just keep saying the Mass the way it has been said for the last FOUR HUNDRED years.
For those interested, here's another point of view on this situation: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=805
However, it has wasted no time in removing a bishop simply because he said he believes that it wouldn't hurt to talk about some things - including ways to deal with the shortage of priests. It seems that Rome has no understanding of the gospels, of Jesus's life and teachings. None. Power, prestige, possessions, privilege - and patriarchy. Is that what the priorities of the church have been reduced to?
Ed, you are right. Walking away doesn't get their attention. They are perfectly happy to have that happen. Rome doesn't want anyone in this church who questions one thing they do or say - they don't want anyone to actually think - they seem to prefer ''obedient'' automatons. While leaving may do nothing to move church thinking out of the 15th century, it may be the only way some of us will be able to live with ourselves, sleep at night, and move on in the spiritual life, no longer worn out by dealing with the the enormous and growing sense of betrayal many feel at the actions of the leadership of the church. Enough. The church chooses to demean and patronize women, while rewarding those like Cardinal Law whose decisions led to literally hundreds of children and young teens being molested by priest who could have been stopped and turned over to the civil authorities.
How Jesus must be weeping.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/priests-voice-support-for-axed-qld-bishop-20110503-1e5kv.html
Vince, no offense intended. I did get the size of the city right. Nothing at all wrong, bad, or shameful about being a small city on an island continent.
As for the possible reactions to this, I agree that walking away isn't helpful. More fun for some of us, and more annoying for "them"-the gadfly approach. What that might involve ...
It always warms my heart to remember that the future is with the young faithful Catholics who are not interested in the “concerns/pet peeves” of the aging progressives. The 60’s project failed – get over it.
Without defending Cardinal Mahony, the post by Mr. Lopez is both one sided and lacks any sense of the awful leadership, even continuing, of Cardinal Law.
But ideology rules the blog wave expressions.
Questions: Does every comment have to be insightful and incisive? Can't they just be sententious?
Perhaps one can argue that comments have different "genres" and that writers are free to use whatever "genre" they wish - seems to be the case here often.
And I do agree that the comments are always a pleasure to read.
The Trads have never had such 'fun' with these anonymous letters since exposing Jewish conversos in medieval Spain.
I have no use for Mahoney either. But, Rome gave Law a prestigious basilica in Rome, a very comfortable apartment in Rome, a driver and car, three nuns to cook and clean for him (women who ''know'' their place ''proper'' place, obviously), and a good income. It also gave him a job on several Vatican commissions, including the one that vets possible bishops. As far as I know, they have not ''rewarded'' Mahoney with any of these things.
If I were in charge, Mahoney, Law, Egan, Rigali, Murphy, McCormack and many, many others would all be sent to work in either the inner cities of the world, or in a third world country. Some would have be forcibly laicized - the Belgian pedophile bishop, for example. The rest if this sorry lot would no longer enjoy mansions, servants, and limousines, nor would they be able to spend literally millions of the dollars of the ordinary people in the pews ''renovating'' a building to house their luxury apartment, complete with expensive oriental rugs, original art on the walls, and a two -zone wine cooler. They would live as those they serve live - which probably means no indoor plumbing, much less air conditioning, or two-zone wine coolers.
These men claim to be the direct spiritual ''descendants'' of the apostles. Perhaps it's time they give up the luxury lifestyle of ''princes'' that they now enjoy, and live more like the poor fishermen and carpenters. The message of Jesus and the gospel has been lost.
Anne: whatever you are smoking or drinking to give your these delightful fantasies, please share your secret!
I doubt there is a solid canonist who would heartily support an argument that the Advent Pastoral letter constituted canonical heresy. And not wearing clerics is not heresy, either.
Jeez.
Accusing someone of heresy who hasn't clearly committed it is more scandalous than the behavior that prompted the accusation.
Let Rome decide if a canonical trial for heresy is warranted. If it thinks so, it can readily do so. If not, that's probably very telling.
With all due respect the only catholic who could be scandalized by things like that these days would be those who had spent the last 5 years on an island with no contact with the outside world.
He said "discuss" ,nothing more.He is a bishop and so has the right to speak his mind.
Both Pope Ratzinger and Pope Wojtyla regularly did not wear clerical clothes.In most of his years as a theology professor Pope Benedict wore a suit.
Later of course Pope John Paul would refuse to shake the hands of Priests who were not in uniform(He must have spent all of his forgiveness on Agca! :) sorry.)
There was an Apocryphal Gospel that claimed St Paul was often in civvies but there is no proof.
Married Piests? Until this year I thought it was a bad idea.Now I am not so sure.When I lived in Mexico I went on the Missions to Chiapas with a wonderful young seminarian.Very humble and prayerful and a young man whose gracious manner showed me how far I was from the Lord.He had done a couple of years seminary at that stage.We lost touch but then a few days ago he contacted me on Facebook.
"Norberto is now in a relationship" were the words that shook me to the core. He had left the path of priesthood and now was in a budding romance.Still in love with God but also in love with a young mexican woman. I still recall how truly devout and dare I say Holy he was.The Loss is the Church's. The people of Chiapas received a visit from a Priest once a year because of shortages.
Innovations like compulsory celibacy make traditionalists like me a little nervous.A chaste priest would be the Glory of the Lord.Fr Martin in one of his books gives a very nice explanation of the difference between the two.
The Vatican knows it is on a downward plunge. They are like the narcissist leaders who refused to see the French Revolution coming.
Karl – I am shocked about what you wrote in #30 because I can’t believe that he was ever considered a “conservative” and I certainly don’t consider him a “moderate”. Regarding what you said in #31, I agree (except for the snide remarks, although I certainly make them myself!).
David – As you well know the question of married priests in the Latin Church is a discipline and so it can change. Should it? I am not sure it’s a good idea from a practical point of view.
Norman – I don’t like that plea deal at all!!!
Lastly, I think all of us (especially me) should remember that there is a fine line between playfulness and uncharitable attacks.
I remember that that Mahony was considered to be in the same mold as Law and O'Connor - conservative on doctrinal matters, but willing to speak for labor on economic issues. He was not considered anything like the progressive bishops appointed in the prior 20 years.
From the NY Times in 1985 when Mahony was appointed:
"Bishop Mahony, as a parish priest in Los Angeles, where he was born, and in Stockton, a farming center in California's rich Central Valley, has had a reputation for sticking close to the Vatican's position on such disputed issues within the church as abortion and birth control while helping to lead efforts for social and economic change."
Two things:
1. spell check: always doubt a "Mahoney" commentator.
2. Mahony is a JP2 boy through and through. We progressives don't want him. He's all yours.
Not that he wants to divide the Church of the faithful or anything! If a RadTrad loudly proclaimed the responses in Latin at Ed's usual Mass, no doubt that person would be rudely shunned.
"The people of Ghana, India and Nigeria go without while the money churches get help."
Would be interesting to see a source, Bill, for the claim that those nations have an even more dire shortage of priests than does the U.S. I was not able to find anything substantiating it through Google search...
I refer you to: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2919
First, I didn't know Mother Angelica attacked him and so I had to ask about that among some of my older friends.
Second, you taught me something new because my research shows that you are right when you write "The assumption that Cdl Mahony is a progressive is more a product of circumstances, insinuation and myth than reality" - so thanks!