Inside
NCR
Church in crisis. The words have
become a standing page label for NCR, and we have become, I daresay,
numb to what they mean. Each week, however, it becomes clearer that crisis is
the correct word. From the Rockville Centre, N.Y., diocese and the somewhat
mystifying pronouncements of Bishop William Murphy (he objects to Voice of the
Faithful and assures us that issues urgent to laity in the diocese will be
taken up in a synod he says is planned for 2007) to the Los Angeles archdiocese
where it is clear that a $200 million cathedral cannot hide the fact that
things are coming apart, the term crisis applies. (For the stories, see Pages 9
and 17.)
During the past six months I have talked to priests, bishops and
lay people across the conservative-liberal spectrum and across the range of
church interests, ministries and pieties. Almost to a person, there is
agreement that some manner of structural reform aimed at holding church
leadership accountable is necessary.
Beneath that conviction -- that greater accountability is
essential -- the old divisions begin to show again. Some people believe that we
need tougher seminaries and a greater emphasis on celibacy. Some believe that
Vatican II was the beginning of all our problems; others that the frustration
of Vatican II reforms have resulted in the problems.
But the common ground is that we all feel betrayed, and we’re
all frustrated at the lack of leverage laypeople have to effect any change.
Bishops remain the sole gatekeepers. Even the vaunted national lay committee --
and this is not to impugn anyone on that committee -- is made up of people
selected by the bishops. Don’t despair, there’s a good idea on the
way.
After resisting for months, I have
joined those who, like Boston College theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill, believe
that the only way laypeople are going to have any influence over the situation
is to make some noise with their money. I have resisted that route because it
always seemed such an ill-defined ambition. There is certainly no mechanism for
gaining control of church funds, and I suppose I was one of those who held out
hope that the severity of the crisis would bring change, that somehow all of
the early talk about new levels of accountability would be fleshed out in new
structures that would create greater transparency when it comes to how the
church’s treasury in used. I suppose I hesitated, too, because not all
dioceses are the same, and in some there is a high degree of accountability.
Nor do I think that the long-term answer to overbearing clericalism is an
opposing power center, equally unaccountable, of lay people. But we are eons
from the balance tipping in that direction. In too many dioceses there is
little real accountability, and in some of the dioceses most seriously affected
by the crisis, the bishops won’t even talk to the lay groups that have
developed in response to the scandal.
Given all that, I pass along an
intriguing idea forwarded to me months ago by Sharon Friedman and Paul Imse
(she a government worker; he a retired lawyer and both members of the choir at
their local church), under the title, “A Simple Plan to Protect Catholic
Contributions.” Friedman and Imse, a married couple, (available by email
at maryslent@aol.com) noted that an often-advanced strategy to get the
bishops’ attention is to stop giving money to the church. “But to
many of us, our community of faith and its ministries are an important part of
our lives and our service to the broader community.”
Instead, they suggest that parishioners “join together to
support their parish’s and the church’s charitable activities. The
organization -- not the pastor, not the bishop, not the pope, would decide how,
for what and when these contributions will be expended.”
“Just think of the effects this could have. It would empower
the donors to participate in deciding how their money is spent. It would
require that the clergy and hierarchy participate in an open dialogue relating
to how and where and when the money is spent. It would create transparency and
openness about the decision-making process and about the expenditure of these
funds. It could even be an avenue for a meeting of equals (men and women, lay
and clerical) to address other issues and questions in an open, respectful
manner.
Friedman and Imse believe that each
parish has among its membership enough financial and legal expertise to create
a legal entity to which tax-deductible contributions can be made, separate from
the parish and the broader church. The first step would be to establish a
tax-exempt corporation that ultimately would be governed by contributing
members of the parish who would elect a board of directors. Instead of writing
checks each week to the parish, parishioners would donate to this new
organization, and the contributions would be given to the parish for specific
activities. The level and allocation of support for the bishop’s
activities might also be controlled and administered by a bishop’s
council, composed of representatives of a board of the people of God from each
of the parishes, Friedman and Imse propose. “The bishop would then ask for
contributions from the bishop’s council for upkeep or specific projects.
Members of the council would then coordinate with all the parish boards for
contributions and input regarding allocations.”
I don’t know if they have hit
on a solution, but I have heard enough pastors and parishioners say the kind of
structural change many think is essential will come only when laypeople use
funding as a lever to gain the bishop’s attention, that I think Friedman
and Imse’s suggestions are a good starting point for a conversation. I
can’t help wonder how different things might be if, some 15 years ago, a
bishop had been required to consult a board of laypeople and pastors to gain
access to funds for the purpose of settling a sex-abuse suit.
What do you think? Please let us know, and if there is sufficient
interest, we’ll report on the responses.
-- Tom Roberts
My e-mail address is troberts@natcath.org
National Catholic Reporter, September 27,
2002
|
