Scandal Time: A Palpable Change

There is, as of this writing, something of a lull in the storms of crisis that have this year shaken the foundations of the Catholic Church in this country. I offer here no more than an update on a few developments, fully expecting that more extended report and commentary will be required next month.

To say that the foundations have been shaken is not hyperbole. It doesn’t mean that the foundations are cracking, never mind collapsing, but they are under attack from some quarters. In talking with bishops, priests, and lay leaders, and in reading the pertinent commentaries, I am impressed by the deep, almost somber, sense of sobriety that now prevails. In “Scandal Time III” (August/September), I presented what was intended to be a severe critique of what the bishops did at their Dallas meeting in June. Some bishops thought my criticism too severe, and a good many lay people let me know in no uncertain terms that they think the bishops did not go far enough. “Better a hundred innocent priests be removed than that one guilty priest be retained. Due process be damned.” That’s a slight paraphrase of some of the messages I have received.

Priests, on the other hand, tend to be strongly supportive of the critique I offered. This does not surprise. After all, the bishops were the primary object of the criticism; the level of lay outrage about the abuses that caused the scandal can hardly be exaggerated; and priests believe that they are being scapegoated by the policies entailed in Dallas’ mantra of “zero tolerance.” Some of the approximately three hundred priests who have been peremptorily removed are fighting back, either in canonical appeals or through civil courts. It is reported that, in a few cases where bishops publicized unfounded charges, priests are suing for defamation of character. It’s not pretty, but it’s hard to blame them. If followed to the letter, and some bishops seem to think that is what is required of them, Dallas makes a shambles of the trust and care that is supposed to prevail between priests and bishops. “I wouldn’t think of talking to my bishop without a lawyer present,” says a midwestern priest. To which a bishop friend of mine says, “If they’ve done nothing wrong, they’ve nothing to fear.” That is the familiar claim of police states. Moreover, it is not true.

Dallas explicitly voted against the condition that charges be “credible.” Yet bishops are supposed to have a “grace of office” that equips them to make difficult moral and spiritual judgments. Now they trust neither themselves nor the grace bestowed by their ordination. Now they believe they are obliged to traffic in gossip and slander. Or so a literal reading of the Dallas “charter” would suggest. Fortunately, however, while Dallas may propose, realities on the ground frequently dispose. In larger dioceses, so much trash comes in over the transom, much of it incoherent or maliciously fantastical, that bishops cannot avoid making decisions about what is credible, even as they avoid using the word. Policies notwithstanding, common sense persistently intrudes.

Yet, as I write, a priest of my acquaintance awaits word on whether he will be removed from ministry. The bishop received a letter from a party nobody knows who accuses the priest, on the basis of second-hand hearsay, of abusing boys twenty years ago. The priest denies it, the person who the letter writer says told him denies it, no victims or details are given. But, presumably because the writer copied the letter to the D.A.’s office, the bishop says he must act. I know at least three young men who, inspired by the priest’s person and ministry, hope to go to seminary. If he is publicly shamed and removed, we will see what happens to their vocations. In similar instances, such charges have been publicized and priests have been removed from ministry until, as it is said, the matter is officially resolved. If it is decided that the charges are without foundation, the Dallas procedures considerately add, everything possible will be done to restore the good name of the priest in question. In most cases, if not all, that will not be possible. Slander and consequent suspicion leave—to use a phrase once applied to the priesthood in a very different sense—an indelible mark.

A bishop for whom I have great respect tells me, “Of course there will be injustices, but that is part of the price we have to pay. What we have learned this year is that, in attitudes and practice, we were negligent and indifferent and permitted terrible things to happen. We have to be punished.” There is truth in that. But it is not the bishops who are being punished. The failure to discipline their priests in the past is not remedied by failing to care for their priests now, at least to the extent of trying to secure for them a measure of justice and fair play. Their failure to be the bishops they were called to be in the past is not remedied by their failure to be the bishops they are called to be now. And what about the people in their care? Abdication of responsibility and what is tantamount to complicity in defamation and slander are guaranteed to result in the ever greater—if one may employ what now seems a quaint phrase—“scandalizing of the faithful.”

A bishop of a large diocese in the Northeast was pilloried by the media when he said a few months ago, “I am a shepherd, not a cop.” It was perhaps an injudicious statement. A good shepherd may sometimes look like a cop when he wards off the wolves and prevents his wicked assistant shepherds from preying on the sheep. But he does those things precisely because he is a good shepherd. The bishop was right. He is a shepherd. When bishops are perceived, or perceive themselves, more as cop than as shepherd, there is insinuated into the life of the Church a corrosive reign of narrow-eyed suspicion that will in the long term do more damage to the faith and to the faithful than all the scandals exposed this past year.

A Promising Initiative

An official response by Rome to the Dallas actions is expected soon. It is no secret that influential members of the Curia think that the U.S. bishops were panicked into adopting a course that violates both justice and mercy and is, in important respects, incompatible with the Church’s doctrine or discipline. There is also very particular concern about the national review board set up by Dallas and headed by Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma. At stake is the episcopal governance of the Catholic Church in America, and its possible implications for the universal Church. Various lay agitations for “power sharing,” such as the organization calling itself Voice of the Faithful, contribute to a circumstance that is aptly described as a concerted and determined effort to change what Catholic tradition has affirmed as Christ’s will for the apostolic ordering of Church government. In the American context, this is in some ways a replay of the “lay trusteeship” controversy of the nineteenth century.

It is possible, however, that Rome may hold back on an official response to Dallas until it sees what happens to a “Varium” initiated by eight bishops in this country. Their Varium, or proposal, is for the convening of a plenary council. A council of the Church in America has not been held since the late nineteenth century, although such councils have a venerable place in Catholic history, and, under the leadership of figures such as Charles Borromeo, were crucial to the implementation of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. The hope is that a plenary council here could do the same for the implementation of the Second Vatican Council. The stated purpose of the proposed council is to solemnly receive and act upon the teaching of Vatican II and its subsequent interpretation by the Magisterium, with special reference to bishops, priests, and the universal call to holiness.

More than a hundred bishops have now signed on to the Varium, at least to the extent of asking that it be considered at the next meeting of the bishops conference in November. To the surprise of many, at the September meeting of the administrative committee of the USCCB the Varium itself was rejected, and in its place was established an ad hoc committee that will offer a report on the proposal in November. There will be more on this in the next issue, but I can say now that I am inclined to view the proposal as one of the most promising developments since the scandals broke last January. At the same time, I am impressed by the number of solid bishops who are wary of the proposal. By solid bishops I mean “John Paul II bishops”—men who have a track record of active support for the vibrant orthodoxy of this pontificate. Among their chief concerns is that the announcement of a plenary council will raise expectations among those who have long pressed for radical change in “the spirit of Vatican II”—changes in sharp conflict with the Magisterium’s interpretation of the documents of Vatican II.

Canon law specifies that, in addition to bishop, a council must include various clerical and lay participants, and the worry is that this could result in its being hijacked for purposes quite alien to those for which it is convened. These are undoubtedly legitimate concerns, although it seems to me that the authors of the Varium have done a careful job of anticipating what could go wrong––as much as such thing can be anticipated––and suggesting ways of keeping the council on track. In any event, the discussion of this proposal is just getting underway, and if––despite the opposition of the USCCB apparat––it is approved, a council would most likely not take place for at least two years. It is a bold, ambitious, and promising proposal that is, I believe deserving of careful and sympathetic consideration. It holds the hope of restoring confidence in the apostolic integrity of the Church’s government.

Rejoicing in Wrong

Since the last installment on the crisis, there has been a great deal of controversy generated by what might be called the “fire-the-bishops” crowd.

Intemperate and unseemly assertions have been published by people who should know better to the effect that the whole thing is the fault of John Paul II, and that his person and pontificate are now discredited. People on the left do not like John Paul for many reasons. On the right, there have long been those who have said that he has sorely failed in the government of the Church. The three responsibilities of a bishop are to teach, sanctify, and govern, and among some traditionalists the line is that John Paul gets an A on the first two and an F on the third.

Presumably, if he had done his job, he would have gotten rid of all the miscreant and negligent bishops in the U.S.

There are many things wrong with this way of thinking. It reflects a startling ignorance of Catholic ecclesiology, as though the pope is the CEO of Catholicism Inc. rather than what he is: the effective sign of unity among successors to the apostles, each of whom is as much a bishop as he is. It also assumes that there are waiting in the wings men of sterling competence and character ready to take the place of those who are to be “fired.” Most depressing, there is a propensity to exaggerate the incidence of malfeasance among the current body of bishops. Let it be said again that, despite the panic of Dallas, most of the bishops are trying to be good, holy, and conscientious shepherds.

Of course this is a time for careful rethinking about the way in which bishops are selected, and George Weigel’s important book, The Courage to be Catholic, has useful suggestions in that connection. But in all the understandably doleful reflection upon the present circumstance, especially the failings of bishops, we are to keep in mind the words of St. Paul that love “does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.” Things are bad enough as they are without exaggerating, never mind rejoicing in, all that has gone wrong.

The life of the Church goes on. Talk about the gates of hell not prevailing can be, as is often pointed out, a mark of smug complacency. Trusting the promise of Christ should be a matter of faith-filled confidence that, on the far side of this crisis, there will be a Church purified and revitalized in her pastoral, evangelistic, and culture-transforming mission. We are a long way from the far side of this crisis. Most striking and most hopeful now is how deep and widespread is the awareness that things were allowed to go very wrong for a very long time; that, after this year, there can be no returning to business as usual. I do not want to overstate the change of mood, but it is palpable. Maybe I am too much in conversation with bishops, priests, and lay people who are John Paul II Catholics-Catholics who share his sense of the high adventure of fidelity. But even among those who are not converted to that vision, and we are all on the way to the fullness of conversion, there appears to be a new attentiveness to a better, holier, more challenging, more exciting way of being the Catholic Church in America. Or, at the very least, there is what I mentioned earlier: a deep, even somber, sobriety. It is not unlike a prelude to repentance. After repentance, almost anything can happen.

Sources: On Rowan Williams, London Telegraph, July 25, 2002; Tablet, July 27, 2002; ZENIT, August 4, 2002. WHILE WE’RE AT IT: New Yorkers don’t need therapy, Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2002. Richard Johnson on lust, Forum Letter, July 2002. Ben Brantley on Jean Genet, New York Times, July 24, 2002. John Gross on anti-Semitism, quoted in Wall Street Journal, April 11, 2002. Rupert Shortt on John Cornwell, Times Literary Supplement, March 29, 2002. “Great Sex” workshop, Family Research Council press release, July 25, 2002. James Skillen on the U.S. and the ICC, Capital Commentary, July 15, 2002. Ethnocentric murder laws, New York Times, July 22, 2002. Alan Woolfolk on moral education, Society, January/February 2002. Coming home to the Church, Context, June 15, 2002. Singer v. Neuhaus, Free Inquiry, Summer 2002. Ron Dreher on John Paul II, National Review Online, August 20, 2002. Ordinary Catholics, Boston Globe, August 4, 2002. Fellowship among atheists, Seattle Times, June 24, 2002. Midgean wisdom, Weekly Standard, December 3, 2001. Fox News and Frances Kissling, Fox News press release, August 3, 2002. Gabriel Fackre on A. J. Gagnon, Pro Eccesia, Summer 2002. Cass Sunstein on Francis Fukuyama, New Republic, May 6, 2002. Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete on the scandals, quoted in New Republic, May 6, 2002.