Australian Parish Anarchy Continues
It looks as though a group of parishioners at St. Vincents in Redfern Australia has chased off it’s 2nd priest using their tactics of intimidation and harassment. Since Fr. Ted Kennedy (well known activist who was openly rebellious against Church authority and doctrine) left in 2001 – a group of activist parishioners have refused to submit to the authority of the parish priest since they were never consulted or invited to participate in the decision making process of choosing an appropriate replacement for Fr. Kennedy. After browsing over the parish journal website , you may get a better feel for the challenging situation the priests must endure.
Archbishop George Pell has accused the parishioners of St Vincent’s Catholic Church in Redfern of “sad and shameful attitudes” and mounting a “program of intimidation, harassment and disturbance” on holy occasions.
Cardinal Pell confirmed that Father Gerry Prindiville, who had struggled to gain the support of parishioners, has taken leave and been replaced by Father Clesio do Nascimento Mendes. Both are missionaries of the Neocatechumenal Way, installed by Cardinal Pell four years ago.
“But as a priest and bishop for 40 years I have never encountered anywhere the level of rudeness and disruption often foisted on worshipers at Mass. Interjectors seem to regard Mass as something like an unruly branch meeting of a political party. “Reverence for the sacred appears extinct among the agitators … These are sad and shameful attitudes.”
While browsing around, I found an incident of a priest being watered down with a garden hose, parishioners taking the Eucharist back to the pews and sharing it with others, parishioners breaking into the church & making a “permanent” memorial to Aboriginal spirituality which was blessed in the presence of the parish priest, by a Jesuit priest friend of the former pastor. Unbelievable.
.jpg)
A very biased view of a community of gospel based catholics, working at the coalface to restore dignity to the marginalised in society.
Unfortunally, no mention is made of the parish priest who was found guilty under canon law of abuse of the parishioners and who fled back to the Phillipines rather than face the consequences of his behaviour.
Nor is any mention made of the physical,verbal and sacramental abuse that the parish has had to go through, all with the support of Cardinal George Pell. Go and see “Deliver us from evil” and get a reality chech on what church heirarchy can do to good people.
God bless
Alan Hockey
Sydney Australia
Comment by Alan Hockey — June 1, 2007 @ 8:44 PM
Alan -
If “Deliver Us From Evil” is your view of reality then I must dismiss your assertions about this situation as having no credibility.
By the way, “Gospel based Catholics” is a redundancy. To assert it as something novel together with your advocacy of screed suggest to me that you have a very mistaken understanding of the Catholic Church.
Comment by David — June 1, 2007 @ 9:04 PM
David -
Sadly, it exactly that dismissive attitude that is a major problem in the Church today – there’s no need to check the facts, because we have the one and only Truth.
Perhaps even sadder still is the scarcity of “Gospel based Catholics” – there’s not enough of them around for there to be “a redundancy” – if only that were the case. (Incidentally, I think the word you were reaching for is “tautology”).
Comment by Ed Ward — June 1, 2007 @ 11:50 PM
Ed,
No, the word that David was searching for and did, indeed, find, was “redundancy.” “Catholicism” implies a thorough rooting in the Gospel. Therefore, there is a sense in which it is redundant to speak of “Gospel based Catholics.” Of course, it would be even more redundant to speak of “Gospel based Catholicism.” The hierarchical institution of the Church is not a Hellenization that occured centuries, or even decades, after the Word became flesh, dwelt among us, and died for our sins. The present-day hierarchy carries on the educative, sanctifying and ministerial work of the Apostles. This requires a fleshly transmission, a laying on of hands in episcopal consecration, in order to trace its roots physically all the way back to Christ himself. And it must be the case that the transmission of faith carries this fleshly dimension, else the significance of the Incarnation is denied.
The ministerial priesthood, in which men are set apart for special ministry as were Christ and his Apostles, is the only conceivable “Gospel based” reality of ecclesial leadership. Every ecclesial theory that denies the unique reality of the sacerdotal function is a false and subjectivized concoction, stemming, as did Luther’s ideas, from an early modern, nominalistic, bourgeois mentality. The priesthood, with its special functions, is indispensable to a “Gospel based” Christianity. “Catholicism” just is the Gospel embodied. It is, indeed, anti-Christic to engage in open warfare with those who stand in persona Christi.
But thanks for foolishly presuming to correct David’s vocabulary.
Comment by hierothee — June 2, 2007 @ 1:11 AM
I humbly stand corrected, but am less than impressed by the rhetoric behind which you hide.
Fare thee well
Ed
Comment by Ed Ward — June 2, 2007 @ 3:30 AM
Ed -
Attitude is a subjective disposition and difficult to discern, especially through a blog. Perhaps it would be more useful to remain at the level of content.
In my prudential judgment that putting any stock in Alan’s perception of events is unwarranted. Alan clearly states his antipathy for Church hierarchy and cites fictional screed aimed at undermining confidence in Church hierarchical authority as support for his claims. Logically then, if one aligns himself with disreputable sources as support of his credibility then he is setting the criteria by which to judge said same credibility. Thus, in finding the supporting source disreputable then one would be clearly justified in dismissing the credibility of the former.
In regards to your dismissal of the faith practice of Catholics. The Church has always been full of sinners but there has never been a lack of saints. Today is no different. I might suggest that if you were to stop searching for the eschaton made present you would find that there are indeed many Catholics who authentically live out their lives of faith. I find that when I am preoccupied with other’s lack of an authentic faith life that it is often a means of distracting me from shortcomings in my own.
Finally, I find it astonishing that given your complaint of dismissing claims without checking the facts, that you would then so cavalierly dismiss Hierothee’s reasoned argument as “rhetoric.” I can only imagine that either you did not follow it or you recognized that you were incapable of refuting it. In any case, be assured that those of us posting here are no longer hiding behind rhetoric. We have lived that life and found it seriously wanting. The Truth revealed in the Word made Flesh and prolonged in the hierarchically structured Catholic Church is now our lodestar and source of divinizing strength. Please do take more seriously what Hierothee has to say as you will find more peace in following the path provided by Christ than you will in trying to rebuild the Church according to your own views.
Comment by David — June 2, 2007 @ 10:49 AM
“If ‘Deliver Us From Evil’ is your view of reality then I must dismiss your assertions about this situation as having no credibility.”
Actually, Alan did no such thing. He appealed to facts omitted from the situation, namely, that one previously assigned priest had abused parishioners and fled. Alan also stated that the parishioners find no support in their bishop. In referring to “Deliver Us From Evil,” he was appealing to people who would immediately dismiss the possibility of abuse or neglect. I think your dismissal of his points was a little too quick.
A skilled journalist would ferret out the facts and strain to uncover the truth, not merely dismissing one person’s opinion because of either favor or antipathy for clergy.
And a quick look at your news sources suggests the archbishop has a significant problem on his hands which might be well-served by personal contact with the parish and a different tack of leadership. I don’t see the harm in the archbishop and the parish coming to a mutually satisfactory priest to serve as pastor.
Comment by Todd — June 2, 2007 @ 12:14 PM
Hey, ya gotta be kidding me!!!
Do you people on this website accept that the abuse of children can be explained away with a brush stroke of clerical hogwash!! Get real- they have been diddling with your kids and leading us up the garden path for years!!
None of what I say is directed toward the many dedicated and sainted priests that are ardent labourers in Gods vinyards
God bless
AlanH
Comment by Alan Hockey — June 3, 2007 @ 7:25 AM
Yes David – “Deliver us from evil” was a reality check, mate!!
In Australia our senior archbishop/cardinal has been accused of child sex abuse- he was cleared of all accusations although the judge said that his accuser was a creditable witness.
This seems to have some of the elements of what “Deliver us…” is about. The fact that that there are 556 priests facing 1000,000 charges of child sex abuse in the USA would indicate that there is a problem that you have not been able to face up to.
As for the Gospel, mate, I will continue to “do unto others as you would do unto Me!!” To not do what Christ asked for would be to lessen his wonderful message of salvation!! If ya wanta say that I am wrong then that is your opinion – for me, I will side with Lord!!
God bless ya,mate
Alan Hockey
Comment by Alan Hockey — June 3, 2007 @ 7:54 AM
I guess the sex abuse scandal sounds as good as any excuse for those who could have discontent with authority and/or Catholic Church. The Truth established by our Lord in the Catholic Church shall set us free.
God Bless you too, my friend.
Comment by shelray — June 3, 2007 @ 8:09 AM
Ok, perhaps I’ve missed something. I’ve been following this debate and do not see how “some priests abused children”=”evidence that Christ did not establish a heirarchical clergy that functions to continue his ministry in a unique manner.” If we are going to doubt the ontological effect of a received sacrament based solely on sinful action, then we must logically doubt the baptism of everyone (ourselves included). Furthermore,I have a son, and I must admit that I have at times pondered what I would do if I discovered that someone (priest or layman alike) abused him in any way. However, the above reasoning seems to carry the logic that if a guy named Alan was really horrible to me or my son, then I am justified in being cruel to every other person I meet named Alan. (Alan, that was in no way an accusation of ill action – I just used the first name that came to mind) Anyway, I apologize if I am misinterpreting, but the above reasoning does not seem sound, if that is, indeed, what is being asserted.
Comment by Shawn Reeves — June 3, 2007 @ 8:55 AM
Shawn
I take no umbrage at your using my name in the analogy, mate!~!
I have also wondered what I would do in the stuation you outlined!! Fortunatinaly (maybe blinded) I have a great faith in our young people and their inate sense of what is right.
God bless
AlanH
Comment by Alan Hockey — June 3, 2007 @ 9:58 AM
Alan -
I would be interested in hearing how you would respond to the content of Shawn’s analogy. It is, after all, the fundamental point.
The issue of clerical abuse of children is real. However, it is not an issue directly related to anything about the priesthood or Church hierarchy. The problem of sexual abuse of minors is orders of magnitude worse in our school system but this has not caused any similar reaction against the the legitimacy of public education. The John Jay report shows that, mercifully, the problem peaked on the 1980s and is now greatly on the wane.
Thus, the question remains to you, what does the fact that the clergy was not sufficiently isolated from the disorder arising from the “sexual revolution” beginning in the late ’60s have to do with the validity of the hierarchy?
You admirably want to follow the commands of Jesus. I sincerely applaud this attitude. Perhaps a lesson He gave to His disciples in Matt 23:1-3a applies here. Even though the Pharisees had become corrupt in their practices, Jesus admonished His disciples to obey them because they administered Israel with God’s authority which Jesus shows in the phrase “Moses’ seat.” That authority rested with the Pharisees until Pentecost when the authority was transferred to the New Covenant hierarchy comprised of Peter and the other Apostles, and their successors who now sit on Moses’ seat.
What this means it that as Jesus said to His Apostles (and which applies also to their successors), whoever rejects you rejects Me. In other words, you cannot follow Christ while rejecting His Church, including its appointed leaders. You have to accept the Whole Christ, Mystical Body and all. As St. Cyprian said, you cannot have God as Father if you will not have the Church as Mother.
I think that Shelray puts the case well, one who has a precommitment against authority does not need very much of an excuse.
Todd – I disagree with your assessment. Ed’s statement indicted the entire hierarchical nature of the Church using “Deliver Us From Evil” as his justification. In doing so, he falls into the same trap as Amy Berg, the director of said screed. She took a valid subject, the grave evil done by former priest Oliver O’Grady, as justification for an all out assault on the Church hurling every libelous charge she might find. This is exactly the approach of Ed and Alan which indeed does undermine their ability to be objective and even handed and thus justifies dismissing any unsupported claims they might wish to make.
I do agree with you that a good investigative journalist would take claims and ferret out the facts but I do not understand how that applies here as I am not sure anyone here considers themselves an investigative journalist. In this case, I would say that they have the obligation to provide links to independent reports that support their positions.
Comment by David — June 3, 2007 @ 11:37 AM
A few things, David.
First, I was responding to Alan, not Ed. Also, I think your bringing up abuse by teachers is questionable: what does it have to do with the discussion? It’s certainly far more left afield than Alan suggesting “Deliver Us From Evil” has something to say. We might disagree with the tone of its message and some of its conclusions, but Alan’s initial points go unaddressed.
Lacking anyone present claiming to be an investigative journalist, we’re left with Alan’s assertions on the scene and yours. He’s done a better job keeping to the topic at hand.
Let’s also be cautious about treating the Jay Study as gospel. It is a snapshot of abusers and victims in 2002-03. Simple statistics would tell us the center of that bell curve of abuse hits pretty close to the middle of when victims are alive. We don’t actually know that abuse peaked in the 80′s. The Jay Study mentions the 70′s. But if we were able to include abusers and victims long dead, I think we might find that the history is not to rosy.
The difference between the fervor against child abuse in schools and in the church can be measured by the policies of bishops and principals, Rome and school administrators. If school administrators knowingly reassigned teachers who abused, then we would see great outcry. But to my knowledge no such instance has been made public. We’ve known for decades that clergy and religious abused children in their care. The reason why the scandal has “taken” in the public eye is that those in authority did very little to protect the innocent.
I repeat my suggestion that Archbishop Pell might need to take more seriously the situation. It doesn’t seem to be responding to administration from afar.
Comment by Todd — June 3, 2007 @ 11:35 PM
“If school administrators knowingly reassigned teachers who abused, then we would see great outcry. But to my knowledge no such instance has been made public.” –Todd
got yer blinders on, do ya, todd? ’cause this ain’t just a catholic thing:
“Students at risk for sexual abuse
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY — As many as one in 10 public school students is sexually harassed or abused at some point by a teacher or other school worker, the first large-scale study on the topic suggests.
“Sexual harassment, including inappropriate jokes, gestures, sexual rumors and flashing, is more prevalent than assault, says the study by Hofstra University’s Charol Shakeshaft. But her analysis of previous research shows that offenses such as sexual touching and grabbing and forced sex probably are endured by 1 in 15 students some time in their school careers.
“Brian Jones, general counsel of the Education Department, calls the abuse ‘widespread,’ adding, ‘The scope of sexual misconduct is much broader than what I think many of us thought or hoped.’”
link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-30-abuse-school_x.htm
where was YOUR outcry at this atrocity, todd, and why-oh-why did you close your eyes to it?
Comment by jon — June 4, 2007 @ 4:00 AM
besides–todd, alan, et al., you guys keep dancing around david’s main point:
“What this means it that as Jesus said to His Apostles (and which applies also to their successors), whoever rejects you rejects Me. In other words, you cannot follow Christ while rejecting His Church, including its appointed leaders. You have to accept the Whole Christ, Mystical Body and all. As St. Cyprian said, you cannot have God as Father if you will not have the Church as Mother.”
howsabout an answer, ‘mates’?
Comment by jon — June 4, 2007 @ 4:05 AM
“howsabout an answer, ‘mates’?”
I’ll have a fair go at it.
Being critical of Archbishop Pell’s leadership or that of particular clergy is not the same as rejecting leadership in principle or in its entirety. It is possible to embrace the hierarchy as a principle of a well-Ordered Church, but to be critical of individuals who abuse their position.
“where was YOUR outcry at this atrocity, todd, and why-oh-why did you close your eyes to it?”
Abuse of children is something I’m well aware of from the adoption process, and sadly, I’ve been involved in parish (and other) settings in which an employee had credible allegations (later proved to be true). Unlike bishops, I endorsed the termination of such employees. Don’t forget the real scandal of 2002 and beyond is the uncovering of bishops hiding and sheltering abusers. We’ve known for decades that priests have abused children. What wasn’t widely known was the widespread corporate protection afforded to abusers.
Sorry, jon: two swings, two misses.
Comment by Todd — June 5, 2007 @ 9:47 AM
>> What wasn’t widely known was the widespread corporate protection afforded to abusers.
If we look at the National Review Board report we see that this is a distortion of the case. The report does show that this happened in some cases. What the report also showed that the greater problem was that bishops were too reliant on the advice of professionals who up until the late 80s were convinced that they could cure these types of offenders. Another primary problem is that bishops too often did not look for systemic problems and treated each case in isolation from the other.
I would suggest that of all the factors in operation, when people have a precommitment of distrust toward any person or institution they will interpret events (even blameworthy) in the worst possible way. That is why President Clinton was guilty of running a murder for hire operation according to some rabid Republicans and President Bush is the devil incarnate for other rabid Democrats. If one has a precommitment against the hierarchy of the Church one will dismiss the evidence the shows a more balanced picture and swallow (or create) the hype that distorts the matter in the most negative way possible.
In addition, I would say that our two Aussie friends were not simply being critical of Cardinal Pell (as unwarranted as that may be). They were making a much broader statement about the nature of the Church hierarchy.
Comment by David — June 5, 2007 @ 8:55 PM
Alan,
I found an incident of a priest being watered down with a garden hose, parishioners taking the Eucharist back to the pews and sharing it with others, parishioners breaking into the church & making a “permanent” memorial to Aboriginal spirituality which was blessed in the presence of the parish priest, by a Jesuit priest friend of the former pastor. Unbelievable.
If these things are true, then it seems the fault lies as much with the parishioners as with the priests or with Cdl. Pell. Good ‘gospel-based Catholics’ aren’t supposed to do these things, even if they are being mistreated by the priests and/or the Cardinal.
Nor is any mention made of the physical,verbal and sacramental abuse that the parish has had to go through, all with the support of Cardinal George Pell.
Examples? If there are genuine issues in the parish, and Cardinal Pell has made a decision concerning it, then one shouldn’t expect any kind of positive results without complaining to the Vatican.
Comment by GCC Catholic — June 6, 2007 @ 11:17 AM
Child abuse is a horrible thing. When it is perpetrated by those ordained, it is twice as horrible. When it is covered up by those leaders who are supposed to protect us, it’s triply horrible.
However, I am finding my sense of moral outrage at each of these new accusations becoming numb because of those anti-hierarchy lefties who have used this unfortunate situation as a springboard for all manner of lefty “reforms”. The linchpin of these is a desire to overthrow the leadership of the Church which was instantiated by the Holy Spirit.
What earthly reason could these people have for lobbying for the removal of lawful statutes of the limitations so that greedy lawyers can bleed our Church.
Comment by Tony — June 10, 2007 @ 5:45 PM