March 2019
Episcopal Modernism is also killing the local Australian Church. Though wreaking havoc long before the ill-fated March 2013 conclave, like their prideful English cousins Australian prelates have since thrown caution to the wind; proclaiming heretical clichés from public pulpits without fear of Vatican sanction. Among the worst offenders is Bishop Long OFM Conv. of Parramatta (Western Sydney). Last September, he tickled the "itching ears" of the dissident National Council of Priests with a spurious barrage from the Modernist playbook (which he also spewed forth to priests at a conference in New Zealand). Subsequently, drawing good from evil, God rebuked the wayward Bishop via this concise and helpful corrective, issued by a brother Franciscan.
A Fraternal Rebuke
Response to
The Most Reverend Bishop Vincent Long OFM Conv.
Address given on 11th September 2018 to
the National Council of Priests, Canberra, Australia.
by
Father Terence Mary Naughtin, OFM Conv.
Given on 29th November 2018, the feast of all Saints of the Franciscan Order and
the Anniversary of the approval of the Rule of Saint Francis of Assisi.
Bishop Long raises many points in his address, ranging from considerations on the incidence of sex abuse among the clergy, its extent and effects on the life of the Church, to questions about the so-called patriarchal and monarchical structures or tendencies within the Church, to questions about the ordination of women to ministry in the Catholic Church.
I would like to respond to each of these points in turn.
On the Priesthood
In the course of his relatively long address, the Bishop makes an impassioned plea for the reform of the clergy and he names “the dysfunctional and corrosive culture of the Church” as the source of the widespread incidence of sexual abuse among the clergy.
Bishop Long lays the blame for such widespread abuse on a “culture of corruption and self-interest” that is “deep-seated” in the Church. He goes on to say that “…it is not only the case of a few bad apples. It is more like the apple that is rotten at its core.” And he continues:
This does not seem like an overstatement in the light of continuing revelations of clerical sexual abuse right across the globe.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the clerical sexual abuse crisis is a symptom of a dysfunctional, corrosive and destructive culture in the Church. Pope Francis often denounces clericalism, which he sees as being endemic to many aspects and levels of the institutional Church….
The culture of clerical hegemony has been solidly entrenched in the Catholic Church ever since it took centre stage in the Roman Empire.
In my opinion, we really need to once and for all jettison the clericalist model of Church with its by-product of the exclusive clerical club.
The model of the Church based on clerical hegemony has run its course. Insofar as it is deeply embedded in patriarchal and monarchical structures, it is incapable of helping us to meet the needs of the world and culture in which we live.
This discourse revolves around two themes which Bishop Long weaves together, moving back and forth from one theme to the other:
(1) the “clericalist model of the Church”; and
(2) the incidence of clerical sexual abuse.
The fundamental error which the Bishop falls into is that he connects these two themes as cause and effect.
To be sure, the clericalist model of the Church is not the cause of sexual abuse nor of any other sin or negligence on the part of the clergy.
The cause of a priest’s failure to faithfully exercise his ministry is the same priest’s failure to be united with Christ, especially through the Blessed Sacrament, for it is this union with the Lord which bestows the strength and grace to be faithful in all things to Christ.
If by “clericalist model of the Church” Bishop Long means that priests and bishops are in the leadership of Christ’s Church then we have to realise that this model is of the Lord’s own design.
Jesus Christ appointed His apostles to be witnesses of His Resurrection, to make disciples of all nations, to baptise all who believe in His name, to bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the faithful, and to administer the Sacraments, so that we may come to know the Son of God:
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13)
In short, Christ appointed His bishops and priests to teach, govern, and sanctify souls, for the primary mission of the Church is the salvation of souls.
Bishop Long’s reference to a “patriarchal and monarchical matrix” at the heart of the Church misses the point: in constituting a male priesthood Christ was not advocating “male superiority”.
Neither was our Lord restricted by any human standards or by the prevailing culture in making decisions. Christ is not subservient to our own standards and ideas and theories. He is the Lord and Master of history.
He is the Son of God who “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.” (Romans 4:17)
“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” (Hebrews 1:3)
The idea of the Church cannot be reduced to any human model or theory or sociology. The true idea of the Church is God’s idea of the Church. The identity of the Church has its origin in the Heart of God, in the Lord’s designs, not in our own.
The priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not modelled nor is it built upon human constructs, sociological foundations, or community consensus.
If the model of the Church is “clericalist” then this is God’s design, not our own. The Church is Divine in its origin and Divine in its destiny.
The Church is built on “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:19,20)
That the Church is always in need of reform, however, is also abundantly clear.
Though priests are always in need of reform, we must never lose sight of the fact that they are still priests. They are priests of the High Priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ our Lord who instituted the priesthood Himself so that His disciples of all generations would have access to the Sacraments and, above all, to the Holy Communion of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Indeed priests are always in need of reform, and always need to guard against sin and negligence and clericalism, but we must never lose sight of the origin, nature and mission of the priesthood.
Women’s Role in the Church
Bishop Long says it is important to “consider the question of women ordained ministries in the Church (for which the Study Commission on Women’s Diaconate was set up)”. He follows this up with:
For the Church to flourish, it is crucial that we come to terms with the flaws of clericalism and move beyond its patriarchal and monarchical matrix.
It seems to me that the Church cannot have a better future if it persists in the old paradigm of triumphalism, self-reference and male supremacy.
So long as we continue to exclude women from the Church’s governance structures, decision-making processes and institutional functions, we deprive ourselves of the richness of our full humanity.
So long as we continue to make women invisible and inferior in the Church’s language, liturgy, theology and law, we impoverish ourselves as if we heard with only one ear, we saw with only one eye and we thought with only one half of the brain – and often the lowest reptilian section thereof. Until we have truly incorporated the gift of women and the feminine dimension of our Christian faith, we will not be able to fully energise the life of the Church.
All such claims that women are inferior to men and have been invisible in the life of the Church have no foundation in reality.
Many women in the history of the Church have been among the most exemplary models of the Christian life, the source of inspiration to countless souls, the moral backbone of families, and among the most effective saints and intercessors before God.
It was a woman, Saint Mary Magdalene, to whom the Lord first chose to reveal Himself in His Resurrection, and sent her to announce the Good News to His Apostles.
It was a woman, Saint Catherine of Siena, whom God chose to recall the Pope back to Rome from exile. It was a woman, Saint Gertrude the Great, to whom the Lord chose to reveal the most intimate and profound mysteries of His tender compassion, and which revelations have provided guidance and direction to countless souls and helped them arrive at sanctity.
It was a woman, Saint Margaret Mary, to whom the Lord chose to reveal the mystery of His most Sacred Heart. It was a woman, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, to whom the Lord has given the most graphic and detailed visions and revelations of the past and the future.
It was a woman, Mother Mariana of Jesus Torres, whom the Lord chose as a victim soul in order to help alleviate the sufferings and crisis of the Church in the 20th century and beyond.
And not to mention the countless women who, through prayer, sacrifice, and intercession in hidden lives within convent walls, obtained untold blessings and graces for entire nations. Our Lady of Good Success revealed this little known truth to Mother Mariana of Jesus in a private visitation from heaven:
No one on the face of the earth is aware whence comes the salvation of souls, the conversion of great sinners, the cessation of great scourges, the production and fertility of the lands, the end of pestilences and wars, and the harmony between nations.
All this is due to the prayers that rise up from monasteries and convents. (Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Mariana of Jesus, 1634)
The list goes on and on and on…
It was a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom God chose to be His Mother, through whom He took human flesh and became one of us, and suffered His Passion and Sacred Death to save us from our sins.
The dignity and majesty of the Holy Mother of God is without equal, and yet Christ did not choose her for the priesthood. She is far greater.
Pope John Paul II reminds us:
Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe. (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994)
To imply that women must be ordained to the ministerial priesthood in order to be equal with men, and lest “we impoverish ourselves as if we heard with only one ear, we saw with only one eye and we thought with only one half of the brain”, has no foundation in reality.
To imply and/or to suggest that women must be ordained to the ministerial priesthood buys into a Marxist type of vision of the world, in which relationships are defined by conflict theory. But this theory has no place in the Kingdom of God. The Lord created male and female equal in their dignity and complementary in their roles.
If we go back to the beginning we find that the Scripture testifies to this: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”(Gen 1:27)
Clearly the Scripture uses “man” in the generic sense of referring to both male and female.
The suggestion that women be ordained to the ministerial priesthood opposes itself to the teaching of Pope John Paul II in which he clearly and unequivocally invoked his gift of infallibility in guarding against erroneous beliefs:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994)
As if this were not enough, and given that certain reactions to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis “attempted to cast doubt on the definitive character of the letter's teaching on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood and also questioned whether this teaching belonged to the deposit of the faith” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s Cover Letter to Bishop’s Conference, 1995), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following statement on 28th October 1995:
Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Responsum ad Dubium, October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
I have to add what is already evident to many: if anyone persists in contradicting what has been taught infallibly by the Pope then he/she not only attacks the Faith, but also undermines the teaching authority bestowed by Jesus Christ upon His Church.
Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis reminds us in most eloquent terms of the true perspective in which we ought to consider the role of women and men in the Church. Let us listen with our ears but also with our hearts to his profound message:
The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores [Pope Paul VI] points out, ‘the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanisation of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.’
The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel.
‘By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honour and gratitude for those women who — faithful to the Gospel — have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church's faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel.’
Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: ‘the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.’ (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, para. 3)