Cover
story Post-Dallas: Commentary: It is the laitys hour to shepherd
us to a renewed church
By DONALD COZZENS
As the bishops gathered in Dallas for arguably the most critical
meeting in the history of the U.S. bishops conference, the historians
among them may have remembered something Benedict Gaetani, better known as Pope
Boniface VIII, wrote some 700 years ago: All history shows clearly the
hostility of the laity toward the clergy (Clericos Laicos).
The anger many Catholics feel today toward their bishops and the
priest abusers of children and teenagers would seem to confirm Gaetanis
cynical observation. But until this third round of clergy sexual abuse -- the
Gilbert Gauthe scandal of the early 1980s in Louisiana being the first and the
1992 James Porter case in Massachusetts the second -- U.S. Catholics generally
respected their bishops and trusted their priests. But in the present climate,
not even the Dallas heat could take the chill of the laitys outrage and
hostility out of the bishops bones. The climate, the bishops understood
clearly now, had changed dramatically, and their once-unchallenged authority
and considerable prestige continued to unravel as the chorus of clergy abuse
cases rose as an almost daily mantra since January.
Painfully conscious of the dramatic sea change, their president,
Bishop Wilton Gregory, acknowledged the role many of them had played in
returning priest offenders to pastoral assignments with access to children, and
echoed the abject apology many of the bishops had made to their local
churches.
In light of many episcopal pronouncements relating to the current
crisis, Gregorys opening statement in Dallas was extraordinary in both
its candor and tone -- not a hint of arrogance or defensiveness. He came across
as sincere and forthright, giving many who heard him the hope that an authentic
leader was surfacing in the U.S. hierarchy
Gregorys message was clear. The bishops were prepared to
address the scandal with as strong a national policy as they could muster. The
present rash of abuse by clergy was to be brought to a crashing halt, whatever
the price might be.
The result was a policy statement titled Charter for the
Protection of Children and Young People and 12 norms for dealing with
accusations of sexual abuse of minors by church personnel. Although almost two
decades late, both are significant steps in the right direction, and their
implementation should prove effective in curtailing further abuse and the human
suffering and shattering of innocence that lies in the wake of clerical
betrayal -- especially the betrayal of the churchs most vulnerable souls.
Still, a growing unease with the Dallas meeting can be felt among U.S.
Catholics and priests.
Hearing the allegations
Some bishops, according to the media, had never heard directly
from victims until they sat in silence listening to the moving stories of the
four survivors who addressed them. What was it that kept bishops from meeting
with their own people who reported abuse by clergy?
Likely it was advice from diocesan lawyers. Whatever the reason,
it is sad that a number of bishops had never sat down with young people and
their families to hear personally the allegations brought against one of their
priests. Victims of clergy sexual abuse have a right to meet with their
bishops. The potential for healing when such meetings occur is considerable;
and the pain of the victims is intensified when such meetings do not occur.
Article 8 of the charter calls for the establishment of an Office
for Child and Youth Protection at the bishops headquarters in Washington.
The purpose of the office, according to the charter, is to assist dioceses in
the implementation of safe environment programs, to audit adherence
to policies set by the bishops, and to make an annual public report on
the progress made in implementing the standards of this charter. It is a
sad and telling day when a national office is deemed necessary to protect
children and youth from the negligence and behaviors of bishops, priests and
other church personnel.
The bishops gathered in Dallas, it can be argued, made the same
mistake they made almost 20 years ago when they put the reputation of the
institutional church and its centuries-old structures ahead of the welfare of
children and youth. Now they were putting the reputation of the institutional
church -- and their efforts to regain the credibility and trust of Catholics --
ahead of the welfare of their priests. Zero tolerance and one strike and
youre out seems only reasonable to victims and their families and
to the overwhelming number of angry faithful who are fed up with the sexual
exploitation of young people by clergy, but especially with the reassignment by
bishops of priest abusers to other parishes or to other dioceses -- sometimes
with letters of commendation.
Making no distinctions
Priests know full well that even criminal law recognizes
gradations of sexual misconduct. The sodomizing of a 14-year-old boy, for
example is treated differently than an obscene phone call to a young man. Yet
the zero tolerance stance adopted by the bishops allows for no such
distinctions. Certainly all abuse of minors is capable of inflicting severe
harm, yet the real differences in sexual abuse, their treatment protocols and
the possibility of restricted and limited forms of ministry remain outside the
focus of the present policy adopted by the bishops. This is a hard pill to
swallow for priests. Some very good men, capable of some ministry that would
not bring them into contact with minors, are now put into the same category of
offenders that includes serial pederasts like John Geoghan and James
Porter.
Apparently, just such a generic policy is deemed necessary by the
bishops to regain the lost trust of the faithful. Many priests, I believe, feel
betrayed, suspecting that, as usual, institutional considerations come
first.
They suspect a double standard is at play here. Priests who admit
to abusing minors or even faced with allegations of sexual abuse may not wear
clerical garb, according to Norm 9,c. (norms dealing with accusations of sexual
abuse of minors). Yet Cardinal Hans Hermann Groër, who resigned in 1995 as
archbishop of Vienna following allegations -- acknowledged to be true by his
successor, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn -- that he sexually abused novice
monks when he was a Benedictine abbot, has recently been making public
appearances dressed in his cardinals robes.
Good leaders, it is said, never ask their subordinates to do
anything they themselves have not done or are not ready to do. Nevertheless,
the bishops who had assigned abuser priests to unsuspecting parishes or
recommended them to other dioceses with positive summaries of their good
work were able to return to their dioceses armed with a policy directed
at priests and deacons -- not clergy, because the term clergy includes
bishops. The focus was now back on the priest abusers and off their bishop
leaders. No bishop dared to recommend that a brother bishop should offer his
resignation to the pope for the good of the church. Zero tolerance for priests
and deacons but not for bishops responsible for child endangerment through
negligent supervision and incomprehensible administrative decisions.
A symptom of the feudal system
Finally, the bishops were reluctant to acknowledge that the
present scandal, as tragic as it is, is a symptom of a feudal system that has
long outlived its usefulness. The present clerical system -- or culture -- is
now seen to foster secrecy, privilege, arrogance and emotional immaturity in
its ordained ministers and ecclesial authorities. To acknowledge this, of
course, would be to invite a review of the role of the laity in the leadership
of our dioceses and parishes, the wisdom of mandated celibacy for diocesan
priests, and the place of women in ministry. Such reviews do not play well at
the Vatican and are strongly resisted by many if not most of the U.S.
bishops.
Its not often, said Daniel Maguire, writing in
U.S. News & World Report, that we witness the death of a
mystique. The mystique the priesthood and episcopacy have enjoyed for
generations in the United States is indeed gone -- and it cannot be retrieved.
What we have in its place, however, is a maturing laity who is coming into its
own. Laypeople love their church but they will no longer tolerate anything less
than full disclosure about the scale of the abuse scandal and what it has cost
them.
Laypeople know that, had they been involved in the scandal from
the beginning, their clergy would never have succeeded in scarring so many
young lives. They know that this is their hour, their moment; and they are
ready and willing. The laity, I am convinced, inspired by the Spirit, will
shepherd us through the present crisis into the renewed church promised by the
Second Vatican Council.
Fr. Donald Cozzens teaches religious studies at John Carroll
University in Cleveland. He is the author of The Changing Face of the
Priesthood.
National Catholic Reporter, July 5,
2002
|