HONESTY AND TRUTH IN THE PASTORAL CARE FOR CHRIST'S FLOCK
 THE RECENT EVENTS (OCTOBER 2001) IN THE LOCAL PARISHES
OF MEREDITH AND LETHBRIDGE, VICTORIA

by Fr. Malcolm Broussard
(Major Superior of the Order of Saint Charbel)

December 14, 2001

"No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy." (Canon 220)
 
"Christ's faithful may lawfully vindicate and defend the rights they enjoy in the Church, before the competent ecclesiastical forum in accordance with the law. §2 If any members of Christ's faithful are summoned to trial by the competent authority, they have the right to be judged according to the provisions of law, to be applied with equity. §3 Christ's faithful have the right that no canonical penalties be inflicted upon them except in accordance with the law." (Canon 221)

The recent events involving the members of the Community of the Precious Blood and their Local Parish are already well documented on this Website. The failure of justice on the part of those in ecclesiastical authority is a disturbing reality. My purpose in writing this statement is twofold -- to highlight the virtue of justice under the aspect of fairness; and to call to accountability -- the Hierarchy responsible. Finally I want to show my support for the Precious Blood Community in this time of trial.

Several instances of abuse suggest their being highlighted here. These are documented in the correspondence issued by Mr. Guido Colla and Mr. Glenn Talaue in particular:

Parish Priest has remodelled the interior of Saint Mary's Church in a strange way -- disturbing and offending the the faithful1.

Idiosyncrasy of the Parish Priest in the manner of offering the Holy Mass -- introducing strange practices into the Rite. This is a violation of post-concilliar liturgical norms2.

Parish Priest repeatedly refusing Holy Communion to Colla family and friends. He publicly announced in Church for all to hear that he will refuse them Holy Communion. There is no moral grounds for this refusal3.

There are eye-witnesses of the sacrilege in the Church regarding the Sacramental species -- the Precious Blood4.

Leaving aside for the moment the terrible scandal and sacrilege concerning the Sacramental species (see footnote 4)! The failure of justice is highlighted in the serious scandal caused directly by the Parish Priest public refusal to give Holy Communion to the Colla family and friends during Holy Mass. This public labelling of them as grave sinners by an arbitrary demand for their obedience is a miscarriage of justice. Personal idiosyncrasy is at the basis for this arbitrary demand which is abundantly clear from the correspondence. It is a violation of natural justice within the meaning of Canon 220. His refusal to answer the probative questions put to him -- as to the grounds he had for doing such a thing betrays his prejudice. His refusal to reply to correspondence directed to him by mail and fax confirms the prejudice. Subsequently, many requests for action -- directed to the Church authorities have also remained unanswered.

I would like to highlight some of the principles involved in this matter.

Procedural Fairness -- the protection of Law

Obligation and Right are principles of the Moral Order established by God's Eternal Law which governs all Creation in Wisdom and Love. Man's participation in the Eternal Law of God is called the Natural Law. The obligation to uphold the good reputation of a person and his privacy proceeds from the Natural Law -- thus these are fundamental rights of the human person. Calumny, denunciation, insults, slander and the spreading of rumours are all contrary to this right. Canons 220 and 221 are specifically in place in order to protect the rights and privileges of the faithful.

There was no procedural fairness in the way the Parish Priest dealt with the Colla family and friends. For instance, they were not called in to be questioned in advance about an impending refusal of Holy Communion. Secondly, the Colla family and friends were not given the opportunity to explain themselves nor asked to express their views on the Church architecture and furnishings -- not to mention their desire to worship according to the universal law governing the Liturgy for the whole Church.

Reasonable Fairness -- the virtue of Justice

These same principles ought to be imbedded in the thought processes of the Parish Priest and other members of the Hierarchy. This is the only way to avoid the temptation to rashly judge the Colla family and friends based upon suspicion. In other words, fairness and honesty ought to be the starting point for the Clergy. All persons of good-will must judge the facts according to these principles which must uphold the dignity of the person. The Parish Priest seriously failed this test of his integrity. The Local Ordinary has also failed to reply to the need for a correction and public restitution for the grave injustice to the Colla family and friends in view of the other parishioners.

Unlawful Exercise of Power

There was an unlawful exercise of power on the part of the Parish Priest in the refusal of Holy Communion and thus a failure of justice. The same applies to the remodelling of the Church interior through a mistaken sense of the Liturgy. It is reasonable and common sense that the character, credibility and probity of the evidence about the Colla family, the circumstances and intentions -- must be taken into account. There is a great deal of difference between knowledge acquired through personal involvement with the Colla family -- and knowledge based upon spurious opinion, hearsay, rumour, false counsel or supposition.

Honesty and Truth

In summary, an honest and fair-minded sense of justice is good pastoral care. For the Parish faithful it is essential to a good atmosphere of trust and cooperation. Fidelity to the norms of the General Constitution on the Liturgy (Vatican II) and the post-concilliar documents is a requirement for the Clergy. It is to be hoped that reason and charity will prevail.

May the Grace of God help the Community of the Precious Blood to grow in faith, hope and charity through this great trial.

FOOTNOTES

  1. See following letters to Bishop Denis Hart -- Fax of 13 October 2001 from Glenn Talaue; cf. Letter of 19 October 2001 from Guido Colla;

  2. See Letter of 21 October 2001 from Guido Colla; cf. Third Instruction on the correct implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Liturgiae Instaurationes) 5 September 1970: "The priest should realise that by imposing his own personal restoration of sacred rites he is offending the rights of the faithful and is introducing individualism and idiosyncrasy into the celebrations which belong to the whole Church."

  3. To be a direct cause of scandal is a grave offence against God and neighbour. Traditional principles of Catholic Moral Theology indicate that no person may scandalise the faithful by publicly implying a grave offence has been committed (by the Colla family and friends) which justifies public refusal of Holy Communion when in reality there was no such offence and no such justification.

  4. See Letter of 21 October 2001 from Guido Colla. These described events are truly disturbing because of the sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist. This is a grave offence against God and the rights of the faithful to true worship according to the norms of the Sacred Constitution on the Liturgy (Vatican II) -- article 22:1,3: "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church ... therefore no other persons, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."; The danger of irreverence is a major concern in several documents -- the following text is chosen as typical -- cf. Third Instruction on the correct implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Liturgiae Instaurationes) 5 September 1970, article 5: "The breaking of the consecrated bread and the receiving of the bread and wine, both at communion and in consuming what remains after communion, should be conducted with the greatest reverence"; cf. Instruction on certain norms concerning the worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (Inaestimabile donum) 3 April 1980, articles 13, 14, 15: "Even after Communion the Lord remains present under the species. Accordingly, when Communion has been distributed, the sacred particles remaining are to be consumed or taken by the competent minister to the place where the Eucharist is reserved. On the other hand, the consecrated wine is to be consumed immediately after Communion and may not be kept. Care must be taken to consecrate only the amount of wine needed for Communion. The rules laid down for the purification of the Chalice and other sacred vessels that have contained the Eucharistic species must be observed."