The Real Reason for the Apostolic Visitation of the Sons is revealed by Rome

What happened to the Television documentaries?  What happened to the illegal exorcisms?  What happened to the spiritual abuse?  Apparently they are not an issue any more.

As you know, following the scurrilous media crusade against the Congregation, which has been well documented here, Bishop Gielen of Christchurch diocese quickly enlisted the aid of Vatican authorities to deal with this very delicate case; it was too much for him as a new and inexperienced bishop to be able to manage.  In fact, according to the Vatican’s latest decree, he pestered them no less than three times in quick succession: “On August 14, 2023, August 30, 2023, and September 7, 2023, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand) wrote to this Dicastery requesting an Apostolic Visitation of the Christchurch community of the religious institute known as the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer.”  That’s a frequency amounting to pestering.

Such criminal accusations (which ones, again?) were well above his pay-grade to investigate or prosecute; he needed the big guns.  What was required to unmask the malignant little organisation in Rutland Street was an Apostolic Visitation.  If you’re wondering, an Apostolic Visitation is one of the most serious instruments in the Church’s canonical toolkit, essentially a papal investigation. Historically, it has been used when serious irregularities, disorders, or crises arise within a religious community, diocese, or institution that threaten the integrity of faith, governance, or moral order.  It would be the first time such a Visitation had ever been needed in New Zealand’s history.  Without a doubt, this must be among the most serious crises that the Catholic Church in New Zealand had ever had to navigate.

Bishop Gielen was so far out of his depth here that he didn’t feel he had the competence to make any inquiries of his own.  In fact, he never once approached the monks about any accusations, or about the media reports; the prospect was so unnerving that there was nothing for it but to apply directly to Rome.  The Vatican accordingly dispatched a top canonical heavyweight in the person of retired Bishop Robert McGuckin from Australia to get to work investigating the corruption that had become entrenched in the little Monastery.  In a private meeting with the Order's Superior General, Fr Michael Mary, Bishop McGuckin said that the purpose of this Apostolic Visitation was to investigate the reports made in the media television documentaries.  It’s worth pointing out again, that while those shows made lots of insinuations, no solid accusations were made.  So clearly an investigation was of paramount importance.

The Vatican investigation was very thorough.  During the interrogations not once was any member of the monastery asked anything concerning the supposed subject of this Apostolic Visitation.  Nothing about the television programs.  Nothing about exorcisms.  Nothing about spiritual abuse.  When the monks asked what it was about, they received a variety of answers which did not agree with one another.  When this extremely serious investigation had concluded, it was sent off to Rome, without anyone else setting eyes on it.

After some time, the Vatican issued a letter in which it said that the monastery was an old building, that the chapel was too small for the needs of the Latin Mass Chaplaincy, that the monks had founded some private associations, that the monks may or may not have had permission for some exorcisms, and that the monks had supposedly engaged in an uninterrupted pattern of non-cooperation with the local bishop.  It advised Bishop Gielen to revoke their faculties and expel them from the diocese.  This letter was then signed by the Cardinal alone (two signatures are required for such an official decree concluding an Apostolic visitation) and emailed to Bishop Gielen and Fr Michael Mary.  No physical, real letter was ever received.

With this in hand, Bishop Gielen then announced to the diocese from every pulpit that the results of the Visitation that had been carried out by the Vatican to investigate the television documentary were that the monks should be expelled from the diocese (the implication of course was that the insinuations of the media, about which nothing was asked during the investigation, were correct).

To the monks, he wrote that since he was reassigning the Latin Mass Chaplaincy to other priests, their services wouldn’t be needed any longer.  Strange that two different reasons were given: one for the mob, and another for the accused.

Of course the monks prepared an appeal to Rome.  As described by one canon lawyer who had seen it, the case presented by the appeal was a “slam-dunk”.  Now the Dicastery would see that it had been played, that the Visitator it had sent had conducted a farcical investigation, and that a monumental injustice was unfolding in the diocese of Christchurch.

After about a year, the Vatican announced its findings.  To the astonishment of the monks, it entirely upheld Bishop Gielen’s expulsions.  But what were the reasons?  In vain do we look for mentions of exorcisms.  In vain do we look for media accusations.  In vain do we look for spiritual abuse.  There is no mention of them, as if they had never been a question.  No, the Apostolic Visitation had been called (the only one in New Zealand history remember) “after a lengthy period of reflection on the FSSR’s continued presence in the diocese”.  So not a snap call with three separate panicked requests because Bishop Gielen was overwhelmed by media revelations then?  The decree states that “the presence of the Institute [FSSR] was governed by a contract, the expiration of which did not confer a right of perpetual presence.”  It should be noted that this is not true.  It confuses two things.  The monks were invited by Bishop Barry Jones to establish a Canonical Foundation in his diocese.  This does confer a right of presence.  Separately the monks, now established in the diocese canonically (that means they cannot simply be told to leave on a whim) were given responsibility for the Latin Mass Chaplaincy.  There wasn’t much of a contact after 2019 — the Latin Mass Chaplaincy just continued to exist and operate with episcopal approval — but if there is to be any talk about a contract, it applies ONLY to the Chaplaincy, and not to the monks’ actual presence in the diocese.

But that’s a technicality.

The decree says various things about the monks “undermining diocesan unity” and “potentially establishing a ‘parallel church’”, and then concludes with the following stunning line: “At the heart of this controversy are issues concerning a contract between a diocesan bishop and a religious institute of diocesan right.”

Wait, what?  At the heart of the first Apostolic Visitation ever to be called in New Zealand, a canonical mechanism used for the most serious irregularities, disorders, or crises threatening the integrity of faith, governance, or moral order is the question of the renewal or not of a contract?  But what about the tv shows, the media accusations?  What about exorcisms and abuse?  No, no, it’s a contract.

It’s the renewal of a contract that Bishop Gielen felt so ill equipped to deal with that he had to send three pleas to Rome to step in and initiate an Apostolic investigation.  Pull the other one.

The irregularities, the absurdly illogical and surreal incongruities of this case could go on for pages.  There really is so much that could be talked about.  In a normal, just society there should be higher superiors to whom one can apply in such cases of flagrant injustice and persecution.  But to whom does one turn, when one finds that everyone seems to be either complicit or deaf?

Faced with such apparently nonsensical behaviour from ostensibly intelligent and capable bodies, one really has to ask what the real reason is behind these apparently disciplinary decrees.