BishopAccountability.org
	The Catholic Church's Worst Enemy Resides in the Vatican By Barney Zwartz Sydney Morning Herald May 9, 2011 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-catholic-churchs-worst-enemy-resides-in-the-vatican-20110508-1ee71.html Progressive bishops are seen as more dangerous than those engaged in sex abuse. NEWS from the Vatican last week: it has taken decisive action against an errant Australian bishop, showing that it has a zero tolerance policy towards deviants. But before Catholics burst into applause, the bishop who was forced to resign was not guilty of sexual abuse. On the contrary, Toowoomba bishop William Morris was a noted supporter of abuse victims in his diocese, and widely admired as a sensitive and pastoral leader. There are predatory rapists in clerical collars in Australia who have not been forced to resign. In the Melbourne Archdiocese alone at least 300 allegations of abuse have been upheld by criminal courts or the church's own complaints process (though most do not involve children). Last year only one priest had been defrocked, though the church is now very active - it has sacked another three and is acting against eight more. But it wasn't abuse that sparked the Vatican's ire and (relatively) swift action against Bishop Morris. It was his doctrinal deviancy in having the temerity, in a cautiously worded Christmas 2006 pastoral letter about the catastrophic priest shortage, to suggest not that the church ordain women or married men but merely that it might consider a discussion. At the same time, the Vatican has fast-tracked the beatification of John Paul II, the pope who denied that paedophilia was a problem in the church and gave great support and succour to serial abusers. I've spent considerable energy over the years defending the Catholic Church from some of the extremes of vitriol it attracts (as well as criticising perceived inadequacies), but the church's worst enemy is its own leadership. The Vatican hierarchy shows patent contempt for the opinions of rank and file Catholics, many of whom are well educated (including theologically) and all of whom have consciences. Under John Paul II, it took an increasingly rigid and authoritarian stance, centralising control, and encouraging the very unpleasant practice whereby disaffected local reactionaries - whom Morris calls the "temple police" - report to Rome priests they say are not toeing the line. Rome sent an investigator, who filed a secret response, and Morris, 68, was deposed for "defective pastoral leadership". As Australian Catholic commentator Paul Collins observed, this is about control. Bishops are not seen as pastoral leaders of the local church, but as branch managers confined to following the dictates of head office. Collins says this attitude is heretical and against the traditions of the church. What younger Catholics may not realise is how recent this top-down micromanagement from Rome actually is. Its great architect was John Paul II, who saw himself as the bishop to the world. He was a man of heroic virtues and commensurate blind spots. The most publicly damaging of these was his refusal to take sexual abuse seriously, instead blaming anti-Catholic media campaigns and preferring to protect the church's image and finances. For example, he promoted and endorsed Legionaries of Christ founder Marcial Maciel, a serial rapist. The Morris case has attracted international attention, as progressive bishops around the world realise their cards have been marked. His sacking shows the Catholic hierarchy at its most dictatorial and bullying. Morris says he is sad, accepts the decision, but he was never told of the accusations against him, or who made them, or given any chance to defend himself - a denial of natural justice. He speaks of a creeping authoritarianism in the church in which local bishops have been sidelined. He says that when he asked why there was no right for bishops to challenge their sacking, the Pope told him: "Canon law does not make provision for a process regarding bishops, whom the successor of Peter nominates and may remove from office." If so, why has the Pope not acted against the bishops who so damaged the church by covering up abuse and moving offenders from parish to parish? As the respected American magazine National Catholic Reporter pointed out in an editorial about the Morris case, "it turns out it's really not that difficult for the Pope to give a bishop a pink slip. In the course of the quarter-century clergy sexual abuse cover-up, there's been considerable handwringing over just this question." That is what will most depress rank and file Catholics: the indication, yet again, that sexual abuse is still well down the list of matters that upset the Vatican. As the National Catholic Reporter said, the Morris case shows that any bishop who advocates structural change is seen as more dangerous than one who turns a blind eye to molesting priests. The real scandal, it said, is "the trampling of human rights and professed values of decency and charity" by the Vatican and the Pope himself. Above, I compared the ruthless action against Morris with the glacial pace of action against sexual abusers. This is not an attack on the Archdiocese of Melbourne, which says all 11 living Melbourne priests convicted of sexual abuse against children have been, are being or will be defrocked. Recognising the symbolic importance of defrocking abusers, the archdiocese has issued a flurry of submissions to the Vatican. While this is surely not the only motivation, it has got the message from the faithful and wider society. God alone knows how to open the ears of the feudal power-brokers at the Vatican.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.