The 'machinations' of the Roman Curia

From Mrs Daphne McLeod Sir, This was a surprising letter to find written by a Catholic priest and published in a nominally Catholic paper.
Such a lengthy and illinformed whinge against the Curia, which means against the Church, and therefore against Christ himself, would have been more suited to the pen of a militant atheist and the pages of an anti-Catholic publication.
Father Fitzsimmons spends a lot of time describing three mythical types of bishop whose chief enemy seems to be not secularism or dissent but the long-established governing body of the Catholic Church. Then he said they regard "Rome as having a monopoly on the thought of the Founder..." Nobody suggests Rome has or wants to have, a monopoly on Truth but there is no doubt Rome does have Truth, as does anyone who listens to Her.
He goes on to say that "the game was given away" when the Australian Bishops were corrected in Rome last Autumn, as if the Curia had taken on itself more power than they were entitled to in describing themselves as "the Holy Father's prime collaborators".
But this is exactly how The Code of Canon Law 1983 describes the Curia in Canon 360, where we read that "The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the business of the Universal Church through the Roman Curia which acts in his name.." Certainly last autumn the Curia spoke for the Pope, for when the Statement of Conclusions, compiled by a section of the Curia with some of the Australian bishops was published on December 14th 1998, the Holy Father not only endorsed it, he went through it with the bishops emphasising important points such as abuses of the Sacrament of Penance which permit illicit services of General Absolution and the reception by children of Holy Communion before Confession.
Having misrepresented the place the Curia has in the Church, Father Fitzsimmons then tries to pretend that Vatican II devised a new "doctrine of Collegiality".
He doesn't quote any specific document probably because he couldn't. Lumen Gentium 25 where this is discussed makes very clear what the Church has always taught, that "the body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff". We are a worldwide Church but was are also one, united under Rome, obedient to the Pope and his voice, the Curia.
Make no mistake, if a priest attacks the Curia he is attacking the Pope. About two years ago, a Brazilian bishop on an Ad Limina visit was greeted by the Pope with the words "I hear you don't like me". Startled he replied that his quarrel was with the Curia not the Pope. The Holy Father told him, "the Curia is the Pope." If we attack the Pope we are attacking the Church and, as Our Lord made clear to St Paul when He said, "Saul, Saul why persecutest thou me?" an attack on the Church is an attack on Our Divine Master. It is sad to see a Catholic priest biting the hand that feeds him like this and even sadder to see a paper which describes itself as "Catholic" giving him a platform.
I can appreciate that Father Fitzsimmons might not like some of the documents and rulings emanating from the Curia because he is on public record as saying, before The Catechism of the Catholic Church was translated into English, that "the Church needs a catechism like it needs a hole in the head". It is a pity that he is not honest enough to admit that he has a problem with the Catholic teaching emanating from the Curia instead of trying to misrepresent it for other Catholics.
Yours faithfully, DAPHNE McLEOD Great Bookham, Surrey.