This is what Bishop Morris wrote in his Advent Pastoral Letter 0f 2006.

"Given our deeply held belief in the primacy of Eucharist for the identity, continuity and life of each parish
community, we may well need to be much more open towards other options for ensuring that Eucharist may
be celebrated. As has been discussed internationally, nationally and locally the ideas of:
• ordaining married, single or widowed men who are chosen and endorsed by their local parish
community;
• welcoming former priests, married or single, back to active ministry;
• ordaining women, married or single;
• recognising Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting Church Orders.
We remain committed to actively promoting vocations to the current celibate male priesthood and open to
inviting priests from overseas."

It is all written in the context of the pastoral pain he feels at the dire shortage of priests in his remote diocese. He is not ordaining women, nor is he actively promoting their ordination. Tolerating general absolution, a rather innocuous practice IMHO, in his diocese hardly qualifies as a grave offense. In any case, there seems to be a real lack of transparency on the part of the Vatican in this case as far as I can see, and that I find to be the sad element. Bishop Morris hardly looks as if he has self-destructed, unless you feel that his wearing a tie instead of a clerical dickey is one of those grave offenses for which he's been removed from authority. Transparency would remove all doubt, wouldn't it?

"Transparency" may sound good in theory but is a bad idea in practice. An apostolic visitation is not a court trial, but a fact-finding mission. Therefore, it is important to ensure confidentiality so that all the people involved can speak their minds without fear of reprisals.

Bishop Morris has had plenty of opportunities to explain himself (some of which he chose not to avail himself of), including a personal meeting with Pope Benedict on June 4, 2009.

The bishop has clearly been disloyal to the Church regarding the practice of general absolution, the possibility of the ordination of women, and so-called recognition of protestant "orders." If he still considers the ordination of women to be an open question, he is deluded as well as disloyal. He should not be surprised about getting sacked.

His continuing extraordinary disloyalty in accusing Pope Benedict of being unfair and authoritarian just shows that the Pope's decision was the right one.

The first option was closed at an international meeting of bishops (a Synod held at the Vatican) where the bishops gathered overwhelmingly voted against this for consideration. Now it is not theologically impossible to do so, but they opted to reinforce the traditional discipline in this area.

The second could be a problem and would ahve to be vetted on a case-by-case basis. The reasons so often given are for a man to leave to be married. So we're back to number one.

The third was closed permanently in 1994 and a Catholic must hold that this is not only not possible but that further discussion is also closed to this issue--forever.

Did anyone remember the centennial of Pope Leo's pronouncement on Anglican Orders? That is still in effect and has been reaffirmed recently. There never was any thought to recognizing any other Protestant Orders, though it may cause pain among our brethren. It is what it is. Ecumenical discussions ought to be honest and this part of the letter can cause confusion because it can be read that there is some support int eh Catholic Church for this position.

Ultimately the Pope speaks and the case is closed. Well, His Holiness spoke and His Excellency is gone. Maybe a warning to others who find themselves in gray areas.

Bob

Sic transit gloria mundi!

Especially the accused! After the facts have been found there should be a trial,( yes, even for bishops), to see if the found facts are true. Where truth is involved transparency is never a bad idea, and there is a way to be transparent without harming the innocent.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/n...owoomba-bishop/

An investigation that goes on for 5 years is more than fair. The Bishops knew what the questions were that were being asked of him in his discussions with Church authorities. He would have had plenty of feedback from people who were also spoken to in regard to the matters that had been reported to Rome. Proper process would have been followed at every step of the way.

Rome has know for years that there are serious problems in the Church in Australia. A senior cleric who worked in Rome a few years ago reported that at first they were alarmed at the volume (mail bags arriving on a daily basis) of complains from the Laity and many of the Clergy and Religious who found those in control in Australia did not wish to hear their concerns. Many had been invite to come and discuss issues to find themselves on the end of a good telling off where they were told at times they needed psychological help.

The appointment of Fr Pell to the hierarchy was the first sign that Liberal Ordinaries were on notice. One of his first tasks was the major seminary in Melbourne, which was in a terrible mess. Getting seminarians to daily Mass was one of the first instructions and then moving on those for whom being celebate was also a major issue. He had to do this over again when he was sent to take over in Sydney. I believe the American writer Michael Rose calls them "Pink Palaces" in his book 'Goodbye, Good Men'. Moving on those who were promoting what is basically anti-catholic teaching was not easy, as they had become well entrenched in seminaries and house of religious formation, a process still happening.

We are currently doing a head count in churches across the nation over a number of weekends. It is quiet likely that less than 20% of Catholics actually darken the door of a church these days. Previous a couple of diocese did not disclose the figure as I suspect it was well below the 20% mark. The head count is then compared with the figures from the national census and we will see the bad news and it will be bad.

How? Please explain. You are just stating your opinion, not providing a reasoned argument.

The sun shines brightest when there are no clouds. That Cardinal Re et al. could not accommodate a request to delay a meeting for three months from a brother bishop who dwells almost 10,000 miles from Rome smacks of arrogance and puts a dark pall over the entire proceeding, in my opinion. You are correct. I am just stating my opinion, as are you.

Well, you seem to have made up your mind (and so have I), so I see no point in further discussion. Clearly, we have quite different opinions about Bishop Morris.

Personally, I have a very high regard for and an explicit trust in Pope Benedict, so I naturally assume that if he dismisses a bishop (which is extremely unusual) he must have good reason for doing so. All that I have read about the case supports this view. I am sorry for Bishop Morris, but if he wants to turn the Catholic Church in Toowoomba into some sort of Protestant Episcopal church, I don't see why the Pope should allow it.

Anyway, in this instance there has been a trial and the Pope was the judge. If Bishop Morris doesn't like the verdict, the Anglican Church needs members (as Fr Zuhlsdorf points out).

I, too, have a very high regard and trust for Pope Benedict. This high regard and trust, however, does not extend to the bureaucratic Romanitas that surrounds him at the Vatican. Of that I am very, very skeptical. In my opinion, both he, Bishop Morris and the Church have been ill-served. Amen

I don't understand this anti-Roman point of view. Why do you assume that Cardinals like Re, Arinze and Levada (to name but a few of those involved) don't know their jobs? And why do you assume that the Pope hasn't studied the matter personally?

Agreed! Lets at least TRY to act Christian!

Ignore last post! Multi Tasking can be a bad thing!

The latest edition "Our Sunday Visitor," has an article on this topic.

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7923/Why-pope-removes-some-bishops-but-leaves-others.aspx



Now it maybe an issue of canon law, or something like that, in the Roman Church, but I find it interesting that allowing children to receive communion prior to confession should be mentioned. Given that the age of receiving the sacraments of initiation appear to be in flux in the RC anyway, and indeed vary from diocese to diocese (e.g. The Sacrament of Confirmation is now withheld to high school age in some places), I wonder why the more traditional method would be held up as an example of abuse?

It's not canon law primarily if at all. It's that they put these kids through a program which is to be completed before the sacrament is received, and when they switch the order, they send these 7 and 8 year olds to receive communion while effectively barring them from confession for a time.