Father Bob forced out by Catholic Church

[Corki]

I’ll let Fr Bob have the last word on that subject,

“Get in touch with Tim Fischer, the Australian ambassador to the Vatican, and tell him to go knock on the door of the department for the prevention of cruelty to parishes,” he advised supporters.
“Alert them to the fact that in a time when they don’t want any further trouble that they’ve got trouble brewing in the diocese of Melbourne, which is unnecessarily troublesome.”

Is this a threat? What kind of trouble is he ‘predicting’?

BTW, there isn’t a “department for the prevention of cruelty to parishes”. Not that it could even remotely be considered an act of cruelty to let a pastor retire after he has reached a certain age - a retirement he himself negotiated.

 

[Protector]

Corki;8550722] Is this a threat? What kind of trouble is he ‘predicting’?
BTW, there isn’t a “department for the prevention of cruelty to parishes”. Not that it could even remotely be considered an act of cruelty to let a pastor retire after he has reached a certain age - a retirement he himself negotiated.

Rightly you did admit that you, “Not being from Australia, (are) not familiar with Father Maguire”. Dinki-Di Ozzies have a tremendous sense of humour, albeit sometimes wry bordering on sarcastic and Father Bob has been “gifted” with more than his fair share.

But is it my imagination, or do I detect a certain sense of frustration in some of the responses of Fr Bob?

If we take the simplicity, and compassion of the Fr.Bob Foundation update, www.fatherbobsfoundation.com.au, “Foundation Update 11”, (in which he describes his plan to develop a “patch” of land adjacent to his Parish house and to build six units on it to house several home-less people in the area),

and compare it with the apparent opulence of the …

Domus Australia, a centre which combines a 32-bed hostel with a chapel decorated with Australian artwork and symbols…the pilgrim centre, a brainchild of Sydney’s Cardinal George Pell…", (By Peter Wilson in Rome From: The Australian)

a little frustration would not be a surprise, don’t you agree?

However, unless anyone has anything more to add to this debate, and seeing that my responses are now based solely on information gleaned from the media (readily available to all), I may just step aside and leave it in the very capable hands of that media and the hoi polloi.

I close with the following cautionary statement from www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=16515,

Archbishop Hart has said he can decide to defer the retirement, but the newspaper said that option “seems unlikely” because Fr Bob has been blamed for poor management of the parish’s finances.
Equal Opportunity Commissioner Helen Szoke, however, was cited by The Age newspaper as confirming last night it was illegal in Victoria to force someone to retire on the grounds of age. Dr Szoke said there was a question of whether the Catholic Church was exempt from the law.
“It’s not clear cut at the moment. Our position is that physical age shouldn’t be the criteria,” she said.
Dr Szoke said that for the matter to be tested Father Bob would have to make a complaint.

Thank you for your post Corki.

Protector.

 

[Corki]

But is it my imagination, or do I detect a certain sense of frustration in some of the responses of Fr Bob?

I am sure he is frustrated but I just don’t understand why. He asked for and was granted an extension to his retirement date. The extension date is arriving. He isn’t being retired from the priesthood (such a thing isn’t even possible) or even from active ministry. He will simply no longer be serving as pastor. What would his response have been if the Bishop transferred him to another parish? Humble obedience?

If we take the simplicity, and compassion of the Fr.Bob Foundation update, www.fatherbobsfoundation.com.au, “Foundation Update 11”, (in which he describes his plan to develop a “patch” of land adjacent to his Parish house and to build six units on it to house several home-less people in the area),

If he owns the property where he wants to build the units, then that is very admirable. I doubt his retirement from being a pastor will stand in the way of such a project.

and compare it with the apparent opulence of the … a little frustration would not be a surprise, don’t you agree?

So, if the Archbishop had built a different pilgrim center, it would make him feel better about his retirement?

I close with the following cautionary statement from www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=16515,

It’s a sad day when the civil government treats the assignment of a priest who is at the service of his Bishop in the same manner as secular employment. However, since Fr. Maguire is still going to be working, and is going to be Pastor Emiritas of his current parish, I don’t see how this is any business of the commission. Again, if the Bishop simply assigned another priest as pastor, would the goverenment feel it had the right to interfere?

 

[Protector]

Corki;8552270]I am sure he is frustrated but I just don’t understand why.

As I pointed out Corki, a possible reason for that was the comparison between the provision of housing for the homeless, and the provision of luxury accommodation for Australian tourists to Rome, and the Vatican. The cost of this latter project although stated by the supplied source as A$30M, has been suggested by another site as having been closer to A$85M.

He asked for and was granted an extension to his retirement date. The extension date is arriving. He isn’t being retired from the priesthood (such a thing isn’t even possible) or even from active ministry. He will simply no longer be serving as pastor.

Then what’s the point Corki: If he is doing such a good job where he is why move him somewhere else?

Archbishop Hart says he is happy with Father Maguire’s work

What would his response have been if the Bishop transferred him to another parish? Humble obedience?

Be honest now Corki, there’s no way that’s going to happen. In any case, again, what would be the point; It would probably only exacerbate the situation I feel.

If he owns the property where he wants to build the units, then that is very admirable. I doubt his retirement from being a pastor will stand in the way of such a project.

I was under the impression that Catholic Priests were not allowed to own property. Am I wrong?

So, if the Archbishop had built a different pilgrim center, it would make him feel better about his retirement?

You keep offering me these what-ifs all the time Corki, but in answer to that last one I say that I doubt it, because that is only a side issue and would make no difference either way.

However, I am sorry if I offend you Corki, but you seem to have missed the point I was making when I said, that a possible reason for that (alleged frustration) was the comparison between the provision of housing for the homeless, and the provision of luxury accommodation for Australian tourists to Rome, and the Vatican. I must emphasize that this is not quoted from Fr. Bob, I am not his confidant. I am just reading between the lines, theorizing. It’s not an exact science.

It’s a sad day when the civil government treats the assignment of a priest who is at the service of his Bishop in the same manner as secular employment.

I agree, but the Commissioner added that two factors had to be taken into account. Firstly: Is the Catholic Church exempt from that law, and Secondly: The law cannot be exercised in regard to that matter unless Fr. Bob makes a complaint to the Commission.
I know Fr. Bob only by reputation, but I’m pretty sure that he would not complain to the Commission. To paraphrase St Paul,

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the secular authorities, and not before the saints?” 1 Cor. 6:1 (D-R).

However, since Fr. Maguire is still going to be working, and is going to be Pastor Emiritas of his current parish, I don’t see how this is any business of the commission. Again, if the Bishop simply assigned another priest as pastor, would the goverenment feel it had the right to interfere?

This is not about the Government Corki, this is about Fr. Bob, and more importantly - about the stability and well-being of his flock. As for Pastor Emeritus here is what Fr. Bob thinks about it,

“Emeritus is the kind of thing where you’re given the flick, I’m taking it as a dishonourable discharge, They use (the title) in academia. It means you are no longer working as an academic, but you still have the title of academic.” he said.

Once again, I think that I’ll let Father Bob have the last word, Copy the following into your search box on Google:- Father Bob Fumes. Do it soon Corki as these items tend to get deleted after a few days.

Protector.

 

[Corki]

As I pointed out Corki, a possible reason for that was the comparison between the provision of housing for the homeless, and the provision of luxury accommodation for Australian tourists to Rome, and the Vatican. The cost of this latter project although stated by the supplied source as A$30M, has been suggested by another site as having been closer to A$85M.

What does this have anything to do with his retirement?

Then what’s the point Corki: If he is doing such a good job where he is why move him somewhere else?

Because priests are moved all the time. Depending on the diocese, a typical pastor’s term is somewhere between 6 and 10 years.

Be honest now Corki, there’s no way that’s going to happen. In any case, again, what would be the point; It would probably only exacerbate the situation I feel.

I’m not sure I understand. You would feel worse if he obeyed his promise of obedience?

I was under the impression that Catholic Priests were not allowed to own property. Am I wrong?

Fr. Maguire is a diocisan priest. Only priests in religious orders cannot own property. If it wasn’t his property, whose was it? Was he planning on stealing someone else’s property for this housing project?

You keep offering me these what-ifs all the time Corki, but in answer to that last one I say that I doubt it, because that is only a side issue and would make no difference either way

.

It’s not a “what if”. You brought up the pilgrim center. I am just trying to understand how the diocese project leads to Father’s unhappiness at his new assignment.

However, I am sorry if I offend you Corki, but you seem to have missed the point I was making when I said, that a possible reason for that (alleged frustration) was the comparison between the provision of housing for the homeless, and the provision of luxury accommodation for Australian tourists to Rome, and the Vatican. I must emphasize that this is not quoted from Fr. Bob, I am not his confidant. I am just reading between the lines, theorizing. It’s not an exact science.

I still don’t understand. You are angry that Australians who travel to Rome have a nice place to stay? Or is Father Maguire angry about it? And what does it have to do with his retirement?

I agree, but the Commissioner added that two factors had to be taken into account. Firstly: Is the Catholic Church exempt from that law, and Secondly: The law cannot be exercised in regard to that matter unless Fr. Bob makes a complaint to the Commission.
I know Fr. Bob only by reputation, but I’m pretty sure that he would not complain to the Commission.

I don’t know Australian employment law. But are employees over a certain age protected from job changes or just forced retirement? Since Father Maguire would still be employed by the diocese, I don’t see how this is unfair treatment.

This is not about the Government Corki, this is about Fr. Bob, and more importantly - about the stability and well-being of his flock. As for Pastor Emeritus here is what Fr. Bob thinks about it,

Pastor Emeritus means he stays at the parish. Isn’t this what he wants? And you are the one that brought in the quote about the Equal Opportunity Commisioner. Besides, the parish is being turned over to a religious order. It is ultimately up to them, not the Archbishop, who serves as pastor there.

Once again, I think that I’ll let Father Bob have the last word, Copy the following into your search box on Google:- Father Bob Fumes. Do it soon Corki as these items tend to get deleted after a few days.

I think that Father’s age may be showing here. He is talking about setting up his own parish. That would make everything he does there illicit. He couldn’t say Mass, hear Confessions, witness marriages - any of the things a priest does. He certainly knows that.

And he is urging his supporters to appeal to Rome? Appeal what? On what grounds? If he feels that canon law was not followed, he has avenues of appeal. But the people signing this petition should take it to the Bishop, not to Rome. They don’t have a case to take to Rome unless they are personally wronged by a violation of canon law or other policy. Father should know this too.

He sounds like a nice old man that doesn’t want to change. Unfortunately, he is also a nice old man under obedience to the Bishop so change is unavoidable.

 

[Protector]

Corki;8553782] What does this have anything to do with his retirement?

Nothing whatsoever Corki.

Because priests are moved all the time. Depending on the diocese, a typical pastor’s term is somewhere between 6 and 10 years.

But he’s not moving Corki, he is being replaced.

I’m not sure I understand. You would feel worse if he obeyed his promise of obedience?

My feelings have nothing to do with it.

Fr. Maguire is a diocisan priest. Only priests in religious orders cannot own property. If it wasn’t his property, whose was it?

The land in question is part of the parcel of land on which the church, school and parish house all stand.

I still don’t understand. You are angry that Australians who travel to Rome have a nice place to stay?

Couldn’t care less actually Corki. Like I said my feelings have nothing to do with any of this.

Or is Father Maguire angry about it? And what does it have to do with his retirement?

I shouldn’t think so as I am the one that mentioned the Pilgrim Centre in the first place. It is very likely that Fr. Bob is not even aware of it. And no, the Pilgrim Centre has nothing whatsoever to do with Fr.Bob’s retirement.
Why then did I mention it in the first place, I hear you ask. I really don’t know. I came across it when I was researching Fr Bob’s case and I was struck by the stark contrast between the provision of luxury units in the historic city of Rome, and the provision of basic housing in a churchyard in South Melbourne. In retrospect probably not a good idea, but there you have it Corki.

I don’t know Australian employment law. But are employees over a certain age protected from job changes or just forced retirement?

I don’t know that much about it either Corki, except that the law states that you may not discriminate against people on the basis of their age. But don’t worry about it, Fr. Bob won’t be complaining to the Commission about his situation.

Since Father Maguire would still be employed by the diocese, I don’t see how this is unfair treatment.

I think it is unfair since the employment being offered is not what the person in question has been engaged in for the last 38 years and wishes to continue in for as long as he can. Fr.Bob would not be the first to carry on as parish priest past retirement age I’m sure. Furthermore it is liable to be unsettling for his congregation, and the many disadvantaged people that are attracted to his church…

BTW what does this mean,

Archbishop Hart says he is happy with Father Maguire’s work but wants to free him of the administrative burden involved with being a parish priest.

"With him being 77 with the way things have gone on, I think it’s best for us to allow Father Bob to do the things for which we know and love him but to relieve him of the day-to-day work of the parish of South Melbourne.

What things have things have gone on?

Pastor Emeritus means he stays at the parish. Isn’t this what he wants?

Sure it is, but not as second fiddle to the religious order that’s taking over next year. And you know what Fr.Bob thinks about the title, Pastor Emeritus.

And you are the one that brought in the quote about the Equal Opportunity Commisioner.

Sure I was, but it was very much tongue-in-cheek Corki; I never expected anyone to take it seriously. In any case, without a complaint from Fr. Bob it is very much a toothless tiger.

Besides, the parish is being turned over to a religious order. It is ultimately up to them, not the Archbishop, who serves as pastor there.

Really! I thought that “the buck stops” with the Archbishop.We live, and we learn.

I think that Father’s age may be showing here. He is talking about setting up his own parish. That would make everything he does there illicit. He couldn’t say Mass, hear Confessions, witness marriages - any of the things a priest does. He certainly knows that.

Or maybe he’ll just up and join the SSPX. Come on Corki, don’t be so darn rude. What else are you going to accuse the poor man of? He’s senile, he’s a possible fraudster, he’s liable to be excommunicated if he starts a parish without borders in an old warehouse. Goodness me Corki, you need to lighten-up here.

And he is urging his supporters to appeal to Rome? Appeal what? On what grounds? If he feels that canon law was not followed, he has avenues of appeal. But the people signing this petition should take it to the Bishop, not to Rome. They don’t have a case to take to Rome unless they are personally wronged by a violation of canon law or other policy.

Fr. Bob is a man that feels betrayed, and is unsure what the future holds. He is not concerned for himself, but he has a great deal of concern for his parishioners.

He sounds like a nice old man that doesn’t want to change. Unfortunately, he is also a nice old man under obedience to the Bishop so change is unavoidable.

So the following statement no longer applies is that right? So, the buck does stop with the Bishop after all.

Besides, the parish is being turned over to a religious order. It is ultimately up to them, not the Archbishop, who serves as pastor there.

Thank you for your very insightful post Corki. However, I may take some time off from posting for a while, as because it,s Springtime Down Under at present I have a vegie patch that requires urgent attention. I do have a life apart from the CAF you know.
In any case I think that Fr. Bob’s fate has been decided now so we’ll have to find another thread to cross swords on.

God Bless.

Protector.

 

[Corki]

But he’s not moving Corki, he is being replaced.

Anytime a priest is moved, he will be replaced in his former position.

The land in question is part of the parcel of land on which the church, school and parish house all stand.

So, it was either diocisan land or it belongs to the parish. It was not his to do with what he willed.

I don’t know that much about it either Corki, except that the law states that you may not discriminate against people on the basis of their age. But don’t worry about it, Fr. Bob won’t be complaining to the Commission about his situation.

So why is the Commissioner chiming in? Her quote was in the excerpt you posted.

I think it is unfair since the employment being offered is not what the person in question has been engaged in for the last 38 years and wishes to continue in for as long as he can. Fr.Bob would not be the first to carry on as parish priest past retirement age I’m sure. Furthermore it is liable to be unsettling for his congregation, and the many disadvantaged people that are attracted to his church…

I think you are missing the part where the parish will be under the control of the Capuchins. There is not going to be a diocisan pastor’s role for him to be in.

BTW what does this mean,

What things have things have gone on?

I don’t know. You posted that link and are there in Australia. We can certainly speculate based on what’s publically available but I don’t know what the Archbishop had in mind when he said that.

Sure it is, but not as second fiddle to the religious order that’s taking over next year. And you know what Fr.Bob thinks about the title, Pastor Emeritus.

It’s too bad that Father Maguire has such a low opinion of priests who serve in Emeritus status. In my experience, they are some of the holiest men I know.

But again, any diocisan priest who stayed in the parish would be “second fiddle” to the Capuchin leadership.

Really! I thought that “the buck stops” with the Archbishop.We live, and we learn.

Not when it comes to religious orders. The Bishop only has direct authority over the secular (diocisan) priests.

Or maybe he’ll just up and join the SSPX. What else are you going to accuse the poor man of?

I didn’t accuse him of anything. In the link you directed me to, “Father Bob fumes” he is quoted as saying he might set up his own parish. I am just noting the implications of that choice.

He’s senile, he’s a possible fraudster, he’s liable to be excommunicated if he starts a parish without borders in an old warehouse. Goodness me Corki, you need to lighten-up here.

I never said he was senile or a fraudster. If he started a parish in a warehouse, he would not be excommunicated but he would likely lose his faculties.

So the following statement no longer applies is that right? So, the buck does stop with the Bishop after all.

Besides, the parish is being turned over to a religious order. It is ultimately up to them, not the Archbishop, who serves as pastor there.

Father Maguire is a secular priest. He is bound by promises to the Archbishop, including those of obedience. The Capuchins are not secular priests. They are a religious order and take vows of obedience to their religious superior, not the Archbishop. The Capuchin Superior will chose the pastor for the parish. If Father Maguire stayed as Pastor Emeritus, his obedience as a priest would still be to the Archbishop but he would follow the direction of the pastor assigned by the Capuchins with regard to liturgy and parish activities.

 

[Protector]

=Protector; The land in question is part of the parcel of land on which the church, school and parish house all stand.

Corki;8555609] So, it was either diocisan land or it belongs to the parish. It was not his to do with what he willed.

I’m quite sure that either way Fr. Bob had sought & received the proper authority. And if it was diocesan land (as seems likely) I.m sure the Catholic Church would have welcomed the chance to make it a donation in the common good.

Quote:
I don’t know Australian employment law. But are employees over a certain age protected from job changes or just forced retirement?

I don’t know that much about it either Corki, except that the law states that you may not discriminate against people on the basis of their age. But don’t worry about it, Fr. Bob won’t be complaining to the Commission about his situation.

So why is the Commissioner chiming in? Her quote was in the excerpt you posted

.

Obviously, either one of Fr. Bob’s more astute parishioners, unhappy with the state of affairs contacted the Commission; Or maybe it was a newspaper reporter, someone like that Corki. It is academic anyway for I feel sure that the Archbishop has achieved one of the objectives which was, to be remove Fr. Bob as Pastor of the Saint Peter and Saint Paul parish.

I think you are missing the part where the parish will be under the control of the Capuchins. There is not going to be a diocisan pastor’s role for him to be in.

Didn’t miss it Corki; just thought that the following inferred that the Minister Provincial of that Order could delegate that position to Fr. Bob. It would then be the perfect solution for the Archbishop’s problem - how to give Fr.Bob and his parishioners more or less what they wanted (to maintain the status quo) and at the same time take the administrational and financial control of the parish away from Fr. Bob and give it to the Capuchin Fryers Minor, under the direction of the admirably suited Minister Provincial, Fr Julian Messina.

…the parish is being turned over to a religious order. It is ultimately up to them, not the Archbishop, who serves as pastor there.

BTW,

Quote:
… What else are you going to accuse the poor man of?

I didn’t accuse him of anything.

Quote:
He’s senile, he’s a possible fraudster…

I never said he was senile or a fraudster.

No? So what is this,

I think that Father’s age may be showing here

And this,

. If it wasn’t his property, whose was it? Was he planning on stealing someone else’s property for this housing project?

It’s too bad that Father Maguire has such a low opinion of priests who serve in Emeritus status. In my experience, they are some of the holiest men I know.

But Corki, it’s not what he, or his parishioners want. He doesn’t appear to me to be expressing a low opinion so much as saying that it would not allow him to maintain the status quo. I know that you are going to say that he must present himself obedient to his superior, the Archbishop, but surely a bit of give and take as suggested above would keep
the “peace of the Church”, and at the same time be well within the powers of the Archbishop to grant. (Listen to me, I’m starting to sound like an apologist).

But again, any diocisan priest who stayed in the parish would be “second fiddle” to the Capuchin leadership.

Maybe that’s not a bad option though, as long as Fr. Bob was still the parish priest. However, as you observed,

Father Maguire is a secular priest. He is bound by promises to the Archbishop, including those of obedience. The Capuchins are not secular priests. They are a religious order and take vows of obedience to their religious superior, not the Archbishop. The Capuchin Superior will chose the pastor for the parish. If Father Maguire stayed as Pastor Emeritus, his obedience as a priest would still be to the Archbishop but he would follow the direction of the pastor assigned by the Capuchins with regard to liturgy and parish activities.

So, why don’t I let you have the last word and get myself back to the vegie patch.

God Bless.

Protector.

 

[curlycool89]

But Corki, it’s not what he, or his parishioners want. He doesn’t appear to me to be expressing a low opinion so much as saying that it would not allow him to maintain the status quo. I know that you are going to say that he must present himself obedient to his superior, the Archbishop, but surely a bit of give and take as suggested above would keep
the “peace of the Church”, and at the same time be well within the powers of the Archbishop to grant. (Listen to me, I’m starting to sound like an apologist).

Ok, let’s straighten this out right now.

What Fr. Bob wants is irrelevant. What his parishioners want is even more irrelevant. It is the Bishop’s job to take care of the diocese, and all that’s relevant is what the bishop wants. Unless canon law is being violated, and there’s no evidence that any such thing has happened here, then the response from the priest and parishioners should be “Yes, Your Grace” and not a peep more.

The local Church is the responsibility of the bishop, full stop. When people set themselves up against a bishop, they set themselves against the Church because the bishop is the Church in that diocese. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

This is what I was talking about before. People get so attached to a priest that they forget that they are part of a diocese, a particular Church. Would any of these parishioners ever attend another church, or would they consider it “inferior” because it doesn’t have Fr. Bob? When Fr. Bob leaves (at the very least, he’s not going to live forever), are these parishioners even going to stay? Because the way it’s being described here, it sounds a lot like people are more attached to Fr. Bob then they are to being Catholic.

 

[Protector]

curlycool89;8561192] Ok, let’s straighten this out right now.
What Fr. Bob wants is irrelevant. What his parishioners want is even more irrelevant. It is the Bishop’s job to take care of the diocese, and all that’s relevant is what the bishop wants. Unless canon law is being violated, and there’s no evidence that any such thing has happened here, then the response from the priest and parishioners should be “Yes, Your Grace” and not a peep more.

Ah! The firm voice of authority at last. Thank you so much “curlycoo” for cutting to the chase; Now I really can get back to my vegie patch.

But hang on, maybe we are not being told the whole story here as the following would seem to indicate :-

Archbishop Hart has said he can decide to defer the retirement, but the newspaper said that option “seems unlikely” because **Fr Bob has been blamed for poor management of the parish’s finances. **

                   [www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=16515](www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=16515)

And yet,

Quote:
Archbishop Hart says he is happy with Father Maguire’s work

But as you have said,

What Fr. Bob wants is irrelevant. What his parishioners want is even more irrelevant. It is the Bishop’s job to take care of the diocese, and all that’s relevant is what the bishop wants.

Thank you for your post “curlycoo”.

Protector.

 

[yinekka]

Bob Maguire first crossed my radar years ago when I read in his column in the archdiocean magazine Kairos that Jesus never intended to found a Church. Bob no longer writes for Kairos.

*12 September 2009
He [Archbishop Hart] said Father Bob’s parish had operated at a loss for eight of the past 11 years. The church had sold seven of its properties for $3 million to prop up the parish finances since 1980.

Between 1998 and 2008, the parish incurred deficits totalling $1.19 million.

The parish was now so broke, the Archdiocese had been paying its gas and electricity bills for months.

Archbishop Hart said his concerns with Father Bob remaining as a parish priest related to the “poor financial management of the parish”.

He said there were serious governance matters to be considered and that there had been a blurring between the financial management of the parish and the operation of Father Bob’s civilly established Father Bob Maguire Foundation.

Asked where the money had gone, he replied: “I’m not absolutely certain and that’s part of the problem.”*

 

[Protector]

Thanks “yinekka”. I now make a public apology to Archbishop Denis Hart for inferring that his treatment of Father Bob Maguire was unfair.

Such a pity that your information was not sent to me in a PM at the very beginning of the debate, in which case I would have requested of the Moderators that my thread be closed immediately.

Protector.

 

[yinekka]

The information was obtained from the “secret files” of Google - freely available to everyone. Remember that the media is no friend of Catholicism and take with a huge grain of salt anything referring to Catholicism appearing in the media. No sports reporter would be hired if he/she knew nothing about the sport on which they had to report but it would seem that ignorance of Catholicism is a requisite for being able to report on Catholicism. Remember also that the Archbishop, if you read any of his forays into the media, has usually been driven by inaccurate or incorrect reporting and that he can’t “spill the entire beans” out of respect for the other person involved.

 

[Protector]

The information was obtained from the “secret files” of Google - freely available to everyone. Remember that the media is no friend of Catholicism and take with a huge grain of salt anything referring to Catholicism appearing in the media. No sports reporter would be hired if he/she knew nothing about the sport on which they had to report but it would seem that ignorance of Catholicism is a requisite for being able to report on Catholicism. Remember also that the Archbishop, if you read any of his forays into the media, has usually been driven by inaccurate or incorrect reporting and that he can’t “spill the entire beans” out of respect for the other person involved.

Your point taken “yinekka”. I apologize to anyone, and everyone that may have been offended by my posts. I shall certainly give media reports a wide berth in future, especially those giving a false impression of being of the Catholic fold.
Thank you once again.

Protector.

 

[Thankfulness]

Rather by skill than by force

 

[yinekka]

I shall certainly give media reports a wide berth in future

Hi Protector , it’s not so much giving the media reports a wide berth but of doing a bit of research along with the media reports. An example: when the New York Times was publishing all of those sexual abuse stories it had links to the actual documents on which the stories were supposedly based. I spent one afternoon (I’m a slow reader) going through the documents for one story and I found that the facts in the documents didn’t match the spin given to them by the article. I doubt though that many read the primary documents and so the journalists thoughts thought that they could print anything they wished. Here in Australia some senior historians wrote books about the alleged taking of aboriginals in order to breed out their aboriginality; their works were heavily sourced. One historian, Keith Windschuttle, actually went and looked at the original documents cited and found that they didn’t confirm what the historians alleged, in fact some of the documents said the exact opposite but once again not many people have read Windschuttle but every Australian knows or thinks they know about the “Stolen Generation” Bottom line, be a discerning reader.

 

[John21652]

I’m utterly devastated now. There’s me thinking I was at least going to be made an Honorary Catholic for standing up in defense of a “celebrity Catholic priest”.

Protector.

“Celebrity priest” is right.

The man’s an absolute media tart.
And too big for his boots at that!

He has openly slammed Cardinal George Pell and was quoted as attributing things to Cardinal Pell that, even if remotely true, would be classified as a gross breach of trust. Let’s not forget that Cardinal Pell was appointed by Pope John Paul II to clean up the Catholic Church in Australia and to put a stopper on those who have drifted away from what Catholicism is really about. Yes, ‘Father Bob’ has done some great things, but he lacked the self discipline to keep himself in line and to show the true face of Catholicism when it was most needed. He still lacks that self discipline and has denigrated the Church. He also has a mouth like a Cocky’s cage - it needs cleaning out.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

“Celebrity priest” is right.

The man’s an absolute media tart.
And too big for his boots at that!

He has openly slammed Cardinal George Pell and was quoted as attributing things to Cardinal Pell that, even if remotely true, would be classified as a gross breach of trust. Let’s not forget that Cardinal Pell was appointed by Pope John Paul II to clean up the Catholic Church in Australia and to put a stopper on those who have drifted away from what Catholicism is really about. Yes, ‘Father Bob’ has done some great things, but he lacked the self discipline to keep himself in line and to show the true face of Catholicism when it was most needed. He still lacks that self discipline and has denigrated the Church. He also has a mouth like a Cocky’s cage - it needs cleaning out.

Watch this:
Father Bob Maguire talks Church Authority and the Easter Holiday

What do you think of it? I thought it was funny at first but turned ridiculous after 2:10.