Friday 28 December 2018

BY NOW I'D BE IN A STRAIT-JACKET (Letter published in NZ Herald, Dec 29)


Well what do you know? The letter below was published word for word except for the last sentence, with its mention of God and (pardon me! the Catholic Church.



“What drives the increased demand for mental health services” is patently obvious. 

In our materialistic society, with its dire predictions of climate change and without faith in God, mental illness or at the very least unhappiness would seem inevitable.
I’d say the demand for beds in mental health units grows in inverse proportion to the demand for places in church pews. Higher levels of religious belief and practice (known, unflatteringly, to social scientists as ‘religiosity’) is associated with better mental health – specifically lower rates of depression, anxiety, disordered substance use and suicidal behaviours. 

Religiosity even means better phyical health. Recovery from severe mental disease such as schizophrenia is faster in countries with higher levels of religiosity (not, obviously and unfortunately, New Zealand).
The churches should be on to this. They should be advertising their doctrines and practice as preventing and healing mental illness. 

I know myself that with my family history of mental illness and without my faith in God and the Catholic Church, by now I’d be in a strait-jacket.

Thursday 27 December 2018

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF NZ: FIXING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH



Herewith, a document published today by a fellow Rad Trad*, one who like moi has been sorely tried by events and trends in the Catholic Church globally and also in our own Diocese of Palmerston North; and I freely confess I have had a hand in it.

To comment, please open your gmail account, or if you have my email address feel free to use it.

*Rad Trad: a radical (meaning, going back to the roots, i.e. the Gospel) traditionalist.



Open Letter to the Leaders of the Catholic Church in New Zealand



This letter is in the public domain.



Title - Fixing the Catholic Church



Archbishop of Wellington

Most Reverend Michael Dooley
Bishop of Dunedin

Most Reverend Stephen Lowe
Bishop of Hamilton
Most Reverend Patrick Dunn
Bishop of Auckland

Most Reverend Paul Martin
Bishop of Christchurch

Most Reverend Charles Drennan
Bishop of Palmerston North





Your Eminence and Most Reverend Bishops,

I ask you to receive the following letter that seeks to analyse in a holistic manner the issues facing the Church today in New Zealand.

I have expressed these views in the belief that those of us who hold certain views feel they have not to date been given an adequate voice.

While you may agree or disagree with all or part of what I have written, I believe this letter illustrates the standards of analysis and transparency that are now required of the Church if it is to recover from its current issues and prosper in future as the bride of Christ.



Yours in Christ,

Bruce Tichbon

Palmerston North

New Zealand

26 December 2018





1) SUMMARY

The Catholic Church, instituted by Jesus Christ, is currently wracked by an unprecedented crisis with many threads; part sexual abuse, part doctrinal, part spiritual.  It seems the Church is being secretively led to become more the Church of the world, rather than the one truly holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church[1].

This document attempts to analyse the factors and offer workable solutions that holistically address all the issues.

Public scandal in many countries is caused by priestly sexual abuse of minors and adults, homosexual relationships within the priesthood, and cover ups by the Church hierarchy.  Civil authorities are producing damning investigative reports, prosecuting individuals and in the USA imminently prosecuting the Church as an institution.  The danger grows of the Catholic faith’s serious diminishment, or annihilation by the state, in many countries.

The origins of this crisis seem to lie in the attempts by the Church to become more compatible with modern western secular society, whose standards are now often the antithesis of those upheld by the Church for millennia[2].  The intense culture wars of secular society have spilled over into the Church.  Separation of Church and state and accommodating the standards of the secular society has in some respects bought the Church a more peaceful coexistence with the state, politicians and media, but is creating doctrinal splits or schism within the Church.

Perversely at the same time the Church has allowed Her internal disciplinary processes for sexual abuse to diverge from society’s legal disciplinary processes, leaving the Church exposed to this current, consuming crisis.

The Church in New Zealand appears to have extensively rejected magisterium and doctrine (once a major unifying force in the Church) and adopted her own drastic reforms that appear to express the faith in more personal, social and emotional terms. These are often unwritten, confusing and divisive to many faithful. Their purpose or direction can only be surmised. 

The authority of the Vatican and the Pope and their governance of the universal Church are called into question.  Individual diocese and parishes seem to implement their own directions, often in direct contradiction of tradition and doctrine.  This independence has contributed to the loss of unity and failure of governance, and to the current crisis in the Church.

The Church’s current response to the crisis seems to be mainly driven by political and media considerations, as well as limiting legal and financial liability.  We would expect a more recognisable priestly response, driven by doctrine and tradition.

The scandal, reform and doctrinal confusion has created factions within the Church, often divided on spiritual lines.  These fault lines between factions have been greatly widened by the recent sexual abuse crisis.  Lack of transparency in governance by the Church hierarchy is corroding the loyalty and obedience in the laity.  The faith is no longer held in common as it once was.

The way forward by some appears to be dilution of the Church’s Apostolic structure given by Christ and our model for 2,000 years, and the transformation of the Church from theocracy to some kind of democracy.

The approach proposed here is to refocus the Church in the mission and faith given her by Christ. The Church must adapt to the modern world only insofar as she can while remaining steadfast to the Truth.  The Church must forgo worldly compromise and stand for the gospel and for the faith.  The Church must rebuild the Apostolic priesthood into a trusted and accountable leadership team that will remake the Church in the image of God.

Psalm 127 “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labour in vain”. ESV


[1] Referred to as ‘modernism’ by Saint Pope Pius X although modern preferred terms seem to be secularismliberalism, relativism etc

[2] The situation with Catholicism may be somewhat different in non-western countries (e.g. Africa).


2) THE CURRENT SEX ABUSE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH

The current crisis in the Church has been revealed in the main by the intervention of secular government legal investigations, mostly into the sexual abuse by priests of minors (children deemed to be below the age of consent).  In many countries including Ireland, Australia, Chile, USA, government investigations have substantiated the claims from large numbers of victims.

The recent report of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’s testimony, and the now virtual certainty of federal prosecution of the Church in the USA (rather than of individuals as previously), have caused this crisis to escalate to an unprecedented level.

Its full extent is too great to analyse here but a few key issues are analysed.

2.1) CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE

The information is prodigious.  Historically the Church has had an uneasy relationship with the mainstream media, and now must also contend with information from the secular legal authorities and the Internet.  Information comes from niche Web sites, often run by groups of activists, often bypassing the mainstream media.  The new Web sites provide information virtually in real time, when in the past information often took years to become known. Many of the faithful now obtain their news and informed opinion from these new sources.  This is causing the Church hierarchy to struggle to control the narrative through their traditional channels.

2.2) CRISIS MANAGEMENT

The Church hierarchy has set itself up for this crisis and now seems to be struggling to handle it.

Firstly, the Church failed over past decades to predict the way its internal culture was creating an environment for an increasingly hostile secular society to exploit the Church’s self-created weaknesses.  The sexual abuse of minors should have been seen as a crime and major vulnerability and addressed decades ago, both for the sake of the Church but much more for the sake of the victims.  The internal conduct of the Church was creating a set of circumstances that the secular civil legal authorities would inevitably investigate and institute prosecution proceedings.  We address this in more detail below[3].

Secondly, the Church is struggling to manage the more recent crisis.  Pope Francis has shown a woeful lack of decisiveness and shepherding of his Church. He refused even to speak about +Vigano’s testimonial, then refused some weeks later to allow the US bishops to undertake an investigation, then recently decided to launch his own investigation.  Chicago Archbishop Cupich’s statement saying that Pope Francis had a “bigger agenda” to worry about, (e.g. defending migrants and protecting the environment) and would not go down the ‘rabbit hole’ of Vigano’s evidence, caused scandal to countless faithful.

More recent moves by the Pope in defrocking some Chilean bishops are more positive but it may be too little too late.

The Church must call for a decisive recovery strategy.  Failure to do so only makes the crisis worse, not better.   The hierarchy could look at such secular examples as the Tylenol disaster in which drugs for sale were laced with cyanide.  Tylenol’s owners, Johnson & Johnson, reacted promptly and decisively.  The Tylenol brand slumped but quickly recovered and is now once again the top selling drug of its type in the USA.  The Church should have similar expectations for the rapid restoration of the credibility of the priesthood.


[3] See How Should the Church Handle Sex Abuse Cases? Section 3 below. 



2.3) THE TERMINOLOGY OF ABUSE

There are major differences between the different parties concerning the abuse crisis. Many describe the crisis as one of “sexual abuse”.  The term is highly ambiguous.  There are multiple issues.

The first is ‘sexual abuse of a minor’ - an adult sexually abusing a child below the age of consent (or prepubescent). The abuser is acting out paedophiliac urges[4], a moral and legal crime in most countries.  The second is ‘sexual abuse of an adult’ an adult abusing another adult who is above the age of consent (or postpubescent).  The moral and civil criminal dimensions are confusing when there may be deemed to be consent of the party who might or might not be considered the victim (if they were not giving full consent or were otherwise coerced).

The Church defines another condition ‘abuse of a vulnerable adult’ meaning an adult who has limited mental ability or other limitations to resist abuse.  The use of this term by the Church has been contentious as it limits the scope of potential investigations and remedies.

The US Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has been removed from ministry because of an alleged credible case of sexual abuse of a minor.  It appears the many other sexual encounters he is alleged to have had with adult seminarians at his infamous beach house may not have directly contributed to his removal from ministry.  There is some debate over whether McCarrick’s relationships with seminarians were ‘consensual’, ‘abuse of an adult’, or ‘abuse of a vulnerable adult’ or simply ‘seduction’.

Debate rages over whether the issue and cause of the current Church crisis is criminal sexual abuse of minors or a much wider spectrum of active homosexuality, mainly between adults (arguably abuse or consensual).  US research indicates most of the Church abuse is homosexual in nature (male abuser, post pubescent mostly young male victim).[5]

It is significant that the CCC[6] separates SSA[7] from sexually active homosexuality.  This distinction is mostly avoided in the current Church dialogue, and the subject of active homosexuality is similarly skirted.

In failing to use specific terminology, commentators (secular, laity and hierarchy) create confusion and miss the core issues.  Selective terminology may betray bias in the writer or speaker and/or a desire to control the narrative.

Distressing claims are made that men in the priesthood are disproportionately gay and many are sexually active; that many exhibit promiscuous, predatory and addictive behaviour like that of Theodore Carrick and too many others.  Avoidance of the subject of active homosexuality means discussion and resolution of the crisis would seem impossible.


While the hierarchy appears unable to establish the facts, to discuss or visibly act on the full range

of these issues, untold damage is being done.  Manipulation of the issues is not Godly, it is political.

[4] Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

[5] John Jay College of Criminal Justice (JJCCJ) report released by the U.S. Bishops' National Review Board, commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Updated 2011 report found that "81 percent of sex abuse victims were boys, and 78 percent were post-pubescent."

[6] CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church
[7] SSA = Same Sex Attraction


3) HOW SHOULD THE CHURCH HANDLE SEX ABUSE CASES?

The Church is struggling to deal with abuse and fails to communicate the reasons for her response.

Scripture tells us to deal with errant behaviour internally, rather than going to civil authorities[8], but without discernment this approach has proved disastrous.

The secrecy issue is paramount.  The following case is unfortunately too typical.

How does a parent feel when a priest molests their child?  If they then discover that he has molested other children, repented confessionally and been counselled, shown mercy and forgiven and restored to full priestly function, all sub rosa (in secret), the parties involved all gagged by the Church - and he has then proceeded to molest their child?  As a parent one might ask why wasn't I told so that I could protect my child, or why wasn’t that priest named or removed from ministry immediately?

If the civil authorities had been involved the priest would have in most cases been publicly named for his first conviction, thus possibly preventing a second crime.

The Christian process for handling abuse has gone terribly wrong, betraying children and their parents.  The Church looks to be concealing these crimes and exposing vulnerable children.  Gagging and secret payoffs makes the Church look dishonest and the state authorities more moral and trustworthy than the Church.

To be fair, in many cases the Church has possibly been acting on the societal norms of 70 years ago and caught out by a civil justice process that retrospectively applies the standards of today.  But if the Church had lived by the Gospel 70 years ago, She would have dealt with the problem at the time.  This should remind the Church that following the moral norms of society (the ‘spirit of the age’) is a devilish trap.

The steps to be taken to handle the abuse crisis are as follows (re-presented in Section 6 below):

1.       Deal openly and honestly with the full range of abuses - paedophilia and homosexual, minors and adults, prepubescent and postpubescent, within the priesthood and between priesthood and laity.

2.       Adopt abuse standards based on the Church doctrine, scripture and Canon Law.

3.       Ensure these standards are aligned with civil law so that future investigation and/or prosecution is obviated.

4.       Ensure clergy led audit and risk management teams visit every diocese regularly to ensure standards are met and implemented. 

[8] 1 Corinthians 6:1 When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! (NLT)




4) WHAT IS THE CURRENT NEW DIRECTION OF THE CHURCH?

Many lay people and priests are very confused by what seems to be a reform agenda for the Church, employed over the past half century or more.

We are reduced to guesswork in analysing the situation as many of the new directions the Church is taking are too often apparent only by their effect.  Their intent is generally not clearly stated and can only be inferred.  We focus here on Church trends in western countries.


To quote Bishop Charles Drennan of the Diocese of Palmerston North “we seek to include ourselves

in Pope Francis’ reform of the heart of the Church”.

[9] Welcom Oct 2018 http://www.wn.catholic.org.nz/call-for-a-radical-change-in-governance




What is the ‘Reform of the Heart of the Church’?

·         why is such a reform needed?

·         what steps are being taken towards this reform?

·         what is the end point of this reform; what will the Church be like when the intended reform is completed?

·         Who is leading the reform?  The Vatican, or the local Bishops Conference, or the local bishop etc?

One apparent reform by Pope Francis seems to be recognition of the ‘pastoral’ approach to ministry.  This goes by phrases like ‘meeting people where they are at’, being ‘non-judgmental’, and the primacy of conscience.  It’s said Pope Francis wants to emphasize a more ‘humane’ approach and de-emphasize legal clarity. The ‘pastoral approach’ seems to be a way to negate Church doctrine to facilitate, for instance, giving holy communion to divorced and ‘remarried’ persons.  These pastoral principles, outlined in Amoris Laeticia, have been challenged by highly regarded theologians in the ‘Dubia’[10].

Many conjecture that the so called ‘reform’ agenda might include the following:

A Future Church Model?

·         married priests?

·         female priests?

·         actively homosexual priests?

·         optional celibacy within the priesthood?

·         priestly ministry taken over wholly or in part by the laity?

·         the conversion of the Church from theocracy to democracy?

·         a Catholic Church generally or wholly indistinguishable from other Christian churches, achieved under the aim of ‘ecumenism’?

These scenarios may seem farfetched but in the light of recent trends and without proper information and dialogue, they are reasonable extrapolations.

The Church has the magisterium, doctrine, Scripture and tradition to guide Her, but recent local and unwritten ‘doctrine’ is causing great confusion, contributing to troubling fragmentation within both hierarchy and laity.

A common consensus is that the Church’s reform started with Vatican II.[11]  While Vatican II instituted various well documented changes, many in the hierarchy around the world have taken them much further than intended by the Council documents.  A catch cry for ‘progressive’ changes is that they’re ‘in the spirit of Vatican II’ (rather than in the letter).

It seems that at the diocesan level Church doctrine is often ignored.  This trend became very public with the release in 1962 of Humanae Vitae[12] which was quickly and openly rejected by many in the hierarchy[13].  This seemed to set the stage for a widespread rejection by many of Church teachings which conflict with the values of modern secular society.  Further, there seems to be widespread rejection of the authority of the Pope (with Humanae Vitae and other issues).  It has been publicly conjectured by many that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was a least in part prompted by his loss of authority. It is also conjectured that by following a more liberal line Pope Francis is avoiding outright rejection of his leadership by dissidents in the hierarchy.

The values of secular society that conflict with formal Church teaching include contraception, abortion, ‘gay rights’, divorce, ‘remarriage’, fornication, the sanctity of the family and euthanasia.  Following the ‘60s and ‘70s the sexual revolution gained immense social traction; ideologies such as feminism and ‘gay rights’ are highly politicised (some would say weaponised) and have gained immense momentum, especially with government, mainstream media and educational institutions.  Cultural tension continues to grow, often with the intensity of cultural warfare.

Much of this was driven by change in policy and technology.  Modern antibiotics and contraception enabled the sexual revolution. In the case of ‘gay rights’, antiretroviral drugs curbed the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the earlier ‘70s and ‘80s and facilitated the movement’s acceleration politically in the early 21st century. Also, modern state welfare accelerated funding and facilitation of sole parent families and divorce (and became a major driver of the modern housing crisis).

The Church’s reaction to these factors has varied.  For instance, 50 years ago the NZ Church was a leader in the anti-abortion movement, with public meetings attended by large contingents of priests and laity. Catholics now have a low profile at public pro-life gatherings[14]; Church submissions on proposed reforms of abortion law are best described as ‘soft’ and inconsequential.  Is the Church’s recent switch to low gear in protest against abortion driven by fear of Her own very strong feminist contingent?

50 year ago, the CCC was taught in all NZ’s Catholic schools. Students knew its contents. THE CCC states the Catholic faith in brief and summary and was a centre piece of Catholic teaching and preaching.  The CCC is now almost never mentioned, the problem apparently being that a strict presentation of Catholic doctrine conflicts with the ‘world’ - and with new reforms within the Church.  In particular the CCC’S definition of homosexual acts as ‘intrinsically disordered’ attracts strenuous objection from the’ gay rights’ movement and may be the main reason why the CCC is now effectively ignored.

A key Catholic belief is the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Accordingly, in the past, the tabernacle was always sited behind the centre of the main alter.  Genuflection was a standard sign of reverence, as was silence (always kept in the church except for prayer), and kneeling during the Eucharistic Prayer. The Blessed Sacrament was received on the tongue while kneeling; only the consecrated hands of the priest ever came into contact with the Sacred Host.

In the diocese of Palmerston North over the past few years tabernacles have been moved, often to small rooms that are hard-to-find (and almost always empty).  The custom of genuflecting is rarely observed. The church is now a noisy social meeting place.  Posture for the Eucharistic prayer is optional, leading to almost comical confusion and lack of visible unity.

The Church community has been deeply affected by these and similar changes.  Culture wars within the secular community have spilled over into the Church.  New groups and divisions have appeared: feminist, homosexual, socialist, indigenous, orthodox and liberal.  The Church is now divided along many fault lines representing different positions on cultural issues and the direction of Church ‘reform’ (whatever that may be).

The Church has always accepted and encouraged differentiation of spirituality: Marists, Carmelite, Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, have in general peacefully coexisted in the one Church guided with wisdom and authority by the Papacy.  The new groupings within the Church are not so.

The orthodox/liberal split has seen the formation of SSPX[15] and widening support in the remaining Church for the traditional Latin Mass.  Strong feminist groups are calling for a greater acceptance and role for women, even for priestly ordination.  Active homosexuals (‘gays’) seek greater acceptance as laity and priests.  The swell of political support enjoyed by women and homosexuals in the secular community and the media is reflected in the Church.

An unexpected aspect of the higher profile noted for homosexuals is their high representation in the priesthood at all levels, their stellar careers, promotion and official concealment when their homosexual activity becomes public and often scandalous to the faithful.  Some commentators hold the view that the celibate priesthood has a natural attraction for SSA men.

Others say homosexuals are a trojan horse for a new model of priesthood, non-celibate, male and female, and homosexual: SSA men have been able to come into the priesthood, whereas married men and females have not.  SSA priests that are non-celibate can gradually gain acceptance from the laity, normalising non-celibacy and thus paving the way for married and woman priests.  The success of active homosexuals in the priesthood, their promotion, concealment and protection by the hierarchy (including the Pope it seems) gives more than passing credibility to this scenario.

The Church takes pride in open discussion and dialogue, particularly in Her pastoral process for non-Catholics wishing to convert.  It’s ironic therefore that the Church seems unwilling to entertain open dialogue on the issues raised in this document.  The lead taken by Church hierarchy - inasmuch as it could be called a lead - often looks like cleverly crafted political spin that fails to deal directly with these issues.  The laity struggle to discuss the issues without unseemly factional disagreements.  The Church hierarchy fails to provide leadership or forums for discussion: some parishes overseas have arranged ‘town hall’ meetings which have not all gone well.

Decades of cover ups, pay offs, gagging victims and witnesses, shunting errant priests and now a very real fear of criminal liability for the Church as an institution in the US (under RICO[16]) have created an environment hostile to full and free airing of the issues.  Church hierarchy also seem to be introducing massive reform by the ‘boiled-frog’[17] method, avoiding any discussion which might reveal their agenda, relying on a strategy of normalisation by stealth. 

[10] The letter signed by 4 cardinals contained five questions (Dubia). The cardinals publicised their letter in November 2016 after not receiving a response from Pope Francis.

[10] The letter signed by 4 cardinals contained five questions (Dubia). The cardinals publicised their letter in November 2016 after not receiving a response from Pope Francis.
[12] Humanae Vitae, an encyclical by Pope Paul VI 25 July 1968. It re-affirmed the orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church regarding married love, responsible parenthood, and the rejection of artificial contraception.
[13] For example, the Winnipeg Statement.
[14] Observers at the 2017 March for Life in Wellington report approximately 600 attendees but only one priest visible (who was from SSPX).
[15] Society of Saint Pius X, an international priestly fraternity founded in 1970 by Marcel Lefebvre.  It is not in full communion with Rome.
[16] Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, addresses criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
[17] A fable used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of changes that arise gradually rather than suddenly.



5) RECENT LOCAL SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE

At the time of writing, three items have set the diocesan scene.  We analyse all three collectively, as they are similar and tied by Bishop Drennan’s apparent endorsements.



5.1) DAVID MULLIN – ‘Six Men In a leaky boat’[18]  Mullin is a project manager for Palmerston North Catholic Diocese.

Essentially his opinion piece breaks down to two points:



·         He has a governance plan going forward and seems to think there is no need to look back to the cause of the problems which would only favour grandstanding by different interest groups.



·         His proposed governance plan would integrate laity even more fully with Church management, thus increasing the larger measure of responsibility for laity which has occurred in recent years.



Does his plan mean the priest or bishop becomes just one vote on a committee of lay people (qualified or otherwise), and can be outvoted, and what are the spiritual and doctrinal implications of such a plan?



18] https://pndiocese.org.nz/who-we-are/six-men-in-a-leaky-boat/





5.2) BISHOP LONG (Parramatta Diocese, Sydney) – ‘Being a Priest In A Unprecedented Time of Change’[19]

His paper was delivered at the national assembly of diocesan priests in Christchurch 13 September 2018, where Bishop Long was guest speaker.  The address drew a standing ovation from some of the 200 odd NZ priests who were present; others were negative.  We understand he often departed from his speech notes.

Bishop Long’s paper proposes paradigm shift.  In ‘Breaking Open the Priesthood’ he says, “the separated, exalted and elitist priesthood…must be consigned to the past”.  He speaks strongly against ‘clericalism’.

5.3) BISHOP DRENNAN – ‘Call for radical change in governance’[20]


The title speaks for itself.  Bishop Drennan endorses the views of Bishop Long and Mullin.  He 

expresses strong disgust for ‘clericalism’ and speaks very favourably of new governance models.

[20] http://www.wn.catholic.org.nz/call-for-a-radical-change-in-governance/

5.4) ANALYSIS

+Long and +Drennan’s contributions amount to withering criticisms of the priesthood and its alleged failings.  In describing the priesthood, they employ the language of the political left who are usually strongly opposed to the Church.  Terms abound like misogyny, paternalism, patriarchal, hegemony.



Statements like ‘Misogyny parading as theological orthodoxy is … toxic…’[21] are cryptic and mostly unfathomable to the lay faithful.  The statement would seem to take the debate to a whole new level - but does it?  People asked by this writer for their interpretation mostly assume it proposes women for the priesthood and that anyone opposing that proposition is ‘toxically’ orthodox.[22]    But we can only guess at Bishop Drennan’s meaning.  If our guess is correct, that proposition will be opposed by the solution proposed in this paper: restoration of faith in Christ’s apostolic model of priesthood.



The theme of ‘clericalism’ is taken up by these three writers.  Since Pope Francis[23] introduced this ambiguous term its definitions by different parties have spanned the full range of debate.  Bishop Drennan calls it “A pathology of arrogance and ignorance…”.  Another commentator in contrast describes clericalism as an “attempt to steer the conversation away from the cause of the vast majority of sexual abuse cases (the psychological disorder of homosexuality) and to lay the blame on structural and institutional factors that play into their liberal narrative of a Church in need of radical reformation in its teachings connected with sexuality (e.g., ordination of women, clerical celibacy, regularization of divorcees, normalization of homosexual relationships).”[24]



Organisational and cultural failures occur frequently, and retrospective analysis is often brutal.  Be it a lost battle or a corporate collapse, almost inevitably most of the blame falls on leadership. Rarely does it reasonably fall on the foot soldiers or the corporate employees.  Emphasis on ‘clericalism’ tends to place far too much of the blame on priests, most of whom are faithful and not the root cause.  Leadership etiquette and common-sense call for the hierarchy to take the weight of responsibility.  Leadership comes from the top.



None of these three local (NZ) commentators discusses the ‘elephant in the room’ in today’s Church, the issue of homosexuality: Mullin dismisses such conversation as ‘finger pointing’ - instead proposing ‘clericalism’ as the cause of the crisis.



It is important to recognise in the debate, the relationship between governance, organisational structure and other factors.  The proposed changes in governance imply structural changes and vice versa.  These three commentaries fall far short of a coherent governance and structural plan which must state the future lines of authority of each party (including priests).  Basic questions needing answers before we can proceed are, for instance in Section 4 ‘What is the Reform of the Church?’, and what is ‘A Future Church Model?’



Christ instituted his Church with an apostolic structure and hierarchy, according to his own divine will.  If any party proposes to change the model given us by Christ, we suggest they will not be able to justify it theologically.  None of these three commentators discuss this anomaly.  Are they proposing a post-doctrinal Church?



Undoubtedly, the Church has failed spectacularly in its mission over the past half century, and these failings have been exposed in the past few years.  But it does not necessarily follow that the Church’s mechanisms of structure and governance are solely to blame.  The Church’s main, spectacular fault has been widespread heresy and apostasy in the hierarchy and priesthood, failure of culture and operation caused by attempts to remodel herself on ‘the world’, rather than on divinely revealed Truths.  The mechanism for the Church, given by Christ, having existed and operated for 2000+ years, is right and just, but if operated inappropriately and unjustly, will deliver bad outcomes.



By way of example, if most of us tried to fly a modern jet airliner we would probably cause a crash.  The reason for crashing would not lie with fault in the airplane, but with ourselves for operated it incorrectly.



Many of the three local commentators’ proposals have already been implemented, with a hefty devolvement of operation and responsibility from priests to laity at parish and diocesan level, but have failed to prevent or contain the crisis. 



Naturally many devolved parishes suffer conflict between parishioners, committees and Parish Priests, depending on the nature and strength of the personalities involved. Conflict within organisations generally occurs when the roles and authorities of different parties are not clearly defined.  Conflict in the parish then arises, both spiritual and ideological, as the parties struggle to establish authority and rules of operation.  Ultimate responsibility for any such conflict rests with the Church hierarchy and Papacy, for failure to define and teach doctrine, and to define the roles of the parties.   Fighting in middle and lower ranks almost always results from failure of management in the upper echelons.



As Mullin points out ‘Various commentators are blaming the issue on their pet topic’.  The solution is not to redefine the Church but for Papal authority and the hierarchy to provide clarity of Church teaching that breaks down group barriers and restore unity.

[22] We note that French Cardinal Pie (1815-1888) stated ‘The first condition of sanctity is orthodoxy’, and many still hold this view today. 

[23] Example ‘Letter of His Holiness Pope Francis To the People of God’ 20 August 2018

[24] Peter Kwasniewski https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/what-clericalism-really-looks-like



6) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

To restore the credibility of the Church and leave the sexual and homosexual abuse crisis behind we recommend the following:

1.       Reaffirmation of the Church as instituted by Christ and as the sacred deposit of Doctrine and Truth.

2.       Reaffirmation of the Apostolic model for the Church, given us by Christ, its retainment and reinforcement.

3.       Teaching and preaching right doctrine according to the Tradition and the Magisterium.

4.       Disqualification from the priesthood of active homosexuals.

5.       Quick action to obviate any further investigations and legal action against the Church and individual priests internationally, to be done transparently so the Church is seen to be above board and not attempting to thwart due legal process.

6.       Open and honest dealing with the full range of abuse - paedophilia and homosexual, minors and adults, pre-pubescent and post-pubescent and where priests are sexually active with laity.  Differentiation of SSA from homosexual acts.

7.       Rejuvenation of governance tools in the Church to ensure they are applied correctly according to Doctrine, Scripture, Canon Law and the CCC as the necessary governance framework.  Where existing governance tools prove inadequate, provide clear statement of the reasons for new ones.

8.       Transparency in changes at national, diocesan or parish level, especially when made as ‘pastoral care’ or as part of a ‘reform’ agenda. 

9.       Clear documentation and reconciliation of any apparent conflicts between new reform proposals and Church doctrine.

10.   Introduction of clerical-led audits of Church activities at national, diocesan and parish level to ensure governance standards are followed, particularly in areas of prevention, detection and prosecution of sexual abuse.

11.   Application of Gospel teaching in handling moral and/or legal crimes, ensuring the Churches code is equal or superior to that of national secular society. 

12.   Application of risk management techniques to minimise exposure to action by secular authorities. Priests who have offended should in most cases be publicly named and removed from ministry.

13.   Initiation of a public conversation to explain the conflict between Church teaching and the values of the secular society.  As the Church’s Gospel standards differ from the world’s, they necessarily negate any low profile ‘go with the flow’, ‘avoid any issues and conflict’ mentality. The Church should be robust and forthright in stating where and why She departs from the values of secular society.

14.   Identification of key areas of concern for the faithful and initiation of open, meaningful debate, avoiding complex theology or high-level conceptualising unless absolutely relevant and dealing only with the clearly defined issues in terms the laity understand.

15.   Promotion of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all Graces, and to the Saints.

16.   Recognition of the power of evil and satanic manipulation designed to destroy the Church.

17.   Encouragement of attendance at daily Mass

18.   Promotion of devotional prayer, especially eucharistic adoration and benediction, and the Holy Rosary.



Some of the points made below may appear to contradict these recommendations but woud be clarified in discussion.

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

a)      Married priests

b)      Women priests

c)       SSA priests

d)      Celibacy or non-celibacy (for each or all of a), b), c) above)

e)      Seminaries’ reception of celibate SSA men versus non-celibate SSA men

f)       Pastoral or reform agendas, full transparency (especially if they over-ride doctrine and/or scripture).

g)      THE ‘drip feed’ or ‘boiled frog’ approach to reform

h)      Celebration of ‘gay’ unions or ’weddings’ in the Catholic Church (especially in secret)

i)        The practice of giving communion to non-Catholics (intercommunion) without express permission from the local ordinary.

j)        The Church’s belief in the Real Presence viz relocation of tabernacles, loss of genuflection, communion in the hand.

k)      Definition of clericalism: is it a major issue?  Does it mean clerical arrogance, abuse of clerical power, surreptitious advancement of reform, concealment of clerical sexual abuse, concealment of homosexual promotion, or otherwise?

l)        Specification of management and authority for laity, especially in regard to theology.

m)    Identification and unity for the different factions within the Church - orthodox, liberal, SSPX, Carmelite, Kapatiran, Rosminian, MMP etc.

n)      The priority of the Church: saving souls

o)      Catholic belief in heaven, hell and the devil.

p)      Identification and reunification of different ideologies: feminism, ‘gay rights’, socialism, freemasonry, relativism, environmentalism, modernism etc.

q)      Posture during the Eucharistic Prayer.