What is to be done? On my third reading of "What the Church Needs Now" (February 14, 2003), I calculated that I agreed with 98 percent of David O’Brien’s ideas. On the fourth reading, I concluded that he agreed with 98 percent of mine.
We agree that: the church is paralyzed; no major American Catholic institutions have yet offered a compelling response to the crisis; structural changes are needed in the church; the truth of the sexual-abuse crisis must be unraveled and made public; shared responsibility is required across the range of parish and diocesan councils; independent organizations of priests, deacons, pastoral ministers, and laity must be formed; the Catholic Common Ground Initiative needs to emulated and expanded in airing the neuralgic differences among Catholics; pastoral ministry needs to be re-assessed and renewed at all levels.
We agree on a great deal. Yet I find in O’Brien’s essay a curious animus toward what he terms "moderates." People like Scott Appleby, me, and others unnamed are judged hesitant to "issue a challenging call to action." While acknowledging the need for a "necessary pause before offering prescriptions," O’Brien disdains the "on the one hand, on the other hand" stance of moderates toward the agendas of both right and left, as if they were "equally unacceptable." Well, they are unacceptable, although not necessarily equally. What I and other "on the one hand, on the other hand" moderates object to, however, is not these "agendas" in themselves. Each may have some legitimate and valuable points, and personally, I find many more on the left than on the right. But many of these causes, which may or may not have merits on other grounds, and the emotions connected to them, have been chained to the sexual-abuse scandal regardless of their pertinence. The result has been a fog of anger and proposals distracting Catholics from particular facts about the crisis and practical measures for addressing it. The analyses of right and left may each contribute helpful pieces of criticism and insight to our current problem. But on the whole, I find that their large-scale and predetermined agendas for "restoration" or "reform" have seriously distorted the crisis for their own ends.
I say in my essay ("The Church Still in Crisis," December 20, 2002) that at heart we have an ecclesiological crisis: An ongoing crisis of disordered relationships between and among the bishops and the Vatican, the bishops and the clergy, and the bishops and the laity has been made manifest by the sexual-abuse scandal. Left, right, and center have retailed some version of this. What to do? Marching under the banner of George Weigel or James Carroll seems to me to be marching under false colors-and over a cliff.
I think there is plenty to do about this crisis, but it is challenging only in the sense that much of it is obvious and perhaps even a little boring.
First, we still need to think about the "how" and "why" of this crisis. Despite the reams of news stories and analysis, I am surprised at how few people have given their critical attention to what is now known-and not known. Read. Think. Reflect.
Second, Kathleen McChesney, executive director of the Office of Child and Youth Protection, spoke recently at Saint Ignatius parish in New York. She answered questions about sexual abuse in the church in a direct, no-nonsense, and credible manner. When she and the Keating Commission are finished with their several investigations, we will know how many victims there have been, how many perpetrators, how much money has been spent, how and why the problem persisted, and what each and every diocese is doing to prevent the sexual abuse of children. She asked the audience for its support for her work and attention to her findings. We should give it to her.
Third, lobby for better bishops. The abuse crisis reached enormous proportions because some/many (we don’t know), but not all, bishops have been shown to be untrustworthy. Yet anything any bishop now does is subject to intense suspicion (at least a third of the questions put to McChesney were premised on the assumption that she couldn’t trust the bishops to see her work through). At the same time, Rome seems oblivious to the dimensions of the crisis and the measure of its own responsibility for it. The Vatican needs to hear and acknowledge that this crisis is not caused by the media, nor by the victims, nor by anti-Catholicism, nor by dissenters (right or left). This crisis has been caused by Vatican appointees; it has reached such enormous proportions because the Vatican has systematically undermined the collegiality, cohesion, and effectiveness of the bishops’ conference.
David O’Brien is right: organizing the laity and clergy is important. Yet ours remains an apostolic and hierarchical church, and bishops are key to its proper ordering. Bad bishops undermine and destroy that fundamental understanding of the church. Rome cannot teach that bishops are the successors of the apostles and then appoint men unable to fill their sandals. Examine the names of those who serve on the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops as reported in the 2002 Annuario. Read the names from the pulpit! Note those from the United States: William Baum, Edmund Szoka, James Stafford, and Bernard Law; the first three are absentee landlords and the fourth is disgraced. Add to their power of appointment, a selection process weighted toward men who have spent too much time in Rome, too little time in parishes, and much too much time lobbying for higher office. Everyone of us, especially Americans who know the situation, should make our needs known-to the pope, to the Congregation for Bishops, to curial officials, to new bishops (especially the bad ones), and to those longing to be a new bishop, as well as to the bishops we now have.
Fourth, as Mary Jo Bane wrote in these pages a year ago, (March 8, 2002), models for accountability, transparency, and checks and balances are widely used in this society and are fully known to American Catholics. These forms of organization and governance should be adapted by Catholic dioceses, parishes, and institutions to their own needs-in handling grievances, managing finances, assigning personnel, and allocating resources. [end]
