Some Catholics think last year's dismissal of William Morris as Bishop of Toowoomba is just a storm in a teacup about a recalcitrant country bishop, and that it is time we all moved on. This is a serious misreading of the signs of the times. Church structures need to be reformed to be more aligned with contemporary notions of justice and due process.
Ten months on, people are left confused as to whether Morris was sacked chiefly for what he wrote in his 2006 Advent letter about women's ordination, for what was reported by the Apostolic Visitor, Archbishop Charles Chaput, or for what was reported to Rome by those sometimes described as 'the temple police'. Now more details have come to light showing how threadbare and confused the processes were.
In his 'Statement of Position' to the three Cardinals gathered in Rome in January 2008, Morris said, 'At the end of the Apostolic Visitation, when Archbishop Chaput was being driven back to Brisbane, he remarked to Fr Brian Sparksman, our diocesan Chancellor, that he would be astounded if our diocese were to lose its bishop.
'He also asked John Bathersby (Archbishop of Brisbane) why he thought he was asked to investigate me because as far as he could see from the material provided to him things that I had reportedly said and done were happening in other places as well.'
Fr Sparksman told me last week: 'I cannot say with certainty that Chaput used the word 'astounded' but it was a word like that. I definitely took heart and was relieved by what he said because as you can imagine it was a tense time for us all and that was a difficult drive to Brisbane. I was very anxious at first but then very relieved by what Archbishop Chaput had to say.'
Archbishop Denis Hart wrote to The Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne's The Age on 4 February 2012 telling us Chaput 'said he discussed the contents of his report with Bishop Morris in Toowoomba'. Hart's claim contradicted Morris' letter to the Holy Father dated 24 December 2008 in which he said: 'I have not seen the report prepared by the Apostolic Visitor; the Apostolic Visitor did not discuss his findings with me; I have not been shown any of the 'evidence' that was gathered or even the list of the 'accusers'.'
Hart's claim was strenuously denied by Morris when he then wrote in response to the same newspapers on 8 February 2012 stating: 'I categorically deny that Archbishop Chaput ever discussed with me what he was going to put in the report.'
At World Youth Day in Madrid last year, Chaput, realising that Gerard Holohan, Bishop of Bunbury, was from Australia, drew him aside in the cathedral before mass 'to indicate vigorously that he had indeed discussed the contents of his report with Bishop Morris — except for the names of who he met — at the end of his Apostolic visit to Toowoomba'.
If the processes were working correctly, there would have been no need for an Apostolic Visitor to draw aside a bishop he had never met to assure him of due process in relation to another bishop when the stranger bishop had not even made an inquiry.
If Morris was sacked for what he wrote in his Advent letter about the possible ordination of women, married priests, and recognition of other orders, 'Rome willing', there would have been no need for Chaput to make his visit and his report. But then again if he was sacked for matters detailed in Chaput's report, we are left wondering why Chaput being apprised of the Advent letter and having completed his visit would have told the Diocesan Chancellor how extraordinarily surprising it would be if Morris were to be sacked.
The matter is a complete mess reflecting very poorly on a Church which prides itself on a code of canon law which provides for the protection of the rights of all Christ's faithful, including priests and bishops.
When Morris met with the curial cardinals in January 2008, they spoke specifically to only six of the issues listed in the unsigned, unsourced and inaccurate memorandum which had been presented to Morris by the nuncio in September 2007. The first issue listed was the vague assertion that 'Toowoomba is moving in a different direction than that of the Catholic Church'. The second issue was the Advent pastoral letter.
The third issue listed was the false statement: 'At least in the past eight years there have been no priestly ordinations in Toowoomba' and that priests in good health were retiring early and being replaced 'by deacons or laity'. There had been four priests ordained in the last eight years, and Toowoomba had no deacons.
The fourth issue was the third rite of reconciliation. The Cardinals said, 'With regard to 'general absolution', we are glad to hear of Bishop Morris's statement that 'general absolution is no longer common'.' Morris was able to assure them that he had given permission for general absolution only twice in the last three years, and for the most appropriate canonical reasons.
The fifth issue was his general failure to correct liturgical abuses. Morris assured them: 'Reports of aberrations have been addressed immediately, when referred to me.' The sixth issue was 'the general theological climate of the diocese, and especially of its priests, need(ing) to move towards a more authentic Catholic identity, as found in the Catechism'.
For the Pope to be totally free in the appointment, transfer and removal of bishops, he and his flock have to be assured that his curial officials exercise their power to recommend appointment, transfer or removal in a just and transparent manner. This did not occur in the case of Bishop Morris.
This article is excerpted from Fr Frank Brennan SJ's address 'Bringing the modern world into contact with the vivifying and perennial energies of the gospel (John XXIII's half century challenge)' at the Catalyst for Renewal Dinner, Hunters Hill, 23 March 2012. Full text is here.