COMMENTARY
Communicating with Bishops: Does Dialogue Begin with Capitulation?
Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., J.C.D.
[Your comments are welcome at pthorp.ed@votf.org. This is Part I of a three-part
commentary. Watch the May 4 and 18 issues of In the Vineyard for Parts II and
III.]
The Catholic Church’s political structure is hierarchical by design,
which means that all power flows down from the top. Furthermore, all real power
resides in specific individuals and not in collegiate groups or corporate structures.
This has been the case throughout the history of institutionalized Catholicism.
This political structure has created a culture surrounding the leadership.
This culture has in turn produced pre-conditioned responses to different forms
of communication.
The hierarchical governmental system has given rise to two things: the first
has been the style of government, meaning the way authority is exercised. The
style is generally monarchical, which means that the focus is on the leader
and not on the subjects. The second phenomenon has been the ascendance of an
aristocracy – the clergy. Power, privilege, prestige and financial control
are vested in individuals and all of these are members of the clergy. Though
lay persons have been included in many levels of church administration, all
real power is in the hands of a small group of celibate, male clerics. Even
here, the power is limited to a select group of clerics, the bishops.
In 1906 Pius X issued an encyclical which described the political structure
of the Catholic Church:
This church is in essence an unequal society, that is to say a society comprising
two categories of persons, the shepherd and the flock.... These categories
are so distinct that the right and authority
necessary for promoting and guiding all the members toward the goal of
society reside only in the pastoral body; as to the multitude, its
sole duty is that of allowing itself to be led and of following its
pastors as a docile flock.
This statement captures the enduring belief about the fundamental nature of
the institutional church. Though Vatican II defined the Church as the “People
of God” the fact remains that the official theology and law still hold
that the hierarchical division is of divine institution. Nevertheless, this
description of the Christian community has shallow roots in authentic theology
and no verifiable basis in scripture. In other words, the constant claim that
Christ intended a hierarchical structure when he founded the Church is based
on nebulous historical evidence. In fact there is no indication from the writings
of the first three centuries that Christ ever intended to found a church as
such or that he consciously established a hierarchical system. The Apostles
emerged from the Last Supper as potential leaders of the future “church” though
they hardly knew it at the time. That they emerged as archbishops, newly ordained
by Christ the High Priest is a segment of Catholic mythology but not an essential
and proven element of authentic ecclesiology.
The above statements sum up not only a theological position but a deeply rooted
attitude that permeates the consciousness and emotions not only of bishops
but many lay people as well. The concept of a stratified ecclesial society
enables the fallacy of clericalism which enters directly into all communications
with the hierarchy. The bishops believe that they are singled out by the Almighty
as the anointed teachers, legislators, executives and judges of Christ’s
community here on earth. The faithful are taught from their first years of
catechetical instruction to believe this teaching and therefore to hold the
bishops in the highest respect and esteem.
The Catholic Church rests on a sacramental system. Catholics are taught that
the seven sacraments are the fundamental encounters with Christ. Belief in
the official theology of the sacraments is essential for a Catholic. The sacraments
are necessary for salvation, as we are taught. The way to the sacraments is
through the ordained clergy, especially the priests, but ultimately the custodians
of the sacraments are the bishops. Catholics learn early on that salvation
is mediated through the Church but not the Church as a vast throng of believers
scattered throughout the world. It is mediated through the Church’s ordained
leaders. These leaders determine who may receive a sacrament. They control
access to the means of salvation and as such, they command great respect and
certainly fear.
Traditionally the obvious power imbalance determined the quality of communications
with the hierarchy. The hierarchy’s belief in its divine origin formed
the emotional response to any communications that were critical or challenging.
Often, rather than respond to the substance of a criticism or challenging question,
a bishop reacts defensively, questioning how his authority can possibly be
questioned. The fundamental issue is lost in the perceived threat to the bishop’s
authority. This attitude is enforced by the church’s own political structures
which reserve all power to bishops and limit the participation of collegiate
or corporate bodies to consultation.
The clergy sex abuse phenomenon has changed the way Catholics communicate
with bishops. Accustomed to always controlling every situation, the bishops
have reluctantly learned that this is no longer the case. Since the canonical
structures of the Church provide no basis or avenues for communication based
on the concept of equality of participants, the aggrieved have sought relief
in the civil courts of the U.S. and several other countries. The bishops were
faced with a power equal to and in many ways surpassing their own. The result
has generally been defensiveness, de-valuation of the abuse survivors, and
anger.
The frustration and anger engendered in tens of thousands of sex abuse victims
as well as millions of laity over the sordid revelations of abuse and cover-up
has changed the way a significant segment of the Catholic and non-Catholic
population communicates with bishops. As the “scandal” unfolded
and more and more was revealed in the media and in the courts, trust and respect
for bishops rapidly eroded and with it the traditional belief in the nature
of the episcopacy.
In short, communication has been challenging, confrontational and driven by
anger, distrust and cynicism. Those directly involved with the sex abuse phenomenon,
including victims, their loved ones and supporters, the media and attorneys,
have been astonished, disappointed and saddened by the arrogance, dishonesty
and lack of compassion manifested by many bishops. In time the bishops realized
that they have lost the trust and respect of many. Yet the fundamental attitude
of superiority still permeates most conversations about significant issues
facing the Catholic Church.
This anger and mistrust has prevented true communication. Many bishops have
immediately focused on the challenge to their authority rather than the reason
for the anger. It certainly appears that the horror of the sexual abuse of
countless children, minors and vulnerable adults has been overshadowed for
many bishops, by the affront to their dignity, the rejection of their authority
and the disrespect for their persons and their office. In fact, most of the
anger experienced by the victims, their supporters and others seeking reform
and change is grounded in the enormity of the crimes and the perceived inability
of many bishops to fully realize the gravity of the situation. They have reason
to be angry and disrespectful of bishops. As many have said time after time, “they
just don’t get it. It’s all about them.”
|