Council of Priests statement in support of Bishop Morris (Main Forum)

Brian,

It was my concern back in 2005 and later in 2007 when I went to Linda Morris at the SMH that there was not any natural justice process within the Church or its related instrumentalities. At that time, I was unable to establish just exactly who had made what claims against me before I was able to defend my own name AD2000 had published the claims and within the University the allegations had been accepted and circulated by the then Head of Theology. Subsequently, I requested that the Vice Chancellor would intervene to have the email withdrawn and this was done. While the Head of Theology apologised but the reality was that the damage had been done. Later in December 2008, the new Vice Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University issued an invitation at a staff meeting for any members of staff to bring to him any outstanding issues. At that meeting, I raised the matter of process. It had been my experience that within the University there had been not any established process for securing natural justice.

Following two meetings with the Vice Chancellor, I prepared a written model of a possible process which could be used in the University to secure justice for the individual member of staff. The process had been overseen by a practising barrister who had made recommendations and suggestions and later read the final outline. While I was not claiming to have the monopoly on the details of the process it was a basis for discussion within the University. While I had an appointment with the Vice Chancellor set for April 1 2009 to discuss the process when I arrived at his office at MacKillop Campus, I was informed that he was in Ballarat so the meeting was rescheduled for April 30 again the VC cancelled. Later in July 2009, I left the University with grave reservations about the commitment of the Church to due process and leadership in the Church.

It was interesting yesterday to read on Catholica a letter from Professor Frank Brennan supporting Bishop Morris' "forced retirement" by the pope but my experience in the years 2005-2009 suggested that Brennan's efforts were more academic than practical. I do not doubt Brennan's regard for Bishop Morris but I was left with a rather empty feeling that his letter was simply stating the obvious rather than providing solidarity with the Bishop. Experience shows that inevitably self preservation will kick in and institutions such as ACU will draw back and sacrifice principles and justice to Church powers leaving the individual to fend for himself or herself. The right to natural justice stems from the dignity of the human person not from the doctrinal tenets of the Church.

Following below is a copy of the agenda and proposed process for assuring natural justice within the University for publication online which was developed with legal assistance. May I add to this that to date, some two years on, my communications have never been acknowledged by the University or the Vice Chancellor.

Daniel Donovan
May 3 2011

Preamble

On 2nd December 2008, the Vice Chancellor addressed the staff at the Mount Saint Mary the Strathfield Campus of Australian Catholic University. In the question session which followed the Vice Chancellor's address, I raised the issue of the lack of due process in the University for handling disputes or complaints against members of staff. It was my experience in 2005 that allegations about the content of my lectures were emailed by the Cardinal's Private Secretary to the Professor of Theology. Simultaneously, the allegations were printed in the Journal AD 2000 (March 2005) avoiding Australian defamation laws on the technicality that the allegations had been emailed to the Journal and the Archdiocese from the same source whom the Cardinal described in a letter to my lawyer, Mr Denis Anderson, as "a Canadian Catholic Academic (18th May 2005). At that time, the Professor of Theology emailed the members of the School of Philosophy and Theology comments on the unsubstantiated allegations which undermined my professionalism and which Professor Sheehan (at my request) had the Professor of Theology withdraw with an apology. The matter was now public in the University and this compromised my privacy.

There was also, a demarcation matter as I was a member of the School of Religious Education servicing a Unit which belonged to the School of Philosophy and Theology. The Dean of Education apparently gave permission for Theology to pursue the matter since the Unit belonged to that School. Mr Mc Ardle who was then the Head of that School removed assignments from my office for external correction. I was happy for the remark. I was never shown the second mark but was eventually told by Mr Mc Ardle that there was about a "two marks" difference between my mark and that of the outside marker. This should have been the end of the matter but it was taken further undermining my position as LIC for the Unit. Essentially, there was not any due process to guarantee justice and a satisfactory closure for all parties.

For reasons best known to the Archbishop's Office, the process provided in canon law was bypassed with the allegations forwarded to the Professor of Theology "for comment." The allegations were described by Mr Anderson as "hearsay." The canon lawyer described them as "gossip" against which the Bishop was required to protect priests. The opinions of the lawyer and the canon lawyer were forwarded by me to the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop De Paoli, whose written response is available if needs be.

The legal, canonical and diplomatic analyses reached the same conclusions:
. . . . . . Lack of due process
. . . . . . Disregard for natural justice
. . . . . . Failure to ensure privacy
. . . . . . Lack of suitable closure
. . . . . . Loss of teaching units
. . . . . . Possibility of legal action against the University

Having gone through this experience, I would not want any other member of staff to face such an ordeal and therefore there must be a process to protect all parties and to ensure just outcomes. Especially as a Catholic University, there is a real need to shift the Gospel values from mission statements into lived experience or to state this in a different way, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

Rational

Infrastructure is most important to assure a just and smooth basis for any institution especially for a University which is responsible for encouraging its students to think and research. Frequently, lecturers will be criticised by communities and groups within the wider community. Since the Catholic community is a rather broad assembly, it is inevitable that some groups misunderstand the function of a Catholic University which constantly strives to provide its students with a quality education and maintain its commitment to Truth. Truth is not the monopoly of any group, religious community or even any domain of human thought or endeavour. Education at any level, especially at the tertiary level, can never be understood as indoctrination or simply a transfer of knowledge but an attempt to assist students to name and own their truth.

At the moment in Sydney, there are three institutions engaged in tertiary education: Australian Catholic University (ACU), Notre Dame and Campion College (Toongabbie). These institutions represent different philosophies of education all of which have meaning within the different traditions which are based in the one Catholic Tradition.

Since the days of the early Christians, this one Tradition has found different expressions and approaches to revealed Truth hence the different images of Jesus and his work represented in the various gospels. The early Church could live with difference because it stressed unity (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11) rather than uniformity. For this reason, Paul (Galatians 2) raises the issue of imposing the Jewish Law on Gentile converts to the Christian faith. Paul upbraids Peter for his duplicity writing "But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal 2:11). Paul did not make any claims of left and right factions but insisted on the unity. Unity was "in Christ" and Peter was out of line as leader.

Luke makes a similar point when he contrasts "political power" (Lk 4:6-7) with the "power of the Spirit" in Jesus (Lk 4: 1, 14). It is this latter power of the Spirit, which is Jesus' lasting gift to his followers (Lk 24:49; Acts 2:2-7). Unity (Eph 4:3-7) not uniformity which characterises the Church in the power of the Spirit so all the peoples present in Jerusalem heard the apostles proclaim God's wonderful works of salvation (unity) but in their "own languages" (Acts 2:11). From the many peoples of the world and their languages there was one voice to praise and glorify God for God's mighty works. This emphasis on Unity (ex pluribus unum) is still the fundamental characteristic of the Christian Church and intrinsic to this Unity is faith development.

The Catholic Tradition is one through the Spirit but can be expressed in a range of traditions. Different traditions underpin the philosophies which underpin the two Catholic Universities currently operating in Sydney. The Australian Catholic University (ACU) grew from the need to provide teachers for Catholic Schools. Notre Dame on the other hand, is a type of franchise of Notre Dame, Indiana which is a Catholic University founded and staffed by the Holy Cross Fathers. Notre Dame is a Catholic University established to form men and women for professional service in a society which maintained rigid separation between Church and State. Many students in Catholic tertiary education in the United States completed their primary and secondary education in public schools and required deeper faith study. The Australian Church, unlike that in America, had focussed on primary and secondary education with tertiary degrees pursued in public Universities.

Tertiary Catholic Education in Australia was not an initiative of the Australian hierarchy but rather it was a response to the dwindling numbers of Religious men and women staffing the primary and secondary schools. In 1960's, some members of Religious Orders therefore established Teachers' Colleges to train lay teaches for their schools. The Sisters and Brothers were allowed to get on with teacher training without any assistance from the dioceses.

By the 1980's, Catholic College of Education Sydney attracted a rather unwanted attention when the Archbishop opposed the appointment of Fr Colin Barker to a permanent position. Fr Barker told me at that time that the Lecturers' Association had undertaken to represent him in the matter and was prepared to take industrial action.
Luckily, the matter was defused when the Archbishop withdrew his objection to Fr Barker's appointment.

As a Catholic University, there is a responsibility to do justice (Micah 6:6-8) and to protect the privacy and good name of its staff and students. It is completely unacceptable for any group to allow issues to drag on for years without closure and without any substantial proof of the allegations set forth. It must be stated albeit sadly that the Church itself can be criticised for its own practices which can disregard human rights and justice. In view of the current reconfiguration of the University and its structures there is an urgent need for developing and implementing a due process.

Shaping a Process for ACU

Firstly, the process must not be under Heads of School, Deans or Department Heads: because these persons have a role in authority, persons can be intimidated and afraid to stand up for their rights because they feared either personal or professional retribution within the University.

Secondly, there should be a pool of about eight (8) to ten (10) members of staff from academic and support staff chosen by the staff members and directly answerable to the Vice Chancellor.

Thirdly, PVC's and the like should not be members of the committee. Committee members should have access to experts such as civil lawyer and canon lawyer but these experts should not be members of the committee.

Fourthly, all staff would know that all complaints against staff members should be directed to the Vice Chancellor who would select four (4) members to constitute the committee. As a protection to the staff member he/she should be able to approve of the appointed members much as in a jury composition.

Fifthly, once appointed the committee would have the responsibility of gathering and assessing all relevant data. Perhaps, their deliberations might follow Lonergan's method which is both simple and effective. All parties must make available to the committee all relevant facts and materials conducive to a just outcome. Should a party fail to be honest and to provide the required materials then the committee must immediately report to the Vice Chancellor that there is not anything to investigate due to a party's failure to provide necessary information. A written report to this effect must be published within two (2) weeks of the recommendation to the Vice Chancellor.

Sixthly, in other cases the committee would have authority to do whatever is required to bring matters to a satisfactory closure and make their recommendations to the Vice Chancellor who would be required to publish a written report. There should also be the provision for an appeal by the parties against decisions. These appeals should be de novo with leave to introduce new witnesses or evidence and would not simply a rubberstamping of the decisions or resolutions of the previous hearing or committee.

Seventhly, the process should have a time limit. As far as possible the investigation from opening interviews to final written report should not exceed four (4) weeks. Since academics and University staff are busy people, it would be somewhat of an added burden to be on the committee. However it is important for the University and the staff to have the safeguard of due process.

Eighthly, there must be every attempt to safeguard the privacy and good name of the parties involved and to bring closure so that all parties involved can move on with their lives. Sexual claims or other matters of that nature should be referred to the appropriate authority to handle such matters namely the police.

Fr Daniel M. Donovan
20 Jan 2009

Tags:
Natural Justice

All I can say is thank God the NCP have spoken out.

Helen

Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ

I've had a few queries from readers, mainly in the US, who are interesting in reading the 2009 Advent Pastoral letter that has caused all this fuss. It has been removed from the diocesan website but other copies of it may still exist on the web. If anyone knows where it might be located please let me know for the benefit of these readers. I've done a quick search on Google but without luck so I'd appreciate if someone has a bit of time to do a more thorough search.

Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]

Good morning/afternoon, Mr. Editor.

I’m glad someone is taking a stand. I am a lapsed Catholic (Thank God….hmmmmm) but I really hate to see the church acting in such an unjust and ridiculous manner.

I belong to several groups, Avaaz, Amnesty International and Get-Up. They achieve great results by using internet, twitter, facebook etc. I am often signing petitions re rape, media conglomeration, environmental issues etc etc.

Using this media you have a wide spread of people who can respond very quickly and you can get big numbers of people expressing a quick opinion, who might not have the time, ability etc etc to write letters or get very actively involved. I'm not media savvy but if a petition landed in my mailbox asking for support for Bill Morris and addressed to the Pope or someone who "matters" I would sign in a flash. Presenting some one with a large petition with lots of names has made a number of people from politicians to big business to repressive governments sit up and take notice.

It is time to get media savvy and not pussy-foot around bemoaning your fate to the already converted.

All the best,

Judy Hardy-Holden

Brian,

You are spot on regarding the watershed event in the firing of Bill Morris. Perhaps it's time for people to take a stand and refuse to accept any more stooge bishops from Rome. Here is the logic:

In the letter of Clement of Rome (I Clem. 44:3) he stated that the presbyters were to be appointed by men of good standing "with the consent of the whole Church."

In the 15th chapter of the Didache it is stated that "You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried."

The Apostolic Tradition written by Hippolytus in Rome around A.D. 215 clearly emphasizes that bishops are to be elected by the whole
people: "Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people."

In the Apostolic Constitutions it is stated that "a man be consecrated bishop who is blameless in every respect and who is elected by the people."

Cyprian of Carthage noted (Ep. 67, 5) that a bishop is instituted "in virtue of the vote of the whole brotherhood and of the judgment of the bishops."

Pope Celestine I (422-432) stated emphatically: "the one who is to be head over all should be elected by all." Celestine added "no one who is unwanted should be made a bishop; the desire and consent of the clergy and the people is required."

Recognizing that a bishop imposed from without might incur the hatred of the people, Pope Leo I the Great (440-461), insisted that the bishop must be acceptable to the clergy and people: "It is essential to exclude all those unwanted and unasked for, if the people are not to be crossed and end by despising or hating their bishop. If they cannot have the candidate they desire, the people may all turn away from religion unduly."

It could not be more clear that the papal imposition of a bishop on Australia is a flagrant violation of Church teachings of long standing.

Charles

--
Charles J. McMahon, Jr.
Professor emeritus
Dept. of Materials Science
University of Pennsylvania