Catholic World News News Feature

Negotiating a Crisis November 23, 2001

By Michael Gilchrist

The meeting of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, which was held at Kensington, in Sydney, between April 6 and 15, was potentially the most important gathering of bishops in the 200-year history of the Catholic Church in this country. Indeed it would not be too dramatic to say that the long-term survival of the Church--as a meaningful Catholic presence, rather than merely a faithful remnant--is on the line.

For the first time since Vatican II, Australia’s Catholic leadership has collectively acknowledged the reality of a deepening crisis of faith, and recognized the need for remedial action. The crisis, they agree, is the product of an all-embracing secularism, combined with flawed implementations of the Council reforms. In this respect, the situation in Australia parallels that of the Western world as a whole.

At the end of their conference on April 15, the bishops issued a document titled "Letter from the Australian Bishops to the Catholic People of Australia." Having explained the circumstances which led to the release of the Statement of Conclusions after the Synod of Oceania last December, the bishops’ Letter noted Cardinal Ratzinger’s observation that the Statement of Conclusions was "a fair representation of the dialogue that took place" between the Australian bishops and Vatican cardinals. The Letter also referred to the Holy Father’s strong endorsement of the Statement and his insistence that the bishops take action to address key problem areas/ "The Pope," the Australian hierarchy reported, "reminds bishops that they 'may not tolerate error in matters of doctrine and morals or Church discipline.'" And while the Pope said the errors were best corrected "not by blunt use of authority, but through dialogue and persuasion," nevertheless he had made it clear that--by whatever means--they had to be corrected.

REMARKABLE ADMISSIONS

The bishops' Letter pointed out the "great strengths" in the Australian Church which had been recognized by all parties to the Rome discussions. And the document went on to offer some needless criticism of the orthodox Catholic groups which had been gathering watertight evidence of liturgical abuses. The Australian bishops complained that these groups, by carefully documenting in particular the illicit use of general absolution, had engaged "deliberate and intrusive surveillance of clergy and liturgical celebrations."

But then the bishops’ Letter reached to the crux of the matter in paragraph 9:

By most measurable criteria such as religious affiliation, church attendance, vocations, marriage in church, etc., secularization is making great inroads in Australia. This indicates a crisis of faith. Within the Church there are different understandings of the person of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Church, the role of conscience and various moral problems, and not all understandings are in agreement with Catholic teaching. Some less than appropriate practices can at times take place at liturgical celebrations ... . Despite a show of episcopal understatement that would have done Bill Clinton proud--as evident in the concession that some liturgical abuses are "less than appropriate"--this was nonetheless a major admission.

In paragraph 12, the Letter indicated that the bishops would be following the Pope’s request that the use of the Third Rite of reconciliation--general absolution--"be kept strictly within the conditions laid down by Canon Law." This would require a clear change from the heretofore widespread use of the Third Rite. MIXED RESPONSES

Time will tell whether the bishops’ words translate into effective action, let alone tangible results, but the past few months have at least revealed the Holy See’s quickening concern over the state of the Church in far off Australia. At the same time, the recent controversy has exposed wide differences of outlook among the Australian bishops, whose public disagreements have marked a rare departure from their habit of emphasizing a shared consensus. This trend was made abundantly clear by the various approaches taken by different bishops to the problem of illicit general absolutions, as well as by their public comments on the Statement of Conclusions. For example, the tone and content of reports and articles in diocesan publications in Melbourne and Perth differed markedly from those in the more liberal sees of Brisbane and Adelaide.

As a result of these emerging public disagreements, it is clear that Rome has become increasingly aware of the importance of making sound episcopal appointments--even to small country dioceses--in Australia. That sensitivity was apparent in the recent appointment to the New South Wales Diocese of Armidale of the dean and administrator of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, Belgian-born Father Luc Matthys, who is a priest of strong orthodox beliefs. (The Armidale diocese had been without a bishop for two years.) Meanwhile, there is a great deal of speculation regarding the question of who will succeed Sydney’s Cardinal Edward Clancy, who submitted his resignation to Rome some months ago after reaching the age of 75. At the age of 72, Archbishop Leonard Faulkner of Adelaide is not far from retirement. If the Church in Australia is to move back from the brink of this crisis, a change in the balance of the episcopal conference would clearly be an important factor.

By now the Vatican surely has noted that while most dioceses moved quickly to end the practice of general absolution after the release of the Statement of Conclusions and the accompanying papal admonition, a number of dioceses--notably Adelaide and Ballarat--allowed the practice to continue. The same might have happened in Rockhampton, had not a letter from Bishop Brian Heenan to his priests on Third Rite celebrations found its way to Rome. Bishop Heenan had essentially given his priests the green light to continue using the Third Rite. But when the Vatican responded forcefully to his letter within 48 hours of having received it, the bishop decided to cancel Third Rite celebrations at the last moment.

Still Bishop Heenan--like most of his colleagues in the Australian bishops' conference--was still leaving his future options open. Asked by an ABC Radio interviewer to comment on the Vatican's ban on general absolution, he replied: "We’ve listened to that, and my approach will be to ask myself ... what’s the best pastoral benefit to our people." Two days after that radio interview was broadcast, an April 21 report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail--running under the revealing headline "Bishop defies Vatican decree"--indicated that Heenan was allowing his priests to decide for themselves whether to use the Third Rite. (This was clearly at odds with paragraph 12 of the Bishops’ Letter, released just a few days earlier, which had promised acceptance of a "strict" interpretation of Canon Law.)

Even prior to the bishop' April meeting, in apparent response to the reluctance of several Australian bishops to clamp down on illicit Third Rite celebrations, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments had issued a 3-page document, dated March 19, emphatically re-stating the Church’s teaching on the Sacrament of Penance. On that occasion, too, the results were mixed. While Archbishop Barry Hickey of Perth used his diocesan paper--The Record --to catechize Catholics on the Sacrament of Penance and the necessity for individual confession, Archbishop John Bathersby of Brisbane continued to express hope that the Church would in the future ease restrictions on use of the Third Rite. In Adelaide, parish priests were using their Mass bulletins to solidify support for Archbishop Faulkner’s stance allowing the continuation of general absolutions. According to one pastor:

The spirit is working amidst the faithful. Many people have spoken of their moving experience of the Third Form of the Sacrament. Why not write to the archbishop and share this view so that he can receive some positive mail to help his discerning?

However, following the meeting of the bishops' conference, Archbishop Faulkner backed off, and indicated that he was planning a pastoral letter for mid-May, in which he would probably be "explaining" his about-face on the Third Rite.

STILL STRUGGLING ON GENERAL ABSOLUTION Such has been the media interest in the on-going Church controversy that the Brisbane Courier-Mail published an edited version of the Vatican's statement on Penance in its March 31 issue, while The Australian headlined a report, "Vatican talks tough on Easter confession." Reports on the dispute continued to appear around the country in the secular media, culminating in an April 27 cover story in the Australian edition of Newsweek, entitled "Catholics in Turmoil."

The Congregation for Divine Worship clearly had certain Australian bishops in mind as it drew attention to the situation which had caused such concern in Rome: "In recent years, in spite of repeated clarifications given by the Holy See on the necessary conditions for the valid and licit administration of the Sacrament of Penance, there has been an increasing demand for the indiscriminate use of 'general absolution.'" The Vatican document indicated that it was addressed to "the attention of the Catholic faithful in Australia," in an effort to remove "any remaining doubt or confusion regarding this matter" and to make clear the existing "law in force" on "the essential conditions for the ordinary and extraordinary celebration of the sacrament in the Latin Church."

The norms contained in the Code of Canon Law "are based on the constant doctrine of the Church" as well as its "traditional practice," and therefore could not be modified, the Vatican observed. Rite III, the document said--quoting Pope Paul VI-- was of an "altogether exceptional character" and was in no way an "ordinary" rite comparable with Rite I and Rite II. The conditions for "an integral and complete pardon of sins"--contrition, confession, and satisfaction--are, the Vatican pointed out, aspects of divine law. This was the "sole and ordinary means by which a member of the faithful who is conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and with the Church." Only a case of "grave necessity" could allow general absolution, and this had to be submitted to a bishop’s judgment. Bishops were not at liberty to "determine grave necessity according to their personal criteria, however worthy," and such "necessity" did not include large gatherings of penitents on pilgrimages or major feast days such as Easter or Christmas. That last admonition was a pointed one; the presence (or anticipated presence) of large crowds before Easter and Christmas has been the usual grounds for Third Rite ceremonies in Australia.

Even in the rare situations in which general absolution could be justified, the Congregation for Divine Worship noted that each penitent had to have the "necessary dispositions" for the Sacrament: personal repentance, a resolution not to offend again, and an intention to make an individual confession of any grave sins at the earliest opportunity. These requirements, by all accounts, have been absent from most Third Rite celebrations.

The concluding paragraph of the Vatican directive used extraordinarily strong language in saying that "all deviations from the authentic practice of the Church in this regard constitute a serious and wrongful deprivation, also punishable in accordance with the sacred canons."

AN ANGRY CHORUS No doubt the members of the Australian Bishops Conference was conscious of the Vatican document when they formulated their Letter, indicating compliance with the "strict" requirements of Canon Law. The one question remaining was whether punishment would be meted out in the case of episcopal rebels such as Bishop Heenan of Rockhampton.

The Church’s liberals were clearly licking their wounds as decisions made under their jurisdiction were subject to critical scrutiny. This was evident in an edition of the nationwide, prime-time ABC-TV current affairs program, Four Corners which aired on March 8 and focused on the controversy surrounding the Statement of Conclusions and the Third Rite. Predictably, ABC loaded its program heavily in favor of the liberals and dissenters. Of the 18 people interviewed, only 3, including Archbishop George Pell of Melbourne, clearly supported the Statement.

Apart from a sprinkling of priests and religious, a few of Australia’s more liberal bishops appeared on camera. Bishop David Walker of Broken Bay told the interviewer:

Yes, I think that they [Rome] saw things as being present in Australia to a degree that many of the bishops would not have agreed with ... I think Rome had its agenda prior to us going, and it wanted to make its certain points and ... be certain that those points would be made in any sort of document that emerged.

Archbishop John Bathersby of Brisbane, commenting on the Pope’s subsequent directive to the bishops, admitted: "I was surprised, I felt sad, disappointed, I felt somewhat depressed."

The most outspoken bishop was auxiliary Pat Power of Canberra and Goulburn:

One of the things that I feel is unfortunate about it, the Statement of Conclusions, is that it will give a lot of ammunition to people that have got a very negative view of the life of the Church here in Australia. And I’m talking here about some of the lay groups, and I’d suggest that they probably supplied Rome with a lot of negative information that gave Rome some quite ungrounded fears about what the life of the Church here in Australia is all about.

Archbishop Leonard Faulkner of Adelaide offered similar sentiments:

I think that the enormous amount of energy that’s being devoted by some of those groups is quite disproportionate, and also in a sense it’s not their business. Their business is to be within the Church. And therefore I think it’s a great pity that so much energy is being devoted, not only to [illicit general absolution], but to other what one might call sort of single issues in the Church.

Archbishop Faulkner’s public address, in which he made clear his intention to continue with general absolutions in his archdiocese during the Easter season, was also seen and heard during Four Corners. Later, commenting on the program in his archdiocesan paper Southern Cross, the archbishop observed--without a trace of irony-- that "some of the Vatican offices do not understand the situation we face in Australia. Some listen too readily to reports from dissident groups in Australia."

BLAMING THE MESSENGER?

Transcripts and videos of the Four Corners program have gone to the Vatican, which will no doubt find further food for thought in some of the sentiments expressed by Australian bishops during the program.

Meanwhile, some of Queensland’s liberal clergy were instructing "reasonable Catholics" on how they could write to Rome to present a more "positive" picture of the Church in Australia, while warning about "extremist" Australian correspondents--"... a small but concentrated band of discontented Catholics" who had "been bombarding the Vatican with bad mail". Some of the suggested "Idea Starters" included in the Queensland mailing were:

o you are concerned that there are extremist right wing groups behaving in divisive ways; o your concern about the division already spreading in Melbourne archdiocese. You can explain that at the recent consecration of a new auxiliary bishop for Melbourne 300 of Melbourne’s 350 priests were absent; o you are concerned that the problems experienced in Melbourne might spread to Queensland.

At the Holy See, however, the "problem" in Melbourne--as manifest in the vigorous orthodoxy of Archbishop Pell--might not be viewed as a cause for alarm. Nor are Vatican officials likely to shudder at the prospect that Queensland could be infected with the same orthodox virus.

More than ever before, polarized views on what constitutes the "true" renewal proposed by Vatican II are finding expression among Australian Catholic leaders. The liberal forces--reflecting the opinions put forward by such overseas bodies as We Are Church and Call to Action--are clearly alarmed at the recent turn of events, and now are marshalling their troops to thwart orthodox reforms. Already the Australian Conference of Religious Leaders and the National Council of Priests have met and issued their own dissenting statement, denying the thrust of the Statement of Conclusions.

Taking this a step further, the liberal group known as Catalyst for Renewal organized a "Public Forum on the Statement of Conclusions" in the Sydney Town Hall on April 22. Before the Forum took place, in a report in The Catholic Weekly, Catalyst’s spokesman, Father Michael Whelan, called the criticisms of Australian Catholicism contained in the Statement of Conclusions "offensive" and lacking in an understanding of the Australian Church. The document was based, he said, on "negative material" sent to the "Roman Curia by sources other than the bishops who actually met with them." The Vatican in turn was forcing "our bishops to knuckle under," Father Whelan complained.

Among the speakers at the Forum--which was attended by over 2,000 people on a wet night in Sydney--were Bishops Geoffrey Robinson (a Sydney auxiliary) and Brian Heenan. Perhaps since the bishops' conference had only a few days earlier gone on record as endorsing the Statement, Bishops Robinson and Heenan were reticent, avoiding any public dissent. The other speakers were less restrained, delivering addresses that were strong on emotional generalizations, but short on specifics as to the accuracy of the Statement’s analysis. Still their words were warmly applauded--particularly when they made adverse references to the Melbourne archdiocese--by an overwhelmingly sympathetic audience. Significantly, the front two rows of seats in the Sydney Town Hall were reserved for personnel of the Catholic Education Office.

THE REBUTTAL

Bishop Kevin Manning of Parramatta, however, offered what amounted to a telling rebuttal in his diocesan paper, Catholic Outlook

Since returning from Rome, I have heard people challenge the Statement’s claim that there is a crisis of faith in Australia and that the Roman Curia has misread the situation.

Let’s be quite clear about this: the Statement of Conclusions has the approval of the Australian bishops. The document belongs as much to them, as it does to members of the Roman Curia. The Australian bishops, having signed it, are now doing their best to respond to, and help the discussion about it.

With the best will in the world, however, bishops will face an uphill battle if they are to make gains in deep-seated problem areas like liturgy, teacher training, and catechetics. Those who have presided over the "renewal" over the past 30 years--the Church’s liberal middle management--will do their utmost to maintain the status quo. For this reason, one essential condition of any solid reform will be found in the Statement of Conclusions, #15:

In choosing their collaborators in the diocesan administration, in the seminary and in parishes, bishops need to make these appointments with a careful eye and with great attention, always giving emphasis to sanctity of life, orthodoxy and pastoral competence. Continual vigilance is imperative in order to safeguard the integrity of the Faith and to ensure that it is clearly taught and explained at all levels of diocesan life. A bishop who tackles this tough assignment will be signaling in no uncertain terms that he is serious about the whole reform process.

Yet even where diocesan officials are staunchly orthodox, they and their bishops face the harsh reality that most Australian Catholics face the world from a secular perspective. The national average weekly Mass attendance is down to 18 percent and falling, and at least two generations are largely illiterate in the faith and indifferent at best toward the Church’s moral teachings.

It is "make or break" time for the Catholic Church in Australia. The aftermath of the Statement of Conclusions, Third Rite controversy and Australian Bishops’ Conference looks set to be a prolonged affair. If the forces of orthodoxy have won the opening skirmish over general absolutions, the campaign proper has scarcely begun.

by Michael Gilchrist