EXCERPT:
It did my heart good to learn of this month’s canonization of Mary MacKillop as Australia’s first saint.
Since entering full-time ministry at the tender age of 23, I have had more than my share of run-ins with men (and occasionally women) whose ecclesiastical rank allowed them to throw their weight around with impunity. And since I don’t do docile, such run-ins were never pretty for me. Mary MacKillop’s canonization offers sweet vindication for Catholics like me – and a valuable lesson for everyone else.
For her sainthood exposes a common mistake made by many Catholics, who think that if one’s behavior or thinking meets with the disapproval of a priest, bishop, cardinal, or Pope, one must be doing something wrong. Such misconception is surprisingly common, even in the wake of appalling scandal.
You see, Mother Mary made her bones as founder of the Josephite sisters, Australia’s first native religious order, dedicated especially to the education and welfare of poor, orphaned, or at-risk children.
But in 1871 she crossed the line when she, (in concert with other Josephites) accused one Father Keating of sexually abusing children – an unspeakably, even unthinkably shocking charge in those days (alas! No more).
Keating was promptly dispatched back to the Old Sod, under the PR-friendly “cloud” of drunkenness. But Mother Mary’s transgression did not go unpunished. Father Charles Horan, the local vicar general, and a friend of Keating’s, contrived to impose new restrictions on the Josephites and got Bishop Laurence Sheil to agree. When MacKillop refused to comply, the Bishop called it “insubordination” and excommunicated her, as described in the Adelaide Advertiser:
Though the Josephites were not disbanded, most of their schools were closed in the wake of this action. Forbidden to have contact with anyone in the church, MacKillop lived with a Jewish family and was also sheltered by Jesuit priests. Some of the order's nuns chose to remain under diocesan control, becoming popularly known as "Black Joeys"…Later, an Episcopal Commission completely exonerated her.
So Mother Mary MacKillop, now sainted, joins an estimable band of Catholics banned by their bishops from the sacraments, or condemned for a lack of loyalty or fidelity, who in the end proved to be heroic daughters and sons of the Church.
Of course the Mother of all such insubordination is the maiden Joan of Arc, first excommunicated for her refusal to recant dangerous views, then condemned for heresy and witchcraft, and finally burned at the stake–only to be posthumously “rehabilitated” and declared patron saint of France by popular acclamation.
For better or worse, somewhere at the core of our Catholic tradition is this paradox: many of our tradition’s heroes have suffered martyrdom or at least banishment, and not a little of that suffering has been at Catholic hands.
So running afoul of the Catholic hierarchy by itself proves nothing, except that the hierarchy has a problem with someone’s thought, speech, writing, or behavior. Which may in fact be their own problem, not the Church’s
This is all so true, and we have a very vivid example within the years of our own experience: the disgraceful manner in which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was treated by Pope Paul VI and his curia. Indeed we see so many parallels with Mary MacKillop's case - Lefebvre was likewise summarily condemned for his shocking charges contra the groupthink of the post-Conciliar years, this vendetta against his person resulted in attempts to suppress the religious community he founded, and even today his vindication and rehabilitation continues toward a previously-unthinkable denouement.
ReplyDeletePerhaps someday you'll be able to write a piece like this about him as well...
Bernie, are you a former priest or deacon? When you came to our parish I had a feeling you might be a former priest or deacon. I ask this because you say you entered ministry at 23 years old. But only priests do ministy -- lay people help out. So, what do you mean by ministry?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Gary raises a good point. I never thought: just maybe Archbishop Lefebvre will be canonised one day? Very interesting times we live in; I am very happy to be a young person from this time period. When you think about it, it seems like we live in revolutionary times.
I happen to be a life-long layperson, who was never interested in--or called to--ordination. With all due respect, I disagree with those who restrict the term "ministry" to the ordained and therefore consider "lay ministry" a contradiction in terms. The difference may be largely semantic, but it also reflects my conviction that baptism is the primary source of all vocations, and is the shared calling of all Christians to discipleship--while orders are a secondary specification of that calling (as is matrimony). Some, especially in the hierarchy, will differ with my insubordinate views--but i have lots of good company.
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. I think your take is difficult to accept. I think it's better to say that you are serving the LORD. Why do you need a special title? When I think about it, your preference for a special title for your work is VERY DANGEROUS for the future church. We should strive to be a servant church - but your preference for titles is a slippery slope to promoting a triumphant church. This is just me speaking, but I think lay people will be very important in the future church. We should promote a servant church instead of a triumphant church. We wouldn't want to replace clericalism with ministryism - it would be just as bad and worse.
So I disagree with you.
Bernie:
ReplyDeleteI've just finished going through MacKillop's very detailed (450 pages) biography (written by Fr. Gardiner, her postulator) and much that was being reported by the media simply isn't true.
1) Mary MacKillop wasn't part of the whistle blowing since she was 1,000 miles away at the time and had nothing to do with it. Some Josephites sisters reported it to their founder, Fr. Woods, and
Fr. Woods reported it to the Vicar General and he sent the abuser back to Ireland. The priest who attacked the Josephite sisters was trying to get back at Fr. Woods, because they were his "baby".
2) Mary was not excommunicated because of whistle blowing or because she refused to accept the Bishop's right to change their rule which was not yet approved by Rome. She was simply asserting that all sisters who had taken vows based upon the original Rule had the right to be dispensed from those original vows and take the new vows if they felt called to do so (which according to canon law was required.)
She was actually excommunicated on the spur of the moment because she asked to talk to the Bishop before leaving (upon his order) for another town because she was rightfully afraid that this was a gambit simply to get her out of the way so that he could take her sisters in his diocese over. The Bishop's action was dramatic but completely contrary to canon law. He realized 5 months later, on his deathbed that he had been deceived about the Sister's and rescinded the excommunication which was not valid in any case.
3) Mary was meticulously obedient to rightful superiors and very docile. For example, she accepted a dramatic change in the original rule of poverty for her order because Rome insisted that they own property. She had made her best case for the original rule but accepted the ruling immediately. She was instructed by a very sophisticated Jesuit in Rome about the nuances of authority and power in the Church and learned to exercise it with great skill herself. But Mary always sought in every situation to know God's will and do it and did regard one of the major ways of knowing God's will to be the will of her superiors.
4) The Black Joey's were not a result of the excommunication drama but happened later in Mary's career. She struggled with four different bishops during her lifetime and most of the time is the issue was their resistance to the idea of a Mother General because they wanted her sisters who worked in their respective dioceses to be completely under their control. Rome had approved central government under a Mother General so Mary regarded defending that to be a matter of obedience.
But a couple local bishops refused absolutely to acknowledge Rome's decision and one demanded that the local sisters become diocesan or leave the diocese. Some left and some stayed and become the "Black Joeys" but have, in recent years, become reunited with the main group of sisters.
Thanks for those clarifying details. Of course, the main point stands: Mary's story includes several struggles with members of the hierarchy, in which struggles she was ultimately vindicated. The same is true for Joan of Arc, Thomas Aquinas, Jacques Maritain, Galileo, and many others. And while actions against these people were ultimately invalidated, they nonetheless suffered the immediate consequences. So hierarchical sanctions, even excommunication, are (1) sometimes illegitimate yet (2) always painful. And they prove nothing about the ultimate rightness of the person sanctioned.
ReplyDeleteI am curious about your thoughts on the excommunications of the women who attempted to become priests. Do you believe that they will be vindicated someday?
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, I think that you should put a note on your printed version of this article: "It is based on false information" (as Sherry has pointed out). I feel a little uneasy about saying this, but you have kinda followed the way of the dominant media. They will take one piece of information on the Church, twist it around and then present it as the full truth. As you know, the New York Times admitted to lying about Pope Benedict in their attempt to attack him regarding the scandal.
Bernie, I know you are a true man of the Church (that's why you work for it so much), but in this article you sound like some of the haters of the Catholic Church (I mean the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc crowd).