Temple Police: The Australian is part of the Vatican media empire and the near-future demise of the Vatican Temple

We first revealed how The Australian, the largest newspaper in Australia, is part of the Vatican media empire and Opus Dei global media empire through the subtle vocabulary they use in this article John Paul II 4 million,Ayatollah Khomeini 9 million people at funeral! Cardinal Pell, fanatics cannot beatify the Pope of Pedophiles and Pederasts http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2011/04/john-paul-ii-4-millionayatollah.html Today The Australian came with a fiery voice of despotism in an article "Temple police get their man " - as only despots of the Medieval Age Inquistion can speak - against Bishop Morris who recently resigned because Benedict XVI sacked him for speaking about women's ordination. Well, we would like to remind these boastful "Temple Police" that they are in the good company of the Temple of Solomon.

It is with hateful articles like this (below) written by proud Opus Dei members that will make -- people not to feel sorry when the Vatican Temple in Rome will be destroyed by G-d and not one pillar will be left standing at St. Peter's Square -- just like the Temple of Solomon where it is all but rubbles now exactly as Jesus prophecied it would happen. He also got angry at the Temple Square over the merchants who were thieves and he overturned their tables. The Temple of Solomon was the "holiest" temple of its time and it existed during Christ's time. It was where Christ was presented in "Presentation in the Temple" and where his family made pilgrimages to every year (just like the Vatican is now a pilgrimage site for Catholics) and where he as a young boy, debated with the Holy Priests in the "Lost and Finding the Temple" which the Joyful Mysteries of John Paul II's Rosary meditate upon. Just because Chirst walked in that Temple of Solomon did not mean it was insdestructable, just like the Vatican is not indestructible just because John Paul II and Popes who live there are supposed to be "rocks" like St. Peter. The third Secret of Fatima predicted the total demise of the Vatican that is why they are not publising it or else there would be a Big Ben clock countdown to its demise. But this pathological lie of the beatification of John Paul II make a total mockery of Christ and a total insult to the Pure Blessed Mary the mother of Christ and his least brethrens of hundreds of thousands of victims of the JP2 Army, the John Paul II Pedophiles Rapists-Priests Army http://jp2army.blogspot.com/. You heard it here first in our weblogs about the total demise of the Vatican, the Vatican Bank the worst thief on the Planet Earth where all corrupt moneys of despots are invested and therefore the Vatican and the Pope are the worst perpetuators of oppressions of poor people and the poor Third World countries. Read our related article

Compare the CRIMES and their VICTIMS in America

Victims - Attackers - Responsible Leaders

Pearl Harbor - 3,000 victims - 170 planes - Admiral Yamamoto

WTC & 9/11 attacks - 5,000 victims - 19 Muslims - Osama bin Laden

USA Priest Pedophilia - 12,000 victims - 6,000 priests - John Paul II & Benedict XVI & Opus Dei, the new Vatican Trinity
Opus Dei controlled the 27 years papacy of John Paul II and is therefore the foremost guilty party who aided and abetted and covered-up the John Paul II Pedophiles Rapists-Priests Army http://jp2army.blogspot.com/

There is no more “Holy Spirit” in the Vatican because there is now only Opus Dei autocracy and despotism rule. You can pray for divine guidance and ‘Come Holy Spirit’ Veni, Creator Spiritus or for anything you want but God won’t come because there is no more such a thing as “praying for God’s Will” as there is now only Opus Dei WORLD DOMINATION Agenda at the Vatican to follow or you are out and sacked.. One major proof of the despotism of Benedict XVI and the Vatican happened also on May 1 with the sacking of Australia’s Toowoomba Bishop William Morris (for his writing about women ordination) who was spied upon by the “Temple Police” -- who are actually Opus Dei foot soldiers. There is no ‘freedom of speech’ in the Catholic Church and a good Bishop like Morris was forced to resign for speaking up on behalf of women while Cardinal Bernard Law who aided and abetted 80 pedophile rapists-priests in Boston (after being forced by the laity to resign) was elevated by John Paul II and is now sitting pretty as Archpriest of St. Mary Major. Really, it is obvious which of the two deserves to resign. Read the list of theologians silenced by despot Ratzinger as Chief of the Inquisition the sweetly called CDF Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican during his 24 years reign with John Paul II. “But it is deadly. Many theologians have died or suffered from heart attacks and stress because of the unleashing of hatred shouted by those who are sure, because Ratzinger has said it...” Beware! Benedict XVI-Cardinal Ratzinger and his allies can be violent http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2010/03/benedict-xvi-cardinal-ratzinger-and-his.html


http://jp2m.blogspot.com/

==========

Temple police get their man

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/temple-police-get-their-man/story-e6frg6nf-1226051428753

BISHOP William Morris's fall from grace began when he ditched the Roman collar and put on a tie.

It was an early break from tradition in 1993 for the then newly ordained bishop, and a symbol of the progressive style he brought from his former Gold Coast parish to ultra-conservative Toowoomba.

Not everyone liked it. Some priests and, later, a secret fundamentalist group of Catholics from in and out of the diocese - dubbed the "temple police" - began voicing opposition, sending a stream of letters of complaint to Rome.

On Monday, after an emotional letter from Morris was read out at masses across the Darling Downs, they finally got their man.

In a tersely worded Vatican announcement the next day, Morris, 67, became the first Australian bishop in living memory to be publicly sacked, under the guise of "early retirement", for doctrinal disobedience.

The extraordinary move, pushed by Pope Benedict XVI, was made even more compelling by Morris's refusal to tread the well-worn path of other dumped bishops - who retire for "ill health" - and go quietly.

Instead, Morris - who last year set a brave precedent in taking real action over a sex-abuse scandal at a Toowoomba church school - accused the Pope of running a latter-day Inquisition against him and ruling over bishops through fear.

"It has been my experience and the experience of others that Rome controls bishops by fear, and if you ask questions or speak openly on subjects that Rome declares closed ... you are censored very quickly, told your leadership is defective ... and are threatened with dismissal," he said in a letter to priests in his diocese.

The sacking, which followed last year's dismissal of rebel Brisbane priest Peter Kennedy, has renewed debate on the rigidity of the Catholic Church in the modern world, and of the unwavering rule the Vatican has over clergy.

In the end, it was a 2006 Advent pastoral letter to parishioners that was the undoing of Morris.

The letter raised the option, in the face of a shortage of priests, of ordaining women and married men and recognising the Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting Church orders.

An official account has been obtained by The Weekend Australian of the events leading up to Morris's effective sacking, put together in a report by the bishop's "consultors" - a group of priests appointed under canon law to each bishop.

In their report, the consultors said Morris came to the diocese with an "easy and open approach" - evidenced by his removal of the Roman collar, which immediately rubbed people up the wrong way.

His sartorial style can be seen in a photograph of him with a clown face, sent to The Weekend Australian by his critics.

The consultors' report gives a rare insight into the workings of the Vatican and the unforgiving stance it took against Morris, first demanding his resignation in 2007 - less than a year after the offending letter.

But it also shows that the 2006 letter was a culmination of more than a decade of discord with Rome, stretching back to the 1990s when the Vatican cracked down on the illicit substitution of "general absolution" for the practice of individual confession of sins to a priest.

In the consultors' report, Toowoomba Vicar-General Peter Dorfield noted that, after his appointment in 1993, Morris established guidelines for the use of general absolution. The report said the general absolution issue led to a dispute between the bishop and Cardinal Francis Arinze, the Nigerian-born Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. "Some of this dispute took on a personal aspect", according to the report.

But it was the 2006 letter that brought things to a head.

In 1994, pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter declared that the conversation about the ordination of women had ended, with the late pope amending the Code of Canon Law in 1998 to make such discussions a punishable offence.

Clergy breaking the rule risked suspension, removal from office and excommunication.

Within weeks of his letter being sent to Rome by one of his detractors, Morris was called to Rome to explain - a request he refused in February 2007 on the grounds he was busy with "serious pastoral reasons".

The following month, Morris was notified that Archbishop Charles Chaput from Denver, Colorado, had been appointed Apostolic Visitor to Toowoomba. He arrived in April, spending his first night with Archbishop John Bathersby in Brisbane.

Curiously, Bathersby claimed this week that he didn't know why Morris had been sacked: "I don't know why it happened, you see, and I would very much like to know."

A native American and member of the Capuchin order of priests, Chaput, now 66, has been an outspoken critic of US President Barack Obama over liberalised abortion laws and bioethics.

After a three-day visit to Toowoomba - where he interviewed supporters and opponents of Morris - Chaput delivered his report to the Congregation of Bishops in Rome in May 2007.

At the same time, according to the consultors' report, Morris was in Rome for a scheduled meeting with three of the Pope's kitchen cabinet - cardinals Giovanni Battista Re, William Levada and Arinze - but it did not go ahead. And Morris has never been shown Chaput's report.

Several months later, in September 2007, Morris got the gist of the report when he received an unsigned memo from the Congregation of Bishops asking him to resign.

Morris was shocked, writing back to Rome asking for time to "reflect" on the memorandum and promising to reply after his October holidays.

But Rome wasn't willing to wait. On October 3, 2007, the Congregation of Bishops upped the ante, stating the request for the bishop's resignation was "being made in the name of the Holy Father".

Morris wrote to Re - head of the Congregation for Bishops - saying he would meet the cardinals in January if he could be accompanied by Bathersby - a longtime friend - and Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson, president of the Australian Episcopal Conference.

The meeting was booked for Morris but Re refused to allow the progressive Bathersby to attend.

Morris was also "discouraged" from bringing a canonical adviser to the meeting in Rome with cardinals Re, Levada and Arinze.

"The bishop also asked to speak with the Holy Father but was told this would only be permitted after he had resigned," the report said.

Morris listened, and a few days later formally wrote to Re saying he would not step down.

After Re responded, again calling on Morris to resign, the embattled bishop wrote a more formal "statement of position" that was sent to the three cardinals. Morris also wrote to the Vatican's Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura - the highest court in the Catholic Church - but was told he could not appeal because "no legal proceedings had taken place".

In October 2008, Re demanded Morris resign by the end of November and, if he didn't, the "bishop would be removed".

Again, Morris refused in writing before penning a Christmas Eve letter to the Pope. It elicited an invitation to meet the pontiff in June the next year, along with Wilson.

"It was obvious that the Pope had been thoroughly briefed as he reiterated the demands of the three cardinals and indicated that the bishop's talents lay elsewhere than as the bishop of a diocese," the report said about the meeting.

"The Pope urged Archbishop Wilson to work with Bishop Morris to find him a suitable national position in the Australian church."

Morris had again refused and, a month later, Re instructed him to submit his resignation "as he had promised the Pope he would do".

"The bishop maintained he had not made such a promise," the report said. He wrote to the Pope in November 2009 saying that, "in conscience", he could not resign.

"On 22 December, 2009, Pope Benedict replied to Bishop Morris requesting that Bishop Morris resign from office and reminding him that there is no appeal from papal decision," the report said.

"The Pope repeated the serious concerns he had with Bishop Morris's position on the ordination of women and recognition of the orders of Anglicans and other churches."

The turning point came in January last year when Wilson travelled to Rome carrying a written proposal from Morris that he would retire in October 2013, when he turned 70 - bishops normally retire at 75.

In the letter, Morris stated that if the proposal were not accepted, he would be willing to go in the middle of this year - after seeing through the mediation process for the sex-abuse case in his diocese.

Re wrote back saying the Pope would accept the "proposal" allowing him to remain in office until this month but made no mention of the sex-abuse case.

"While the bishop's offer was to 'retire', the letter used the term 'resign'," the report said.

With the sex-abuse case dragging on, Morris wrote to the Vatican, and later the Pope, late last year asking for his departure to be delayed until the mediation was finalised.

Morris's appeal for more time was refused and on February 21 the Apostolic Nuncio (Vatican ambassador) to Australia, Giuseppe Lazzarotto, told Morris to resign, informing him that it would be announced on May 2.

Morris again refused, saying it would be an "admission of guilt" to the allegations against him. But he knew his time was up and, in March, he wrote to Lazzarotto accepting "early retirement".

=============

Compare to this article

Bishop's firing makes pope's priorities clear
An NCR editorial
May. 04, 2011
By An NCR Editorial

The Australian Catholic diocese of Toowoomba, encompassing more than 300,000 square miles, has just a relative handful of healthy priests to serve the church’s 35 parishes. So it came as no surprise to Toowoomba’s Catholics when the area’s bishop, William M. Morris, addressed the priest shortage in a candid but still cautious Advent 2006 pastoral letter.

“We do face an uncertain future with regard to the number of active priests in our diocese,” wrote Morris. “Other options,” he wrote, “may well” need be considered. These include:

1.“ordaining married, single or widowed men who are chosen and endorsed by their local parish community;
2.welcoming former priests, married or single, back to active ministry;
3.ordaining women, married or single;
4.recognizing Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting Church Orders.”
For these words, this week the Vatican announced that Pope Benedict XVI has fired Morris. Eighteen years as bishop ended with the stroke of a papal pen. (Click here for original the news story about the Morris firing.)

Some obvious but necessary points need making:

First, it turns out it’s really not that difficult for the pope to give a bishop a pink slip. In the course of the quarter-century clergy sexual abuse cover-up, there’s been considerable handwringing over just this question. Bishops don’t “work for” the pope, we have been told. Bishops are “fathers” to their flock – with all the unconditional love and commitment that entails – not employees subject to the whims, well-intentioned or otherwise, of the boss. Canonical procedures must be followed.

Apparently, that’s just so much hooey. If the pope and his advisers care deeply about an issue about which a bishop has publicly raised questions – such as women priests and optional celibacy – a way can be found to dismiss that bishop.

And – noteworthy because it goes to some underlying issues – a bishop who acts against church teaching and law related to sexually abusive priests apparently need fear no such reprisal.

Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali, for example, continues a life befitting a prince in splendorous surroundings, even as his flouting of church procedures (and perhaps civil law) resulted in nearly 30 diocesan priests facing administrative suspension and heat from local prosecutors.

And not to forget Cardinal Bernard Law, orchestrator of the Boston clergy abuse cover-up. His punishment? An extended Roman holiday and a healthy pension. Meanwhile, Morris gets the door.

The pope’s priorities are clear.

The pervasive intellectual chill in the church reaches beyond the towers of academia (note the recent chastisement of theologian St. Joseph Sr. Elizabeth Johnson) or to those who directly challenge the rules – Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois’ open support for women’s ordination a most recent case in point. (Bourgeois is facing excommunication for saying what he thinks on the subject.)

Now even those directly in the line of apostolic succession are forbidden to speak freely.

Note that Morris did not offer answers to the provocativelyposed semi-questions on celibacy and ordination he raised that Advent. Instead, employing what one advocacy group terms the “progressive bishop’s style book,” he couched his concerns more obliquely. (No doubt to avoid Rome’s wrath. Lot of good that did him.)

Today, it seems, even such carefully couched queries are completely verboten; such so-called “open questions” (non-doctrinal in every sense of the word) such as the ordination of married men are grounds for dismissal. That the overwhelming majority of clergy (not to mention laypeople) think the failure to even consider options like married priests in the midst of a clergy shortage crisis goes beyond Dilbertesque mismanagement. It is, to employ the psychobabble of the era, completely dysfunctional.

As we prepare to celebrate the feast of the first pope next month, are we still permitted to remind church fathers that Peter was a married man? That this Holy Father was likely a human father? Or should Mrs. Peter and her progeny, like so many nettlesome Stalin-era apparatchiks, be airbrushed from history?

Because of Morris, we know that the dysfunction flows right from the top. Canon law may be more flexible than previously promoted, but a bishop’s dismissal cannot be shuffled to an underling, buried, as in Bourgeois’ case, in a bureaucratic chain of command. No, the canning of a bishop is a task only a pope can command.

And he has made his priorities quite clear.

While the reasons for Morris’ dismissal are relatively clear, the process remains an unholy mess, shrouded in secrecy.

Soon after Morris’ 2006 Advent pastoral was released, Benedict sent Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput to “investigate” the incident, which is a little like sending the fox to investigate the hens. Given his well-known views on the concerns raised by Morris (Chaput is more Catholic than the pope on these issues), we are skeptical that Toowoomba’s bishop got a fair hearing. There’s a relatively small number of right wing Catholics in the diocese (Morris and others call them the “Temple Police”) who have long been after the bishop. That Chaput gave them undue weight and deference seems more than plausible.

You know the type. In the U.S., they are the crowd that takes marching orders from The Wanderer, their time at Mass searching for a violation of a rubric rather than receiving whatever wisdom or grace might come their way. Then, having detected an “Alleluia” where an “Amen” was called for, they write letters to Vatican congregations, hoping for a sympathetic ear to their pathetic pleas.

Their Australian equivalents were, it appears, successful in transforming Morris’ molehill into a mountain.

But, we acknowledge, our skepticism is partly emotional, or perhaps ideological. We’re inclined to give Morris a break because we’re inclined to agree with him that the issues he raises require airing.

But, and here’s the point, we simply don’t know what Chaput found because no one’s talking. Not even Morris has received a copy of Chaput’s report (assuming something has been reduced to writing).

We presume, given the public nature of Morris’ offenses, that Chaput’s findings have something to do with the bishop brainstorming some remedies to the priest shortage in the face of the real crisis in his local church.

Did Chaput find something more dastardly, such as a bishop speaking like an adult to his church? Heaven forbid. We likely will never know. When NCR asked Chaput to respond to a series of questions regarding his apostolic visitation to Morris’ diocese, he declined to answer, explaining that “any apostolic visitation is governed by strict confidentiality. This is for the benefit of all parties involved.”

So are we to believe Morris has benefitted from being tossed out without ever having been allowed to defend himself against Chaput's findings, which were never shared with the Australian prelate? This is the kind of trial and judgement one more often associates with China or Iran. The Catholic church?

The real scandal to the faithful in this matter has nothing to do with the way Morris has conducted himself. It has everything to do with priorities and processes within our church today. It has much to do with the trampling of human rights and professed values of decency and charity by our church’s prelates, in this case including, sad to say, Benedict himself.

This is no way, shall we say, to set a Christian example – or manage the church.

In 2003, Fred Gluck, a former managing partner of McKinsey & Company who currently serves on the board of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, wrote a memo to church leaders. It’s crafted in managementese, but disregard the jargon for the moment and pay attention to the message.
Wrote Gluck:

•“Your organization [the church] has no effective central point of leadership that can energize the necessary program change.
•“Your leadership is aging and also largely committed to the status quo or even the status ante.
•“Your tradition of hierarchy dominates most of your thinking about management.”
•“Coming to grips with this formidable set of challenges in an organization as historically successful as yours will be a daunting challenge, and can only be accomplished by a comprehensive program of change with strong leadership from the top,” he concluded.
No one in a position of authority paid any discernable attention to Gluck eight years ago. Sadly, we don’t expect that to change.

The pope has made his priorities all too clear.

More of NCR's coverage of the ouster of Bishop William Morris:
•Bp Morris: 'You’ve got to stand in your truth.', Tom Roberts and Josh McElwee, May 5
•Bishop's firing makes pope's priorities clear, an NCR editorial, May 4
•Support for ousted Australian bishop widens, Tom Roberts, May 4
•Australian priests offer support for deposed bishop, Tom Roberts, May 3
•Women's ordination group responds to bishop's ouster, Women's Ordination Conference, May 3
•Pope removes bishop who expressed openness to ordaining women, CNS, May 2