I notice that over on the “aCatholica” website an editorial has been running about the Archdiocese of Sydney not providing the bail money for Fr Robert Fuller, a Sydney priest accused of “internet grooming” for under-age sex.
The editorial was written, according to Mr Coyne, by a "group of priests from the Sydney area", concerned that the Archdiocese – really Cardinal George Pell – was not exercising a proper concern for its priests by not paying their bail and not paying their legal expenses when accused of a criminal offence.
The Editorial opens thus:
“On August 14 the Archdiocese of Sydney's website carried a policy statement headed Catholic Church Not Paid Bail for Accused Priest. Actually, the purpose of the statement was a correction to claims in the local media that the "Catholic Church" had paid bail for Fr Robert Fuller who faces charges of a criminal nature. However the Archdiocesan statement failed to point out that it was the Sydney Church (rather than Catholic Church per se) which was responsible for the care of Fr Fuller who is a Sydney priest. More distressing was the revelation that the Archdiocese of Sydney employs a "consistent policy" which required "priests accused of a criminal offence are responsible for their own legal costs".”
Let us leave aside the nit-picking about “the Sydney Church (rather than the Catholic Church per se)”, although an ecclesiologist might have fun with it, and concentrate on the “distressing revelation” about legal costs. The Editorial continues:
“The problem with the policy as outlined by Ms Katrina Lee on behalf of the Archdiocese is that it is "consistent" rather than "compassionate". Whatever the charges faced by Fr Fuller surely at this time, such "allegations" are the domain of Courts and their process should not be pre-empted by Church administration. Fr Fuller is a priest of the Archdiocese of Sydney and is entitled to expect the support of the Archdiocese which has a responsibility to uphold his right to natural justice founded in his human dignity. The dignity of the human person is the foundation of all Catholic social teaching and it is surprising to find the Archdiocese prepared to abandon Catholic teaching on justice when developing a policy for handling matters of extreme gravity such as the case of Fr Fuller.”The argument advanced by the authors of the Editorial is that because Sydney priests are appointed by the Archbishop, the Archdiocese has a responsibility for them, and because priests are not paid the great amounts that lay people are, the Archdiocese ought to pay their legal expenses for them, so as to see that natural justice is done.
So, apparently, not only does a priest’s dignity as a person require the Church to provide him somewhere to live and enough income to keep him fed and clothed, but also to pay bail and lawyers to defend him from criminal charges.
Something’s wrong here: while shelter and sustenance are certainly a priest’s due in justice, it seems to The Cloister that there is no particular reason why the Archdiocese is bound in justice to spend Church money on either bail or legal expenses for a priest accused of crimes. With regard to bail, who in the general community would expect the Church to go surety for them? Many people seeking bail get help from friends or family to pledge the required amount, not having sufficient assets of their own. And with regard to other legal costs – well, priests are in the same position as other people on low incomes, surely? Except that most priests would probably know some lawyers who might be able to help them get suitable legal advice... and if not, they’re no worse off than other people on a low income.
If the accused doesn’t skip bail and is found innocent then he probably wouldn’t be too seriously out of pocket; if guilty, it’s his own crime, not the Church’s, after all!
No, this is not a neglect of natural justice. In fact, it might be considered unjust to use Church money for such purposes on behalf of a priest.
Indeed, the Editorial’s argumentation is not strong – but that’s not surprising, because the Fuller incident is simply a pretext for the authors to whinge about Cardinal Pell and a whole pile of internal Sydney priest-politics.
The following points are whinged about:
Money spent on Church offices in the CBD – a reference to the Polding Centre in Liverpool Street which replaced the old Polding House in Pitt Street. Maybe they’ve forgotten that it was bought by Cardinal Clancy, before Pell was appointed to Sydney; But we suspect its not so much the money that wrankles as the larger number of appropriately remunerated lay-people in the building under Pell;
Money spent on World Youth Day. Even after the event, some of these “pastors” refuse to see the pastoral value of WYD. Maybe it was too far outside their comfort-zone.
Money spent on a new Cathedral altar. OK, in The Cloister we would have preferred just getting rid of the moveable wooden one and using the proper original altar. But we wonder how many of the authors of the editorial have deemed it necessary to put new altars into their own churches?
Money spent on religious art. Apparently these priests no longer find art and beauty to be useful to the spiritual life, unless perhaps the artists should donate it for free – what then of just recompense? If this is a “dig” at the announced programme of paintings for the chapel of the new “Australia House” in Rome (and obviously it is), why don’t the authors just come out and plainly say that they don’t think Australian Catholics should have the benefit of a pastoral centre in Rome?
But in case you should think it is just a case of money-envy, there is yet another prong to this attack: complaining about the Sydney Pastoral Plan, a game much loved by “Acatholica”. Our friends in the Primal See assure us that there is a coterie of priests there who have never forgiven the Archbishop for not letting them dictate the content of the Pastoral Plan but opening up the process to wider consultation, with LAY PEOPLE and so on in the process, and a bishop, not a presbyter, in charge. And so:
“Is this another shortcoming of the Archdiocesan Pastoral Plan that failed to develop suitable strategies consistent with natural justice and human dignity to address clergy burn out and to assure quality pastoral care to those who have succumbed to the pressures of ministry and personal weakness? The architects of the Pastoral Plan must explain their part in allowing the Archdiocese to abdicate its pastoral care of clergy”.I take it we are to blame Father’s alleged on-camera self-abuse on the Pastoral Plan?
Anyway, after that the “Editorial” returns to the Fuller case, suggesting that:
“It is unbelievable that the Archdiocese failed to contact Fr Fuller's local doctor who would be in a unique position to advise the "carers" on the best course of action to assure Fr Fuller's present and ongoing wellbeing.”That’s right: “ring, ring, hello Doctor Smith this is Cardinal Pell, please reveal to me Father’s private medical history”. Natural justice? They’ve got to be kidding!
Referring to the priest who did pay Fr Fuller’s bail, Fr Bell, the “Editorial” says:
“Indeed Fr Bell alone has emerged from this whole saga, as the one person who has demonstrated real pastoral leadership reminiscent of life in the Archdiocese prior to 2001.”
2001, of course, is the year Pell came to Sydney. And Fr Bell, as it happens, is “Episcopal Vicar for the Western Region”, which we presume includes Fr Fuller’s parish of Liverpool, so the Editorial’s desire that,”hopefully the Archdiocese will not gloss over these responsibilities by assigning them to Fr Bell or others” is just silly: of course the Episcopal Vicar would have a role in helping the Archbishop with this. And its a fair bet that Pell and Bell would be doing other things behind the scenes to offer compassion and support.
It should be noted- though the “Editorial” barely mentions it - that the Sydney Archdiocese is continuing to provide a place for Fr Fuller to live in, and, we presume, is paying him his usual stipend. That much is surely required by natural justice. Paying for Bail and QC’s is not.
Here in The Cloister we can certainly understand that the Sydney priests would be upset and confused by the charges against their colleague and friend. But the group responsible for this “Editorial” are very wrong to use this sad event as an excuse to white-ant their Archbishop.Their whingeing about Pell for the past eight years remind us of Luke 7.32:
They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’

(sorry, not a new seminarian).
The website states that the plinth beneath the silver pyx-dove is to 'provide a place to handle the sacrament.' While 'handling the sacrament' is not how we would put it, perhaps the altar is the best place for such rituals.
It seems that the aCatholic idea of the altar and ambo as 'dual tables' has been abandoned. It has been replaced with a more traditional monastic arrangement.


He's been coddled for far too long in spite of loss after loss and weird decision after weird decision. Surely he cannot think that he deserves ANOTHER chance to loose the Ashes? Nor should he be given any more opportunities to preside over the further diminishment of Australia's test ranking.



I am reliably informed that he was witnessed participating in something resembling this...
Let us give you a hint of what and where it isn't...



They just dont get it... do they!


High on my list of infractions of the Rule are the deplorable series of posts committed to Where's Withoos?. That's Fr Withoos please! I am today placing a moritorium on any further posts in this line with serious sanctions being considered for those responsible - the hairshirts are freshly brushed!


All I know is that I have been down a hairshirt for sometime now and they are so hard to come by these days! I am understandably annoyed! Not grumpy!







