| |
COMMENTARY
Part II
Communicating with Bishops Does Not Equal Capitulation
Part 1 appeared
in the 4/20 Vineyard; the last installment
will be in the 5/18 issue.
Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., J.C.D.
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 have 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.
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 begin
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 (Cf. Mark 10: 42-43). 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 forcibly 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 was 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. [Emphasis added.]
Both sides of the conversation have hardened. Some
bishops won’t allow reform groups such as Call
to Action or Voice of the Faithful 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.
[Final installment 5/18: Fr. Doyle looks at what true
dialogue will take.}
|
