Priest to fight sacking in court

[prodigal-sun]

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.

YOu are abslutely right, the case is a none starter and will be repelled from the courts soooner rather than later. I think the bishop would be with in his rights if he shut the church down altogether. Lock the doors and put up security. They could reconsecrate it (probably not neccessary) and reopen up after all this nonsense settles down.

May God forgive these “preist” for leading his flock astray. We shoyuld all pray for his conversion.

Peace!

 

[Another_Mary]

"vs_trumpet:

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.

I live in the US but I visit my daughter (who happens to live in Brisbane). My take on Australia is that there are a lot of practicing Catholics there (as well as other religions including non-Christian).

After all, many many Irish Catholics settled there. :irish3:

 

[Linda_Marie]

I don’t know what grounds he would use. Fr. Kennedy has not been fired. He has just been reassigned and is no longer administrator of the parish. He is still in the employ of the Church. Besides, the man is 71 and past the age for retirement. I don’t think he has a leg to stand on in an Australian court.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

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

I don’t agree. I think the greatest enemies of the Church are those attacking from within.

And God finds ways to use them for something positive, too.

 

[add1967]

Please bear with me as I point out the way I believe this will play
out in the civil courts.
If Fr Kennedy was working for any multinational company that has the delivery of a set product to the masses and he had the rights of the franchise (for instance Mc D’s). How long before making changes to the long held practices of the parent company,
do you think it would be before he was asked to leave or relinquish
his contract.
Now I think we all understand that in this circumstance he would be left with no recourse for action through civil proceedings.
As I am from Brisbane myself and have been able to experience, on more than one occaision, some positive teachings of the Church in homilies that have used the readings from daily Mass.They outline where Fr Kennedy has fallen away from sound Liturgical and Theological Doctrine.
This sad situation can be used by others to help explain from Scripture and Tradition, why this course of action must now be taken. In fine, I ask all who read this thread to pray one decade for the life of this parish. Thank You and God Bless.

 

[yinekka]

Peter Kennedy is not parish priest of St Marys, he is administrator and is at St Marys at the bishop’s pleasure. When he was ordained Peter Kennedy, as do all diocesean men who are ordained, promised obedience to his bishop.

Go to Google and enter Youtube Peter Kennedy and you will see some of the ceremonies celebrated at St Marys.

This is an excellent article which objectively sums up the situation.
theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25115856-7583,00.html

If you go to Peter Kennedy’s blog you can read his comments
city-south-news.whereilive.com.au/blogs/story/we-wont-walk-away-from-the-church/

As well as taking the archbishop to the civil court the aboriginal tribe with whom Peter Kennedy and the community of St Marys signed a treaty are apparently taking the archbishop to court for not honouring the treaty which gave the land on which the church is sited to the aboriginal tribe.

I don’t know how this will all turn out but when/if Peter Kennedy and his community leave St Marys I think that the church should be shut for a year to give time for the ill feelings to calm down.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

After reading all on this thread, I must admit that I think Fr. Kennedy also belongs in the mental institution. I say this recognizing that he is in deep trouble psychologically, mentally and whatever other way you can describe it. I totally agree with the post that requested prayers for this poor man. I encourage all who read this thread to pray for him, as he is jeopardizing not only his own salvation, but that of those who follow him.

That said, I admit that I am not familiar with Australian law, but would be totally dumbfounded if the state does not dismiss this matter on the grounds of it not being a civil matter. Has any date been set for a hearing on the matter? I definitely do want to follow this. But above all, please keep this priest and his s"followers" in sincere prayer.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Randy_Carson]

Besides being personally acquainted with the descendants of the condemned man, and having known of the matter for most of my adult life,

Don’t forget to disclose your relationship with T.M. Wixted & Co. or the fact that you stand to benefit from the sale of your book which appears to be another in the “Dan Brown” genre of pop atheism.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

This is an eccelesial not civil matter. The issue is not about disobedience of Australian law because the matter is NOT COVERED by Australian Law.

Kennedy was not ordained by Australian Law, nor was he assigned to that parish by Australian Law.

No Australian law pertains to governance by Bishops of the Catholic Church.

If the Bishop had killed the priest, then yes, that is a matter for Australian law

 

[benedictus2]

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.

I googled Thomas Wixted and came up with an article exactly as above in a site called the Race is Run which looks like a protestant website.

That to the side, either you are lying here by dumping without crediting that site or you are actually the one who wrote the article. Well I saw other posts there (presumably by you) and your theology is a rather askew.

Petal, the enemy of true Christianity is you. That is right. Not the Pope, you. You who think you know better than the Church that Christ established here in earth.

You who it seems sides with “Thomas Wixted” if he really did exist, believes the Christ is not divine.

Seriously, you are not Christian if you think tha,t so therefore you are the greatest enemy of Christianity . Not only are you not Christian, you wish to tear down the Body of Christ with your vitriol.

The garbage that the father of lies peddled, you swallowed hook line and sinker.

So much for being a baptised Catholic. What were you hoping, that saying that would give you credibility?

 

[benedictus2]

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

Have you tried your rubbish bin?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

But was the reason for his “incarceration” also a matter of public record.

That the authorities have not disputed te allegations means zilch. For one thing, the correct authorities probably do not even know of the case.
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.
And Queensland still calls a suburb Goodna. Interesting. Does that mean that all who live in this suburb are human dung?

 

[benedictus2]

After reading all on this thread, I must admit that I think Fr. Kennedy also belongs in the mental institution. I say this recognizing that he is in deep trouble psychologically, mentally and whatever other way you can describe it. I totally agree with the post that requested prayers for this poor man. I encourage all who read this thread to pray for him, as he is jeopardizing not only his own salvation, but that of those who follow him.

Can’t agree more.

 

[benedictus2]

Don’t forget to disclose your relationship with T.M. Wixted & Co. or the fact that you stand to benefit from the sale of your book which appears to be another in the “Dan Brown” genre of pop atheism.

Sensational fiction always sells.

 

[Stylites]

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

That is so wrong. One’s conscience is always to be placed above any merely human law. That was codified at Nuremburg. No one is obligated to obey a human law when it conflicts with conscience, and following a lawful order does not excuse one from wrong-doing.

 

[Charlotte408]

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.

I cant believe you said that. The church is like a family, the papacy much like the parents, that guide and direct us … and they do so in our best interest. Like children sometimes we wish to do as we WANT- but often that is not whats best for us.

Do you think that your parents are your worst enemy? For setting rules for you??

Each person has free will. The papacy isnt even CAPABLE of taking away your freedom of conscience, thought, etc…ultimately each will do as they want. Unless you would underestimate yourself and everyone else as if we were mindless zombies and the papacy can just tell everyone what to do and we’ll do it…

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

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.

To believe this misguided rant, one would have to reject the doctrine of papal infallibility. My next question is when did the Holy Spirit promise to guide you in matters such as this. Do not forget - to be truly Catholic one must believe all that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church believes and teaches.

In today’s politically correct society, one who espouses such as this and claims to be Catholic, is now called a cafeteria catholic. Years ago, that person would have been called a heretic. The names have changed, but not the sin.

 

[redrosetea]

To believe this misguided rant, one would have to reject the doctrine of papal infallibility. My next question is when did the Holy Spirit promise to guide you in matters such as this. Do not forget - to be truly Catholic one must believe all that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church believes and teaches.

In today’s politically correct society, one who espouses such as this and claims to be Catholic, is now called a cafeteria catholic. Years ago, that person would have been called a heretic. The names have changed, but not the sin.

Quoted for truth…We are not a democracy…everyone doesn’t get to pick and choose what to believe:thumbsup:

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stay on topic or the thread will be closed

 

[JReducation]

The issue here is very simple. Take it in small pieces.

1. Every secular priest makes a promise of obedience ot his bishop before he is ordained a deacon.
2. A bishop is the legal authority over any parish in his diocese.
3. The diocese, not the parishioners, is the employer.
4. The bishop has a moral obligation to protect the liturgy.
5. If a bishop believes that a priest is viiolating the rubrics, he has the legal authority and obligation to remove the priest.
6. If the civil courts rule against the bishop, said bishop does is not obliged to comply. His moral duty trumps his civic duty. He is a priest before he is a citizen. If he has to go to jail for contempt, he has to go. But he cannot yield to the courts and allow a priest to do harm to the liturgy.
7. The Church has systems in place for priests to resolve issues with their bishops. If the priest does not want to make use of those systems, then he has to live with the consequences.
8. The bishop, in this case, has the right to suspend the priest and take away his faculties. In which case, the priest cannot celebrater mass legally, nor can he absolve from sins at all. His absolution would be invalid and the penitent would leave the confessional with the same sin with which he entered. Any marriage the he witnesses is invalid; therefore, the couple is not married. If the bishop has not suspended the priest, he has been very lenient. The priest and the parishioners should be thankful.
9. The priest’s claim that he takes his direction from the congregation is a Protestant model, not a Catholic one. The laity has no legal or moral rights over the assignment of any deacon, priest, bishop or religious. This card does not work in the Catholic Church.
10. The Vatican reserves the right to dismiss this priest from the clerical state, which reduces him to live as a lay man, even though he will remain a priest forever, but unable to function as one. The courts have no jurisdiction over such a decision. The only thing that the courts can say is tha tthe priest cannot be fired, if that’s the law in Australia.
11. Should the courts say that the priest cannot be fired the bishop has another trump card that he can play. He can close the parish. The property does not belong to either the priest or the congregation. It belongs to the diocese.

Canonically, there is no way that this priest can win this case unless he agrees to go through the Church’s systems. Even if he wins in court, there are other measures that the Church can take that the courts can’t stop. Those measures would cause more pain to the faithful, but they are legitimate because the Church has to protect the liturgy over the individual.

Yes, the bishop can defy the courts if they order him to do something immoral. An immoral judgment on the part of the courts is not binding, except in the mind of the judge. If the judge wants to imprison the bishop for refusing to act immorally, he or she will have to deal with the fallout.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF