|
COMMENTARY
Dialogue with Bishops (continued) – Fr.
Tom Doyle
Final installment – Parts 1 and 2 appeared, respectively,
in the Vineyards of April
20 and May 4.
The victims and many lay people believe the bishops not
only will not, but cannot get it. The bishops, for their
part, are probably convinced that in their anger, the victims
and their supporters will never be able to see and accept
their side nor the honest and sincere concern many have
for the victims. The goal should not be beating one or
the other side into submission. The goal should be to arrive
at a minimal degree of mutual respect so as to begin to
listen to one another rather than talking at one another.
Disagreement need not always be covered in anger.
The time for confrontation that is predominantly angry
and irrational is past. In most cases the anger and rage
have been amply justified. Yet it has caused many bishops
to become hardened in their attitudes towards all victims
and survivors and towards all lay people whom they believe
have had the temerity to question them. The time for confrontation
on a level playing field is not past and never will be.
There is much to confront and many hard questions yet to
be answered. Name calling and verbal abuse are as much
a barrier to needed answers as is the infantile deference
that has enabled clericalism to flourish and control. Fear
must be banished.
Bishops who refuse to include lay people and survivors
on every level of discussion and decision making about
the response to the clergy abuse scandal must be confronted
and, in a rational, firm yet respectful manner, asked to
explain such an exclusion. Those who have accused VOTF,
SNAP or other groups of having hidden agendas, of being
dissenters, of heresy, or anti-Catholicism must be confronted
and asked to explain in detail the reasons for these accusations
and the sources of their information. Those who have refused
to reveal the names of verified sex abusers or who have
secretly reassigned known offenders must be confronted
and asked to provide an explanation to the people of God.
There is no longer room for fear, secrecy or arrogance.
Far too much is at stake and far too many souls have been
devastated.
It is possible to confront the contradictions between
the spirit of Vatican II and spirit of clerical mistrust.
In doing so it is essential to understand the clerical
context from which the opposition arises. The bishop is
essential to the institutional structure of the Church.
The theological and structural tradition teaches that the
church is founded on the bishops who are therefore essential
for its very existence. The chain of authority in the three-fold
office of the bishop is believed to be the divinely directed
means whereby God communicates with mortals (cf. Canon
375). Consequently, challenges to bishops are perceived
as much more than personal attacks or manifestations of
disrespect. Such challenges are expressions of disbelief
in an essential tenet of faith.
On the other side, the victims and others who challenge
the bishops’ autocratic exercise of authority do
not see such challenges as an affront to a doctrinal issue.
Rather they see them as a reaction to the reality of authority
either misused or abused. The bishops see themselves as
divinely appointed leaders and their critics see them as
flawed administrators.
The differences are not solely about power. The differences
are about a variety of issues that are far more serious
than ownership of power. Soul murder, rape, sexual assault,
character assassination, slander and financial mismanagement
are some of the known abuses that many are up in arms about.
These issues will not go away nor will they be rectified
unless drastic attitudinal changes take place, primarily
on the part of the church’s leadership.
Building bridges and opening lines of true communication
between the bishops and lay people is a noble goal for
members of the Christian community but it will never happen
without integrity and trust. Trust will not happen until
the traditional secrecy and its toxic sibling, fear, are
eradicated. Lay people should not fear honest confrontation
with bishops or other church leaders. This is an essential
step in the search for truth and accountability. Banishing
the fear that always lurked in the background is the beginning
of authentic Christian empowerment. Searching for plausible
answers does not equal disrespect nor is it a sign of dissent.
Above all, it is a sign that one has accepted the sometimes
painful and challenging responsibility of adult membership
in the Body of Christ.
Confrontation need not equal fanaticism. Working together
begins with dialogue and dialogue cannot begin with capitulation.
Lay persons have been nurtured by an ecclesial culture
that made true dialogue impossible. The duplicity revealed
by the sex abuse scandal led to the subsequent erosion
of trust and respect for clerics and especially bishops.
This will be reversed when both sides move beyond roles
and see one another as Christians. This will be much more
difficult for bishops but this does not mean that lay men
and women can or should retreat to mindless deference.
In conclusion, I believe that authentic dialogue is essential
and possible. This means calling the issues in truth with
first concern for those harmed. Confrontation, however,
does not mean irrational anger nor can it be productive
if minds and hearts are closed to the possibility of good
will.
|
