Can the bishops get anything right? If events surrounding last month’s U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) meeting were any indication, the answer is no. The bishops’ first mistake was mind-boggling: not to include a public discussion of the sexual-abuse crisis on the agenda of their Saint Louis meeting. Having adopted a charter to deal with the crisis the year before in Dallas, and having established the thirteen-member lay National Review Board to investigate sexual abuse within the church and to monitor the bishops’ compliance with their own rules, the bishops apparently felt it was time to “move on.” At best, that was wishful thinking; at worst, it was further evidence of the mindset that got them into the crisis in the first place. Why wasn’t it obvious that ignoring the crisis wasn’t an option? With the Review Board’s reports not expected until next year, many questions linger. Yes, the bishops have made giant strides, but they had an obligation to continue to publicly address the crisis.

Things went from merely a bad agenda to worse when shortly before the meeting, Frank Keating, former Oklahoma governor and National Review Board chairman, gave an interview in which he complained that bishops were not cooperating with the board’s investigations. Keating described some bishops as acting “like La Cosa Nostra” in their refusal to reveal the names of accused priests. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and other California bishops had balked at completing the questionnaire sent by the board’s investigators, citing legal concerns about the information being subject to subpoena in lawsuits. Mahony’s fear turned out to be misplaced, since the information is already subject to such subpoenas. But Keating’s remarks infuriated Mahony and the chairman subsequently resigned from the Review Board. Naturally, the resignation created the impression that Keating’s charge was essentially accurate and that the bishops had forced him out rather than cooperate fully.

That impression is not entirely accurate. The vast majority of bishops are cooperating, and Mahony has said that he will do so as well. Keating, whose appointment last year by USCCB’s president Wilton Gregory had been hurried, is known for making rash judgments and statements. As it turns out, none of the other board members publicly supported Keating, and several defended the bishops. In fact, it seems likely that the board itself, not the bishops, insisted on Keating’s departure. At this time, there is little reason to think that the board’s work has been compromised or sabotaged. That such suspicions are now widespread is yet another example of how ineptly the bishops communicate to the public.

And as if Keating’s resignation weren’t enough, that same week Bishop Thomas J. O’Brien of Phoenix was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident in which a pedestrian was struck by his car and killed. O’Brien, who has admitted protecting sexually abusive priests, had only recently concluded an agreement with the local prosecutor surrendering some of his authority in church personnel matters. Although the circumstances surrounding the fatal accident are ambiguous, O’Brien’s behavior and his explanations of what happened hardly inspired confidence. Needless to say, Catholics were beginning to wince at the mere mention of the word bishop.

There is a Keystone Cops aspect to recent events that is deeply exasperating and demoralizing. Much of what has contributed to the enormous erosion in trust between the laity and the hierarchy was epitomized by the very visible presence in Saint Louis of former Boston archbishop Cardinal Bernard Law. Of course, Law’s obtuse handling of sexually predatory priests has been at the epicenter of this crisis, one that has left the church in Boston in open disarray and the entire U.S. church reeling. Law’s dissembling when faced with charges he had coddled abusive priests and his refusal to resign until last December arguably did more to fuel the crisis than any other factor. Yet there he was among his fellow bishops in Saint Louis behaving as though little had changed. Are there really no bishops capable of persuading Law that at this late date the best thing he could do for the church would be to keep as low a profile as possible?

To be fair, many bishops have behaved admirably. Like most Catholics presumably, they too have been shocked, demoralized, and to some extent undone by month after month of appalling revelations, by the constant negative media coverage, and by the prospect of unending lawsuits and bankrupting settlements. Under these conditions, it is hard not to be off balance and defensive. Finding the right tone and the right answer to every question is not easy, even in the best of times. Yet it is essential that more bishops begin to reach out to the great mass of disillusioned Catholics. (Boston’s newly appointed archbishop, Sean P. O’Malley, appears to have made a good start.) Much, of course, must be done for the victims of clerical abuse. Beyond that, however, there is an acute sense of malaise and alienation in the pews and among the clergy. Honest dialogue among all concerned is essential. Commonweal will try to do its part. In this issue (and in his new book, A People Adrift) Peter Steinfels writes that there is lots of practical work to be done if the church is to surmount the challenges it now faces. He believes that improving the quality of the liturgy is something that can unite, rather than divide, Catholics even in this period of uncertainty. In our August issue, retired Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, O.S.B., will propose structural reforms of the hierarchy that could help mediate conflict between Rome and local churches. And in September, Timothy Schilling will examine how bishops make decisions and explain why that decision-making process must change.

Finding a way forward is something the whole church must do together. One prays the bishops have at least heard that message.