“Here I stand,” said Martin Luther as he challenged
teachings of the Catholic Church. “I can do no other.” The Australian Bishop
William Morris sounded a similar note as news came in May that the Holy Father
had removed him from his position. “You have got to stand in your truth,” he
said to the press.
At the same time, Bishop Morris expected the Holy See to let
him stand in his own truth and continue to serve as a trusted teacher of the
Catholic faith. He and his defenders have protested his removal as an act of mystifying
injustice by the Vatican, a complaint that would only make sense if bishops
enjoyed an inviolable right to misrepresent Church teaching.
What is his own truth? One of them is that the Church should
be open to ordaining women as priests. In 2006, Bishop Morris wrote to his
flock in the rural Diocese of Toowomba,
Given our deeply held belief in the
primacy of Eucharist for the identity, continuity, and life of each parish
community, we may well need to be much more open towards other options for
ensuring that Eucharist may be celebrated. As has been discussed
internationally, nationally, and locally the ideas of:
·
Ordaining married, single or widowed men who are
chosen and endorsed by their local parish community;
·
Welcoming former priests, married or single,
back to active ministry;
·
Ordaining women, married or single;
·
Recognizing Anglican, Lutheran, and Uniting Church
Orders.
This, among many other dissenting moments of his tenure for
which he refused to answer, finally prompted the Vatican to send US Archbishop
Charles Chaput of Denver to the Toowomba diocese for an apostolic visitation.
Bishop Morris has said that his views have been “misinterpreted”
and that they never got a hearing, even as he acknowledged to the press a
private meeting with Pope Benedict XVI: “You don’t get much debate. He has a
view and you have a view and you kind of part on those views.”
In other words, he did get a hearing but not a “debate.” He
wasn’t “misinterpreted,” but understood all too well. He clearly regards the
question about women priests that the Magisterium has declared closed still
open, and the Holy Father, unable to persuade him to correct this and other
misrepresentations, had no choice but to remove him from office.
“Bishop’s firing makes pope’s priorities clear,” blared the
headline of an editorial in the National
Catholic Reporter. Apparently one of those priorities is that bishops
adhere to Catholic teaching faithfully. Is that an eccentric priority for a
pope? What’s strange is that heterodox bishops feel entitled to disregard
Church teaching and still retain their offices. They abuse their position, then
call it an “abuse” for the Holy Father to stop them.
Members of the Catholic left have detected what they
consider a disturbing trend in Benedict’s pontificate, namely, a concern for
doctrine. The removal of Bishop Morris comes as a shock to them, as they had counted
on the Holy See’s post-Vatican II custom of tolerating dissenting bishops until
retirement to protect them.
John Bathersby, the Catholic archbishop of Brisbane, found
it all very perplexing. “I just wish it hadn’t happened and I don’t know why it
happened and I would very much like to know,” he said. The National Catholic Reporter adopted an indignant tone, saying that “[e]ighteen
years as bishop ended with the stroke of a papal pen,” and that the episode
proves “it’s really not that difficult for the pope to give a bishop a pink
slip.”
In fact, it was. Far from acting hastily and impatiently,
the Holy See acted slowly and reluctantly. As Catholic World News reported, the
Holy Father only removed Morris “after a decade” of conflict between him and the
Vatican,
and “almost four years after he was originally asked to resign.” Long before
his 2006 pastoral letter, Morris had been defying Church teaching and practice
in matters both large and small:
Friction between Bishop Morris and the Vatican became
evident soon after he was installed
in the Toowoomba diocese in 1993. “Bishop Morris, immediately, proved to have a
very different style of leadership from previous bishops,” the [diocesan
College of] Consultors report. The new bishop eschewed the Roman collar,
preferring to wear a necktie emblazoned with his episcopal coat of arms. Bishop
Morris encouraged the practice of scheduling children to receive their First
Communion before making their first Confession. More seriously, he approved the
widespread practice of services at which priests would offer general
absolution, despite clear canonical directives that general absolution should
be used only under extreme circumstances.
“Bishop Morris and his supporters have charged that the Vatican
treated him unjustly,” concludes Catholic World News. “But the long history of
this conflict suggests that the Vatican made every effort to give the
Australian bishop a fair hearing, to provide him with ample opportunities to
correct errors, and finally to arrange a quiet departure. Pope Benedict
exercised his authority only after it became painfully clear that Bishop Morris
would neither abide by the decisions of the universal Church nor leave his post
voluntarily.”
For those in the Church who complacently assume that
the Holy Father will remove a bishop for gross misconduct or mismanagement but
never for doctrinal error, this affair contains a long overdue and valuable
message.