Commentary
[What do you think? Write to pthorp.ed@votf.org]
“Communicating
with Bishops” – Part II: This is a concluding installment
from Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., J.C.D. (Part I appeared in
the May issue of In
the Vineyard)
It
is tragic that it took a nightmare such as the clergy abuse
scandal to cause the laity to awaken from the spiritual
coma induced by clericalism and to realize that they must
be adults in Church as well as in their homes, their places
of work and in secular society in general. The results
have been predictable. Lay men and women who have confronted
and questioned have been accused of everything from misunderstanding
to heresy. Some, when asking for discussion and dialogue,
have been told that there will be none unless the hierarchic
authority is acknowledged. In other words, dress like a
grown-up for the meeting, but! act like a docile, obedient
and fearful child. Communicating with bishops on a level
playing field is, by tradition, theologically and canonically
impossible. Yet it is essential if the Church is to really
be the Body of Christ and if the leaders hope to be seen
as pastors and not bureaucrats in medieval dress. Catholic
lay men and women are forced to acknowledge the irrational
fears that always caused them to bow in deference before “father” much
less “His Excellency.” They must meet these fears
head on, acknowledge them and move past them. Too much
is at stake.
The
lay people must forge the new set of rules for communicating
with the hierarchs. Heretofore there have been two basic
behavior patterns from the pre-abuse days, and an additional
pattern born of the scandal. In the days when all lived
the reality of the Church as a stratified society, the
lay people deferred to the bishops and generally believed
that their assessments, conclusions and action plans were
always right. This was almost always true in direct dealings
with bishops. When out of earshot, however, some lay persons
often expressed disagreement, disappointment or even anger!
at bishops and their actions. Yet none would ever confront
or question them. That simply wasn’t done. They were, after
all, the divinely appointed successors of the apostles.
With
the scandal came a third way of communicating and that
was through direct and often angry confrontation. Forced
by the media and the courts to face the issues, the bishops
could hardly retreat to the security of their offices,
confident that the clamor would dissipate in time and all
would return to normal. The deference, respect and trust
that had been seared into Catholic souls quickly evaporated
and replaced by anger and disdain. In general, irrational
anger has not served to persuade the bishops of the validity
and urgency of the survivors’ complaints. However, the
angry encounters with bishops, including the vociferous
demonstrations that have taken place at chanceries and
cathedrals, have not been without impact. Though the bishops
have tried to give the impression of being above the fray
and immune from the anger and emotion, it remains painfully
true that this form of communication has shocked many bishops
into the realization that they can no longer presume deference
and respect.
Both
sides of the conversation have been hardened. Some bishops
won’t allow VOTF to meet on Church property, mindlessly
accusing them of having “agendas,” being “anti-Catholic,” “fostering
dissent” or, worst of all, failing to respect the bishops.
Clerics openly associated with VOTF, SNAP or other organizations
deemed unacceptable by some bishops, have been criticized,
shunned or, in the case of some priests or deacons, unjustly
penalized. Since there is no valid basis for accusing either
group of being heretical, anti-Catholic or dissenting,
they are vilified, not because their message is heretical
or dissenting, but because their anger and confrontational
tactics are more than the bishops can handle. What is being
lost in all of this is the path to mutual understanding.
The
victims and many lay people believe the bishops not only will
not, but cannot get it. The bishops, for their
part, are probably convinced that in their anger, the victims
and their supporters will never be able to see and accept
their side nor the honest and sincere concern many have
for the victims. The goal should not be beating one or
the other side into submission. The goal should be to
arrive at a minimal degree of mutual respect so as to begin
to listen to one another rather than talking at one another.
Disagreement need not always be covered in anger.
The
time for confrontation that is predominantly angry and
irrational is past. In most cases the anger and rage have
been amply justified. Yet it has caused many bishops to
become hardened in their attitudes towards all victims
and survivors and towards all lay people whom they believe
have had the temerity to question them. The time for confrontation
on a level playing field is not past and never will be.
There is much to confront and many hard questions yet to
be answered. Name calling and verbal abuse are as much
a barrier to needed answers as is the infantile deference
that has enabled clericalism to flourish and control. Fear
must be banished.
Bishops
who refuse to include lay people and survivors on every
level of discussion and decision making about the response
to the clergy abuse scandal must be confronted and, in
a rational, firm yet respectful manner, asked to explain
such an exclusion. Those who have accused VOTF, SNAP or
other groups of having hidden agendas, of being dissenters,
of heresy, or anti-Catholicism must be confronted and asked
to explain in detail the reasons for these accusations
and the sources of their information. Those who have refused
to reveal the names of verified sex abusers or who have
secretly reassigned known offenders must be confronted
and asked to provide an explanation to the people of God!
There
is no longer room for fear, secrecy or arrogance. Far too
much is at stake and far too many souls have been devastated.
It
is possible to confront the contradictions between the
spirit of Vatican II and spirit of clerical mistrust. In
doing so it is essential to understand the clerical context
from which the opposition arises. The bishop is essential
to the institutional structure of the Church. The theological
and structural tradition teaches that the Church is founded
on the bishops who are therefore essential for its very
existence. The chain of authority in the three-fold office
of the bishop is believed to be the divinely directed means
whereby God communicates with mortals. Consequently, challenges!
to bishops are perceived as much more than personal attacks
or manifestations of disrespect. Such challenges are expressions
of disbelief in an essential tenet of faith.
On
the other side, the victims and others who challenge the
bishops’ autocratic exercise of authority do not see such
challenges as an affront to a doctrinal issue. Rather they
see them as a reaction to the reality of authority either
misused or abused. The bishops see themselves as divinely
appointed leaders and their critics see them as flawed
administrators.
The
differences are not solely about power. The differences
are about a variety of issues that are far more serious
than ownership of power. Soul murder, rape, sexual assault,
character assassination, slander and financial mismanagement
are some of the known abuses that many are up in arms about.
These issues will not go away nor will they be rectified
unless drastic attitudinal changes take place, primarily
on the part of the Church’s leadership.
Building
bridges and opening lines of true communication between
the bishops and lay people is a noble goal for members
of the Christian community but it will never happen without
integrity and trust. Trust will not happen until the traditional
secrecy and its sibling, fear, are eradicated. Lay people
should not fear honest confrontation with bishops or other
Church leaders. This is an essential step in the search
for truth and accountability. Banishing the fear that always
lurked in the background is the beginning of authentic
Christian empowerment. Searching for plausible answers
does not equal disrespect nor is it a sign of dissent.
Above all it is a sign that one has accepted the sometimes
painful and challenging responsibility of adult membership
in the Body of Christ.
Confrontation
need not equal fanaticism. Working together begins with
dialogue and dialogue cannot begin with capitulation. Lay
persons have been nurtured by an ecclesial culture that
made true dialogue impossible. The duplicity revealed by
the sex abuse scandal led to the subsequent erosion of
trust and respect for clerics and especially bishops. This
will be reversed when both sides move beyond roles and
see one another as Christians. This will be much more difficult
for bishops but this does not mean that lay men and women
can or should retreat to mindless deference.
In
conclusion, I believe that authentic dialogue is essential
and possible. This means calling the issues in truth with
first concern for those harmed. Confrontation however does
not mean irrational anger nor can it be productive if minds
and hearts are closed to the possibility of good will.
|
