David QuinnThere are certain things you must believe in order to be a Catholic, writes David Quinn
Fr Tony Flannery is back in the news after the Bishop of Cloyne, Dr William Crean, issued an instruction that he could not address a parish event in East Cork, namely Killeagh Parish Pastoral Council’s ‘Spiritfest’ event.
Fr Flannery has been touring the country, and has also spoken abroad, about his vision of the Church. His fame has greatly increased ever since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said he could not exercise his priestly ministry due to his views on certain core doctrines of the Church. More about that anon.
But first a few words about the parish that invited him. The parish priest is Fr Tim Hazlewood. Fr Hazelwood came out in public support of a ‘yes’ vote during the recent marriage referendum.
The home page of the parish website is interesting. The parish describes itself as “a place where we promote equality and inclusivity”.
It says the parish is: “For male and for female; for any race or nationality; for any sexual orientation: for those who have a strong belief, for those who are unsure of their belief and for those who have no belief.”
It states: “Our parish is a place where we care for all of our members. Following the message of Jesus our aim is to stretch out the hand of friendship and kindness to the sick, the marginalised and the disadvantaged.”
Website
The website might have added that it is also a place for the able-bodied and those suffering from a disability and for people from all social classes.
When it is says it is “a place where we promote equality and inclusivity”, it would be interesting to know exactly how this works out in practice.
As the word ‘Catholic’ implies, the message of the Catholic Church is universal. No-one can be excluded from membership of the Catholic Church in principle and salvation is available to all.
In this sense, the Catholic Church does indeed promote equality and inclusion. But the Catholic faith has a certain content as well. There are certain things you must believe in order to be a Catholic. This is why we say the Creed at Mass. There is also an objective moral law that we must strive, with the grace of God, to obey.
At a certain point your beliefs and behaviour might be so out of line with the requirements of membership of the Catholic community that logically speaking you are no longer a member of that community, namely the Church.
If you insist that you are still a member despite your beliefs and despite your behaviour, then the Church might have to point out that you are no longer a member, or at least you are no longer a member in full communion.
So when we say that the Church is open to all, that is perfectly true – but not on any terms. Does the Parish of Killeagh make this clear? Does it make clear what being a follower of Jesus entails, and what being a member of his Church entails in terms of beliefs and conduct?
Indeed, are there members of Killeagh parish who feel excluded because of the direction the parish has taken? Do they feel excluded, for example, by Fr Hazelwood supporting same-sex marriage in clear contradiction of what the Catholic Church and Pope Francis teach on this score?
This alone shows that it is impossible for any organisation to be ‘inclusive’ in a completely open-ended way. In the end you must take a position on something and inevitably that position will make some people feel excluded.
In any event, it fits that Fr Tony Flannery was invited to address the parish event. Fr Flannery, too, seems to believe in a Church that has poorly defined beliefs, or rather in a Church that should adopt a quite different set of beliefs about important matters.
Fr Flannery believes there should be women priests, for example. He believes that what the Church has to say about human sexuality needs to be drastically changed, starting with the teaching about contraception.
But he goes much further than this. The New York Times (a paper that would be favourably disposed towards Fr Flannery) got to the nub of the issue in an article published in the paper in January of 2013.
Fr Flannery’s troubles with the Vatican really began in 2010 as a result of an article he published in Reality magazine.
The New York Times reported: “In the [Reality magazine] article, Fr Flannery, a Redemptorist priest, wrote that he no longer believed that “the priesthood as we currently have it in the Church originated with Jesus” or that he designated “a special group of his followers as priests”.
“Instead, he wrote, ‘It is more likely that sometime after Jesus, a select and privileged group within the community who had abrogated power and authority to themselves, interpreted the occasion of the Last Supper in a manner that suited their own agenda’.”
This is very far-reaching stuff because if the priesthood as we have it in the Catholic Church is not what Jesus intended, then the Catholic Church departed from the vision of Jesus at a very early stage just as many Protestants have always said. If the Catholic Church can be so wrong on something so central an issue as the priesthood, then it really has no doctrinal authority on anything at all.
Fr Flannery likes to claim the support of Pope Francis, if not in word, then in spirit. But we can take it as a given that Pope Francis and Fr Flannery do not share the same vision of the Church.
For one thing, Pope Francis has said the issue of women priests is “closed”. More importantly, the Pope does not believe that the priesthood “as we currently have it in the Church” was hijacked by a “select and privileged group” who “interpreted the occasion of the Last Supper in a manner that suited their agenda”.
To be sure, Pope Francis wants priests to be better priests, just as he wants all of us to be better Christians.
But for Fr Flannery to be claiming that Pope Francis, in effect, supports his vision of the Church is highly disingenuous.
It is surely significant that, more than two years since becoming Pope, the Vatican has not returned Fr Flannery to full ministry. That has to mean something surely?