thanks, Paul, that made my morning!!

http://youtu.be/XbI-fDzUJXI

I couldn't resist

PaulW

It's a great obituary. It captures the subject with great affection, while acknowledging his imperfections and the author's imperfections. That's pretty unusual in an obituary, especially from those quarters. So rest in peace, Paul Brazier. You may have been from another planet and another religion and occasionally obnoxious but clearly you were loved.

Many words (5000+).......What did Jesus do, not to get a mention?

Tess Livingstone, Christopher Pearson and "The Australian" newspaper: gifts that keep on giving and giving and giving.

Advertising that you couldn't pay for.

What is sad is this sick individual who felt that his role was to enforce his own perspective on the whole church. His influence was almost as large as his need for security from Mother Church, but the breadth of his mind could be measured in millimetres.

He is now gone from amongst us . . . so may this somewhat tortured soul who had the need to save the church and the world, now rest in peace, and may the rest of us do so too!

De mortuis (in ablative case - whereas "morituri" is a nominative case plural, meaning "those who are about to die") ni(hi)l nisi bonum! (and "dicit" should at least be "dicitur").

Nota bene:
If Latin should be used, make it at least legible and meaningful!

"De morituri nihil bonum dicit..." and the writer didn't!!

I have never read any piece that while supposedly praising someone, so blatantly exposes his faults.

Where is any compassion or human empathy for the surviving members of the family or are they as forgotten in his death as it seems they were in his lifelong crusades for this Catholic fundamentalism ...?

The thing I found most frightening about Baker's eulogy of Brazier is that Baker was so proud of the disruptions that they and their followers created at Masses, during sermons and public meetings.

It is one thing to disagree even forcefully, while respecting the other's point of view, (as happens here all the time on Catholica) but it is quite another to go in with the jack boots.

It is very hard to find jackboots in the Gospels. And yes, I listened to the interview with Steven Ogden and thought I recognized a lot more of the Gospels there.

Jackboot religion is obnoxious whether it is Muslim, Catholic or anything else.

Yes, thanks for the pointer to Stephen Ogden. It's one of about four programs I still have to catch up on.

Re Pell: Don't at all be surprised to see Pell emerge as the one to do the biggest U-turn of anybody. The guy is in the wrong profession. He's more a political leader than a church leader. If Pell begins to sense that the tide is running against him he'll become the greatest leader the Church in this country has perhaps ever seen. I heard a great Pell joke today but I'm afraid I can't share it with you because the guy who told me would chop my head off as it would reveal his identity to Big George.

As I've argued before, had some Pope emerged in 1978 in place of JPII who was cut more from the mould of JXXIII, George Pell today would still be the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney and he'd have been the greatest advocate for the policies of a Pope in the mould of JXXIII advancing the agenda discerned by the collective insight of all the bishops of the world at the Second Vatican Council.

I don't think Pell has yet discerned that the tide has begun to run against him and the political pathway he chose in supporting the JPII/BXVI agenda. The tide began to turn — I suspect around March 31st last year with Benedict's response to the People of Ireland — but the rush of the new tide has not yet begun. Michael Baker's tribute to Paul Brazier is a massive marker though in the flow of the tide as was the attempted beheading of +Bill Morris in a remote rural diocese of far away Australia.

On the mark, Brian.

Having just posted a response on what Pell said at the ordination (extraordinary), IMO there is no way that 'all the Australian Bishops at their ad limina visit in October will present a "united front" to Rome'

However, it was wonderful to listen to the wonderful 'Conversations' programme with Dr Steven Ogden, who was a real joy to listen to.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/sites/conversations/

Desi, like yourself I've been up and down all day over this. The "down" side as I wrote earlier is that I think this document is the final proof that is needed that there is NEVER GOING TO BE A VATICAN THREE! I'm sure Michael Baker not only writes for himself and Paul Brazier but this article is perhaps the most revealing internally written portrait of the element within Catholicism that at every turn since the Second Vatican Council has left no stone unturned to overturn that Council. The reality is these people are "never going to give up" — they honestly do not care if 99% of the baptised leave the pews. They deeply and sincerely believe they know the will of God for Catholicism, and all its laws and rules of liturgy and devotions. They'll defend their view of what Catholicism is even if they have to be martyred to do it. In some senses, the more that leave the more justified and certain they feel themselves to be. As I keep writing, we're dealing with forces in the human psyche here that defy the scope of our imaginations as to the lengths they will go to to prosecute their ends. Today they self-evidently have support at the very highest levels in the Vatican. I think the realistic prognosis is that Benedict will build his dream "smaller, purer Church". In the overall picture these people might be small in number but they pack a massive punch in terms of "getting their way". Michael Baker's article is all the proof anyone needs for that.

The Good News or upside is that most people can see this "smaller, purer Church" is virtually totally irrelevant to the vast majority of people in an increasingly educated world. In a sense then this document advances the creation of a "smaller, purer Church" a whole lot closer. I am actually pessimistic that even if it were possible for all the Australian Bishops at their ad limina visit in October to present a "united front" to Rome protesting about this takeover and, for example, the treatment of +Bill Morris, even a "united front" from all of the Australian bishops would not have the slightest impact whatsoever on Benedict. I actually believe now that Benedict is actually cut from the same mould as this remnant element in the Church. Virtually all his major policy initiatives since he became Pope point in that direction.

I think in hindsight we came to believe a very false picture of Cdl Ratzinger when he was hidden behind the showman and actor par excellence, JPII. All this talk of a "Panzer Cardinal" or the "Pope's Rottweiler" put everybody right off the scent. He's actually a pretty "mousey person" — a tame pussy cat — an academic with a very head-in-the-clouds view of theology, liturgy and all the stuff that makes up Catholicism. He's a bureaucrat — certainly with very fixed personal ideas. He "controls" in the way all bureaucrats "control" — rather than "leads" by putting forward a program that "excites the world" or "excites his audience".

As I suggested in an analogy the other day he's like the leader who has been squeezed up the "toothpaste tube" of the Catholic bureaucracy and probably to his own surprise as much as anyone elses he's suddenly found himself "it" at the top of the tube. He doesn't really know what to do as a leader so he's basically just following his life instincts or what he personally prefers — or thinks will get himself and everyone else to heaven. I suspect he's as blind as the 5% that these policies he's pushing are never going to re-evangelise the 86% — the vast majority of the educated in the world. The younger the age groups you explore the worse it gets. They are never going to be turned on or excited spiritually by anything this "cute, cuddly, Bavarian, ecclesial bureaucrat in the red prada shoes" has to say.

The gzillion dollar question now becomes: what's going to happen next? I think there is an enormous amount of "spiritual searching" going on in the educated world. At the moment it IS a searching, rather than something that has yet coalesced. In time it will though and the exciting part of being alive at the moment is that we're part of some exciting development in not only human history but possibly in spiritual and evolutionary history. The spiritual future of humankind is not being written by Papa Benny and this remnant element he seems to be formed from in his base theological and spiritual outlook and attitudes. It's being written in this massive "amorphous mass" of a huge increase in spiritual writers, perhaps not surprisingly led by an over-representation of Catholics formed by the Vatican II theology that Benedict and friends are rejecting as fast as their red prada slippers can carry them. It's an exploration going on all around the world and embraces all the major religions of the world and it embraces cyberspace and the mainstream media but which has not yet started to coalesce. We're all part of something very, very exciting spiritually. The Holy Spirit, I am sure, has never left the world for a second and, in the really big picture has not at all "lost heart" in where everything is heading and where human civilisation is heading. This is an exciting moment to be alive in* to borrow that line James McAuley wrote for the first edition of Quadrant magazine he edited in the 1950s.

*The full quote is: "In spite of all that might be said against our age, what a moment it is to be alive in!"

I went to the website and nearly cried to see my favourite picture of St. Dominic ar the top of the page. I have in the past 24 hours happened upon some lectures Timothy Radcliffe gave in the states two or three years ago. I have since corresponded with him both about Lesley Anne Wright's termination and his own uninviting from preaching at the Caritas Internationalis "Vatican Style Retreat" for which, thankfully, I think he is totally unfitted. He exhibits all the joy for which Dominic was known and I find it completely out of place to have Dominic on this site.

With great compassion I wonder where Paul's children stand in their ideas about the Catholic Religion. Having grown up with an ultra conservative father, I wonder if they are practising Catholics or like many children of this generation, have they turned their back on the fold? Just wondering.

Having read the obituary early this morning (and re-read it later) I can only list my thoughts during the day:

Amazing, incredible, astounding, telling, dumfounding,
revealing, insightful, astonishing, incredible, insightful, extraordinary.

I have to say that I have never, ever read anything like it.

I don't just think, I know that in some circles, Helen, we are considered to be the anti-Christ or Old Nick himself. I've just got a whole string of emails in from one of these people which shows an email exchange between them and they say exactly that. I should imagine for months now poor old Anthony Fisher's inbox and regular mail box has been overloaded with complaints about us — and a few other bishops would have been having a similar experience. I'd bet everything that I own that some complaints have even been sent to Rome. I just have to keep on repeating: you can't argue with these people. I honestly don't believe even bishops, archbishops, cardinals can argue with these people. One archbishop was brought down in this country by these people. What is so fascinating about Michael Baker's tribute is that they don't even see the irony in their disputing the authority of the pope himself. As Michael Baker reveals in his tribute, they even have the temerity to actually try and ring the Pope himself and speak to him on the phone to argue with the Holy Father himself. I doubt that there are even many or any bishops or archbishops in this country who'd have the temerity to try and put through a direct call to the pope. The protocol is that they wait to be invited to speak by a personage of the rank of the pontiff. People in the past might have thought I was a bit crackers for suggesting that even if Jesus put in a second personal appearance to these people I'm sure they'd try and argue with his authority.

The wierdest thing about the whole revelation — and more so the 'revelations' that come out of the forced retirement of +Bill Morris — is that these people seem to be actually encouraged at the very highest levels in the Vatican, seemingly out of the belief at the very highest levels in the Vatican that this small remnant element in society is capable of evangelising or re-evangelising the rest of human civilisation. I think most intelligent people can accept that small sectors of society are entitled to hold all sorts of beliefs that might not be mainstream, or which the mainstream in society might think "slightly odd". What is perplexing in these revelations is that these people seem to actually carry enormous weight in the highest governing offices of Catholicism. In the past they literally, did bring down one of the former Archbishops of Adelaide. They didn't do that themselves. THE VATICAN DID IT ON THEIR BEHALF WITH THE FULL AUTHORITY OF JPII!

I sincerely hope the vast bulk of priests and ordinary bishops draw enormous courage from what Michael Baker has published to at long last speak out against the outrage that has been perpetrated for so long here — and they make their voices heard in the loudest and most unmistakable of terms in the highest corridors of the Vatican. These revelations today do have the potential to start sorting the real men from the boys in the ranks of our bishops! The time for herd behaviour all hiding behind one another in case they get singled out like Archbishop Len Faulkner, or Bishops Geoff Robinson or Bill Morris is now over. They're not going to be able to hide in the herd anymore.

> Poor old SuperFlamina is probably wondering what has hit their website today.

Sadly it is an extreme example of an ultra, ultra orthodox view of Catholicism. I wonder sometimes if Christianity is mentioned at all as these sort of websites are caught up with Church teachings and fearlessly defend them whether they are workable or not.

'Catholica' does not dissent in Christ's teachings but of course is very critical of Church teachings. So there the twain shall never meet!

Helen

Poor old SuperFlamina is probably wondering what has hit their website today. It hardly rates on the standard comparison of website traffic across all the websites on the internet with an Alexa traffic rank of 17,545,720 (Catholica's present ranking is 980,420* and that other "dissident" website, Eureka Street's present rank is 659,691). I should imagine the traffic we've sent to their website today has probably swamped their statistics for possibly the whole of the last 12 months combined.

*The smaller the number the higher the ranking.

WHOW! What an eye opener!

Quote from 'The Bar Association's News' 4 May 2011

"in lieu of flowers, there will be an opportunity
at the Requiem Mass to make a donation towards the
series of thirty Gregorian Masses that will be said
for the repose of Mr. Brazier's soul"

I rest my case!

jan

And here was I thinking 12 months ago when I wrote to our new bishop, Anthony Fisher OP, seeking to extend our bona fides to him thinking that he might have thought that he had a "nest of vipers" in his diocese — namely us here at Catholica. It has only been the last couple of week's firstly with Paul Brazier III's hand-delivered letter to me a couple of weeks ago, which gave a Springwood address — two suburbs from us and then this line from Michael Baker's tribute:

Paul Andrew John Brazier, died suddenly at his home in Faulconbridge in Sydney's Blue Mountains

Faulconbridge is the very next suburb to us. I've suddenly begun to realise that the good bishop had much more to worry about than any of us here at Catholica. No wonder the poor man seemed petrified with fright and didn't know how to respond. Wow, what a handful to be asked to manage in the one diocese, eh, and even the very same parish?

Yes, Jerome, I am sure the more I reflect on this that this is one of the most extraordinary documents I have ever seen in connection with Catholic politics. Particularly in its revelations of "the more Catholic than even a conservative pope like JPII" mindset. These people sincerely do believe that, like Popes, they have been invested by God with infallible insight. It is quite extraordinary. It is little wonder they are attracted into the legal profession with its emphasis on legality. There is no doubt whatsoever that they might be extraordinarily bright intellectually — very, very gifted as courtroom practitioners. We might all laugh but what is also revealed is that these people have "packed a punch" like almost nothing imaginable.

What an amazing and, as you say Brian, incredibly insightful comment that indicates something of the state of mind of the so-called Temple Police – those self-appointed guardians of Catholicism. I was particularly taken by the author’s description of the visit to the book sale at the Vincentian seminary where he wrote:

And mixed in with the Church’s wealth were the tendentious, the heterodox, and the plainly heretical texts; works by Rahner, Küng, Schillebeeckx, Bultmann, Moran, Teilhard de Chardin, and their ilk. The thought impressed me forcibly: it was this poison in the midst of the healthy stock which had served to destroy the Vincentians’ religious and priestly lives.

I was amazed that one could so readily and easily lump together Rahner and Schillebeeckx together with Bultmann and Teilhard, branding them all “plainly heretical”. Have they ever read the authors they disparage? And even if they have, do they not recognise the need for seminarians to be familiar with a wide range of texts, even if only to be well armed for apologetics. Bultmann is not even a Catholic biblical scholar; but he was highly influential on twentieth-century biblical scholarship (but not ultimately upon Catholic biblical scholarship).

Even more amazing was the strident criticism of Pope John Paul II whose teachings in one case (Mulieris Dignitatem,1988) are rated as “problematic” and whose views on sacred scripture (Catechesis on the Book of Genesis,1981) are seen as “idiosyncratic”. Was it because Blessed John Paul II dared suggest that the dominance of men over women, the patriarchal nature of human society, represents a “disturbance of that original relationship between man and woman which corresponds to their individual dignity as persons...[resulting in a loss of the] fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the ‘unity of the two’: and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman...” (Mulieris Dignitatem, 10)?

Of course, the author is quite right at least in this one respect (and commend him for highlighting the fact) that Blessed John Paul II “was himself a man of complex character”. On the one hand he could write, quite correctly and, I would even say prophetically:

These words of Genesis refer directly to marriage, but indirectly they concern the different spheres of social life: the situations in which the woman remains disadvantaged or discriminated against by the fact of being a woman. The revealed truth concerning the creation of the human being as male and female constitutes the principal argument against all the objectively injurious and unjust situations which contain and express the inheritance of the sin which all human beings bear within themselves. The books of Sacred Scripture confirm in various places the actual existence of such situations and at the same time proclaim the need for conversion, that is to say, for purification from evil and liberation from sin: from what offends neighbour, what "diminishes" man, not only the one who is offended but also the one who causes the offence. This is the unchangeable message of the Word revealed by God. In it is expressed the biblical "ethos" until the end of time. (Mulieris Dignitatem,10)

And then on the other, decree in his Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), “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” (4).

Of course, one must recognise that the issues are not necessarily the same and both observations depend upon scriptural bases. There is the added issue, to which Blessed John Paul correctly alludes – the Pontiff does not have the authority to change the Church's ancient practice of ordaining only men to the ministerial priesthood. That authority can only derive from the historical practice/tradition of the whole community of the faithful. We should remember that the issue is not a simple matter of the Roman Church changing its practice. The Pontiff also must be mindful of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and especially the Eastern rite communities in communion with Rome (for whom the Pope also speaks) who similarly retain the practice of ordaining only men to holy orders.

But this brings me back to my point. The Vatican II document on Divine Revelation speaks of the very development of tradition and doctrine as deriving from the “contemplation” and “study” of “all believers” (8). Similarly, Lumen Gentium speaks of the “prophetic office” being fulfilled “not only through the hierarchy who teach in his [Jesus’] name and by his power, but also through the laity” (35). I wonder if, however, the so-called Temple Police are sufficiently attentive to the sensus fidei rather than simply their own personal judgement or prejudice. I am pretty sure that they view themselves as fulfilling some sort of “prophetic” role and, I guess, we should at least listen to their concerns. They are our brothers and sisters in faith and their concerns should be considered. But should their opinions and perspectives be privileged over that of bishops and popes (even saintly popes like Blessed John Paul II), let alone the whole body of the faithful?

What seems to me to be seriously lacking in our Church (and here I speak of all of us: conservative, traditionalist, liberal, ultra-orthodox, cafeteria Catholics) is humility and genuine obedience; two virtues necessary for us to listen, to really listen, to the Spirit that speaks through the whole church “breathing together” as John Henry Newman put it.

Thanks, Tony, you might be very surprised to learn of which of our "old friends" drew my attention to this extraordinary document late last night. Two guesses and the first one doesn't count.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Michael Baker's eulogy for Paul Brazier ends up packing the punch of some kind of thermonuclear device in the international church but not at all in the way the author might have intended or liked. I should imagine any bishop with even an ounce of political intelligence would sieze on this document and make it a prime piece of evidence in their ad limina reports to Rome in October telling the Roman authorities in unmistakable language that they HAVE TO DO SOMETHING otherwise before long there is going to be very little of the Catholic Church left in this Great South Land of the Holy Spirit.

... There ARE delators in the ranks of priests and bishops just as there are in the lay population but they are a very small minority...

... And these people are like British Paints were depicted in the iconic Rolf Harris ads from decades ago: "they keep on keeping on". Not even the fires of hell are capable of daunting them in their determination to "get their way".

A great illustration of this, Brian, bought to us by an old friend:

It seems in Australia the proper structures have indeed failed yet again, as it did in Brisbane where for decades Fr Peter Kennedy celebrated thousands of invalid baptisms, at least latterly with the full knowledge of the Archbishop. It took the Holy See intervention to stop it...

... The sad episode of the former Bishop of Toowoomba demonstrates a weakness in today's Church. In the writings of Joseph Ratzinger there is an appreciation of the importance of the local Church what Lumen Gentium calls "subsidiarity". That rests on the presumption is that the Church is essentially Catholic; that people, priests and bishops regard the Apostolic Tradition, the Catholic Faith as being important, it is only when this has broken down that the Bishop of Rome needs to intervene. The problem rests firmly and squarely on the failure of the Episcopal Conference to intervene at an earlier stage, maybe it rests on the fact that the Episcopal Conference fails to see its first function is to maintain communion with Christ and the faith of the Apostles. Source: Fr Ray Blake's Blog.

And this comment in response (presumably without a hint of irony):

Londiniensis said...

I have always been uneasy with the concept of "collegiality". Yes it is a beautiful theological concept, grounded in the collegiality of the initial twelve apostles, but like so many theories which work perfectly in theory (communism, anyone?) it comes seriously unstuck in real world practice - for we are, after all fallen creatures, prideful, arrogant, disobedient sinners, bishops no less than the rest of us, perhaps even more so, given the temptations which uniquely arise for them.

National conferences, which seek to embody this "collegiality" have become bureaucratic structures over-influenced by their "civil service", which time and again stifle individual ministry but are incapable of reining in errant knaves.

Bring back Primates, in function as well as in honour, and give them teeth.

Because, as we all know, there are no dangers in absolute power being held by an individual!?

As you suggest, Brian, the Gospel is full of examples of how Jesus had to deal with those for whom the rules became the religion. How did he respond? How do we respond? It seems to me that he responded strongly when he had to, either by his words or his deeds, but for the most part he just got on with the important stuff.

So, just as the zealots questioned Jesus for daring to cure on the Sabbath, the zealots now want the 'miracle' of the Eucharist to be rigidly confined and defined. The Eucharist, to me, is an act of love shared by a community. The love that Jesus lived was, by the standards of his day, radically inclusive. 'Outsiders' (aka 'sinners') were not only tolerated, they were welcomed.

Brian, isn't it wonderful that the faithful can be followers of the way of Jesus without them in spite of the shame we all have of the name Catholic.

Francis who combines tears and joy.

I did take a look at some of the diatribes (how else could you describe them) of an interesting mind. Geoffery Robinson is a particular target of course, but I couldn't take too much so tried to get it out of my mind, but how do you? How can these people be held in such a position of authority by the hierarchy. Oh that's right - they support them when it counts don't they?

This short excerpt from the document above says it all:

He was instrumental in the removal, for misconduct, of a number of Australian bishops; in the prevention of certain episcopabili (potential bishops) among the clergy from being appointed to that high office and, in the humbling of the entire Australian bishops conference in 1998. Little wonder, then, that no bishop attended his funeral in St Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney on Monday, 9th May.

Concerned over the serial negligences of the bishops, particularly their tolerance of the abuse of Third Rite Reconciliation which ‘protestantised’ the Sacrament of Penance, he organised rafts of Catholic laity throughout the country to report abuses committed by priests in their parishes. The results, refined in statutory declarations, provided the stumbling block when the Australian bishops arrived in Rome for their 1998 ad limina visit. The ‘Statement of Conclusions’ of 14th December 1998[2] , to whose terms they found themselves constrained, stands as a monument to Paul’s efforts to preserve the orthodoxy of Australian Catholics.

We can only weep.

Annie

I also recommend that while people are visiting the SuperFlumina website they pause and also have a look at what these people write about the Australian Catholic Bishops in general. In fact there are a host of links down the left hand side of the page that will be extraordinary revealing to many people.

http://www.superflumina.org/brazier_tribute.html

This sounds familiar! Just move it forward to our times.

The delators were the Roman informers. The problem of delators grew into perhaps the most hateful feature of Roman social life. Not merely overt actions of treason against the state, but words which could be construed as reflections on the Caesar were brought within the meaning of the law, and the delators who brought forward charges or evidence which led to condemnation were handsomely rewarded. No viler machinery of demoralization could have been devised. Delation became a trade and no man was safe from it.

The tribute by Michael Baker is a quite extraordinary document. I should imagine it would be a massive relevation to many people of what goes on inside the inner workings of the Catholic Church that they might be horrified to learn. Some of course have known of this for years but it is difficult to talk about in public because many ordinary folk actually believe it is unbelievable that people do actually conduct themselves in the manner Michael has described.

One thought that has long occurred to me is that Bishops tend to be as impatient with these sort of people as any of the rest of us. Michael in fact confirms some of that in his testimony. There are exceptions of course but my general experience is that the number of bishops (and priests) cut from the same sort of cloth as Mr Brazier or Mr Baker exist in the ranks of priests or bishops in roughly the same proportion as they do in the general population. There ARE delators in the ranks of priests and bishops just as there are in the lay population but they are a very small minority. We have some very public evidence in the +Bill Morris controversy of the existence of priests who are supportive of the agendas of the lay delators.

My personal experience over many years is that it is impossible to have a rational conversation with such people. I think many "normal" bishops and priests find themselves in the same position. Unfortunately for bishops and priests, while most of us can simply walk away and not engage in conversation with these people, bishops and priests do have to administer dioceses and parishes and they cannot walk away when they are confronted by these people. And these people are like British Paints were depicted in the iconic Rolf Harris ads from decades ago: "they keep on keeping on". Not even the fires of hell are capable of daunting them in their determination to "get their way". Mr Baker's tribute is deeply revealing of the indefatigability of these people. Most bishops, like all the rest of us, eventually just tire in absolute and total frustration and the end effect of course is that these people "get their way" as is so often repeated time and time and again — and what has happened to +Bill Morris, or what happened at St Mary's South Brisbane, are perfect illustrations of the end outcome every time. As I suggested it is IMPOSSIBLE to engage in a rational conversation. These people might sincerely believe they are being "rational" — in fact often they believe they are more rational than everybody else on the planet — the reality though is that their disposition towards life is driven by deep, deep emotional needs. I thought Mr Baker's tribute particularly revealing of that in his comments towards the beginning on Mr Brazier's background.

In the end I am almost positive that many bishops and priests simply end up in utter and total frustration when having to deal with these people. I suspect that is what happened to Archbishop John Bathersby in his long battle to retain some unity in his diocese over the problems in South Brisbane. You need to have the skills of God himself when dealing with this element in the population who believe they alone had been given insight into "the mind of God" that is even superior to the mind of the Pope himself. Most bishops, archbishops and priests are actually pretty ordinary people just like you and me and they get as frustrated as you and me watching the activities of this small element within the Church who end up dictating the agenda for everyone. It is little wonder Jesus himself went to such extraordinary lengths in the gospel record he left behind to devote a considerable amount of his discourses to sharing some wisdom on how this category of human beings needs to be dealt with. It was as though Jesus himself knew that these people would be a massive problem in every epoch of human history for those with responsibility for church or community governance. Today, it would seem, as so graphically illustrated by the +Bill Morris controversy, we have people at the very top of the hierarchical tree in the Catholic Church who either totally fail to understand these warnings provided by Jesus or in fact they operate out of the mindset that Jesus was so critical of!

The great tragedy appears to be that somewhere in Rome this remnant element are given massive support to the actual exclusion of every other member of the baptised. Something needs to be done about that.

...why there will NEVER BE A VATICAN THREE! (i.e. I mean if you have just read Michael Baker's tribute to his colleague Paul Brazier right through.)

It is the most brilliant insight into both (a) the intellectual and emotional paradigm from which this small remnant section of the population operates which literally does believe they alone have been given special graced insight into "the mind of Almighty God" — that is even superior to that of conservative popes; and (b) why, even with the assembled legions of the entire communion of saints, nobody on earth, or even in heaven, can argue with these people and certainly not reason with them. To stand in their way you not only put your own welfare at risk; you effectively put the welfare of civilisation at risk. It is no wonder even bishops and archbishops, possibly even popes, are petrified of their presence.

God save the Church — because no one else on earth is capable of doing it in the face of the zealot-like certitudes of people typified by the personalities drawn out in this brilliantly insightful and wonderfully revealing article by Michael Baker.

Well, if you want to know why I keep writing that we are dealing here with forces in the human psyche more powerful than those that drive the sun that powers our entire solar system there you have it — right from the "horse's mouth" so to speak. One who presents himself as even more Catholic than Pope John Paul II!

What a superb document to have on the public record for all to see. Thank you deeply, Michael Baker, for being absolutely transparent and honest about the agenda pursued by yourself and your late colleague, Paul Brazier.

I should also draw attention to this particular and perceptive observation towards the beginning of the tribute:

Paul was a man of great intellectual power but of immense emotional complexity, the cause of this latter an upbringing in which he seems not to have experienced a normal childhood. This gave rise to certain personality traits, the chief of which was an overweening amour propre, and to conduct which could at times be petulant and unrestrained. Similar complexities of character have been observed in other men of powerful intellect, notably Herbert Vere Evatt, former Australian High Court Justice and leader of the Australian Labor Party (known universally in Australia as ‘Doc Evatt’), and the English Catholic author, Evelyn Waugh. Given his troubled background it is remarkable that Paul should have returned to the faith he had all but abandoned when he completed his schooling with the Jesuits at St Ignatius College, in the Sydney suburb of Riverview; and that he should have returned to it with such vehemence. [emphasis added]

From briefings given to myself by others who are familiar with the family history there is deep truth in what Mr Baker has written in that paragraph. It goes a long way to explaining the life's work of this man and the zealous passion he brought to it.

One of our readers has just passed me this link to a tribute and obituary to the late Paul Brazier. Here's the opening paragraph and you can read the full article at the link which follows:

At about 10.00 pm on Easter Wednesday, 27th April 2011, the feast in the Tridentine rite of his favourite saint, St Peter Canisius, bishop and doctor of the Church, Paul Andrew John Brazier, died suddenly at his home in Faulconbridge in Sydney's Blue Mountains, leaving a wife, Georgina, and children, Jean, Elizabeth, Isabel, Paul, Andrew, Madeleine, John and William. He was 58. There has, arguably, been no Catholic layman since Bartholomew Augustine (Bob) Santamaria to rival his influence on the workings of the Catholic Church in Australia, though his influence operated in a manner radically different from that of Santamaria. [emphasis added]

FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.superflumina.org/brazier_tribute.html