Priest to fight sacking in court

[vs_trumpet]

I have every confidence that all parties including the bishop will do their civil duty and obey whatever the courts may rule. Hopefully the bishop will ease up and avoid a confrontation in the courts.

SACKED Catholic priest Peter Kennedy will this week continue his fight against the Brisbane diocese in the civil courts unless he is reinstated, after he rejected mediation talks and defiantly conducted Sunday mass for more than 1500 parishioners at St Mary’s church.

. . . The Australian understands that lawyers for Father Kennedy will today send a letter to Dr Bathersby demanding that he back down from sacking the parish priest or they will challenge the decision of the Brisbane diocese in the civil courts.

Central to their claim is the allegation that Dr Bathersby breached canon law by failing to give Father Kennedy enough time to defend himself against allegations that he was conducting services that were “not in communion” with the church.

The letter follows the failure of an ex-parte application in the Supreme Court to block his sacking late on Friday night. . . .

 

[Corki]

The Church has proceedures spelled out in canon law for removing a pastor. If (and this is a big if) Fr. Kennedy believed the proceedures weren’t followed, he has the right to appeal to a tribunal in Rome. I think it is the Rota. The fact that he refused mediation hints that all the "t"s were crossed and "i"s dotted. Unless Rome tells the Bishop otherwise, there is no reason for the Bishop to recind his order nor to obey the civil courts in this matter.

How would you suggest the Bishop “ease up”? He has given Fr. Kennedy numerous chances to get right with the Church. This has been going on for years.

Fr. Kennedy wants this decided in the court of public opinion. Yet more evidence that he is out of communion with the Church.

 

[vs_trumpet]

Unless Rome tells the Bishop otherwise, there is no reason for the Bishop to recind his order nor to obey the civil courts in this matter.

No man, including bishops, is above the law. He must obey the Australian courts just as any other Australian must.

 

[Gene_Church]

The Church has proceedures spelled out in canon law for removing a pastor. If (and this is a big if) Fr. Kennedy believed the proceedures weren’t followed, he has the right to appeal to a tribunal in Rome. I think it is the Rota. The fact that he refused mediation hints that all the "t"s were crossed and "i"s dotted. Unless Rome tells the Bishop otherwise, there is no reason for the Bishop to recind his order nor to obey the civil courts in this matter.

How would you suggest the Bishop “ease up”? He has given Fr. Kennedy numerous chances to get right with the Church. This has been going on for years.

Fr. Kennedy wants this decided in the court of public opinion. Yet more evidence that he is out of communion with the Church.

Thanks Corki,

Couldn’t have said it better.

 

[Gene_Church]

No man, including bishops, is above the law. He must obey the Australian courts just as any other Australian must.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The civil courts have no authority in Church law, and will hopefully be treated as such.

 

[vs_trumpet]

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The civil courts have no authority in Church law, and will hopefully be treated as such.

It may be that the Courts will decide this is an internal dispute of a religious organization and that they can’t rule on part or even all of it. They may say that their jurisdiction does not extend that far. But the one who gets the make that authoritative judgment is the Courts, not the religious organization or religious tribunal.

So if the Courts rule that they have no jurisdiction, that ruling must be obeyed by all. If they rule that they have jurisdiction, that ruling must also be obeyed. If after ruling they have jurisdiction, they side one way or another, all parties, including the priest and bishop must obey that decision.

IIRC, Australia already has indicated that religious law has no place in Australian law. They said that during some Muslim-related controversy but the comments made by the Australian govt. were general.

 

[Gene_Church]

It may be that the Courts will decide this is an internal dispute of a religious organization and that they can’t rule on part or even all of it. They may say that their jurisdiction does not extend that far. But the one who gets the make that authoritative judgment is the Courts, not the religious organization or religious tribunal.

So if the Courts rule that they have no jurisdiction, that ruling must be obeyed by all. If they rule that they have jurisdiction, that ruling must also be obeyed. If after ruling they have jurisdiction, they side one way or another, all parties, including the priest and bishop must obey that decision.

IIRC, Australia already has indicated that religious law has no place in Australian law. They said that during some Muslim-related controversy but the comments made by the Australian govt. were general.

Once again, you are wrong. The Catholic Church will not have to submit itself to the decisions of Australia, if for no other reason than it is headed by a soveregn leader of a soveregn country.

 

[vs_trumpet]

Once again, you are wrong. The Catholic Church will not have to submit itself to the decisions of Australia, if for no other reason than it is headed by a soveregn leader of a soveregn country.

We are speaking of Australians, including the Australian bishop. All Australians must obey Australian law. Being a member of the Catholic Church does not give an Australian the ability to disobey Australian law – period. Australian bishops don’t have some kind of diplomatic immunity to disobey Australian law. This is fantasy land.

 

[Gene_Church]

We are speaking of Australians, including the Australian bishop. All Australians must obey Australian law. Being a member of the Catholic Church does not give an Australian the ability to disobey Australian law – period. Australian bishops don’t have some kind of diplomatic immunity to disobey Australian law. This is fantasy land.

It is a religion, headed by a soverign. Austrailian courts will most likely run, making this discussion truly academic. But in the academic realm, the world (and history) is full of people who carry out civil disobedience. And if we presume that the Austrailian courts travel into fantasy land, I suspect this will be the outcome. The Australian courts lack authority to decide, and their declaration does not change that.

The Bishop, in matters of the Church, only has authority to act under Magisterial law.

 

[jilly4ski]

I don’t know anything about Australian law, however, if the diocese (dio) is like those in the US, Then the dio of Brisbane owns the land of St. Mary’s, and the employes the “priest.” The dio can usually remove a priest from a parish for any reason. Any employment laws haven’t been broken, because the “priest” is still getting paid/employed by the dio.

The courts of law really can’t/shouldn’t decide whether the dio actually followed canon law, as it is not their concern/expertise. The dio did not actually break a law (civil). The news report did not really make the civil allegations clear, so I cannot really comment on more than this. But it seems like a frivolous lawsuit, by a man who has completely lost his way.

Pax

 

[redrosetea]

Priests take vows of obedience don’t they?

 

[LRThunder]

No man, including bishops, is above the law. He must obey the Australian courts just as any other Australian must.

And during the Roman Empire, it was once forbidden to be a Christian. Should the early Church have just submitted to Roman law then?

 

[Corki]

Priests take vows of obedience don’t they?

Yes, and they promise, specifically, obedience to thier Bishop.

 

[Corki]

We are speaking of Australians, including the Australian bishop. All Australians must obey Australian law. Being a member of the Catholic Church does not give an Australian the ability to disobey Australian law – period. Australian bishops don’t have some kind of diplomatic immunity to disobey Australian law. This is fantasy land.

Are you sure about that? Because in the US, Churches are immune from US laws regarding employment in almost all cases. The government couldn’t get involved with how a diocese assigns its priests or what parishes remain open or closed. And it isn’t about being a member of the Catholic Church. It is about the diocese, headed by the Bishop being a religious organization with the authority to assign/discipline/replace its employees as he wills.

What Australian law is even alleged to have been violated?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Two threads on this issue started by the same OP.

 

[vynette]

Being a native of Brisbane, and a baptised Roman Catholic, the case of Father Peter Kennedy, the parish priest of St. Mary’s Church South Brisbane, is of particular interest to me. Is it something in the air…or perhaps the holy water?

There is a disturbing parallel to the case of Father Kennedy and it occurred exactly 80 years ago. It occurred in the same circumstances, and in the same place, with the Archbishop of Brisbane also playing one of the central roles.

Thomas Michael Wixted was a Queensland farmer born in 1889 and baptised into the Roman Catholic faith. Around the age of 40, he began to examine and then to question the doctrines of his religion. He, accompanied by his wife Margaret, also a Roman Catholic, visited the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Sir James Duhig, to acquaint the Archbishop with his position regarding the veracity of Catholic doctrine. He challenged the Archbishop over the doctrine of the “Virgin Birth” and the “Divinity of Jesus” just as Father Kennedy has now done.

A short time later, Thomas Wixted was committed to the terrors of a “lunatic asylum,” as such institutions were at that time designated, and declared legally dead, as was also the procedure at that time. The name of the lunatic asylum was “Goodna.” The word “Goodna” is of Aboriginal Australian derivation. It has a very expressive meaning which accurately captures the attitude of the religious authorities towards the man Thomas Michael Wixted – the word means “human dung.” He was regarded as “human dung” and consigned to the “human dung” lunatic asylum for more than twenty years – an experience from which he was never to recover.

The Papacy has always used the authority of the State to mete out its punishments. It is the nature of the particular State which determines the extent of the punishment. As we all know, in mediaeval times, the State had the power to inflict death and death was the punishment for heresy.

By 1929, however, the State could not execute for religious “heresy.” But it could have a person committed to a lunatic asylum and declared legally dead if that person’s mental competency was questioned by a person in authority…such a priest.

Now, in 2009, in this age of instant mass communication, things are not quite so simple. A “heretic” cannot be made to just disappear into a “lunatic” asylum. Now, the only avenue left to the religious establishment is to blacken a “heretic’s” character and reputation, which we would have already witnessed in the case of Father Kennedy if not for his particularly vocal and devoted congregation.

The entire world may take a turn for the better when the vast mass of Roman Catholic faithful begin to comprehend that the Papacy is their deadliest enemy, the enemy of true Christianity, the enemy of freedom of conscience, the enemy of freedom of thought, and of all the wordly powers that ever existed, the most ruthless and tyrannical abuser of their trust.

 

[rjs1]

Kennedy is a heretic. He has committed inumerable abuses of Catholic faith and practice. He has lead a congregation into false and heretical teachings.

He was given countless warnings by his bishop, to whom he pleged loyalty at his ordination.

The bishop, who incidently is no conservative, has finally been forced to act.

It is NO business of any Australian court. It is strictly the Church’s business. The person suggesting that the court make the ruling is leading us into the very dangerous area of state control of our faith. What happens when the state doesn’t like our teaching on abortion, divorce, euthanasia etc?

If a person doesn’t accept the teachings of the Catholic Church then they should leave. There are thousands of denominations. I am sure everyone can find one to suit.

 

[Atreyu]

Being a native of Brisbane, and a baptised Roman Catholic, the case of Father Peter Kennedy, the parish priest of St. Mary’s Church South Brisbane, is of particular interest to me. Is it something in the air…or perhaps the holy water?

There is a disturbing parallel to the case of Father Kennedy and it occurred exactly 80 years ago. It occurred in the same circumstances, and in the same place, with the Archbishop of Brisbane also playing one of the central roles.

Thomas Michael Wixted was a Queensland farmer born in 1889 and baptised into the Roman Catholic faith. Around the age of 40, he began to examine and then to question the doctrines of his religion. He, accompanied by his wife Margaret, also a Roman Catholic, visited the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Sir James Duhig, to acquaint the Archbishop with his position regarding the veracity of Catholic doctrine. He challenged the Archbishop over the doctrine of the “Virgin Birth” and the “Divinity of Jesus” just as Father Kennedy has now done.

A short time later, Thomas Wixted was committed to the terrors of a “lunatic asylum,” as such institutions were at that time designated, and declared legally dead, as was also the procedure at that time. The name of the lunatic asylum was “Goodna.” The word “Goodna” is of Aboriginal Australian derivation. It has a very expressive meaning which accurately captures the attitude of the religious authorities towards the man Thomas Michael Wixted – the word means “human dung.” He was regarded as “human dung” and consigned to the “human dung” lunatic asylum for more than twenty years – an experience from which he was never to recover.

The Papacy has always used the authority of the State to mete out its punishments. It is the nature of the particular State which determines the extent of the punishment. As we all know, in mediaeval times, the State had the power to inflict death and death was the punishment for heresy.

By 1929, however, the State could not execute for religious “heresy.” But it could have a person committed to a lunatic asylum and declared legally dead if that person’s mental competency was questioned by a person in authority…such a priest.

Now, in 2009, in this age of instant mass communication, things are not quite so simple. A “heretic” cannot be made to just disappear into a “lunatic” asylum. Now, the only avenue left to the religious establishment is to blacken a “heretic’s” character and reputation, which we would have already witnessed in the case of Father Kennedy if not for his particularly vocal and devoted congregation.

The entire world may take a turn for the better when the vast mass of Roman Catholic faithful begin to comprehend that the Papacy is their deadliest enemy, the enemy of true Christianity, the enemy of freedom of conscience, the enemy of freedom of thought, and of all the wordly powers that ever existed, the most ruthless and tyrannical abuser of their trust.

Why should we believe any of this? You got a source?

 

[Phemie]

Yes, and they promise, specifically, obedience to thier Bishop.

Secular priests don’t take vows. They do promise obedience to their Bishop.

 

[ibkc]

The entire world may take a turn for the better when the vast mass of Roman Catholic faithful begin to comprehend that the Papacy is their deadliest enemy, the enemy of true Christianity, the enemy of freedom of conscience, the enemy of freedom of thought, and of all the wordly powers that ever existed, the most ruthless and tyrannical abuser of their trust.

Hoo boy.

A quick Googling of this “Thomas Wixted” story turns up only one relevant hit, and that is a posting on another forum by a person with this same username, using the exact wording as the posting here.