It is now over 40 years since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. Those of us who lived through its years can attest to the immediate impact it had on our lives. Changes in liturgical and sacramental practice spread through the church like wild fire.
For some it was liberating, for some aggravating and for all disorienting. We would often hear appeals to the 'spirit of the Council' as justification for the wide variety of changes we faced. Few who lived though that period would doubt the epochal significance of the Council.
Yet increasingly the significance of the changes produced by the council has been subject to debate. On one side there is the Bologna school of church history which emphasises the 'rupture' of the council. On the other side is a more official interpretation which so emphasises continuity as to rule out any possibility of discontinuity. John Paul II said in 2000 that 'to read the council as if it marked a break with the past ... is decidedly unacceptable'.
It is not difficult to see these divergent positions in operation in the Australian Church. We need only witness the recent events in the St Mary's parish in South Brisbane. While Archbishop John Bathersby calls the parish to return full communion with the archdiocese, the people of the parish proclaim that it is a 'Vatican II parish'.
At the core of that conflict lies an understanding of the significance of the Council, the changes it introduced into Church life, and the limits of those changes. Indeed it is very difficult to conceive of such a conflict arising prior to the event of the Council. The solidity of the pre-Vatican II Church bordered on immobility.
Change when it was introduced was rapid and generally poorly handled. Many of the changes went beyond those envisaged by the Council. Any reading of the document on the liturgy makes it clear that the council Fathers expected Latin to continue as a liturgical language, yet in quick time it was replaced by the vernacular.
The process of change created an expectation of further change in a range of issues: birth control, ecumenical and interfaith dialogue, women in ministry and so on. Are there limits to such change? Much energy from the Vatican since the Council has been expended in clarifying the boundaries of change, on what is acceptable and what is beyond the pale.
It has been reported that Fr Peter Kennedy, parish priest of St Mary's Parish, has publicly called into question the divinity of Jesus. Such a 'change' is not just something the bishops of Vatican II didn't get around to suggesting, it is something they would have rejected root and branch as a violation of the very meaning of Christianity.
Fr Kennedy is of course entitled to believe what he likes, but he is not entitled to give it the name 'Catholic' or to suggest that those who disagree are just being conservative or not operating in the 'spirit of Vatican II'.
Of course Vatican II said many things, including statements on the role of the Bishop, such as:
Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith.
I can feel nothing but empathy for Archbishop John Bathersby, a truly decent and generous person, who now finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place. If he acts to remove Fr Kennedy he will be attacked as a conservative or a puppet of the Vatican; if he fails to act he knows he will not be fulfilling his responsibility as a bishop to teach 'the faith they must believe'. He deserves better than this.
By all accounts the parish of St Mary's has a strong record in the area of social justice and inclusion. It is hard to see why this can only be maintained with liturgical anomalies and doctrinal errors. Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker Movement managed to marry strong social activism with a conservative religious life.
The parish attracts large numbers of parishioners, but then so does Hillsong. In the end the issue is whether the parish is still operating as a Catholic parish. The responsibility to decide in this matter lies with the bishop, for that Catholic identity is not the preserve of any single parish.
There is some irony that Fr Kennedy is now appealing to Rome, to a higher level Church authority given his disregard of the local bishop. It is unlikely to provide a different decision.
Dr Neil Ormerod, Professor of Theology, is Director of the Institute of Theology, Philosophy and Religious Education at Australian Catholic University, Mount St Mary Campus.