Dear Readers,
This post continues to publicise the facts behind the apparently unjust, unwarranted, and grossly inappropriate 'punishment' imposed on the 'Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer', also known as the 'Transalpine Redemptorists', by the Bishop of Christchurch, New Zealand, Bishop Michael Gielen. This 'punishment', seemingly based on 'allegations' rather than facts, and showing in the process a somewhat careless disregard for the letter of both Canon and Common law, has resulted in the complete banning of several priests and brothers from the diocese of Christchurch, which includes their monastic home, and also the banning (temporarily suspended) of religious 'sisters', all of whom priests, brothers, and sisters, had a pivotal role in the spiritual life of their parish, which was established several years ago, with the blessing of the then incumbent Bishop, and which has developed over the years, with recent Sunday Mass attendances running into three figures. The parish is run on traditional lines with liturgy based on the traditional Latin Mass.
A broader report of this whole matter can be seen in earlier posts on this blogsite, immediately preceding this.
Editor.
*********************
(Continued from previous posts written by Fr Michael Mary FssR, Rector Major of the "Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer")
February 03 2025
The
Apostolic Visitator, Bishop Robert McGuckin of Australia, and the Chancellor of
Christchurch Diocese had an informal meeting with Fr Michael Mary before the
Visitation interviews began. Fr Michael Mary asked what the Visitation
was about. “The television programmes,” he was told. Thus, by
inference, it was about the supposed illegal exorcisms that were their focus.
The priest who had supposedly carried out these illegal exorcisms was absent,
recovering from an extremely grave, life-threatening medical condition.
The Visitator was content not to interview him, which is strange given that
these supposed illegal exorcisms were one of the primary focuses of the
Visitation. In fact, exorcisms were never brought up in any of the
Visitator’s interviews.
From the Visitator’s report: “Some exorcisms performed by FSSR priests in the
past may have been approved but others seem not to have been.” Given that
exorcisms, legal or otherwise, were not spoken about during any of our
interviews with the Visitator, and that he didn’t interview the priest who
supposedly performed them, one wonders how he managed even to come to this weak
conclusion.
The truth is that not all exorcisms are equal. The respected Dominican
moral theologians Frs. Charles Callan & John McHugh say: “Exorcisms are…of
two kinds, the solemn and the private [aka major & minor]. The former
are…reserved to clerics who have a special and express permission from the
Ordinary [Bishop]. The latter kind may [in certain circumstances] be made even
by members of the laity….It is recommended that priests frequently use private
exorcisms, at least secretly, for persons who are vexed by temptations or
scruples.”
Auxiliary Bishop Julian Porteous of Sydney, Australia says in his introduction
to a 2010 manual of minor exorcisms: “Minor exorcisms can be a normal part of
the ministry of priests and are used to assist people in the spiritual
struggle, particularly in the case of oppression.” The author, Fr Healey
explains: “A part, an important part, of the ordinary ministry of a priest is
the role of utilising prayers of minor exorcism to meet the spiritual needs of
the faithful.” These require no permission.
We had full, written faculties for the cases of Solemn Exorcism our priests
performed from three Ordinaries of Christchurch diocese (two Bishops and an
Administrator). There is no “may have been approved” about it. The
faculties will be in the diocesan archives for inspection or could have been
provided by us, had we been asked.
All other similar prayers performed by our priests were the minor exorcisms
mentioned above, which do not require the permission of a Bishop and are
considered by all to be a potential part of the normal ministry of a Catholic
priest.
This distinction is, at this stage, unacknowledged.
It would be extremely constructive and advantageous if all those who claim to
have had an exorcism came forward and their paperwork could be examined and
verified. In this way the “may have been...” and the “seem not
to have been...” could be entirely cleared up. One might be forgiven
for thinking that this would have been done during the Visitation. Vague
and unspecific statements and accusations are very dangerous.
The extravagant claims in the media (such as that we beat a pregnant woman to
get the devil out of her) are inventions of pure fantasy. If only the
Visitator had troubled himself to ask us about them.
No comments:
Post a Comment