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.”



In the Vineyard
April 20, 2006
Volume 5, Issue 8
Printer Friendly Version (PDF)

Page One

Letters to the Editor


COMMENTARY


Structural Change Working Group

Voice of Renewal/Lay Education

Prayerful Voice


Donate

Join VOTF

Contact Us 

Archives


VOTF Home

For an overview of press coverage of VOTF, click here.
©Voice of the Faithful 2006.All Rights Reserved