catholicweekly.com.au 11 10, May, 2020 THE CATHOL IC BOOKSHOP YOU’VE BEEN WAI T ING FOR WWW.VERITATIS.COM.AU Best Selling Titles Fast Delivery $5 Flat-Rate Shipping FOR INDIVIDUALS, SCHOOLS AND PARISHES e:
[email protected] P: 03 7001 8099 block to “open and rational” discussion that Justice Owen described. Again, I don’t quite follow the logic, but maybe they worry it will perhaps take time and focus away from is- sues like lay governance and quota systems. The whole article was a complete and utter disap- pointment. As I wrote in response to the Cardinal’s acquittal, “whatever the out- come of the case, the posi- tion of Catholics in Australia was always going to remain the same. The day before the High Court’s ruling, Catho- lics in Australia were called to love God and neighbour, to preach the Gospel, to be of service to the community, to commit ourselves to the care of survivors of child abuse and the fair and just treatment of the accused and the like… as we watched footage of the Cardinal making his way back home to Sydney the day after his release, the call remained the same.” Speaking as one of those Cardinal-support- ing Plenary Council delegates maligned by the article, that’s all my focus will be going in to the Council. So the esteemed Catholics quoted in NCR needn’t wor- ry. The Cardinal’s innocence does not affect the baptismal call to holiness shared by all the baptised, nor does it affect the Church’s ability – through the grace of the sacraments – to assist us in this calling. What’s more, the overturning of the Cardinal’s acquittal is not capable of undermining or derailing the Plenary Council, because the Council sits un- der the authority of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit toWhomwe are all listening is a Spirit of Truth, and the Cardinal’s re- lease is part of that truth. PHILIPPA MARTYR P18 Straw men abound A few days ago, an ar- ticle appeared in the US publication, the National Catholic Reporter. It caught my eye be- cause of its Australian focus: “Cardinal Pell’s release stokes concerns about Australia’s plenary council.” The reporter, Joshua J. McElwee, interviewed a num- ber of Australian Catholics, many of whomwere connect- ed with the Church’s response to the Royal Commission, who expressed their fears that Cardinal Pell’s release from prisonmight upset their “re- form” agenda for the Plenary Council. The first to be quoted was Robert Fitzgerald, who was himself one of the Royal Com- missioners. He is quoted as saying there is a “genuine concern” amongst Australian Catholics that opponents to discussing Church reformwill seek to leverage the Cardinal’s acquittal to undermine or de- rail the Plenary Council. The article thenmoves on to quote retired judge Neville Owen, who chaired the Truth Justice and Healing Council and is a member of the Imple- mentation Advisory Group, an advisory group appointed by the Bishops to oversee the Church’s implementation of the Royal Commission recom- mendations. He is also chair- ing the Governance Review Project Team, which has been tasked with conducting a re- view of Church governance structures andmaking recom- mendations for change. He said that the “biggest prob- lem” for the Plenary Council were those who view Cardinal Pell’s case as a “vicious attack on the Church” and that there could be nothing worse than this mentality if we are aiming at open, rational discussion. And then we have Francis Sullivan, who was the CEO of the same Truth, Justice and Healing Council. He said the Cardinal’s release was “oppor- tunistic” for those wanting to push their own personal ide- ologies, and then expressed his worries that “the type of issues that the church needs to be able to demonstrate that they are relevant and they are contemporary on, aren’t going to get [brought] up now.” There were more people quoted, but you get the gen- eral drift. I was amused that Mr Sul- livan’s comments were made without even a hint of irony. The day after the suppression order on the Cardinal’s con- viction was lifted, The Sydney Morning Herald featured an op-ed from Sullivan where he argued for governance changes within the Church because Bishops couldn’t be trusted. A few days later, he appeared alongside Senator Kristina Keneally on the ABC’s Q&A, using the case as a plat- form to push his opinions on everything from clericalism and celibacy to women’s or- dination and foreign priests. I don’t quite follow the logic, but maybe it is only viewed as inappropriate when the Car- dinal’s ordeal is used by those with a conservative outlook; the reformists can use him as they see fit. It is unfortunate that Mr Sullivan and Justice Owen, who held the two most senior positions in the Truth, Justice and Healing Council appear to now view both truth and justice as a nuisance. Along with Commissioner Fitzger- ald, who similarly appears to view the Cardinal’s innocence as an inconvenient truth, they express concern about two things. First, that the acquittal will embolden those Plena- ry Council delegates who are more theologically, ecclesi- ologically or liturgically con- servative to speak up. This concern reveals a thinly-veiled hope by some Catholic coun- cil-watchers that if the Cardi- nal had remained jailed, his delegate-supporters would have been shamed into si- lence. Secondly, they are con- cerned that the targeting of the Cardinal by Victoria Police and the media, and the inabil- ity of the Victorian “justice” system to remedy the problem might itself become an agen- da item for the Plenary Coun- cil; that it might lead at least some of the delegates to ques- tion whether there is current- ly a persecution of the Church occurring and, if so, howwe might best respond to it. It is feared this would be a road- Commissioner Robert Fitzgerald AM in 2017. PHOTO: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 2017, CC BY 4.0 Fixating on ‘fallout’ fromtheHigh Court’s decision canonly create a fear of the non-existent T o the point with Monica Doumit