Incomplete reforms

In an earlier post I said that 'I am disgusted with the present church's handling of sexual abuse, the priests who did it, and the bishops who covered up after them.' That prompted a comment from Elena to ask me:

OK. So? There was a public scandal, reform has taken place and they have made efforts to improve and implimented reforms. There have been public apologies, shame, and humiliation.

What else would satisfy you Steve?

And that is a fair question. So here goes...

What satisifes me doesn't matter, it's what is best for the church that counts. People have different thoughts about what is best for the church in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals. Those scandals caused a lot personal pain in my life, and so when I come across as not being satisifed, it's probably because I still carry some of that pain. And I don't think that the real problem has been fully addressed - the reforms are incomplete.

The professional/consulting part of my mind is trained to find and resolve problems. One of the most important parts of resolving a problem is determining the factors that caused it, and then changing the environment so that those factors don't happen again. If you don't fix what caused the problem, the problem will come back sooner or later. This is often the most difficult thing for people to do, because it involves changing the way we do things. Most people, and the organizations they work in, don't really like change that is suggested and/or intitiated from the outside. I deal with that every week, it's simple human nature.

The USCCB has put in place better procedures for handling priests and staff who are suspected of sexual abuse (would they have done so if not for pressure from the laity?), but it doesn't appear to me that they addressed one of the biggest roots of this problem: a complete lack of visibility and accountability in governance, to their laity. That is how some bishops were able to sweep this problem under the rug for so long, and it is how they could do so in the future with other problems. There are no practical checks & balances in church governance, and little if any transparency into the process.

Laity need a decisive role in church governance, not only the roles of advisor, auditor or spectator. Governance is simply how we manage the operations of the church, and I believe that lay participation in church governance is not incompatible with the hierarchy. Having a decisive role in governance doesn't mean democracy or influencing the development of doctrine. However, it can lead to transparency and accountability on all sides. After all, we - clergy & laity - are in this journey together.

Comments

[Alexa]

Geesh, I'm going to stick my neck out on this one and I'm feeling unsure of my ability to word what I'm wanting to express, so bear with me here...

What you write, Steve, makes perfect sense to me too. I agree.

The only thing I think that should also be implemented is that when/if the laity is brought into the "governance" of the church, it should be a laity that is educated [somehow] in church affairs. It shouldn't be a laity that responds wholly from "their seat in the pew" so to speak...because that "view" is limited. It should be a laity that is well informed, & whose consciences' are well-formed. Maybe a sort of formation program should be instituted for the laity that is specifically geared for instruction and necessary prior to one's appointment into the "governing body" that is proposed to include the laity.

I think I'll stop there. Hope it was clear. (this is one of those posts I generally avoid commenting on because I'm not so good at forming my opinions in writing....)

God Bless.

[Talmida]

I agree with Alexa, Steve. There are a lot of lay people graduating from the Theological College in my town -- I assume it's similar in the United States? Studying theology or pastoral ministry is very popular here (perhaps due to the shortage of priests). I don't think there would be a shortage of trained individuals, or a lack of structure for training them, if specific skills were needed.

One point I thought should be included in your solution is the inclusion of more lay people in the formation process of priests. More lay instructors and more thorough psychological screening would probably help too. We can't let our shortage of priests encourage us to let the unqualified (or the dangerous) slip under the radar.

[Elena]

On a parish level, doesn't parish council fill this roll? And since the implementation of VIRTUS and other programs that were almost mandatory for everyone in some parishes, don't you think the role of the local authorities in these matters have been been stressed and put into focus? I don't think anyone who took that program doesn't understand that part of their accountability is to the local police if they suspect abuse.

And lastly I'm wondering if you're missing the two biggest elephant in the room. 1. Most of the abusive acts were homosexual ones and 2. orthodox diocese had the lowest rates of abuse.

[Steve Bogner]

Yes, Talmida - there are quite a few lay people (at least around here in Cincinnati) that have pursued advanced studies in theology and so on.

Elena, I've been on parish councils - even chaired one for a few years. Current canon law does not permit parish councils to actually make decisions that bind pastors or parishes to do anything. They are advisory at best, and far from the filling the 'decisive' role that I was writing about. Not all parishes have them - from what I've read, the US leads the church in use of parish councils. Now, some priests handle their parish councils better than others.

The sexual abuse cover-up, in my opinion, brought to light some governance problems we have in the church. Maybe the causes of clerical sexual abuse are related to poor governance, or lack of faith and devotion, or homosexual priests. I don't know. But the cover-up of the abuse is a problem that has not been addressed well-enough. Organizations, particularly large ones like the church, will have sickos and misc. problems no matter how well we screen priests - I don't think we can avoid such problems. But we do have a choice in how we respond to them when they do arise.

[Unapologetic Catholic]

I disagree with Elena. Most parishes do not have parish councils. A finace council is required not a parish council. Second, she's lookign at the wrong elephant entrely. The biggest component of clergy sexual abuse is with married women...a currently non-reported category. The bishops have not conducted any polls to obtain the full extent of this or any other adult clergy sexa bause. thery were quite willing to limit it to children.

And while we're at it, let's just shoot her pet elephant. Nobody denies there is a noncelibate homosexual problem in the Catholic clergy. And how widespread is that? We don't know becasue the bishops have not taken it upon themselves to study the problem in any methodical or reliable detail

[Elena]

Since Steve wrote: "The professional/consulting part of my mind is trained to find and resolve problems." That's the part I'm focusing on, particularly finding the problem.

Maybe adding the laity is part of the resolution part. But laity, being human too, how can you guarantee they too don't become corrupt or add to the corruption? Certainly secular institutions have had sex scandals as well? How does adding another layer guarantee the corruption and abuse stops without having that layer becoming part of the organism and becoming corrupt itself?

As for UC - Maybe adult sex between priest and adult women is a problem, an age old problem. I haven't seen stats though that it was anywhere near the problem as the molestation of minors, particularly adolescent boys? Can you call consensual sex between adults abuse? or are you saying that it's rape? Any articles or numbers?

And how accurate is polling? Do people answer those types of things truthfully? Do they comply in great enough numbers to make it accurate?

I don't think you want to dismiss the homosexual element. If we truly are looking to find the problem, it has to be looked at.

[Steve Bogner]

There's no gurantee at all Elena, that adding laity to the decision making/governing process will solve all the problems. But adding laity to the mix would, I believe, solve some of the problems with accountability and transparency.

If laity had a decisive voice in which pastor is assigned to their parish, and were able to review that pastor's history of conduct, I have to believe abusive priests would have been dealt with much earlier and more effectively. That's one example I can think of - better minds could probably think of more.

[Elena]

On the parish local level I can see that working Steve, but then I have always belonged to parishes with dynamic parish councils so that might be coloring my perception of things. I'm more skeptical of another layer at the top.

But isn't an even more basic question, why are there so many abusive men in the priesthood? And then I guess logically how do we nip abusive behavior before it ever finds a victim.

[Nathan]

Well, here's my take on letting the laity have a role in Church governance. We've given the laity a greater role in Church governance since Vatican II, and the result has been Bishops who won't speak against evil, laity who don't know the Church's teaching, Call To Action, Catholics For a Free Choice, John Kerry, a dramatic drop in vocations, the widespread use of contraception . . . I think I can stop there.

I think the simple fact is that the Church cannot be governed by laypeople because Jesus didn't plan it that way, and now when we try to do it, it results in chaos, because it is human planning vs. the divine plan.

[Todd]

Peace, all.

I'm solidly with Steve on this one. Priests generally dodged serious reform at Vatican II, and I think lay involvement in discerning vocations would be a good step. I also think episcopal cover-up was far more harmful than the predation. We've known for two decades (at least) that some clergy preyed on children, teens, and women. The scandal blew wide open when Cardinal Law "and Order" was outed as one of the bad guys--and him coming from the Right and all.

Bishops should be appointed from their own dioceses most of the time. Once installed a bishop, I cannot think of a good reason outside of a papal election for that bishop to move to another diocese. Episcopal careerism is a far bigger elephant than Elena's. When bishops are more concerned about looking good (aka orthodox) for an all-powerful curia, then we have problems.

Lay people should have a say in governance, because that is indeed what Jesus had in mind. Religious orders have always done it. Dioceses in the Patristic Era did it. Democracy is virtually a Christian institution; it's time we restored that one lost tradition.

[David]

Steve,

I am posting here just to let you know that I finally replied to your response on your 'election results' page from November 3.

I just want to make sure you see it. I don't know how often you check replies to older posts.

[Steve Bogner]

Elena, I'm glad you've had the benefit of dynamic parish councils, and perhaps, of priests who value those councils. When priests seriously value and consider the advice of their parish councils, parish governance doesn't need much improvement. But that is the weak spot - a priest doesn't have to pay attention to anything that comes from his parish councils.

I think lay participation at the diocesan level is sorely needed. Dioceses have millions in revenue, employ hundreds or thousands, have multiple locations and ministries and so on. There is so much opportunity for mismanagement and bad governance. I don't know that adding a extra layer, as you describe it, is needed. I see it more as inserting laity into existing decision-making bodies in the diocese. These lay people would be volunteers from outside the diocesan org-chart. Perhaps each parish sends one.

[Steve Bogner]

Nathan, are you sure about the causality in all those things? The limited role that laity now have in church governance - a role that prevents them from making decisions to bind pastors & parishes to do anything - led to all that?

I'm not advocating that the church be solely governed by laity. What I think I've said is that it is possible, and in my opinion desireable, for laity to have a decision-making role in the existing hierarchical governance of the church.

I don't remember anything from the Gospels where Jesus told Peter to build the church with its current structure.

[Elena]

Elena, I'm glad you've had the benefit of dynamic parish councils, and perhaps, of priests who value those councils. When priests seriously value and consider the advice of their parish councils, parish governance doesn't need much improvement. But that is the weak spot - a priest doesn't have to pay attention to anything that comes from his parish councils.

My understanding however is that whether priest likes it or not, if he's abusing kids, ANYONE who knows about it,from the parish secretary, to the janitor, to the president of the parish council IS REQUIRED by the law and now by the diocese, to report it.

I see it more as inserting laity into existing decision-making bodies in the diocese. These lay people would be volunteers from outside the diocesan org-chart. Perhaps each parish sends one.

I guess I don't see what these inserted laity do exactly that helps the abuse scandal.

[Elena]

Priests generally dodged serious reform at Vatican II,

Wow, not in my neck of the woods! That elusive "Spirit" of Vatican II had the organ in moth balls, statues replaced with burlap banners and George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" at mass with warp speed!!

[Steve Bogner]

If a bishop would have known that various lay volunteers from the parishes had the authority to review priests' personnel files and insurance claims/payments at the diocesan level, I believe the sexual abuse cover up would have been nipped in the bud. Cover-ups depend on secrecy.

Or, suppose the parish council was allowed to review the personnel file for their new pastor, prior to his arrival? And then every few years during the assignment. Parish councils - good ones, at least - are accustomed to working in such sensitive areas with a great degree of respect.

Maybe greater lay involvement in parish governance would have prevented pastors from replacing statues with burlap and playing George Harrison tunes?

[Elena]

You bring up good points Steve. It seems that those types of actions could prevent cover up.

I'm not sure it does much to prevent abusive men from entering the priesthood and it still seems to me that's the most obvious place to be pre-emptive.

[Nathan]

Todd wrote: Lay people should have a say in governance, because that is indeed what Jesus had in mind.

Prove it.

Steve wrote:

Nathan, are you sure about the causality in all those things? The limited role that laity now have in church governance - a role that prevents them from making decisions to bind pastors & parishes to do anything - led to all that?

No, I'm not sure about the causality of all those things, but they weren't widespread before the reforms that gave laity more power. If they're not at least partially a result of the laicism that's going on in the Church, then how do you explain the fact that they coincide with it?

Steve wrote: I'm not advocating that the church be solely governed by laity. What I think I've said is that it is possible, and in my opinion desireable, for laity to have a decision-making role in the existing hierarchical governance of the church.

But what kind of a role? How binding will it be, and binding upon whom? And more importantly, how will it fit in with Scripture and the doctrine of the Church as to how the Church's governmental structure should be?

Steve wrote: I don't remember anything from the Gospels where Jesus told Peter to build the church with its current structure.

No, but there's also nothing in the Gospel that calls for lay decision-making, and St. Paul's letters make it pretty clear that the Church was governed by bishops who were successors to the Apostles, with priests and deacons who assisted them. How do you reconcile with the governmental structure found in St. Paul's letters with greater lay decision-making?

[Unapologetic Catholic]

Adult sexual activty of priests dwarfs child sexual abuse. Rischard Sipe's studies indicated about 20 years ago that 6% of preists molested children, 20% were at any given time homosexually non celibate amd 20% hetersexually non-celibate. The recent Jay report found 4% of priests had molested children. This is close enogh to the Sipe figures that Sipe's other figures are in the ballpark.

This is not an American problem, either. This is a worldwide problem, with massive scandals on every continent. In other continents where celibacy is an "ideal" it it widely accepted that preists have mistresses. In Africa, it appears that "celibacy is defined as "not married and no children.' Nuns are particluary at risk with some African priests.

Moreover, it's not even a recent problem, as evidenced by St. Peter Damian's book Liber Gomorrhianus on 1049. In that book he writes the Pope and harshly condemns widespread clerical pederastry. "His special condemnation of pederastic crimes by clergy against young boys and men (including those preparing for holy orders) made over nine hundred years ago, certainly tends to undermine the excuse of many American bishops and Cardinals who claim that they initially lacked specific knowledge and psychological insights by which to assess the seriousness of clerical pederastic crimes" observed an orthodox Catholic writer of today.

We don't know the extent of the clergy sexual abuse problem because th ebishops have doen very littel since 1049 do deal with a historically widespread issue encompassign all contintents and all time periods.

[Unapologetic Catholic]

One suggestion for reform with be greater lay involvemnet for the slection of bishops including the Bishop of Rome. It's historical fact that most bishops and the Pope were elected by the laity for about a 1000 years.

Now there are several observations above that we have to be nuts to allow lay involvement to any great extent, becasue we can't know how to screen out the lunatics nad those out to sabotage the process.

My proposal would be to revert the title of Cardinal to its former status. Prior to 1983(!!!) Cardinals did not need to be ordained. The term cardinal deacon is still used. An example of a non-ordained lay cardinal is Reginal Cardinal Pole, apointed Cardinal in 1536 as a layman. He was one of three Cardinals to preside over the Council of Trent. He also missed being elected pope by one vote in 1549, chiefly because he discouraged the developing popular aclamation for his election.

He was finally ordained as a priest in 1557, several years later.

I'd suggest a return to the appointment of lay cardinals, whose sole duty is to particiapate in Papal elections. Obviously the Pope can pre-screen the candidates and choose holy edcuated lay persons as cardinals. They would vote alongside the clerical cardinals also appointed by the Pope. I'd even recommend that each bishop chose a number of lay persons in each diocese to be used as electors for eposcopal office based on the same criteria that the lay cardinals would be appointed by the Pope.

There are already procedures in some places where the diocese elects a slate of three candidates to be bishop. The Pope selects from one of the three elected. This has worked well for centuries in Swtizerland. It could work well in other areas of the world. None of this requres any doctrinal change or revolutionary change, merely a deletion of language inserted for the first time in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

[Steve Bogner]

Hi Nathan -

I used an example of laity having decision-making authority in an earlier comment to Elena.

I agree - bishops have the authority to determine how the church is governed. They have used that authority over the years to build and change governance to resemble what we have today. Catholicism didn't start out with the Vatican, Cardinals, the Curia, various religious orders, canon law and so on - they were the result of bishops recognizing a need and finding a solution. They could decide to integrate laity into decision-making roles, and they could decide what's included in that role.

[Unapologetic Catholic]

Of couse it's a historical fact that the first apastolic successor to the Apolstles was elected:
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
*****
21
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22
beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23
So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place."
26
Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles

[jcecil3]

I'm with Steve on this issue.

Elena wrote: 2. orthodox diocese had the lowest rates of abuse.

This is an absolutely false statement and the exact opposite is demonstrable.

Cardinal Law (who broke the law) was no liberal. The recent scandals in Austria were not under a liberal bishop. Abusive priest, Paul Shanley managed to gain hierarchical cover up by blackmailing conservative Cardinals over what they did to him while he was a boy!

Indeed, the very "causes" Steve speaks of in his original post that are inherent to the way many conservative bishops govern.

Many - indeed most - conservative bishops avoid any and all change, never admit error, believe the clergy is above the laity, operate in secrecy, believe in keeping up appearences, insist that regurgitating "orthodox" theology is more important than personal moral character, avoid "scandal" even at the cost of being deceptive, hold oaths of fidelity and loyalty above civil and moral law, refuse to talk openly to men in formation about how to live chastity with integrity because they're afraid to talk about sex at all, believe reform is simply repeating old formulas with more emphasis on threats of hell, refuse to learn from a secular institution that addressed these issues better, threaten to excommunicate anyone who criticizes them, etc....

I am speaking from experience here. The liberals who have been through the formation often started out conservative until they saw what goes on behind the sacristy doors.

Liberals are not out to destroy the Church. We seek to save it. This doesn't mean we're always right, but we know the Church in its current structures is very ill and in need of a physician.

The type of reform Steve suggest is critical.

Conservative laity also need not be afraid.

Conservative laity and conservative bishops are very different types of people - and I am speaking from experience here.

I do not believe the average conservative Catholic lay-person would violate civil and moral law and cover-up sexual abuse of a minor for the sake of protecting the institution that provides them a livehood. They'd quite their job and bring in the cops.

If any of the bishops, liberal or conservative, believed and lived like conservative laity, many bishops would already be in jail - including many of the most conservative bishops. They're aren't any bishops in jail yet because conservative bishops do not think at all like conservative laity!

This is why I agree with the observations of some others that the laity need some training before entering a position where they can make decisions. If the Bishops are too soft, many laity are too hard.

While the Bishops have not done enough to reform, the laity too easily can turn reform into a witch hunt with real burnings at the stake.

There is a middle ground, and the laity need to be prepared through a formation process to reach that middle ground.

To put the mind of conservative laity at ease with the process of greater lay involvement in decision making, consider that lay involvement in decision making would have the added benefit for conservative laity that popular piety isn't thrown out the window too quickly.

I'm going to stray off topic a second, and bring it back by the end....

When educated laity are given a decicive voice in Church governance, they also have a chance to explain why things like Rosaries matter to them.

They can explain why they don't want George Harrison songs sung at Mass all the time or at the expense of some of their traditional favorites.

Yet, the same folks who pray the Rosary and like to weave traditional hymns into the Mass may also come to the conclusion that married or women clergy could help solve the problem of sexual abuse.

That's what the conservative bishops really don't want.

The very big deep and dark secret that few of the bishops want to admit is that close to half these conservative bishops are themselves gay, and some portion of the conservative bishops, straight or gay, are pedophiles.

The reason many conservative bishops don't want married priests is not theological in the least.

Rather, it's that it makes them stand out more - forcing the closet door to crack open. Same goes for women priests. Their own sexuality may become more apparent if married and women priests shared the sacristy with them.

What Elena doesn't get about people like myself is that liberals aren't opposed to most of the positive things she believes about the sacraments, family, and so forth.

It's the negative things she believes about other people that we disagree with.

I don't agree with her perceptions of the threat posed by openly gay people, and I don't get why she blindly follows people who seem very obviously to be closeted gays to me and other liberals.

We also don't understand why she simply refuses to acknowledge what is really happening when it is pointed out to her, and even as the evidence mounts higher and higher that we are telling the truth about what we perceived first hand.

In many ways, I am not a liberal. For example, even in politics, I am pro-life, against no-fault divorce, and write about why and how people should avoid pornography. I pray the Rosary, go to confession frequently, believe in real presence. My choir uses Gregorian chant along with contemporary music in ways that honor the rubrics in the GIRM.

I am opposed to a gay life-style of multiple partners, but believe in committed love, even if it finds expression in a homosexual relationship.

I can argue against the liberals who may deny real presence, but I can also draw on our own tradition to show why women can be ordained.

If laity were more involved, with a little theological training, psycological screening and formation, they could be very powerful in helping to preserve the best of conservatism while also pushing the very best that progressive reformers propose.

Lay involvement in decision making is going to be the salvation of the Church. Lay people were involved in decision making in the NT and for at least a thousand years. As already pointed out, laity elected bishops in the beginning and for a very long time.

If the laity were involved, it would force the bishops to be more accountable on sexual abuse, and it may lead to other theological reforms - and I say there's nothing wrong with that.

The only thing I fear is that fear itself will cause us to revert back to the eleventh century, where the same problems existed but we were a thousand years away from a solution.

[Steve Bogner]

Joe - I think you're taking this off in the wrong direction. Decisive lay participation in church governance is not about influencing or reforming theology - it's about good governance. I believe there has to be a clear, hard and fast line between governance and theology.

And this is bigger than what anyone thinks of anyone else. It encompasses more than the sexual abuse scandals because it focuses on the way our church is governed on a day-to-day basis.

Conservative laity need not be afraid, that is true. Nor do moderates, progressives, or liberals. What is there to fear!? Are we actually afraid of each other? How can we turn our wonderful church into a war zone of mistrust and skepticism? What ever happened to charity and hope!?

I'm not perfect or immune to it, but gosh-darn-it all this conservative/liberal bickering does is waste time and energy that could be spent in prayer, mutual-support, feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and housing the homeless.

[Unapologetic Catholic]

In Response to Steve, I think we all assume what would have happned in a 1985 hypothetical conversation like this one:

Bishop (calling a well respected Catholic layman, father of 5): "Bill, I have a very sensitive problem. A priest has admitted to me that he has molested some boys. I believe he is sincerely sorry, and is a holy man. I have forgiven his sins and would like to give him another chance. Obviously, he can't stay in the current parish, but I could quietly transfer him to another. What is your honest opinion?"

Bill: "Your Eminence, I appreciate your confidence, and pray I am worthy of it, but I have to tell you, this is a huge mistake. We can forgive sins, but in this case, with so much at stake for young children, we cannot give him another chance. There may be other places this man can serve the Lord but he cannot serve in ministry in any setting other than monastic. I cannot overemphasize the damage that he has caused that will last beyond this lifetime into future generations. We cannot risk any repeat of that. Your Eminence, you must remove this man form active ministry at once. As a father of young children, please rely on my experience in this very grave matter. He can never again work anywhere near children."

Now that hypothetical conversation never took place. Why? Steve's point is that it never crossed the Bishop's mind to make that call. In a truly collaborative method of episcopal governance, that call would have been made repeatedly to motehrs and fathers. It does not require any particular orthodox or liberal mindset to see the issue. Adjusting matters so such calls could take place, where the laity would really be looking out for the best for their Bishop and the Church, should not take extraordinary measures and should generally not be difficult. However, the reality is that the Bishops are surrounded by sycophants. How do we keep this from happening?

This is a very standard situation in business and in the military. Good business leaders and good military leaders are on the lookout for sycophancy, and still succomb to that temptation now and then. Bishops need to learn how to identify and resist this natural tendency to toady. The laity hae a lot to offer in this regard.