The Australian Bishops have returned from their sojourn in Rome for their ‘ad limina’ visit and each of us has probably read Archbishop Wilson’s presentation and the Pope’s response as well as the statement from the Australian bishops regarding Toowoomba. Subsequently Bishop Morris himself as well as Bishop Pat Power responded to this document. The use of terms in the statement from the Australian bishops like “more adequate understanding” makes me concur with Don Watson (Paul Keating’s speech writer) that weasel words are alive and well, not only in the corporate and government world, but in the church as well! I’m not suggesting that it wouldn’t have been a difficult letter to write as they attempted to appease both Roman Church authorities and the large number of disgruntled faithful in Toowoomba and across Australia who genuinely feel aggrieved at the removal of Bishop Morris for honestly facing some home truths within our church.

They go on to say “What was at stake was the Church’s unity in faith and the ecclesial communion between the Pope and the other Bishops in the College of Bishops.” They omitted to mention that what was also at stake was the importance of the role of the College of Bishops in being able to speak the truth in love transparently and in good conscience. There has always been a healthy mutuality between the leadership role of the successor of Peter and the College of Bishops going back to the days of the Council of Jerusalem when the apostle Paul and Peter had to sort out early church problems in open, respectful and just dialogue. What is also at stake is the People of God’s respect and loyalty to church leadership (sorely tested by revelations of abuse and previous concealment) and those many souls have moved away from the institutional church for perceived hypocrisy and lack of accountability. Having recently read the biography of Roger Pryke Traveller to Freedom, the Story of Roger Pryke by Francis Ravel Harvey, publisher Freshwater Press (a must read for anyone interested in history and the Australian church – I don’t know why some authorities are so scared of publicising it) I can’t help but wonder whether we have learnt any lessons in the way we treat certain prophetic leaders in our church and how different our church might be if we became less authoritarian and judgemental in our dealings with such people and treated them as adults rather than at times like disobedient children! Perhaps I am an idealist but I do occasionally reflect on what the Jesus I encounter in the Gospels would think of his church and its machinations today!

I read recently this quote: “If we truly seek conversion, community and solidarity, we need to be completely frank with one another.” But in doing so, we should also take heart from the fact that people will continue to have a deep hunger for God. With good teaching and good pastors, they will continue to hear the voice of Jesus Christ, and they will respond…We preach best, and teach best, by our personal example. Anything which enables us to do that is good. Anything which prevents us from doing that, is not. Each one of us wants to minister to God’s people more fruitfully in the new millennium. But I believe this requires us to change — as individuals and as bishops. We need, first of all, to become simple again. By that I mean, Gospel simple. Jesus loved simplicity because it allowed Him to immerse Himself in the essential things of His Father’s business. I believe we are in danger of losing that Christ-like focus as bishops. We have plans and committees and projects and staffs. All these things are important in their proper place. But at the end of the day, are we apostles … or are we executives? And what do our people really need: managers…or pastors?

My concern is that the structures of today’s diocesan life too frequently prevent the very thing they were meant to help: a bishop’s direct contact with his people. Obviously, good stewardship requires skilled management of our resources. But it is too easy today for a bishop to abdicate his missionary zeal to others, and become a captive of his own administrative machinery. This runs exactly counter to the example of Jesus and the first apostles. We bishops need to be much more radical in our own Christian vocation.” I was pleasantly surprised to find that these words come from the recent Apostolic Visitor to Toowoomba, Charles J. Chaput OFM Cap. (in his intervention at the Synod of Bishops for America, Vatican City, November 1997 when he had only just become the new Bishop of Denver, Colorado). I can only concur with his words then which are just as appropriate now.

Whilst I say ‘adieu’ to you all and again thank the NCP office staff, Swag editors and all the members of our organisation I know it is not goodbye. I hope to see you all in Warrnambool next year at our convention and wish my successor, Eugene McKinnon all the best.

IAN McGINNITY

More than anything else The Swag is a vehicle for the exchange of experiences, struggles, insights, challenges and discoveries among the ordained bishops, priests and deacons of Australia, New Zealand and Oceania. Above all we encourage and challenge each other by honestly sharing experiences.

We will be reading this 2011 Summer Swag during Advent - a ‘Season’ in the language of the Church that is perhaps undervalued.

I want to share a few thoughts about waiting, listening, pausing and being open - all of which are central to Advent.

Twenty-first century life is increasingly busy - even in the bush! We are able, thanks to cars and planes, mobile phones and computers, ipads and multi-channel digital television etc to be much busier today than was the case even twenty years ago. And because we can be much busier we usually are… and we are expected to be, too!

Increasingly, I find myself saying, sometimes just to myself, sometimes out loud: STOP! What’s happening? What’s being said in this discussion? Why the rush? What is really important in all this? Last May, as you well know, our Bishop of Toowoomba was forced to resign. For many of us in Toowoomba Diocese and beyond, that produced disappointment, some anger, frustration, disillusionment, criticism. Seven months later some of that is still in me — together with energy and determination to keep alive, day by day, in whatever way possible, the dream we share for Church ministry and mission. But something else is happening as well:

An increasing number of matters - decisions, directions and appointments - are ‘on hold’ because we have no Bishop appointed yet. That can be frustrating – it is frustrating – but, as is so often the case, there’s another consequence that is positive - we have to wait, give time to really listen for the voice of God – take time to discern the way forward. For all of us that’s the gift and message of Advent.

Where is Jesus in all this frantic activity? What is His gentle voice saying in the midst of all the noise? Where is HIS voice in the midst of our uncertainty? As it was 2,000 years ago, Jesus will surprise us. He probably won’t be where we think He should be! Not in Jerusalem but in Nazareth, in a feed-box/manger rather than in the Temple.

I’m going to take quality time out to listen, contemplate and wait during this Advent. I invite you to do the same.

Hal Ranger, Co-Editor

His large sculptures carefully place ordinary objects such as large stones, steel plates, rubber, glass and cushions in ways whereby the viewer can’t avoid an engagement with the works. He calls the viewer to be present to the way he has marked the space in a dialogue leading the viewer to the infinite. Ufan invites the viewer to walk around and through the works so that we are drawn into a sense of being in equal relationship with the whole of creation. The objects mark the spaces in between where we, with the artist and the objects, are drawn to be present to infinity.

This notion of marking infinity by carefully placing ordinary objects which take the viewer beyond what they see, seems to me to be a perfect metaphor for ministry. We are inviting people into a space to wander, play and discover. Like the artist, we have markers to engage those on the journey of life. We can invite them into a scripture story and place a symbol, prayer or word next to it for observation. We can place water, oil, bread and wine in ways that invite their curiosity and challenge them to enter the liminal spaces in between.

Lee Ufan’s art reminds me not to fill up the whole space with objects or words lest I leave no space for the mystery which emerges from the viewer as much as from the artist, and as Lee Ufan would say, even more so, the spaces between.

Yes the spaces in between are where the real action happens. As ministers of word and sacrament, we are called to mark infinity by carefully placing of the ordinary in ways that leave room for the mystery – the extraordinary – to break in. We are called to notice the mysterious space in between the ordinariness of life and gesture toward it, around it and in it – to invite people into the incarnation. Advent is the space with various markers and Christmas is the name of the life mystery we celebrate.

For me this Christmas also means two years as co-editor of The Swag. It has been wonderful and challenging. Working with Hal and Sally is delightful – thanks guys. But having priests report that The Swag is useful for their reflection; practice and spirit is the greatest reward. I look forward to another year on The Swag.

Peter Maher, Co-Editor

Over the past five years it has been my pleasure to work with the executive. Together with Sally and Chris at our National Office in Belmont, being part of this executive has broadened my understanding of the Church of Australia and the joys and sufferings of the Australian clergy.

How often do we think we are powerless or have nowhere to bounce off our ideas? The NCP is a wonderful forum that enables us to connect with brother priests and deacons throughout Australia. Ian McGinnity has become more than my co-worker. I value his friendship and admire his endeavours. Ian has the skill and the insight to comprehend and challenge our church and its practices.

This morning I attended a grandparents’ day at St Thomas’s Primary School where I even filled the role of a grandfather for one of the children whose grandparents were not able to be present. The small questionnaire on what it was like when we were young prompted the child to say, “Things have changed.”

We live amidst change, and yet sometimes, I feel our Church resists change and if anything wants to regress. Language is the way we communicate. At the moment, in the liturgy, we are trying to use a language that doesn’t seem to speak to Australians of the 21st century. In my own parish, and while on holidays, the new translation of the liturgy was observed and greeted with struggle and bewilderment.

I look forward to my 12 months as chairman of the NCP. It is an honour and a privilege as well as a challenge to represent the Australian clergy. I realise that the NCP does not speak for all the Australian clergy, but we do represent a vast number. I believe that it is vital that we continue to be a forum of support and challenge as the Church continues to face the future.

I thank Ian for his leadership and energy, and I know that he will continue to be supportive of our initiatives.

EUGENE McKINNON

His thoughts on women as priests, (shared with half the Bishops of the world) were always expressed in humble submission to the Church’s authority. At no stage did he ever nominate or encourage any woman towards priesthood. Surely no heresy there.

Regarding Bishop Bill’s attitude to Non-Catholic clergy, we must not find ourselves transported back to the bitterness and name-calling of past centuries. Our Catholic attitude to other church communities has developed in many positive ways. Our Popes and senior Prelates have, for years now, been regularly visiting and sharing with their non-Catholic counterparts, in prayer, preaching and seeking the truth together. Why is Pope Benedict insisting on attending the upcoming Assisi Inter-Faith Conference, against the wishes of his “safe” advisers?

We have a whole Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, with a Cardinal at its head, urging all Catholics everywhere into ecumenical endeavours.

Students for our Catholic Priesthood are studying Scripture at the feet of Protestant scholars. With the so-called “mainstream” Churches we willingly share one-another’s Baptisms and Marriages as sacred, binding, and life giving.

In sixty-two years as a Catholic Priest and Bishop, after some early years of self-righteous superiority (of which I am now a bit ashamed), I have come to accept that the vast majority of non-catholic pastors I meet are truly men of God, committed to a lifetime of humble service, responding not only to the “vocation” of their communities, but equally responding to the urging of God’s Holy Spirit. Who else will care for those waiting Christian communities?

In our many ecumenical endeavours, for any Catholic to smile and offer the right hand of welcome and friendship to such good people, while keeping the left hand tightly behind our back, reminding us that they are, after all well-meaning heretics, would, I feel, be more heretical than anything Bishop Morris ever said or even imagined.

Peace be with you.

Ray Benjamin
Bishop Emeritus of Townsville

The ongoing public accusations continue and have broadened to include the Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide and the Vicar General of the Adelaide Archdiocese.

Is the damage being inflicted on them collateral damage as a result of the targeted attack on my friend or is there a strategic target selected in what is without doubt a serious battle?

The bishop wants to be a bishop in the Catholic Church. The politician wants publicity and a drum to beat. The press wants a story in any and all circumstances. Each of this trio embraced the sensationalism that could be leveraged to each of their own ends and an innocent individual is pilloried. It smacks of blackmail.

The immediate outcome so far is that the Prime Minister has effectively sacked the Vicar General from a position he was eminently qualified to fill, to satisfy the political whim of a group of politician advisors of ill will.

At the same time our Archbishop is being accused of incompetence, bias and foot dragging. We, especially the Catholics of the Adelaide Archdiocese are under attack. Our leaders are being targeted, and all one can hear from our laity is the sound of silence.

The Southern Cross editor, a woman of high ethical standards and extensive experience, published her opinion editorial in the journal. She was met with a very public and vituperative attack accusing her of lack of professionalism and bias. I am sure she will not be silenced.

One very perceptive retired priest identified the lack of public support shown by bishops at large to our own Archbishop. The priest is right. All our clergy is under assault. They are unable to defend themselves.

The Archbishop of Sydney, when approached by the press made a statement even more politically correct than any politician could dream of.

Still we retain our composure and take it all on the chin.

We are misinterpreting Christian charity. It is an applied science and it is multi dimensional. Dark forces are shouting from the rooftops. Our silence is deafening. Are we, the laity of our Church willing to speak out and stand and be counted?

Or will we maintain a politically correct dignified silence? Where are our Sodalities”? When will they go forth and do what they proclaim? Where are the people from our charitable organizations? The banner “Catholic” under which they work is under assault and their help is needed now. Where are our Catholic politicians at this time of crisis? Are they all going to remain “politically correct”?

Men and Women of the Archdiocese of Adelaide – it is time to stand up and be publicly counted.

Graham Spurling
Brighton

Jesus said, “The Pope and the Bishops occupy the chair of Rome. You must therefore do what they tell you and listen to what they say; but do not be guided by what they do: since they do not practise what they preach… Everything they do is done to attract attention, like wearing capa magna’s and gold encrusted vestments, like wanting to take the place of honour at banquets in Domus Australia and the front seats in the audience with the Pope…”

I don’t normally think as cynically as this (I hope) but I was thinking like this for two reasons.

Firstly, the Australian Bishops gave a commitment to the Australian Church that they would continue to discuss the process and the decision of Bishop Morris’s removal and that they would continue to discuss this issue during their Ad Limina visit in Rome. The Bishops said that it will be there that they will have the opportunity to share with the Holy Father and members of the Roman Curia the fruits of their discussion and to share their questions and concerns with an eye to the future.

According to their recent statement, this they did and they stated that: “We return to Australia determined to do whatever we can to heal any wounds of division, to extend our fraternal care to Bishop Morris, and to strengthen the bonds of charity in the Church in Australia.”

So I now beg the Australian Bishops to spell out exactly, step by step, what they plan to do to heal the division that exists in our church since the dismissal of Bishop Morris. Because in my view the division is real and it is causing pain and angst among many of our communities.

Secondly, the Holy Father in his ‘ad limina Apostolorum’ referred to the Bishops special duty to care for the celebration of the Liturgy and to help everyone adjust to the new translation.

In this light I wonder if the Australian Bishops have the courage to follow the example of Bishop Colin Campbell, Bishop of Dunedin, New Zealand, who, after 12 months of using the new translation, surveyed the people of his diocese and got the following results:

While the minority said it “deepens the meaning” of the Mass and is “more reverent,” most characterized the changes as “unnecessary,” “confusing and meaningless,” and “a backward step and pre-Vatican II in language style.” The negative responses topped the charts by a wide margin. Out of 180 replies to his survey, 17% were positive and 83% were negative. The article listed specific phrases that came in for the most criticism and concern. These included: “and with your spirit,” “under my roof,” “consubstantial,” the wording of the Confiteor, and the use of the word “men” in the Nicene Creed.

The above mirrors, I believe, how the majority of parishioners feel about the changes and is another source of division in the church. Again, I would beg the Bishops to outline step by step what they plan to do to help priests and people adjust to the changes that have been put in place, because I feel that many priests find it difficult to ‘sell’ the new translation to their people when they have difficulty accepting the changes and the reasons behind them themselves.

But maybe I am cynical enough now to believe that having a year of Grace followed by a year of Faith will cover over these issues and heal all.

Paul Gooley
West Kempsey

I think we must accept the fact that Bishop Morris and those that support him are in good faith. Any priest today could do very well for himself in civil life if he felt his vocation to be there. The priests of the Toowoomba diocese are very able men.

However, I believe that a number of the priests and Bishop Morris are in grave error in the fact that they do not accept the ruling of the Pope and the magisterium in the removal of Bishop Morris from his office as chief pastor of Toowoomba diocese. You cannot be Catholic and reject the Pope and the magisterium.

You can be Christian and reject both. In fact many Protestants (if not all) are in good faith and do this. We have in common with them faith in the Risen Christ and baptism, and a belief in scripture as the word of God in the words of men and a belief that the essence of Christian moral behaviour is love of God and love of neighbour in all our thoughts, words and actions.

The one distinguishing mark that separates Catholics from all other Christians is belief in the Pope and the magisterium. Whether the differences were in faith or morals or both, all dissenters reject Pope and magisterium. This is true for Luther, Henry VIII and all others before and after them. The cry may be “sola scripture” (i.e. scripture alone) and private interpretation of faith and morals and the Christian tradition, but the Pope and teaching authority of the Catholic Church are out.

I believe that many do not reflect on the fact that Jesus did not hand his followers a book. He said “he who hears you hears me” and “behold I am with you all days even to the end of the world”. He is with us in the written words of God and the church decided what was the written word of God. He is with us in the Christian tradition. St John says “there are many other things Christ said and did which are not in his writing”.

Catholics believe that yes Christ is present “wherever two of three are gathered in his name”. They believe that the most special presence of Christ is in the Eucharist but they accept the fact that Christ is present for them in the successors of Peter and the twelve i.e. the Pope and the Bishops when they speak in matter of faith and morals.

I accept the right of Bishop Morris and his followers to in conscience differ from Pope and magisterium. I do not accept their right to use the pulpit to condemn the Pope and magisterium and to foster petitions against them. They can do this as private citizens. They have no right to claim to be loyal to the church and do this. I condemn Bishop William Morris not so much for what he did before his dismissal but for what he has done since. He has allowed priests to continue attacks against the Pope. He should have publicly asked them to stop. I fear that some will suffer the same fate as himself and they want to be good faithful loyal Catholics and priests.

To give one only example of where I believe Bishop Morris was gravely in error; he allowed a seminar to take place at Highfields where 1 and many other priests were present. The only speaker, a nun, seemed to me and a number of other priests present to reject the physical resurrection of Christ. Bishop Morris said he accepted what she said. I believe that as a Catholic and a Christian it is essential to accept that there was a bodily resurrection. Certainly that Risen Body was different from the body before the resurrection but it was the same body. Christ would say to Thomas “put your finger in the mark of the nails and your hand in my side”. I do not know what the Pope said to Bishop Morris or what he said to the Pope but I would like his comment on this matter.

EV (Don) Murray,
Cambooya, QLD

The statement said that the bishops gained a “more adequate understanding of what was done by the Holy See in an attempt to resolve the difficulties with Bishop Morris, which concerned not only matters of Church discipline but also of Church doctrine definitively taught, such as on the ministerial priesthood.”

“What was at stake was the Church’s unity in faith and the ecclesial communion between the Pope and the other Bishops in the College of Bishops. Eventually Bishop Morris was unable to agree to what this communion requires and at that point the Pope acted as the Successor of Peter, who has the task of deciding what constitutes unity and communion in the Church.” the statement added.

They committed to “return to Australia determined to do whatever we can to heal any wounds of division, to extend our fraternal care to Bishop Morris, and to strengthen the bonds of charity in the Church in Australia.”

The National Catholic Reporter reported that Archbishop Wilson said that the meeting was “an indication of the seriousness with which the Roman authorities in the dicasteries here want to enter into dialogue with the Australian bishops in looking at these issues.”

“What we have to do is look at what the consequences have been, what we need to do now to bring healing and guidance to the Catholic people of Australia, do all we can to maintain a proper collegial relationship with Bishop Morris and find ways in which he can continue his ministry as a bishop in our midst, although he’s no longer bishop of Toowoomba,” the archbishop said.

Meanwhile, Andrew Hamilton in Eureka Street (Oct 24 2011) noted that “the issues raised by Morris’ dismissal were not about the Pope’s right to act, but about whether his decision was wise and prudent in the manner of its making. It was not about the authority to govern but about the exercise of governance.”

“The reason why many people questioned the decision was that the best standards of governance in Western democracies are characterised by transparency, natural justice, and due process. It is common experience, not least in the treatment of asylum seekers, that when these are lacking, decisions are often made that do not respect the human dignity of those affected.” he said.

See Bishop Morris’ reply to the Australian Bishops online.