PREACHING IS A PRIEST'S PREROGATIVE AND NOT ENOUGH INDULGED

To comment, please open your gmail account, use Facebook Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for other comments.

Preaching in front of the Blessed Sacrament is not my prerogative.  

Bruce Tichbon, you can say that again! 

Bruce Tichbon, obviously, is a layman - and his response to The Resignation deserves a post on its own. Especially the point he makes in regard to the Q&A meeting held at the cathedral on Tuesday. 

As Tichbon implies, preaching in front of the Blessed Sacrament is the prerogative of a priest, and only a priest. Or of course, a bishop - but it's my understanding that this particular bishop indulged that prerogative only seldom.

The more I think about it, the more I realise how wrong it was to hold that meeting in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. It virtually muzzled all the conservative Catholics who are faithful to Tradition, who arguably had much more reason to be angry, sad, or just plain depressed, than the liberal faction who were granted a free pass to the media for their stupid Compulsory Celibacy Must Go argument.

The hierarchy bangs on and on and on about 'injustice'. 'Social injustice'. Here was glaring example of that very thing. Holding that meeting in the Real Presence, and so effectively silencing Its defenders and promoters - who arguably had a far better understanding of the issues underlying Bishop Drennan's resignation - did serious injustice to the community of the Diocese of Palmerston North.  

Anyway, back to Bruce Tichbon.

These are tough times and we are called to be understanding.  This is the second time in recent decades the Palmerston North Church has been rocked by priestly sex scandal.  I am aware of people who left the Church because of the last one.  This latest scandal may cost more souls. I am told still more scandals lurk.

In many respects the Q&A was well managed, starting with Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.  It was a painful but necessary experience, it reminded me of a kind of funeral to help us all come to terms with the latest disaster.

To me it seemed to become in part a preaching session where people came to the microphone and advocated for their private positions, especially in favour of married priests. Some people afterwards commented privately the meeting was a set-up.  Maybe that's a bit conspiratorial but the effect seemed to be the same.  Add Joy Cowley's piece in CathNews (vigorously calling for the end of priestly celibacy) and it becomes a crescendo.

The organizers should have prevented it becoming a private preaching session, but I understand their issues. I felt at times I should speak myself to try to balance things up, but I would have just added to the tension. 

Preaching in front of the Blessed Sacrament is not my prerogative. Does holding such a session in the Cathedral serve to silence those who believe in the Real Presence of our Lord, and leave the field wide open to those who do not?

The Church is starved of balanced dialogue, which is why many are forced to use blogs like this one.  Publications like Welcom and NZ Catholic fail to properly present the tensions and growing schism within  the Church.

People have commented above about Bishop Drennan using his position to express his left wing politics.  I would add he also rejected certain Church Doctrine.  His leadership caused tension; consternation to many, others approved. Many spoke strongly in his favor, he had done good things, especially helping immigrants.

Cardinal Dew commented "Any sexual behaviour in a pastoral situation is totally inappropriate".  This seems to tell us something new: Bishop Drennan was acting in a pastoral situation with the young woman when the misdemeanor occurred. 

If it had been a non-pastoral situation, or a young man, would it have been treated differently?  If the Church changes its position on priestly celibacy (it might happen in a few weeks time at the Amazon Synod) will Bishop Drennan's position change?

We won't be told what Bishop Drennan did (in order to protect the young woman, we are told), so we will never know the facts. This prevents us understanding the situation properly, and does not help us to advise our children how to better protect themselves in similar situations.  

Is the situation with Bishop Drennan and the Church's response encouraging us to treat all priests with suspicion?  It certainly seems that it's being used to further the call for radical changes to the priesthood.

I add: 

I know for certain of at least one person present at the meeting who had strong views on the bishop's resignation but would not speak in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament. I would have felt the same. 

Holding the meeting in the church did serve to silence traditional, conservative Catholics. Would that have occurred to the organisers ? I doubt it. But in future there should be vigorous opposition to holding any meetings in the church. It's wrong in principle for any meeting, but a big mistake in this case.

As for "any sexual behavior in a pastoral situation (being) totally inappropriate", the priest has taken a vow of chastity. He is married to the Church. 

Dear Cardinal Dew, any sexual behavior from any priest in any situation is not only "totally inappropriate", it's sinful - and I venture to say, given the priest's position of prestige and power, seriously sinful. 

It should not be left to lay people to point this out.