IT'S +DRENNAN WHO SHOULD BE LAICISED, NOT +DEW

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, fb or messenger. Scroll down for other comments.

Is there a Catholic worthy of that name in this nation who is not deeply grieved, as we enter Holy Week, by the sight of the Metropolitan of New Zealand appearing on television looking like a bank clerk?

..

At Mass this morning, while standing for the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ (in one parish at least standing all the way through with no genuflection at the moment of our Saviour's last breath), many Catholics would have identified with Christ in the kiss He received from Judas. They would have felt betrayed in their faith, by their Church.

The story goes - but no one seems to know who's telling it - that when summoned (or whatever) to appear before the Abuse in Care Enquiry, Cardinal John Dew was told to wear a shirt and tie. He would have complied, we assume - and many will judge, complied rightly - out of what he construed as obedience and humility.  

But the truth is that in this matter it's the Catholic Church who should have called the shots, not an Abuse in Care Enquiry, no matter how 'Royal' any such Commission might style itself. The cardinal was appearing before that Commission as royalty himself, as a Prince of the Church, and should have identified himself as such by clerical dress. That would not be pride, or disobedience; that would simply be the truth.

"As a matter of objective duty, the State is bound to recognize the juridical rights of the Church in all matters spiritual, whether purely so or of mixed character, and its judicial right to determine the character of matters of jurisdiction, in regard, namely, to their spiritual quality.

... "The State is even under obligation to promote the spiritual interests of the Church; for the State is bound to promote whatever by reaction naturally works for the moral development of its citizens and consequently for the internal peace of the community, and in the present condition of human nature that development is necessarily dependent upon the spiritual influence of the Church."https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/state-and-church

For faithful Catholics it's utterly shame-making that his Eminence should turn up to the Commission and the cameras disguised as a bank teller. 

It's significant that on Friday at this enquiry he spoke of Bishop Charles Drennan, who resigned from the Palmerston North Diocese in 2019 in disgrace after admitting sexual impropriety. 

Cardinal Dew said +Drennan was dependent on the Vatican for his future deployment. No news in that, but significantly, he was asked by the Church's lawyer why +Drennan has not been laicised. +Dew said that was entirely Rome's decision.

+Drennan's resignation announced on TvOne 'News' (in a voice that shatters glass) 

“The Pope is the only one that can remove a bishop from office." He said no one asked for Drennan’s laicisation and it was 'a grey area'.

A perceptive reader of this blog has commented that while stating that +Drennan remains a bishop and has not been laicised, Cardinal Dew appeared before the nation dressed as if he himself were laicised. This peculiarity suggests that Cardinal Dew is suffering - and understandably he looked and sounded like a suffering soul - for the sins of another. Or others. Many others.

He told the enquiry:

"As leaders in the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand we are committed to ensuring a safe Church. We are committed to putting you, victims and survivors of abuse and your whānau, first, rather than focusing on the Church’s systems and culture. 

"Pope Francis has said: “Looking back to the past, no effort to beg pardon and to seek to repair the harm done will ever be sufficient. Looking ahead to the future, no effort must be spared to create a culture able to prevent such situations from happening, but also to prevent the possibility of their being covered up and perpetuated.” (Letter to the People of God, 2018.)

"I am committed to a Church that spares no effort to create a culture that prevents abuse and any possibility of cover-ups, to a Church that listens and learns from you, and then acts. I personally apologise for when I have failed to listen, learn, and act in ways that would have put you first. I am profoundly sorry, and I am ashamed.".https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300263074/disgraced-palmerston-north-bishops-future-lies-with-the-vatican

May faithful Catholics dare to hope, then, that 'ensuring a safe Church', one that 'prevents abuse and any possibility of cover-ups' means a return to the only means  to achieving that: preaching and teaching the Gospel? The Gospel puts everyone first, as equal in the sight of God, as children of God - including children yet to be born. 

As for looking to the past or future, we need rather to live in what Jean-Pierre de Caussade SJ famously termed "the sacrament of the present moment", because that's where we find Jesus Christ.

Befuddled, bewildered, bedevilled would seem to describe the state of so many of our Novus Ordo priests and bishops - and 'Pope'.  

And non-practising priests too, as we see in the report below from Radio NZ, on "Saturday Morning", March 27. We can imagine how Kim Hill, or whoever, would have salivated over it. Personally I'd give it very little cred, but it's instructive to see how venomous anti-clericalism can be.  

"Dr Tom Doyle, a former priest, canon lawyer and addictions therapist, has given evidence to the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care in Auckland." 

 

Dr Tom Doyle, an American, non-practising priest 

  

 

He said the so-called mystic aura of a priest had given him super human status. Doyle, who beamed in via an audio-visual link from the United States, told the inquiry priests suffered from what he called clerical narcissism. 

''It goes with the clerical faith, the clerical culture, because you are taught in the seminary that you are going to be above others who are lower people that have sex. You are going to be above them.''

Well, we all knew there was something very seriously wrong with NZ seminaries - but not what Doyle describes, and what would Doyle know about NZ seminaries? 

Doyle said rather than there being a few bad apples, the problem was the barrel itself - the church structure.

Seems that as well as being a non-practising priest, Doyle is a non-practising Catholic.  

He said the reputation of the priesthood allowed clerics to become trusted and immersed with families, which led to the grooming process of young people. 

We may assume, in charity, that RNZ meant to say "which could lead to the process of grooming young people". 

''The seduction process of the youthful victims, who often don't even know what is happening. They have been raised to believe priests don't sin.''

It sounds as if Doyle knows a lot about child-rearing. As he left the priesthood only 4 years ago it's not likely from personal experience. We may assume it's just that he's an 'expert'. 

... Doyle said while celibacy for priests was seen as related to sexual abuse, the actual notion of celibacy was a bit of a fiction. He believed, based on research that at any given time, about half of all priests were in a physical and intimate relationship.

Ah, Dr Doyle, could you please cite your references? 

''There are a significant number of supposedly celibate priests who are engaged in relationships, either a one night stand if you want to call them that, just to satisfy a sexual need.''

Could you please put a figure on that 'significant number'? Gosh, what fascinating conversations you must have had with your fellow priests. 

Doyle said the church's first response to an abuse complaint was calling a lawyer, but it should be entirely victim focused.

And on what doctrine or Scripture, Dr Doyle, do you base that assertion? Are we not all equal in the eyes of God, and while the supposed victim must be shown every care and consideration, is the supposedly errant priest not in dire need of repentance and conversion? Are you not sounding rather #MeToo-ish? 

''One-on-one compassionate contact between the leader of the diocese or religious order and the victim. It takes time, it take effort, it's very, very painful, but these should be the most important people."

Do you always believe the victim, Dr Doyle? Maybe as an American you haven't heard of the infamous case made in Victoria, Australia, against Cardinal George Pell.  And have you forgotten that in God's eyes we are all 'the most important peope'?

Doyle said the Catholic Church had failed miserably in dealing with victims of abuse.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018789292/dr-tom-doyle-church-structure-to-blame-for-abuse

Yes. Agreed. But you, Dr Doyle, well-intentioned though you may be, seem intent on perpetuating that failure. 

One may only hope and pray that an 'expert' 'beamed in' from the US has not overwhelmed the Commission with his reputation and reconditeness. And one would assume that any priest or prelate at that hearing would take Doyle's witnesswith a very large grain of salt.

It should not escape our notice that the day Cardinal John Dew, the Metropolitan of New Zealand, appeared before the nation dressed as a shop assistant, was Friday in Passion Week. Completely forgotten by the post-Vat II Church, but still celebrated in the pre-Novus Ordo calendar is the Commemoration, that day, of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

So as we enter Holy Week let us grieve together with Cardinal Dew, our Church of New Zealand, and the Mother of our Saviour. 

O Lord, repay us not according to the sins we have committed, nor according to our iniquities. O Lord, Remember not our former iniquities, let Thy mercies speedily prevent us; for we are become exceeding poor. (Here kneel.) Help us, O God, our Saviour: and for the glory of Thy name, O Lord, deliver us: and forgive us our sins for Thy name's sake. 

- Tract, Friday in Passion Week.