Priest to fight sacking in court

[Benedict108]

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.

Actually, the greatest enemy of the Catholic faithful are people making comments such as those.

 

[Benedict108]

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.

I found one too and it was exactly as you said. Quite disturbing and definitely against the Rome. The username did match the poster of the letter as well.

 

[Corki]

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?

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.

First off all, welcome to the forums.

Second, as a local, perhaps you can comment on whether the allegations against Fr. Kennedy are true. Has he actually been publically denying Church teaching? Or is this just a big misunderstanding.

Third, posters here are required to exhibit curtesy for our host Catholic Answers. The rhetoric in your last paragraph might be interpreted as less than respectful to the Church. Since you are a newcomer, I would like to point you to the forum rules. They are in “stickies” at the top of each forum. You may find them helpful.

Again, welcome.

 

[Corki]

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

I always get that mixed up: Religious take vows, secular make promises.

I thought I was covering my bases using both verbs. I should have looked it up first. Thanks.

 

[vynette]

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

Besides being personally acquainted with the descendants of the condemned man, and having known of the matter for most of my adult life, various church and government authorities have periodically been reminded of the facts via letters and publicly distributed pamphlets over the last fifty years or so.

The latest batch of letters was sent by registered post on 15 July 2008 to the following:

Pope Benedict XVI;
Australian Catholic Bishops Conference Secretary Rev. Brian Lucas;
Archbishop Philip E Wilson DD JCL;
Archbishop Barry J Hickey DD OAM STL BA MSocWk;
Cardinal George Pell DD STL MEd DPhil (Oxon) FACE;
Archbishop John A Bathersby DD STD;
Archbishop Denis J Hart DD;
Archbishop Adrian L Doyle DD;
Bishop Michael E Putney DD;
Bishop David L Walker DD MTh (Lon);
Archbishop Mark B Coleridge DD BA DSS.

If refuting the facts of the case had ever been possible, then it would have already been done by the various government authorities in a position to do so. It is a matter of hospital record that T.M. Wixted was incarcerated in Goodna for a period of about twenty years beginning in 1929. The Superintendant at the time was Doctor Henry Byam Ellerton.

To demonstrate just how long this matter has been raised with various authorities it is only necessary to say that very soon after the meaning of the Aboriginal word “Goodna” was first pointed out in 1959, the name of the asylum was changed to the Brisbane Mental Hospital and thereafter to Wolston Park Hospital.

 

[Atreyu]

Besides being personally acquainted with the descendants of the condemned man, and having known of the matter for most of my adult life, various church and government authorities have periodically been reminded of the facts via letters and publicly distributed pamphlets over the last fifty years or so.

The latest batch of letters was sent by registered post on 15 July 2008 to the following:

Pope Benedict XVI;
Australian Catholic Bishops Conference Secretary Rev. Brian Lucas;
Archbishop Philip E Wilson DD JCL;
Archbishop Barry J Hickey DD OAM STL BA MSocWk;
Cardinal George Pell DD STL MEd DPhil (Oxon) FACE;
Archbishop John A Bathersby DD STD;
Archbishop Denis J Hart DD;
Archbishop Adrian L Doyle DD;
Bishop Michael E Putney DD;
Bishop David L Walker DD MTh (Lon);
Archbishop Mark B Coleridge DD BA DSS.

If refuting the facts of the case had ever been possible, then it would have already been done by the various government authorities in a position to do so. It is a matter of hospital record that T.M. Wixted was incarcerated in Goodna for a period of about twenty years beginning in 1929. The Superintendant at the time was Doctor Henry Byam Ellerton.

Well what you’re saying may very well be true, but there’s no way I will believe in it simply by your own testimony. You might be able to prove that T.M. Wixted was at this hospital, but how could you ever prove the reasons for his incarceration? Regardless, I don’t really think this is an adequate forum for such a discussion… I’m not quite sure what you are after in pursuing this matter with the authorities, but I will just say that if the Catholic faith is true (and I believe it is) then any wrong-doers in this situation will get exactly what they deserve. Perhaps it might be best if you leave justice in this case up to Our Lord? (Just a suggestion and you can take it or leave it).

To demonstrate just how long this matter has been raised with various authorities it is only necessary to say that very soon after the meaning of the Aboriginal word “Goodna” was first pointed out in 1959, the name of the asylum was changed to the Brisbane Mental Hospital and thereafter to Wolston Park Hospital.

I would have thought that quite reasonable, really - given what you’ve said it means! I would have thought the hospital’s administrators - despite any faults they may or may not have had - would have been quite embarrassed to discover their hospital was named after “human dung”…

 

[Benedict108]

Besides being personally acquainted with the descendants of the condemned man, and having known of the matter for most of my adult life, various church and government authorities have periodically been reminded of the facts via letters and publicly distributed pamphlets over the last fifty years or so.

The latest batch of letters was sent by registered post on 15 July 2008 to the following:

Pope Benedict XVI;
Australian Catholic Bishops Conference Secretary Rev. Brian Lucas;
Archbishop Philip E Wilson DD JCL;
Archbishop Barry J Hickey DD OAM STL BA MSocWk;
Cardinal George Pell DD STL MEd DPhil (Oxon) FACE;
Archbishop John A Bathersby DD STD;
Archbishop Denis J Hart DD;
Archbishop Adrian L Doyle DD;
Bishop Michael E Putney DD;
Bishop David L Walker DD MTh (Lon);
Archbishop Mark B Coleridge DD BA DSS.

If refuting the facts of the case had ever been possible, then it would have already been done by the various government authorities in a position to do so. It is a matter of hospital record that T.M. Wixted was incarcerated in Goodna for a period of about twenty years beginning in 1929. The Superintendant at the time was Doctor Henry Byam Ellerton.

To demonstrate just how long this matter has been raised with various authorities it is only necessary to say that very soon after the meaning of the Aboriginal word “Goodna” was first pointed out in 1959, the name of the asylum was changed to the Brisbane Mental Hospital and thereafter to Wolston Park Hospital.

Yes, these are from the letter your organization sent and do you have anything more than the letter. Not even that this is the topic of this particular thread.

Further, you have a number of other things in that letter that break away from Catholicism, yet in your profile you write Catholic. Why?

The position taken by Thomas Michael Wixted effectively challenged the position of the Roman Catholic authorities, in the person of Archbishop Duhig. The essential elements of the position taken by T.M. Wixted were:

That Roman Catholic theology had always been incorrect in its interpretation of the nature of the Supreme Being and in its characterisation of Jesus of Nazareth.
That the simple message of the New Testament had been rendered utterly meaningless by doctrines that taught he was something other than a normal man.
That Jesus of Nazareth was a perfectly normal human being who had been chosen by God to be his instrument of intervention into human affairs.
That church scholars had known for at least 1800 years that the doctrine of the Miraculous Incarnation was based on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.
That after promulgating this false teaching, the Hellenist-Latin “fathers” of the church subsequently encountered scriptural problems which could only be addressed by promulgating more false teachings, which in turn created more scriptural problems, resulting in yet more false teachings.
That, therefore, not one of the major doctrinal pillars of the Roman Catholic Church had been based upon the New Testament.

raceisrun.typepad.com/weblog/messianic_expectations_in_israel/index.html

There is definitely a clear break from Catholicism.

 

[vs_trumpet]

I always get that mixed up: Religious take vows, secular make promises.

I thought I was covering my bases using both verbs. I should have looked it up first. Thanks.

Yes, but any Catholic is able to make a private vow. Private vows of lay Catholics can be easily dissolved by a priest.

 

[chevalier]

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

Australian law has no competence to regulate who can or who cannot be a Catholic pastor any more than the Governor-General can appoint bishops.

At some point you draw the line. If the law says you must fornicate, you don’t do it. If the law says this man must be a parish pastor, you don’t do it.

 

[vs_trumpet]

A
At some point you draw the line. If the law says you must fornicate, you don’t do it. If the law says this man must be a parish pastor, you don’t do it.

Maybe, but then the one who engages in public, political civil disobedience should be ready to accept the consequences. So if - hypothetically - the bishop is held in contempt, the bishop should freely surrender himself to the Court’s jurisdiction. I doubt it will come to that. If the lawsuit proceeds, I am confident that both parties will abide by whatever the Court decides.

Australia has an unusually high number of non-religious people. It’s not a place where the church should pick a fight.

 

[Cristiano]

…Australia has an unusually high number of non-religious people. It’s not a place where the church should pick a fight.

Are you saying that the Church should not stand for what is right just because She is surrounded by non-believers? Have you heard of the words “holy martyrs”?

 

[chevalier]

Maybe, but then the one who engages in public, political civil disobedience should be ready to accept the consequences. So if - hypothetically - the bishop is held in contempt, the bishop should freely surrender himself to the Court’s jurisdiction. I doubt it will come to that. If the lawsuit proceeds, I am confident that both parties will abide by whatever the Court decides.

Australia has an unusually high number of non-religious people. It’s not a place where the church should pick a fight.

You are placing secular law above Church law in a matter which gets very close to divine law, i.e. the charge of souls. That is a mistake. The bishops *don’t *have an obligation to submit to that secular law or the consequences of breaking it.

 

[ibkc]

Australia has an unusually high number of non-religious people. It’s not a place where the church should pick a fight.

Sounds to me like it is precisely the kind of place where a “fight” is needed. Also, from everything we’ve seen about this situation it is the priest and his followers who are picking the fight, not the church.

 

[rjs1]

Maybe, but then the one who engages in public, political civil disobedience should be ready to accept the consequences. So if - hypothetically - the bishop is held in contempt, the bishop should freely surrender himself to the Court’s jurisdiction. I doubt it will come to that. If the lawsuit proceeds, I am confident that both parties will abide by whatever the Court decides.

Australia has an unusually high number of non-religious people. It’s not a place where the church should pick a fight.

You speak as though you were an Australian.
I live in Australia and the situation you are describing is nonsense. The Catholic Church in this country in NO WAY takes its orders on Church discipline matters from the Government. Heaven help us if it ever did.

Why am I getting the strong impression that a couple of very anti-Catholic people are trying to dominate this thread?

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

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

But it must be noted that this is an internal Church matter pertaining to Church law, over which civil authorities have no power. So ultimately, in this realm, the civil courts have no say on what happens. If the Bishop deems it necessary to remove a priest, the courts can ultimately do nothing about it; although the priest can appeal to Rome should he feel that Canon law was violated vis-a-vis his removal.

 

[maggiemay2u]

You speak as though you were an Australian.
I live in Australia and the situation you are describing is nonsense. The Catholic Church in this country in NO WAY takes its orders on Church discipline matters from the Government. Heaven help us if it ever did.

Why am I getting the strong impression that a couple of very anti-Catholic people are trying to dominate this thread?

Sounds like a bunch of dissent nutballs in search of their 15 minutes of fame…and a couple of sympathizers…I’m kinda ashamed of myself for allowing this drivel to bump…

 

[Toribus]

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.

This entire position is legally unsound. The priest in this matter is trying to claim that the bishop has violated his rights as an employee under Australian Law. The problem with this claim is that priests are not “employed” in a commercial sense, but appointed. In this sense, the court’s own opinion of its jurisdiction is irrelevant - it would be equivalent to me coming into your house and finding that I personally had the right to tell you how to discipline your children. You would be justified in ordering me out of your house, despite my “finding of jurisdiction”.

 

[quiet52]

For a moment imagine that the Australian courts ruled in favor of this dissident priest, against his employer, the Catholic Church, and ordered the Bishop to allow this priest to celebrate Mass .
As a result, the Bishop would have to say “no” because canon law and his “boss” the Pope say “no” – and he changes the locks on the church and won’t let the errant priest in. He proclaims throughout the diocese to all Catholics that they may not attend any Mass celebrated by this priest.

So – what can the government do in this absurd scenario? Prosecute the Bishop by imposing a huge fine on the diocese? Close down the churches? Imprison the Bishop for lack of compliance to the ruling? Sue the Pope? Perhaps one or more of these things. But imagine the response from Catholics if this were ever to happen. Worldwide.

 

[vince70]

First off all, welcome to the forums.

Second, as a local, perhaps you can comment on whether the allegations against Fr. Kennedy are true. Has he actually been publically denying Church teaching? Or is this just a big misunderstanding.

I am also a local (Gold Coast) just south of Brisbane so I can comment more on what is actually going on.

The allegations against Fr Kennedy are true. Basically what has happened is that Fr Kennedy has incorporated things into the mass that are not Catholic. For instance, he allowed the placing of a statue of Buddha into the church. He allows Aboriginal rituals to take place in the church (practices that are contrary to Christianity). He blesses gay marriages and allows them to receive the Eucharist. Allows women to give the homily. Allows the congregation to partake of the Eucharist in their own way while he is not even involved in the ceremony or they recite the words of the consecration, which only an ordained priest is allowed to say. He has changed the baptismal words “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” to “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier”. There are a number of other major changes.

The Bishop has been patient with him and asked him to leave peacefully but instead the bishop received a bomb threat from one of his followers in the week leading up to his final day, hence why it has now escalated to having police investigation etc. The Bishop has sent letters to him, a copy of one was handed out in our parish. He refused to negotiate with Fr Kennedy on the extra’s included in the mass and he set out a list of reasons why the parish wasn’t in communion with the Catholic church.

Now the bigger problem of all this is that the situation, seems to me anyway, is that it is starting to look more like a cult following. Members of the congregation are referring to themselves as “the family” and Kennedy has said that he will stay so long as the congregation wants him to remain, thus disobeying what the bishop has asked of him. The congregation seem to be elevating him to a level that seems like a cult.

Ultimately, the bishop has asked him to leave. He is free to walk away with his followers and start his own denomination. But its the fact that he is not interested in doing that and wanting to remain on Catholic church grounds and doing these things that is the problem. By what he has been saying and doing is that he is trying to cause a revolt against the church leadership. I have my faith in God that this will soon be resolved one way or the other. I also pray that this man may find his way back to God again .

 

[mdgspencer]

The Australian court will end in a legal morass if they decide they have to authority to decide whether Church law was followed or not and tried to judge on that basis. Furthermore, Church law is a complex system of law in itself requiring special training. I expect that a court in any country would refuse to be involved in such a matter. It might be another matter if this priest said civil law was not followed, but I assume that he did not find that he had a case when it comes to civil law.
I would think, forget it. This priest doesn’t have a chance.