Commentary
A Message from Fr. Tom Doyle

I was asked a question at a VOTF gathering recently, about the productivity of continued confrontation with bishops as opposed to dialogue. My response: I believe that building bridges and honest dialogue is essential for the future of the Catholic Church as a Christian community. It certainly is more important than feeding anger by engaging in diatribe, violent confrontation and the like. BUT....the mistake is lumping all "confrontation" into the same category. True dialogue can deal with confrontation because confrontation means honesty, and there is much to be confrontative about in today's Church.

True communication excludes the capitulation insisted upon all too often by Church leaders. True communication means that many of the empty presumptions and accusations be abandoned. It also means a recognition of the right of all Catholics to think. True communication in today's Church must take into account the sad fact that VOTF, SNAP and other affiliated groups are regularly slandered and discriminated against simply because they are acting like Catholic adults. Sad too is the fact that priests and deacons who have been openly supportive of VOTF and SNAP have been unjustly penalized by uncaring and unthinking bishops.

I believe that it is a grievous mistake to back away from honestly challenging our ordained leaders over many or all of the major problems facing our Catholic community. I have learned over many years that clericalism is a virus that has infected us all. It takes much effort to face and eradicate it but it must be done. Clericalism takes many forms and one of them is the fear that if we challenge we will offend the bishops. Clericalism is in control if we succumb to the old behavior of being docile and obedient whenever we are in communication with the clergy. Clericalism is in control if we fail to see the most ignored, disenfranchised and marginalized person or group in the Church as equal in importance to the men who sit in the highest positions of power. God bless. Tom Doyle

Communicating with Bishops – Part I
(Part II will appear in the June issue of this publication)

The Catholic Church’s political structure is hierarchical by design. All power flows down from the top. Furthermore, all real power resides in specific individuals and not in collegiate groups or corporate structures. This has been the case throughout the history of institutionalized Catholicism. This political structure has created a culture surrounding the leadership. This culture has in turn produced pre-conditioned responses to different forms of communication.

The hierarchical governmental system has given rise to two things: the first has been the style of government, meaning the way authority is exercised. The style is generally monarchical, which means that the focus is on the leader and not on the subjects. The second phenomenon has been the ascendance of an aristocracy composed of the clergy. Power, privilege, prestige and financial control are vested in individuals and all of these are members of the clergy. Though lay persons have been included on many levels of church administration, all real! power is in the hands of a small group of celibate, male clerics. Even here, the power is limited to a select group of clerics, the bishops.

In 1906 Pius X issued an encyclical that described the political structure of the Catholic Church:

This church is essence an unequal society, that is to say a society comprising two categories of persons, the shepherd and the flock.... These categories are so distinct that the right and authority necessary for promoting and guiding all the members toward the goal of society reside only in the pastoral body; as to the multitude, its sole duty is that of allowing itself to be led and of following its pastors as a docile flock.

This statement captures the enduring belief about the fundamental nature of the institutional church. Though Vatican II defined the Church as the “People of God” the official theology and law of the Church still hold that the hierarchical division is of divine origin.. Nevertheless, this description of the Christian community has shallow roots in authentic theology and no verifiable basis in scripture. In other words, the constant claim that Christ intended a hierarchical structure when he founded the Church is based on nebulous historical evidence. There is no indication from the writings of the first three centuries that Christ ever intended to found a church as such nor that he consciously established a hierarchical system. The Apostles emerged from the Last Supper as potential leaders of the future “church” though they hardly knew it at the time. That they emerged as archbishops, newly ordained by Christ the High Priest is a segment of Catholic mythology, but not an essential and proven element of authentic ecclesiology.

The above statements sum up not only a theological position but a deeply rooted attitude that permeates the consciousness and emotions not only of bishops but many lay people as well. The concept of a stratified ecclesial society enables the fallacy of clericalism, which enters directly into all communications with the hierarchy. The bishops believe that they are singled out by the Almighty as the anointed teachers, legislators, executives and judges of Christ’s community here on earth. The faithful are taught to believe this teaching from their first years of catechetical instruction and consequently taught to hold the bishops in the highest respect and esteem.

The Catholic Church rests on a sacramental system. The seven sacraments are the particularly important, if not essential, encounters with Christ. Belief in the official theology of the sacraments is essential for a Catholic. The sacraments are necessary for salvation, as we are taught. The way to the sacraments is through the ordained clergy, especially the priests, but ultimately the custodians of the sacraments are the bishops. Catholics learn early on that salvation is mediated through the Church but not the Church as a vast throng of believers scattered throughout the world. It is mediated through the Church’s ordained leaders. These leaders determine who may receive a sacrament. They control access to the means of salvation and as such, they hold great power that supports the respect in which they are held and enables also the fear experienced by so many Catholics..

Traditionally the obvious power imbalance determined the quality of communications with the hierarchy and the hierarchy’s belief in its divine origin formed the emotional response to any communications that were critical or challenging. Often, rather than responding to the substance of a criticism or challenging question, a bishop reacts defensively, asking how his authority can possibly be questioned. The fundamental issue is lost in the perceived threat to the bishop’s authority. This attitude is enforced by the church’s own political structures, which reserve all power to bishops and limit the participation of collegiate or corporate bodies to consultation.

The clergy sex abuse phenomenon has changed the way Catholics communicate with bishops. Accustomed to always controlling every situation, the bishops have reluctantly learned that this is no longer the case. Since the canonical structures of the Church provide no basis or avenues for communication based on the concept of equality of participants, the aggrieved have sought relief in the civil courts of the U.S. and several other countries. The bishops were faced with a power equal to and in many ways surpassing their own. The result has generally been defensiveness, de-valuation of the abuse survivors, and anger!

The frustration and anger engendered in tens of thousands of sex abuse victims as well as millions of laity over the sordid revelations of abuse and cover up has changed the way a significant segment of the Catholic and non-Catholic population communicates with bishops. As the “scandal” unfolded and more and more was revealed in the media and in the courts, trust and respect for bishops rapidly eroded and with it the traditional belief in the nature of the episcopacy.

In short, communication has been challenging, confrontative and driven by anger, distrust and cynicism. Those directly involved with the sex abuse phenomenon, including victims, their loved ones and supporters, the media and attorneys, have been astonished, disappointed and saddened by the arrogance, dishonesty and lack of compassion manifested by many bishops. In time, the bishops realized that they lost the trust and respect of many. Yet the fundamental attitude of superiority still permeates most conversations about significant issues facing the Catholic Church.

The anger and mistrust have prevented true communication. Many bishops have immediately focused on the challenge to their authority rather than the reason for the anger. It certainly appears that the horror of the sexual abuse of countless children, minors and vulnerable adults has been overshadowed for many bishops, by the affront to their dignity, the rejection of their authority and the disrespect for their persons and their office. In fact, most of the anger experienced by the victims, their supporters and others seeking reform and change, is grounded in the enormity of the crimes and the perceived inability of many bishops to fully realize the gravity of the situation. They have reason to be angry and disrespectful of bishops. As many have said time after time, “They just don’t get it. They think its all about them.”

The welfare of the victims should be the primary concern of the institutional Church because these men and women, boys and girls, have not only had their bodies and their emotions deeply scarred, but their souls devastated. For a Church whose ultimate and foundational mission is the “salvation of souls” there seems to have been precious little concern for the souls of those faithful and trusting Catholics who were raped and brutalized by priests and bishops.

The agenda of the victims and survivors has remained constant. First, they want the bishops to acknowledge that their abuse is real. They want to be believed. They do not want to be patronized nor will they be satisfied with wringing hands, profuse apologies and promises of prayer. They want to be able to believe that the bishops truly understand the horror and trauma they have experienced. In looking for some sign of an honest cognitive and emotional response, too many have been disappointed and walked away convinced that they were viewed as a threat or a nuisance and not an emotional and spiritual casualty.

Second, they have wanted the bishops to do something about the perpetrators. Many began with well justified thoughts of revenge but miraculously, most worked through this and sought only assurance that the men and women who raped their bodies and souls be provided help but mostly, be restricted from ever being able to hurt another person, young or old. In all too many cases, the victims found out to their shock that the promises made were never kept. Perpetrators were re-cycled and more children were hurt.

Third, the victims and indeed the Catholic and general public have wanted honest answers from the bishops to some very painful and fundamental questions. Why did they cover up and allow known child abusers to move from place to place? Why did they ignore victims and not offer any significant pastoral care? Why have they consistently and stubbornly refused to look at their own style of governing to find the answers to such devastating questions?

Finally, Why has the image of the institutional Church’s leadership been more important than the spiritual and emotional welfare of the tens of thousands of clergy abuse victims. To these questions there have been no answers. There has only been more equivocation, more diversionary tactics and more arrogance.

Experience has clearly shown that not every bishop has failed to realize the enormity of this era. It is simply improbable that some or even many have not reacted with horror and found honest compassion in their hearts for the victims and for Catholics in general, angry and disappointed that their trust has been betrayed. Yet the body of bishops remains defensive and aloof. The good will and efforts of those who truly “get it” are hidden by the intransigence of those who continue to focus on themselves, trapped in a narcissistic self-image that serves as a barrier to true insight from getting in and authentic pastoral compassion from getting out. Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., J.C.D., April 13, 2005