Commonweal
Magazine
Shared Burden
A
Manifesto for the Laity
Bill
Casey | David O’Brien
Recently, Voice of the Faithful (VOTF)
marked its fifth anniversary. News stories reported the organization's
accomplishments, its current challenges, and reflections by friends and critics
about its record and its future. The question is: Does Voice of the Faithful
still matter? Since VOTF's goal is to increase the
role of the laity in the life of the church, that question should have special
interest for readers of Commonweal.
In our judgment, and we hope yours, shared
responsibility for the life and work of the church is a fact, not an option.
Unfortunately, few opportunities are provided for laypeople to exercise their responsibilities.
Until there are church reforms that extend serious consultation and shared
responsibility to the laity, VOTF provides one indispensable means by which
ordinary American Catholics can meet their responsibilities for the life of the
church.
VOTF, it is our conviction, provides this
opportunity at a particularly critical moment in U.S. Catholic history. Since
the sexual-abuse crisis exploded in 2002, the bishops have taken some
significant steps to prevent future abuse, but they have failed to address what
we think are the underlying causes of the worst scandal in the history of the
Catholic Church in the
We are well aware that skepticism
concerning VOTF's mission and effectiveness can be
found across the ideological spectrum. Laypeople do not have a lot of
experience solving church problems, and the abuse crisis that brought VOTF to
life also opened up long-hidden wounds and very serious conflicts among church
members. Because many church leaders have turned away from Vatican II reforms
aimed at developing responsible lay participation in church decision making,
such as open and fully representative diocesan and parish pastoral councils,
Catholics have few forums to discuss how they can best carry out their
responsibilities as “the people of God.”
As a consequence, VOTF could hardly avoid
getting caught in the middle of often bitter debates between Vatican-oriented
conservatives and liberals advocating changes that church officials rule out as
contrary to church teaching. If VOTF leaders refuse to take a stand on issues
such as homosexuality or women's ordination, they get blasted from one side; if
those Catholics whom conservatives consider “dissenters” show up at a VOTF
meeting, the entire organization is denounced by the self-appointed defenders
of “orthodoxy.” The result is that many laypeople, in no mood for fights at
church, decide against becoming involved, while intelligent liberal and
conservative Catholics who could help the church recover its integrity and
vitality settle for criticism without responsibility. The often unfair
criticism of VOTF only further demonstrates the great need for an independent
Catholic organization pledged to working with survivors of abuse, supporting
priests as they wrestle with the problems posed by the crisis, and building
structures of governance that will implement our church's official commitment
to shared responsibility among all the baptized-laity, clergy, religious, and
the hierarchy.
VOTF brings together active Catholics who
work for constructive reforms. Studies show that most VOTF members are
parishioners active in many ministries who have a good relationship with their
pastors. They have found many priests who affirm their effort to support
survivors of abuse and seek a greater role for the laity in the life and work
of the church. We think that three lessons learned from the actions of bishops
during the past five years argue persuasively that VOTF is as necessary now as
on
Lesson one: addressing symptoms will not
resolve the abuse crisis
To their credit, the
Given the fact that the USCCB lacks the authority
to require compliance with the Charter, the procedures put in place in most
dioceses have been impressive. Still, these policies address only the symptoms
of abuse. They leave unchanged the culture of secrecy, lack of public
accountability, and presumption of privilege that made the abuse possible. When
confronted with reprehensible behavior by priests, too many bishops placed the
reputation of the priesthood above all other values: that's what is meant by
clericalism. Too often bishops ignored the wounds of survivors and their
families and betrayed the trust of the faithful in order to avoid scandal,
hiding egregious violations of canon and civil law. Bishops have acknowledged
the sins of the priest offenders but they have too rarely addressed their own
failures and the failures of the structures of governance. This has created
mistrust of the hierarchy not only among the laity but also among priests.
In 2004, the National Review Board
presented the bishops with two reports. One, the John Jay Study, which outlined
the statistical scope of the scandal, was widely discussed in the press. The
second report, which offered a preliminary assessment of “causes and context,”
pointed to the damage done by the lack of openness and accountability. The
National Review Board offered many suggestions for reform, emphasizing the need
for open consultation between bishops and priests, deacons, lay ministers, and
lay members of the church. There is almost no evidence that bishops have
embraced this call for collaborative consultation. Instead, the church has
moved in a quite different direction. There has been an effort to further limit
the role of the national bishops' conference, leaving individual bishops and
their people even more on their own. Yet, as stories of sexual abuse receive
less intense media coverage, stories of financial mismanagement, even larceny,
at parishes and diocesan offices have made headlines. The underlying causes of
these problems are embedded in the clerical culture and closed-door governance
system of the church. Yes, the Catholic Church is a hierarchical system, but
hierarchy need not be unresponsive or irresponsible. Here, too, the need for an
independent Catholic voice like VOTF seems self-evident. VOTF will continue to
urge reforms such as those advocated by the bishops' own National Review Board
in 2004, and to provide independent assistance in the development of the more
formal study of “causes and context” recently commissioned by the bishops.
Lesson two: governance without accountability
invites abuse
Priests who sexually abused children and
bishops who ignored or enabled the abuse have largely escaped criminal
accountability. Attorneys general and district attorneys in several
jurisdictions have compiled overwhelming evidence of abuse, but only a minority of cases have led to indictments. Statutes of
limitation or other legal restrictions have allowed most accused priests and
bishops to avoid criminal sanctions. One consequence is that abusive priests
removed from active ministry often disappear into communities where no one is
aware of their presence. This places children at risk. VOTF, working with
survivors of abuse, has supported efforts to reform state laws that now limit
the accountability of offenders. There are compelling reasons to oppose the
retroactive lifting of statutes of limitation, as Mark A. Sargent
has pointed out in Commonweal (“Vengeance Time,” April 20). But many VOTF
members believe that, given the enormity of the crimes involved, there are
equally compelling reasons for doing so. Almost all the nation's bishops have
opposed such reforms and sometimes bitterly attacked Catholic advocates and
lawmakers who think legal reforms are needed. Here is an example of the need
for reforms aimed at shared responsibility in church affairs. The bishops speak
to legislators on behalf of the whole church on complex public-policy matters
regarding sexual abuse, but rarely if ever is there an opportunity for lay
Catholics to deliberate with their leaders about these controversial matters.
Even among themselves, bishops are pretty
much on their own, taking no responsibility for the actions of their brother
bishops. The USCCB has made it unmistakably clear that according to Catholic
teaching individual bishops are accountable only to the pope. To date, the only
significant action taken by the Vatican in response to the scandal-apart from
stern words about the evils of sexual abuse of children-has been to confer a
major ecclesiastical honor on Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law, the only U.S.
prelate forced to resign because of public protests against his persistent
disregard for survivors and their families and his serial reassignment of known
priest-predators. Worse, there appear to have been no serious consequences when
some bishops ignored or even violated provisions of the 2002 Charter. The
archbishop of Chicago and the bishop of Santa Rosa, California, for example,
suffered no consequences when they delayed the removal of priests who abused
children (one priest fled the country and the other committed more abuse before
he was finally removed). VOTF leaders in
Given a structure in which each bishop is
accountable only to the Holy See and free to choose not to share responsibility
with his priests and people, unwise decisions are all but guaranteed. In this
setting, the presence of a faithful, intelligent, independent Catholic organization
dedicated to truthfulness, support for survivors, and accountability is
indispensable. VOTF has tried to provide that independent voice, to be an
advocate for survivors of abuse, and to monitor the performance of national and
local review boards. It has argued for the introduction or improvement of
already mandated structures of shared responsibility, such as parish and
diocesan pastoral councils and finance committees. That is what the
organization means by its motto: “Keep the Faith, Change the Church.”
Lesson three: it is unreasonable to expect
meaningful reform from the hierarchy alone
The bishops are deeply attached to a
closed system of governance, which they claim is required to ensure the unity
and orthodoxy of the church. Even on financial matters, personnel, and pastoral
planning, most bishops continue to insist on total control, an attitude that
has no persuasive theological justification. Many bishops refuse the help of
faithful, talented laypeople ready and willing to assist them. Even the
National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, an organization made up of
highly successful Catholic business executives, whose only purpose is to
strengthen the management of the church's financial and human resources, has
found at best a lukewarm response for its recommendations regarding more open
financial reports, uniform accounting methods, professional staffs, open
discussion of fiscal policies, and improved use of mandated financial
committees.
Yet five dioceses have already declared
bankruptcy and the bishops have paid out over $2 billion in settlements and
legal fees. Parishes have been closed, too often with little or no input from
those most affected by these decisions. Even where consultation takes place,
often the only lay voices heard are those invited by the individual bishop. The
archbishop of
Recently VOTF decided to launch a campaign
to persuade the
Conclusion
The crucial question for American
Catholics is: Have the bishops corrected the problems that caused the crisis of
sexual abuse? Have survivors received the justice they should expect from the
church? Have we as a church done all we can to reach out to survivors and their
families, to make sure that their voices are heard as our church makes its
decisions, and to insure that pastoral as well as legal considerations guide
our response to lawsuits against the church? How is responsibility shared among
the hierarchy, clergy, deacons, ministerial professionals, and laypeople for
addressing the roots of sexual abuse and the cover-ups? Are we Catholics
organized in a way that will allow us to carry out our mission in the years to
come?
In response to such questions, VOTF's members believe that the work needed to resolve the
sexual-abuse crisis is far from over. The conditions that gave rise to the
crisis-lack of shared responsibility, transparency, and accountability-have not
changed significantly, and in many dioceses have gotten worse. Repentance,
renewal, and reform are painful, sometimes messy, endeavors, but lay Catholics
cannot afford a return to business as usual. A reinvigorated American
Catholicism will come about only if lay Catholics take personal responsibility
for their church. The good news about Voice of the Faithful is that thousands
of Catholics, active in their parishes and in church ministries, have held fast
for five years in their pledge to “Keep the Faith, Change the Church.” The bad
news is that these members fight on alone, and that too many others, well
informed about church affairs and sharing VOTF's
values and goals, have wished VOTF well but have not joined or sent a check.
Nor-and this is crucial-have they formed alternative organizations through
which to carry out their responsibilities as Catholics.
On its fifth anniversary, VOTF invites lay
Catholics in the pews, in professional church ministries, on parish and
diocesan councils and committees, to ask if our responsibility for the church
depends on a pastor's invitation. Recent experience tells us pretty clearly
where the U.S. church will go if all decisions are left in the hands of the
bishops and the Vatican, with little or no consultation with parish priests and
the laity. We know American Catholics can do better, and we owe it to those who
went before us to try to strengthen the American church for its mission of
service to the human family.