Friday, February 13, 2009

Bishop Morris digs deeper as "Temple Police" go on war path!

It might well be said that it would be unfair to dog a bishop for something he happened to write in an off-hand manner years ago in a pastoral letter.

It is another thing altogether if he is still openly pushing the same agenda today.

The Courier Mail has a story today about a man who I am assured by someone who knows him well is a gentle and caring bloke, and among one of the most pastoral bishops in Australia.

I am glad to hear it, and if only we could have more of them.

But why is it that "pastoral" bishops are always played off against doctrinally "faithful" bishops? Is there some law of ecclesiastical nature somewhere that they can't be both?

According to the Courier Mail article, Bishop Morris "admitted he's...under investigation after discussing the prospect of women or married priests in a pastoral letter."

Far from defending himself against this charge, he in fact deeps deeper:
"I will continue to fight for what I believe is the truth... And I will continue to fight to be able to ask questions... There's a lot of people agitating for a third Vatican Council and that could happen too - I'd love to see that happen."
At the same time, he points the finger at who is to blame for his current predicament. I have often denied that there are any such thing as "church police", but it seems that I am wrong. According to the Bishop,
"There are plenty of temple police around at the moment. They're not a large majority - they believe in their conservative views and if they don't agree with something, they'll write to Rome."
Well, why wouldn't they? Especially since they know that "Rome" also "believes in their conservative views" and doesn't agree with the same things they don't agree with.

As for Vatican III - yeah, I'd like to see that. Especially as currently there are about 4800 bishops in the Catholic Church. Where on earth would they meet? And where would you house them for three years? And who would fund it? And why does every liberal and his dog assume that the decisions of such an ecumenical council would be in their favour?

We pray that Bishop Morris will not be fazed by the attacks of the "Temple Police", leave aside challenging current Church doctrine, and continue being pastoral.



(Bishop Morris modeling the new mode of clerical dress from New Zealand. Picture from Courier Mail)

12 Comments:

At Friday, February 13, 2009 3:50:00 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

He certainly looks like a Catholic Bishop that wants to be one of the boys. We has the same problem in the LCMS.

 
At Friday, February 13, 2009 6:01:00 pm , Blogger Joshua said...

Again, what pride and arrogance - to claim that his detractors are bad people, and to disrespect Rome implicitly by saying that only there will such backward types be heard. Worse still, like the Jansenists of old he appeals to a future Council - as if any such would approve of his views. Everyone knows that in the case of priestesses, Roma locuta est, causa finita est: indeed, it was when I realized this principle on this very issue back in the early nineties when the Pope definitively ruled on this issue that I then commenced to lay aside the ignorance and dissent I'd acquired as a largely uncatechized young Catholic, by starting to think with the Church and wholeheartedly adhering to her.

He's unworthy of the purple and deserves being got rid of pronto.

 
At Friday, February 13, 2009 8:13:00 pm , Anonymous Tony Bartel (not Tony) said...

Father Kennedy in the Courier Mail on the 8th February:

"What hurts me the most is ... it's one thing to say I'm not part of the Catholic Church, one thing to sack me, but then to say to all these wonderful people that they too are no longer part of the Catholic Church ..."

"I mean we are part of the Catholic Church.

"It's dysfunctional but it is our mother. It's our family and we all come from dysfunctional families don't we?"

--------

Well actually no. We don't all come from dysfunctional families.

And it would be wise for a man from a dysfunctional family not to offer himself for ordination until he had worked through the issues of his own family background.

Otherwise he would be in danger of relating to the Church in the same dysfunctional way that he relates to his family.

(Note: I am not saying that men from difficult backgrounds should not become priests - only that anybody ordained to the priestly ministry needs to be capable of entering into healthy relationships with others).

 
At Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:03:00 am , Blogger Joshua said...

Yes, one gets rather sick of the ever-whingeing victim, who loudly trumpets how greatly he has suffered in so insufferable a manner that it actually turns you off and makes you not compassionate but annoyed. It reminds me somewhat of Uriah Heep.

 
At Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:27:00 am , Blogger Louise said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At Saturday, February 14, 2009 4:11:00 pm , Blogger Joshua said...

Exactly, Louise!

A bishop is meant to be the chief shepherd of his diocese, setting the example for worship, for doctrine, and for Christian behaviour.

He is not meant to be a social worker who dabbles in religion.

Let's face it, "social justice" *alone* is a heresy.

It seems to be a sort of down-market version of Americanism, with hints of Pelagianism.

The Apostles were sent forth to preach the Gospel to all nations and baptize (using the formula provided), not to run about being "pastoral" - a word that truly covers up but doesn't wash away a multitude of sins.

Why don't Morris & co. go en masse to the Anglicans? They'd be welcome, they'd be able freely and honestly to believe and act as they actually do, ordaining anything they please, handing out condoms and contraceptives, denying Roman dogmas, etc. They might even have their general cultural level slowly lifted up by a trickle-down effect from their new companions.

 
At Saturday, February 14, 2009 7:27:00 pm , Blogger Louise said...

Sorry, Joshua, I deleted my comment before I saw your reply!

 
At Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:56:00 am , Blogger Past Elder said...

Well, so he looks like a modern administrator rather than an ancient one. Maybe in another 2000 it will be clerical dress just like last time around.

 
At Monday, February 16, 2009 6:55:00 pm , Blogger Badlands said...

I rarely pass by these "angered walls" and after reading Joshua's spiteful comments, I will continue my search for a place where Catholics communicate with civility!

 
At Monday, February 16, 2009 7:24:00 pm , Blogger Joshua said...

I think it right to be angry when a bishop boldly refuses to hold to the Catholic faith, winking at heresy and defying the Pope.

Should we rather hide our heads in the sand and indulge in the cult of bourgeois niceness?

Call a spade a bloody shovel I say.

I fail to see anything spiteful in what I wrote - I expressed the truth as I perceive it rather too forthrightly perhaps.

In any case, don't let silly me put you off - I'm just a crabby Catholic a bit p____d off with nonsense in the Church, from people who claim to be pastoral (as opposed to nasty ol' Rome, Pell, et al.) while flushing doctrine down the toilet.

David's blog is well worth reading, and so please enjoy his thoughts and ignore comments if they upset you overmuch.

 
At Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:33:00 pm , Blogger Past Elder said...

Great Judas at the mall, I completely agree with Joshua!

Well I'll be dipped.

For the sake of civility and bourgeois niceness, though, I have opted for the short form of that most excellent phrase from the American "Old West".

But elsewhere here it appears that we are all Catholic because we have communion, so the bishop is Catholic because, well, he's Catholic and the only really unCatholic thing one can do is leave that communion, that broader whole in which belief takes it context.

To quote another icon of the American West, the great hero Jesse James, well ain't that the dingest dangest thing.

 
At Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:19:00 am , Blogger Joshua said...

How amusing for us to agree!!! Good to read your comment, PE.

So, at what stage then does a disagreement with belief/practice/whatever qualify to change one from a still-Catholic dissenter (leaving out any pejorative sense) into someone who decides to go elsewhere?

In a sense, one must honestly follow one's conscience, even if mistaken...

Ideas?

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home