 |
About Woodstock | Programs | Publications | Search |
Restoring Trust in Church Leadership:
Occasional Paper
A WoodstockThe Woodstock Forum summary | The Woodstock Occasional Paper | Spiritual Exercises for Church Leaders books
Introduction
by Dolores R. LeckeyThe Varieties of Trust and Mistrust in the Church
by Margaret O'Brien SteinfelsA View from the Parish: Living with the Laity
by Rev. Daniel PakenhamA Canon Law Perspective: Broadening Participation Through Existing Structures
by Sister Sharon Euart, R.S.M.Moderator's Intervention: Structural Adjustments
by William J. Byron, S.J.
Restoring Trust in Church Leadership was the title of Woodstock Forum held on May 22, 2003, that brought together three speakers - journalist and commentator Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, pastor Daniel Pakenham, and canon lawyer Sharon Euart, R.S.M. - to address this crisis from different perches within the Church. Moderating the discussion was William J. Byron, S.J., author, educator, and pastor.
The Forum has yielded two publications:
An abbreviated summary of the panelists' presentations, which can be found by clicking here. (This originally appeared in Woodstock Report No. 75, October 2003).
- A Woodstock occasional paper with the full text of the presentations, which follows on this page. Printed copies of the occasional paper are also available by calling the Center at 202 687-3532 or e-mailing woodstock@georgetown.edu.
Readers who are interested in the Woodstock Forum on "Restoring Trust in Church Leadership" may also be interested in the two volumes on Spiritual Exercises for Church Leaders produced in 2003 by Woodstock's Church Leadership Program.
Notes on the Forum and the Panelists
The crisis of clergy sexual abuse has revealed deep fissures in a variety of relationships within the Catholic Church, including the relationship between leadership and laity. While care for victims must be the first priority, there is also a need to address the quality of church leadership today and the bonds of trust that have been corroded by the scandal. Many lay people see their bishops as ecclesiastical CEOs rather than spiritual leaders. And, many bishops seem suspicious of lay people who call for greater accountability. Clearly, there is a crisis of trust within the church, yet many pastors, theologians, canonists and lay faithful see it as a solvable problem. On the evening of May 22, the Woodstock Theological Center sponsored a forum that explored what can and should be done to restore that trust which is the foundation of authentic community. Filling an auditorium at Georgetown University, the forum brought together three speakers - journalist and commentator Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, pastor Daniel Pakenham, and canon lawyer Sharon Euart, R.S.M. - who addressed this crisis from different perches within the church. Moderating the discussion was William J. Byron, S.J., author, educator, and pastor. Following is an edited account of the presentations and conversations that followed.
MODERATOR
William J. Byron, S.J., is former pastor of Holy Trinity Church in Washington, D.C. Prior assignments include teaching "Social Responsibilities of Business" in the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University from 1992-2000 where he also held an appointment as Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Ethics and served as rector of the Georgetown Jesuit Community. He is author of Answers from Within: Spiritual Guidelines for Managing Setbacks in Work and Life (Macmillan, 1998), and Jesuit Saturdays: Sharing the Ignatian Spirit with Lay Colleagues and Friends (Loyola, 2000).
PANELISTS
Margaret O'Brien Steinfels is the former editor of Commonweal, a position she held for fifteen years. She is a member of the Catholic Common Ground Initiative, and lectures frequently on topics related to faith, culture, religion, and the church. In June 2002 she was one of several lay people invited to address the assembly of Catholic bishops in Dallas, Texas, about the crisis of clergy sexual abuse.
Rev. Daniel Pakenham is former director of the Secretariat for Priestly Formation at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and former rector of St. Francis Seminary in Milwaukee. Currently he is pastor of St. Mary's Church in Elm Grove, Wisconsin. Last year he wrote a series of "Letters to the Parish" about the abuse scandals and crisis of leadership in the church. Father Pakenham was the recipient of a Lilly Foundation grant to promote creative parish leadership.
Sister Sharon Euart, R.S.M., is a canonical consultant having most recently served as associate general secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from 1988 to 2001. She is also a visiting professor in the Department of Canon Law at The Catholic University of America. Her specialty is collaboration, about which she has written and spoken extensively. She, too, is a member of the Catholic Common Ground Initiative.
by Dolores R. Leckey
For sometime now Woodstock Fellows have been concerned about the erosion of trust in the central institutions of public life: government, business, and the church. Through a series of public forums we have brought these concerns into a wider dialogue. Our May 2003 forum, "Restoring Trust in Church Leadership," has been particularly challenging, partly because the church is the most integrating institution we all experience. It touches all parts of our lives, and affects us emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually whether we are lay or ordained church members.
This forum helped us at Woodstock understand more clearly the real issues involved in the troubling situation, and why the laity's trust of their leaders has been shaken. The panelists' candor and competence helped everyone sort through the many layers of confusion which have accrued since the sexual abuse scandals have come to light. Their thoughtful presentations and the ensuing questions and conversation offered some realistic hope for the future of church leadership and the restoration of trust. For these reasons Woodstock is pleased to present this Occasional Paper so that readers, too, may partake of realistic hope.
Dolores R. Leckey
Senior Fellow
Woodstock Theological Center
We've been asked to talk about restoring trust in church leadership. The Catholic Church is like the proverbial fish that grasped how desperately it needed water only when it landed in the bottom of a boat on the end of a hook. So, too, we Catholics have only grasped how much the Catholic community rests on trust now that we have so little of it. Trust is a complex reality. In its simple dictionary definition, "trust" is "a firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing." The dictionary also goes on to say, "Trust implies a depth and assurance of feeling that is often based on inconclusive evidence." That means trust requires something like a leap of faith, a readiness to accept and anticipate the good intentions of other people. Trust is a bond that is affective and intuitive, rather than rational and calculating.
Erik Erickson, the great theorist of human development, places trust - what he calls "basic trust" - as the first and most fundamental need of an infant. It's the essential quality that makes all further forms of growth and human development possible. The clerical sexual abuse scandal, now almost a year and a half along, has dramatically called into question the integrity, ability, and character of some church leaders. Subsequently, a generalized mistrust has cast a dark shadow over the trustworthiness of many other leaders, essentially all of the bishops of the United States.
The task set before us tonight is to explore how that dark shadow of mistrust can be lifted and trust restored. And as I begin I would like to make two distinctions that seem important to me.
First, church leadership is far broader than the leadership of the bishops. In this season of Easter and of commencement exercises, we are reminded how much broader pastors, RCI coordinators, college presidents and school principals, teachers, doctors, nurses, and social workers in Catholic institutions and elsewhere across the country carry on. They are exercising leadership in the church. They, too, do the work of the church. Without denying the distinct leadership role of bishops, the quality and extent of this broader leadership is important to remember when we fear that the church is collapsing around us.
The Depth and Width of Mistrust. Second distinction - the phrase "restoring trust" in our title implies that a condition of trust that once existed has been lost. For a number of years, I have thought that there has been a crisis of trust in the Catholic Church. The current cohort of bishops and archbishops do not, I think, generally trust the laity. One does not have to know too many diocesan priests to encounter their mistrust of their own ordinaries. And after Dallas (where the bishops met in June 2002 to hammer out a response to the abuse crisis), they have had ever-greater reason not to trust the bishops. Many women religious who faithfully do the work of the church do not trust the bishops and many clergy. And frankly, I doubt that the bishops have much trust in one another, although you could hardly pry that fact out of them. They behave more like good soldiers than good shepherds. What the sexual abuse scandal has done, I think, is first make manifest an ongoing erosion of trust and then second, exacerbated that and focused our church-wide malady on the bishops. A March 2002 ABC-Washington Post poll reported that less than 20 percent of Americans were confident that the church could solve the problem of sexual abuse. And only one-third of Catholics believes that the church could solve this problem. So can you restore trust where it has been lacking? Can you expect that the healing of our common malady will take place when all of the blame has been focused on only one, albeit a critical sector of the community, namely the bishops?
So with those distinctions, I have, in keeping with the seven sacraments, seven points to make. (I know you're sighing; I didn't follow a Trinitarian model here.)
1. Trust is a social practice. We humans are social beings and we swim in a sea of trust. We trust that this roof will not fall in on us, that we will usually get where we are planning to go, and that our lives will follow a usual and normal predictable pattern. When that sea of trust drains away, as it has in the church, we become skeptical, maybe cynical, and perhaps even paranoid. We reach a state where the gap between appearance and reality is so great that we cannot trust that what we see or hear or read is true. There is always a question. Then we begin to live, some of us, in the land of conspiracy theories. For example, as I have been around the country in the last several months, I am astonished at the number of people I talk to who genuinely think and expect that the bishops will close down the Office of Child and Youth Protection and the National Review Board, a course for which I see no evidence. But there are many people who expect this will happen. Of course, in our country today, the Catholic Church is not the only institution suffering from a loss of trust, but that is not our subject tonight.
2. There are different forms of trust. I've mentioned Erik Erickson's notion of basic trust, which is foundational to all other forms. And then there is blind trust; there is learned trust based on experience; there is earned trust based on mutuality and reciprocity. If we Catholics have lost one expression of trust, that doesn't mean there are not other forms for us to pursue. I suggest that we have lost a residual form of blind trust and that probably that is a good thing. I admit, however, that it is difficult to understand how, after three decades of disputatious relations and ideological divisions in the church, there could be anything like blind trust towards the bishops, but apparently there has been. In part, but only in part, I believe this is because of what I call the habits of hierarchy, which render lay people, as much as priests, naive or cynical about the uses and abuses of episcopal authority and power.
3. What are the habits of hierarchy? Or better, should I say, Catholicism's peculiar form of hierarchy? For after all, hierarchies exist everywhere in our culture, in our world. They have always existed in history, and I presume they always will. The Catholic practice of hierarchy, or at least the current practice, makes it difficult for our hierarchy to function properly. We have a church in which everything comes down and nothing goes up. It's a little bit like a dysfunctional Jacob's ladder - it only goes one way. Not only do we not elect our leaders, it is virtually impossible, unlike other hierarchies, to depose or thwart them. For example, according to a story in The New York Times just on Tuesday, the shareholders of Glasgow-Smith-Pine voted down a pay package for its presidents and top officers. Catholics cannot do that. For one thing, bishops do not have great pay packages. But still, under the current papacy, they are peculiarly and unusually immune and untouchable. In fact, the very office now seems immune from normal standards of scrutiny and appointment.
4. The nature of the current scandal points to another oddity in the Catholic ethos. The mistakes by bishops in dealing with abusive priests are both repellant and revelatory. A celibate clergy and episcopate have, or appear to have, a very different view of the social world in which we all live. As positive as they may be about unborn life, about Catholic schools, and the lives of children, in fact, their actual lives are remote from the lives of children and families - in normal patterns of empathy and concern, which in most of our lives, put children first. And I just report an anecdote that I heard from a counselor who has worked with both Protestant and Catholic church leaders on clerical sexual abuse. She observes that Protestant bishops, who of course are married, and most of them fathers, when confronted with the problem in her experience, think first of the poor child. The Catholic bishops, when confronted with the problem, think first of the poor father. Bonds of brotherhood in the Catholic clergy limit the empathy that these Catholic bishops seem able to summon to the violation of a child's body, sense of self, and sense of trust. It is their own abusive priests, over whom bishops really grieve, rather than the child who has been abused. At least, that is how this person, who has some experience, sees it.
5. There will be no trust until and unless we acquire a more accurate understanding of the complex twists and turns of this scandal. I wrote last fall in Commonweal that the How of this (How did this happen?) still requires exposition and analysis. As time passes, I hope we will also come to a more accurate description: historically, morally, psychologically, of what happened. The responsibility for child sexual abuse lies first with those who actually committed these crimes, and second with those whose errors of judgment allowed them to continue. I honestly do not think that is the whole episcopacy of the United States. There are bishops who have done the right thing, bishops whose hearts I really do believe went out to children first. I do not know who they are, but I believe that they exist. And these mistakes were made, not only by some bishops, but also by some lawyers, some therapists, and even perhaps by some parents. I think some of these can be described as honest mistakes, given what was known about sexual abuse at the time the decisions were made. And what the community standards were at the time for dealing with them. Before the 1980s and perhaps well into the 1980s, parents and lawyers, no more than bishops, seemed to have considered that one outcome of confidential or sealed agreements would be to allow priests to avoid or evade criminal punishment and go on to abuse again. Many therapists were ready and even eager to declare their treatments successful or at least successful enough to send a priest back into ministry. And perhaps some of those treatments were in fact successful. And then, what of the fellow priests of the abusers? After all, as we see from depositions in Boston and elsewhere, other priests - the classmates and friends of the abusers - usually made these reassignments. Insurance companies, lawyers for both the defense and the plaintiffs, police departments, and district attorneys also bear some responsibility for hiding or covering up the "problem" as we have come to call it. I say this not to exonerate the bishops or to blame others, but to emphasize that we will never have trust in one another if we fail to understand what actually happened, when it happened, how it happened, and understand what one observer has called "an enabling culture" that gives a pass to people in positions of authority.
6. Having said that, the responsibility for resolving or moving beyond this crisis, nonetheless lies primarily with the bishops. With our ecclesiology, how could it be otherwise? Theologically, scripturally, doctrinally, the bishops play the key role in church leadership. This matter cannot be resolved without them. That means, I think, that the Vatican must let the American bishops take care of this problem. And, it means equally that the American bishops should not expect the Vatican to cover for or obscure their own disagreement and disarray. They must stop being good soldiers and begin being good shepherds. They need to break ranks and be what a bishop ought to be. And then all of us must look clearly at what resolving this crisis entails. Most immediately it means, I think, that Kathleen McChesney, director of the Office for the Protection of Children and Youth, and the National Review Board, must be allowed to do their work and make their report. All of us should read those reports carefully and try to understand them. I believe they will be the closest thing, finally, to the facts that we are likely ever to have. And then there are the settlements that are still under negotiation or in the courts. I myself have come over the last year to have a good deal of skepticism about the motives of plaintiffs, lawyers, and victims' groups. I genuinely doubt that they have the good of the whole church, the people of God, at the forefront of their attention. There will be large settlements that draw deeply on precious resources. We should not assume that those will finally bring comfort and justice to the most seriously suffering victims. They may need more from us than money.
7. Having implied that there are things we can do, I must also say that I believe at this moment, we are at an impasse. The church is suffering a form of paralysis. We are in a state of waiting and watching. The people who can do something, namely the bishops - it appears to me, have done all they want to do or think they can do as a group. And essentially that is what they did at Dallas. Those who want to do something to help to move things on - namely the laity and the clergy - have no real vehicles for doing it, even if we knew what it was that should be done. This impasse is dangerous, and in a long run, extremely destructive. The title of Albert Hirschman's book, which some of you may know, Exit Voice and Loyalty, makes the point. Over the long run, ordinary Catholics will exit if their voices are not heard, if they are left feeling powerless in the face of this enormous crisis. It is perhaps a form of internal exile they may take, hunkering down in their own parish. Or it may actually involve leaving the church. In a recent poll, 62 percent of Boston Catholics say the crisis caused them to lose confidence in the church as an institution. And 20 percent say they have considered joining a non-Catholic church. Somewhere, somehow, some bishops and some laity and priests must begin a process of meeting, conferring, and talking - not just about this crisis, but about the crisis that has been and will be with us for some time to come. It does not have to be public, and perhaps it cannot be public at least for now. I think the word we want here is a word widely celebrated after Vatican II, namely dialogue. For unless and until those who love the church, leaders at every level, and of every kind, can talk candidly and compassionately with one another, it will be difficult to earn trust. And without trust, there can be no growth or development.
A View from the Parish: Living with the Laityby Rev. Daniel Pakenham
I'd like to reflect on the experience of being in a parish during this time. And I have to say, alluding to the title of this forum, that you can't just restore trust. There's got to be something there to restore trust in. And it's important for us to keep that in mind.
Though in some prior years we had some storms about sexual abuse, this has really become a tidal wave in the church. It has done to us what a tidal wave does. We are overwhelmed! It has come up and covered us all. You feel as though you're fighting for your life in the midst of this. It's very hard to try to come up for air.
As the tidal wave recedes, as all waves do, all kinds of things come to the surface that I suppose many people hoped would remain buried. It is as though all these related questions and discussions, mostly obscured in the past, have suddenly appeared in front of our eyes. And as we sort of gulp a little air again, we see they are all around us.
We preached about the immediate crisis in our parish - I could barely bring myself to do it, to say anything without simply falling apart. We have a family across the street from the school: 9 children, with 4 boys - all abused by the same priest, starting when they were about eight years old. The priest is now retired, lives in a lake cottage. You could imagine the anger that escalates to fury, the dismay and disappointment. We cannot deny the emotional level and we're not well equipped to deal with it. I'll say this - a lot of us celibate priests and bishops aren't well equipped to deal with the emotional aspects of this at all. And because of that, we turn away.
From Fidelity to Loyalty. Years ago, I was expected to be a faithful priest. And today, I'm expected to be a loyal one. And my friends, there's a real difference between the two. It's the connotations of what are involved. And this change, from an expectation of fidelity as a priest to a loyalty to other forces and issues and subjects, has been dramatic. It has created a huge dilemma for us because we don't want to be disloyal. We want to be understood as faithful and loyal priests. But many of us have been put in a situation where we have to ask: How in the name of heaven could this have happened? And then, if we criticize, we're disloyal.
This goes beyond the feelings of priests. I wrote a series of letters to the members of our parish over the course of last spring and summer about all of this. I got letters back saying, "Thank you for writing. It was like getting an OK to talk about this and not feel we were being disloyal to our faith and the church." That is a heartfelt comment. And I thought to myself: if those letters helped people feel that way, the effort was worth it. It is vital for Catholics and we as a community to offer a healthy critique of things, to make suggestions, and not feel we are disloyal or not be accused of disloyalty.
I operate out of the premise that in most cases, the church is most alive in our parishes. Our parishes are where the sacraments are celebrated. Babies come to be baptized. I had a six-sacrament week a couple of weeks ago, almost a perfect seven. I thought: if I could do it, I'd ordain somebody just to make it a complete picture.
In the parish, the Word of God is preached. Families gather as a community on Sunday. They visit with each other. They talk. They spend time with each other. This is where they find their friends, lifelong friends so often, in this community. And everything else in the church is there to support this brilliant idea of parishes. The parish is there for people. It's to help them with their lives, to help people find a way to holiness, to pursue that quest, to be able to make the tough decisions in their lives when dilemmas are presented to them and difficulties and challenges arise, to try to look after their children and do the right thing. That's why we're there. We are there for them. They are not there for us.
Now, if you reverse this process, as though there's some abstract church out here that everything is for, we're going to mess this up terribly. When we remember that the hierarchy, the institutions of the church, are there to serve parishes, and that parishes are there to serve the people of the church, we're going in the right direction. Then we know we're on the right path.
Learning from the Laity. Aligned with this conviction is the idea that our spiritual quest is something that is mutual. As a parish priest, I am not there to be the vehicle of God's presence to everybody and make them holy. I'm not simply handing down the faith, as if to say, "Here it is, klunk!" We are on a two-way street. I had a couple of funerals last week. These guys were saints in the way they lived their lives, looked after their families, and kept their priorities straight. I learned from them. The people I serve are my instrument for salvation, and I hope that maybe on a good day, I am for them. But what I do know is that this is mutual. And we offer each other so much.
I think what I love most about my parishioners is the way they care for their kids. But you can see how horrified they are by this abuse crisis. A lot of confusing and conflicting emotions come to play. What's vital is that through it all, we as a church see each other as a people of God. And let's not imagine ourselves off into some perfect image. To be very honest, there's a concept of the church that I never really liked very much. It's called "the perfect society." And that is the view of many in the church today. I think the bishops are well within that view. They talk about making decisions regarding this abuse crisis "to protect the church." What in the name of heaven are they referring to? Is there something out there that I don't know about, something that must be protected above and beyond the pilgrim people of God? It is the kids that need to be protected. The idea of a perfect society is an abstraction. And as an abstraction it can't become the focus of your ministerial might and power and glory and love. And so, when we talk about making decisions in order to protect the church, we're missing the point. The church is, again, the pilgrim people of God. We're going to find our way to God and holiness as we are, and with the people we work and live with and in the circumstances of our lives.
The church, our communities, our parishes, flourish with trust as the common atmosphere. Anyone who's in a parish knows that. The way we talk to each other, the way we treat each other - it's all built on trust. If that trust is not there, if the lack of it creates distance between us, then there is no longer community. In a sense, there is no longer the Eucharist in its full meaning. We may gather, but it's not there, it is not alive.
All of us, clergy and laity, have to have some real conversion. Peggy Steinfels said dialogue. I'll just call it a conversation. We have to talk to one another about all these things. And we better start doing it soon. In some parishes, people have done just that. It is so valuable. People want to be heard and heeded. People want to be taken seriously. This is a minimum request; it is no big deal. There needs to be an ongoing conversation in the church on virtually every level so that we can begin to communicate with one another about what we think and feel and what our experiences are. And we can do it in so many different ways. We just did a whole parish survey. We held focus groups. Does this parish mean anything to you? And if so, why? And if not, why not? And sometimes that's really not very easy. Sometimes we don't like the answers.
We ran the Renew program for healing this Lent. We had a number of groups in the parish. They were so pleased with this experience because they spoke about their feelings in connection with the abuse crisis. They had an opportunity to do it in a way that was, if you will, safe. It was with their fellow parishioners. They were able to tell everybody else what they really felt - how angry they were, how disappointed they were. If we do not do that, we're going to be disaffected and disaffiliated. We're going to be out.
I think truly there has to be a better selection of priests and bishops. We try. But there's got to be broad support for this undertaking. Sometimes the selection of priests and bishops is more shrouded in mystery than the Trinity. You realize that you have no idea how it works. How did this happen? Who knows? I don't know. But what you really have to do is to broaden this process of selection. I don't have the slightest idea how to do this, but I know it has to be done.
I'll say also about bishops and priests - we're in real trouble. I think we need all the lay members of the church. We may not always admit it. We may not always say it very well, but we need this. The people in my parish, they're my family. I think that's true for all of us and for bishops. Without their support, I'll never be a healthier, happier man. I simply won't. We have to understand the meaning of friendship in the context of faith. Many priests and bishops are afraid of relationships of affection, friendship, and love. This may be one of the more negative aspects of the celibate life, and especially for diocesan clergy who don't live in community as religious do. But whatever the lay members of the church can do to help us understand the values of affection, friendship, and love - in ministry and in faith - is vital.
We have to take professional formation more seriously. I'm referring to the formation of everyone who's going to become a priest - and remember that all the bishops are former priests. Of course, we already provide personal formation. We're supposed to learn how to pray. We learn virtues, and we learn obedience, which is a big one.
Making Leaders, Not Tyrants. Professional formation is something else. And by that I mean learning not only to be obedient but learning how to exercise authority, or exercise leadership. A friend of mine told me, "Oh that guy! I gave him a uniform, and he turned into a Nazi." And you could see this happening at times. You slap something on someone and all of a sudden, they become not endowed with authority but are authoritarian. It's a scary thing to behold. So what we need is professional formation that helps us make transitions from obedience to authority and leadership. That is, from being a private person to being a public person. That's a tough transition and it's one that we have to work on in a much stronger way.
I think there have been two huge body blows to the credibility of our church and church leadership in recent years. It's this sex abuse crisis and Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI's encyclical on human sexuality that reaffirmed the traditional teaching regarding artificial contraception). In a way, they both have to do with human sexuality and matters of gender and related issues, and with the use of authority. In a way, it's the same thing. If we're going to get some place, we're going to have to look at both of these: the questions related to human sexuality, including gender roles in the church, and the meaning and use of authority and sources of leadership for our church. These really do connect. If we don't see that, we're making a big mistake.
We need to do these things because we don't want to be a church that's left in the lurch, a church that is just out of it. If we're going to be mired endlessly in our internal operations, well, then what are we going to be for the world? The church is a great gift to the world. There are a lot of things we're giving the world, and could be giving the world. We even should be offering a model on how to deal with sexual abuse of children, which is a terrible and serious problem in our society.
Ultimately, we're talking about the whole idea of servant leadership. It's a beautiful concept. It was Holy Thursday. It was Jesus teaching us the meaning of servant leadership. And with all of these trials, it has felt like Good Friday. We ought to go back to Holy Thursday. Go back to Holy Thursday and learn what it means.
A Canon Law Perspective: Broadening Participation Through Existing Structuresby Sister Sharon Euart, R.S.M.
The tragic and painful events in our church over the past 18 months provide many lessons for the entire church. And among them is the challenge to lay men and women to assume their rightful place in the life and mission of the church. In the conclusion of their "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People," the U.S. bishops acknowledge this right: "We wish to affirm our concern especially with regard to issues related to effective consultation of the laity and the participation of God's people in decision-making that affects their well-being." Can the bishops and religious superiors rebuild the credibility, the trust they have lost over the past year? Like you, I certainly hope so. How soon, I don't know. But I believe that there are means within our church to assist church leadership in the task of restoring trust if they and we choose to use them.
I would like to focus my comments on those structures and processes that are currently in place in our church, particularly those that call for or permit the participation of laity and the utilization of lay expertise. Without underestimating the problems we face, or seeming simplistic in my approach, I want to suggest that before we begin thinking about or inventing new structures, we make the most of what already exists, namely opportunities for consulting the faithful; forums for listening to the voices of laity and clergy; and vehicles of communication for making the Gospel known to all.
The Code of Canon Law, believe it or not, can be helpful in this regard. For example, the Code assists the church in carrying out its mission in the world and in witnessing to God's presence in our midst. It affords stability to the church by providing good order, reliable procedures, structures of accountability, qualifications for officeholders and expectations of members. It clarifies relationships among groups of the faithful, and protects personal rights by ordering their observance, providing avenues for recourse, and the means for resolving conflict. Canon law's role in the life of the church is to create in the community structures and norms that serve or enable rather than hinder or inhibit the freedom of the spirit.
Theological Foundations. The basis for structures of participation in the life of the church is theological, rooted in the church's teaching and expressed in fundamental principles found in several canons of the Code of Canon Law. For example, Canon 211 states, "The duty and right of all the Christian faithful is to work so that the divine message of salvation may increasingly reach the whole of humankind in every age and in every land." As a basis for the active participation in the life and work of the church, this call to mission is also a call for collaboration and shared responsibility in our church. This call to mission is repeated specifically for lay persons in Canon 225, and is the basis for the right affirmed in other canons: "to form association, to assemble, to take initiative in Apostolic activity."
Reflecting the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, Canon 212 specifies further the "duty and right of the faithful to participate in the inner life of the church by making known our needs and desires to our bishops and by expressing our opinions on matters which pertain to the good of the church." Lumen Gentium further suggests that making known such opinions should be done through the institutions established by the church for that purpose. These are ecclesial rights that many lay people are not aware are their rights as baptized members of the church.
Perhaps one of the challenges for restoring trust in church leadership is finding ways to make the laity more aware of this fundamental right and call them to active participation in the structures and processes of the church. The interaction of bishops and the faithful, therefore, in the use of structures of participation, is not a theoretical question. It is a practical matter.
Consultative bodies in the church are not a question a democracy or constitutional monarchy. These bodies are practical expressions of the reality that the church is God's work through all the people of God, that the presence of the spirit dwells in our midst, and that the church needs structures through which it stays in touch with that spirit.
The Structures. Practically speaking, consultation in the church suggests we look at two questions as a framework for participative structures within a diocese. First, what are the structures available for interaction between bishops and the faithful? And second, what must we do to make them effective as a voice for laity, clergy, and religious? The 1983 Code requires that certain consultative structures be established in each diocese to assist the bishops in the governance of the diocese and in his pastoral ministry. These include the Presbyteral Council, the College of Consultors, and Diocesan and Parish Finance Councils. At the same time, the Code leaves to the determination of the bishops the establishment of other structures, such as the Diocesan Synod and Diocesan and Parish Pastoral Councils to the extent that pastoral circumstances warrant these structures.
In providing for optional bodies, the Code does not impede bishops in fashioning appropriate consultative mechanisms at the local church. In many dioceses, there exist a variety of councils, commissions, and advisory boards that are established to assist the bishop in his pastoral ministry. These consultative structures - set up in view of the needs and circumstances and resources of a particular diocese - provide an opportunity for broader participation of the faithful in the life of the church. They also provide for greater initiative on the part of bishops.
Many bishops view consultative structures as opportunities for dialog with their people, as forums for airing controversies and forming consensus, as structured settings in which a bishop shares his responsibility for the life of the diocese with dedicated, knowledgeable, and wise persons. Though most bishops seem to recognize the importance of consultation, I believe as a preliminary step to making these structures effective vehicles for participation of the faithful, it is crucial that the process for the selection and appointment of bishops and other church leaders give significant consideration to a candidate's understanding of and attitude towards consultation within the church. We cannot lose sight of the church's teaching that members have the right to express their opinion on matters that pertain to the good of the church. And the primary purpose of consultative structures is to afford them the opportunity to advise church leadership
Still, many ask: Where is the accountability in all of this? Was the scope of the clergy sexual abuse crisis impacted by failure in accountability or in the procedures of some structures? For example, were finance councils aware of settlements made for cases of clergy sexual abuse of minors? Were diocesan pastoral councils, review boards, or laity with special expertise involved in the development of sexual abuse policies and procedures? Were clergy personnel boards aware that personnel procedures often favor the accused priest over the alleged victim? Do these questions suggest that our consultative structures might better serve the entire church if their procedures were more widely known, their membership more representative of the local church, and our bishop and pastors more accountable to the faithful?
Consultative bodies in the church are not designed for political confrontation, power plays, or for pushing hidden agendas. They are a structured manner in which the church - all of us - attempts to listen to the Spirit who dwells in our midst, who is leading the church, and who can speak through charism and experience, as well as in office and ordination. It seems to me that consultation is most effective when we acknowledge the presence of God's Spirit in all members of the community, when we act on the conviction that the gifts of understanding and wisdom are given to all the faithful, however different that understanding or wisdom may be from that of any one of us, and when we make known our opinion and concerns through appropriate structures and mechanisms.
Collaborating, and Speaking Up. It is important to remember that the other side of shared responsibility is shared irresponsibility. Those who irresponsibly refuse to share their gifts and expertise, share responsibility for poorly made policies and decision because of our failure to participate.
So reflecting today on the same question asked of Peter following his Pentecost speech, we ask: "What must we do?" It seems to me that responsibility for responding to this question rests with the entire church. For we are all called to participate, to take part in the mission of the church. Bishops must reach out and invite, not simply tolerate the participation of the faithful in meaningful dialogue and true decision-making processes, utilizing the structures that are either already in place or that can be established to build up the experience of collaboration with the whole church: bishops, laity, clergy, religious.
For bishops who, for whatever reason, resist the call to a more collaborative and consultative church, there is an urgency to see and understand the value of consultation as serving the church's best interests. The grace of conversion enables us to let go of secrecy, mistrust, silence, fear, and to trust in God's goodness. For dioceses where consultation is already an integral part of the life of the local church, a reaffirmation of the value of collaboration and shared responsibility, a review of the effectiveness of current structures, and the exploration of new opportunities and strategies for participation and consultation might be appropriate. To the lay faithful, whose active participation in the life of the church must be encouraged and valued, we can say, "Take advantage of opportunities to contribute your gift and share your gift of expertise with the church's mission. And where efforts to initiate dialogue and offer your opinion on matters pertaining to the good of the church are trivialized or even rejected, do not remain indifferent, but speak up courageously and respectfully and let your voices be heard as the church's magisterium has proclaimed. And above all, do not lose hope. The hope that Vaclav Havel described as "the ability to work for something that is good."
Let me return to where I began. I do not believe we need new structures or even new processes for participation in the church. Rather we need a new way of understanding and describing the consultative process. Church teaching, canon law, and church structures facilitate, enable, and encourage consultation and dialogue between bishops and laity. Fear, anger, cover-up, and mistrust prevent not only dialogue from occurring, but themselves become obstacles to the faith community search for justice, truth, and charity.
Our challenge today is to make the church's structures of participation effective as instruments of dialogue and experiences of community. Only then can the theological insight that the church is the people of God and not simply the hierarchy be realized in practice. And only then can we begin truly the process of healing, reconciliation, and the rebuilding of trust.
In concluding, I believe it is imperative for both bishops and the Christian faithful to deal with this crisis in a participative fashion. The bishops - by not insisting solely on their own authority, but by listening to how deeply wounded all the faithful, not only the victims themselves, have been by this crisis and enlisting their aid. And the faithful - by acknowledging the bishops' genuine sorrow and supporting their steps to heal the wound and to prevent the abuse, and by remembering perhaps that when abandoned by all of his chosen twelve, Christ did not abandon them, but by the gift of the Holy Spirit, empowered them to carry to the ends of the earth, the message that inspires us to this day. There is no more foundational belief that laity and bishops share than that out of the humiliation of the Cross, was brought salvation and new life.
Moderator's Intervention: Structural Adjustmentsby William J. Byron, S.J.
I just want to give you two anecdotes of possible structural adjustments that we could have in the church that would perhaps function as a preventative to some of the problems we've experienced.
One, every hospital has a credentialing and quality assurance committee of the board of directors. Why couldn't every parish have a committee of its parish council or maybe the executive committee of the parish council function as a quality assurance and credentialing committee? For example, if a new pastor or a new associate is going to be assigned, just as if a new individual was going to go on the staff of Georgetown Hospital, the credentials would be reviewed in advance and approved. Why couldn't the credentials of an incoming pastor or associate pastor be reviewed?
I'm about to become an extinguished pastor of Holy Trinity Church and we did that at the parish. We asked the provincial (with the agreement of the cardinal, who makes the assignment) that my successor, the dossier on him, be sent and in confidence reviewed by the executive committee of the parish council. And, the executive committee went back to the provincial and said, "Okay, we'll take him." We asked the province to be absolutely candid if, for instance - this was not the case here - but if there had been an arrest, say DUI, that would be on that file. Now if something like that were in place all around the country, you wouldn't have had pedophiles shuttled back and forth from parish to parish. There would have been too many hurdles.
My other structural adjustment is really a little adjustment. Remember the banns of marriage? We do it at Trinity by the prayer of the faithful a week before the marriage, asking people to pray. What if, say - let's just take Denver for example - there's a vacancy and there's a new bishop to be proposed. What if - usually there are three nominees who are packaged here and sent to Rome for approval - those three names were announced in every church for three successive Sundays in the Diocese of Denver and in the diocese from which the candidate was coming and the diocese from which that candidate entered the seminary? There were a couple of very embarrassing cases in Florida that probably would not have happened if something like that were in place.
Starting the Conversation: With the AudienceQuestion: As bishops are considering holding a General Synod here in the United States, what are the opportunities and dangers such a Synod poses for reestablishing trust?
Sharon Euart: I would say that if the bishops are contemplating holding a Plenary Council - I think that is what they're calling it - or some type of synod in this country, the procedures that are in the Code for such an event clearly involve consultation with the broader church, with the clergy, laity, and religious. If such an event were to occur without that consultation, it would seem to me that anything that would come from that would not have the kind of support and credibility that it could have if it was part of the consultation and in a sense generated by the people as something that should be included in the agenda.
Question: If you were president of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, what would you make as the one concrete step to improve clergy-laity cooperation?
Peggy Steinfels: Well, I'm sure the best idea I could have I'm not going to have now. But let me just remind those who are old enough about something that happened in 1976. At the time, the bishops went around the country and held a series of hearings in celebration of the American bicentennial. They covered many topics and met in many places. I happened to have been in one place where I had never been - Tidy Creek, Georgia. And I think the whole process of listening was interesting and most helpful to bishops. So if I were president of the bishops' conference, I would say, "Let's try that again, and let's begin, not by holding these hearings ourselves, but by asking parishes to talk about the kinds of things people think the church should be doing, could be doing, would be doing - if only.
Question: Father Pakenham, you appear to have achieved a good dialogue with your parishioners. Other priests have not done so. Should the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops vigorously prescribe means for improving such dialogue for pastors and priests?
Dan Pakenham: That's a recommendation I'd certainly make, and I think there are ways of ensuring this as something that is just part of who you are and how you function as a community. It seems to me that as a parish priest, it's become clear; I don't see how we're going to function unless we do this. We have to have a dialogue going back and forth, or I'm just shooting in the dark and kind of doing the expected things. But as far as really building that community, if there's anything parishioners want, it's to really feel part of a community; they want to build a community. And that is vital for us. So I think that could be done.
Question: Can trust be restored as long as the laity are denied any involvement in the selection of their pastors and bishops?
Peggy Steinfels:. No. Could I just maybe raise a question, and maybe Sharon knows this? I am under the impression that there was a period in the history of the church in this country, for sure, in which the process of screening, thinking about, and scrutinizing people for bishoprics was far more extensive - I won't say it was public, but it was broader - than it is right now. Is that right?
Sharon Euart: That's right. There was a time when lay people, members of a local church, were far more involved in the selection of bishops. I'm talking as recently as the 1970s and 1980s. I remember in one diocese that I participated in, the pastoral council was very active. And it conducted sessions to identify both the needs of the diocese but also the qualities of the person who would next serve as their bishop. And that report was a substantive report that went from the diocese as part of the consultation. In addition, individuals were consulted. However, it's very hard to get a handle on what the process is at this point. There are guidelines in the Code that are to be followed for who's to be consulted and who can be consulted. But whether that happens or not, no one really knows because it is a very confidential, secretive process.
Peggy Steinfels: I think it is also commonly observed that, where once a bishop was appointed for life to his diocese or archdiocese, over the last couple of decades, it is much more common to sort of work their way up the food chain so they can land in, say, New York or Chicago, after they've been to several previous places. Now, I guess until I observed this, I had always assumed that bishops were more or less in place, and that was it. Is there a change in canon law in this?
Sharon Euart: No, there isn't anything that says they have to stay in one place or not. But you can look at trends in the history of the church and in the history of our country to see what the patterns have been in the appointment of bishops. And for a good while the bishops were coming from the diocese from which they were ordained as a priest, and there was a sense of knowing the people, understanding the culture, the experiences of the local church. In more recent years, decades, I suppose, there's been a change. There are very few bishops left now who were priests of the diocese in which they're serving. I was talking to an archbishop not too long ago who came from his archdiocese, which interestingly is a small archdiocese. And he said, "I know every person here. I know the families. I know where the priests came from. I know where the children who were in the high school came from." And there's a kind of relationship that develops in that setting that I think speaks about the community that Dan was talking about, where there's a oneness and an understanding based on a communal love for one another, and not so much on a sense of a loyalty, as you say Father Pakenham, to something outside of that.
Question: Do you believe the reform group Voice of the Faithful has all the elements necessary to be an effective structure to foster dialogue?
Sharon Euart: Many of you recently saw the statement of purpose or mission of Voice of the Faithful that was published in Origins along with Bishop Dailey's letter acknowledging that the organization could now meet in the Diocese of Brooklyn. I think the statement is an excellent description of what the organization is about. I didn't use Voice of the Faithful as an example in my remarks, but when we talk about mechanisms that a bishop is free to put in place in his diocese for consultation, for participation of the faithful in assisting him in his ministry, it would seem that that is a mechanism. That is one of those mechanisms that developed at the grassroots and it's saying to the pastors, to the bishops, "These are our opinions on matters that pertain to the good of the church." And that is a right that people have in virtue of baptism. So I think there is a real viability. And the more the organization is known and understood, I think the greater the acceptance and perhaps even so-called institutionalization of the Voice of the Faithful as a consultative body will be.
Peggy Steinfels: This is really just a practical observation. Talking to people in Boston, you've come to understand how important Voice of the Faithful was and is for holding that place together. And in that sense, you certainly feel like it is a vital presence and a vital body, just as I have that same sense about the Priests Forum in Boston, although there are many priests who don't belong to it and who may not be sympathetic with it.
You start to talk to people who are trying to start Voice of the Faithful elsewhere. And you realize that not everybody's got Boston's problems. And I think people are having a hard time, both trying to be faithful to the original agenda, and at the same time addressing their own needs.
Question: As a non-Catholic member of the audience, I'm staggered by the portrayal of a church that seems to have a history of little or no regard for the wisdom and voices of the laity. What are the historical origins and contemporary justification for structure in a community of faith?
Dan Pakenham: I wouldn't presume to answer that question completely, but I would say one thing, that historically in the church, many, many lay movements ultimately become religious communities. And I think that that was one place where a lot of the development of lay spirituality and lay life really become very influential because they transformed into religious orders of men and women and their influence was quite enormous. Often through their rule of life, they set an example for the church, whether it was Benedictine spirituality or Franciscan or Dominican or whatever the community was - Jesuit I might even add. And you have to remember too that some of them really were lay persons that came into different positions of church leadership. Gregory the Great, for example, and Ambrose and Augustine. They had a conversion experience. They moved in and took on different ways of life, either as theologians or clerics.
Question: How do lay people find out if their bishop has any consultative bodies? If so, how to become a participant?
Sharon Euart: Well, if you haven't heard of any of them in your diocese, then there probably aren't any. And I heard someone say that they may exist, but they're useless. Well, that's also quite possible. And then, they could also exist and their membership is selected - the whole membership. Now many of them have regional elections and then some are appointed. I think it's appropriate, first of all, to inquire of the bishop directly what structures are available in the diocese for consultation with the faithful, with the laity in particular, to ask how one either becomes a member or indicate interest in participation in one of those structures. We do have to take the initiatives and find out. As I said, if you are criticized for even asking, then it means that if you really believe in it, then you have to voice your opinion. The bishops will often send someone who's responsible for that area in the diocese to listen to you, but go through the steps because that's the only way that you can say, "I did all that I could do." And at that point when everything has been done and there's nothing being consulted on - there's just no mechanism, then you may want to present your concern above the bishop. If it's a bishop, then go to the archbishop of the province. If that isn't effective, you can always go to the Holy See. I wouldn't discourage you from that. I think that if we use the mechanisms and they are effective, wonderful. If we use the mechanisms and they're not effective, at least we were not irresponsible. We tried.
Question: Please indicate three top bishops who have earned trust of their people by their servant leadership and their collaborative outlook. Who do you think sets the pace, shows a good example, offers perhaps a model for imitation?
Peggy Steinfels: It is probably safe to offer the name of Joseph Bernardin, the late, in this respect since I think he certainly was a model for imitation. I'll hazard another name, Archbishop Rembert Weakland. I always felt that he was a man who was in touch with what was going on in his archdiocese and in the church in the United States, and I guess his end was unfortunate, but I still cling to the idea that he was a good bishop.
Sharon Euart: From our own experience in my archdiocese, one bishop I would name is retired now, Archbishop William Borders, who was Baltimore's archbishop until around 1989. He was that kind of person. Perhaps some said he was over-consultative, but he wanted to err on that side rather than on not consulting the appropriate groups. Another bishop, who is currently heading a diocese where people find him willing to listen, is Bishop Matthew Clark from Rochester, New York.
Bill Byron: You know the names we call ourselves has something to do with this, and it just reminds me of an anecdote that I'll use to close. There was a famous unnamed bishop of happy memory who wore the Red Hat, and was talking to his priests in a conference, and he said to them: "In my prayer this morning, I asked our Blessed Lord what I should do in this circumstance. And Our Blessed Lord said to me: 'Your Eminence...'." Thank you for joining us tonight.
Spiritual Exercises for Church Leaders: A new publication of Woodstock's Church Leadership Program.
Woodstock's Church Leadership Program has produced two new companion books, Spiritual Exercises for Church Leaders, written by project director Dolores R. Leckey and freelance writer Paula Minaert. The books, which include a small-group facilitator's guide as well as a participant's book, offers a practical method of reflection geared especially to leaders at all levels of the church in these difficult times. Published by Paulist Press, it is the first publication of its kind to tap the considerable resources of Jesuit spirituality and theological discernment. To order copies of the participant's book ($9.95) and the facilitator's guide ($12.95), call 1 800 218-1903.