After Bishop Bill Morris' dismissal, pastoral leaders of the Toowoomba church commissioned a report on the procedures followed. The report by retired Queensland judge Bill Carter has now been made public. It is accompanied by a comment from Melbourne canon lawyer Fr Ian Waters about the canonical aspects of the report. These documents make disturbing reading.
Carter focuses on the question of natural justice. Morris commented to Pope Benedict, 'Throughout this sad matter I believe I have been denied natural justice.'
The report describes natural justice as the general duty of fairness laid on decision makers, especially when their decisions are detrimental to the good name and interests of the person affected. Natural justice requires that evidence for detrimental decisions be disclosed to the person affected, who then can respond to it.
Given that the obligation of natural justice carries moral as well as legal weight, Morris was entitled to expect that his right to it would be respected in Vatican dealings with him. Dismissal and the public judgment made on him are clearly harmful to his life and to his good reputation.
In order to decide whether Morris received natural justice, Carter then examines the documented exchanges between him and the Vatican. The initial question raised concerned his use of General Rite of Reconciliation in the diocese. He ceased this practice when instructed. He later clarified for his people a passing reference to European discussion of married priests and women priests. It occurred in a letter proposing pastoral initiatives explicitly based on a celibate male priesthood.
It was evidently only after his dismissal had been decided that he received an unsigned document from the Congregation for Bishops setting out the ills of the Toowoomba church and the need for a strong bishop. Some of the more specific claims were false. Most were so general as to require detailed evidence in their justification. Morris' request to answer each charge and to meet the relevant Vatican officials was denied. Carter remarks:
... it is strongly arguable that the decision of the Congregation of Bishops or of its prefect had been made without evidence, or on the basis of evidence which was factually untrue; he the bishop was denied knowledge of the authorship