What Do You Think?

Last month's question was "What do you think bishops might do to effect positive change in our Church?"

"Some need to leave. Any bishop who had any knowledge of a problem and dealt with it by reassignment after 1990 should resign, and should not hold a position of administrative leadership. This behavior is inexcusable. And criminal." Lee Ann McGinnis, M.D.

"I believe that Bishops can make a more positive effect if they ask themselves, 'What would Christ do?' From some of my observations of some priests and what I've observed and read about some bishops, they seem to get side-tracked from their roles. Like some politicians and bureaucrats who get carried away with money and power, we the people become overlooked and forgotten. Bishops should become more accessible to the laity. I think they should have workshops with priests and laity in evaluating needs and reevaluating their roles. Sacrifices should not only be addressed to the laity but also to the hierarchy for they are to set examples. When one lives like a king, one doesn't dwell among the peasants. Christ dwelled among all of us. God bless." C. Marie Tupper, Boothbay Harbor, ME

"I think attitudes should change. I have found it impossible to speak to most priests about anything. As soon as I introduce a subject, which is controversial in any way or criticizes in any way, the priests I know will walk away, change the subject, make a light joke, etc." Betty

"First of all the problem with the Church is the hierarchy itself, from the Curia on down. The bishops are a very real part of the whole problem that we are having right now. The 'pedophile problem' was created because of a deep-seated understanding that the Church can do no wrong, and when it does, can cover it up, keep it secret, and lie if necessary. At any cost, PROTECT THE IMAGE OF OUR MOTHER THE CHURCH.

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) needs to start over. The Reformation was a response to a break with the role of a faith community envisioned by Christ. It had become bogged down in its own PROCESS. And, it still is today.

The bishops need to come together and perform a group slate-cleaning of their minds. They need to forget everything they have learned about the RCC and ask themselves this question over and over again: What would Christ have us do as the shepherds of His Church?

Christ would have you preach his word, just as he gave it to you, and not complicate it with your own rules, laws, and regulations; but rather use Christ's rules, laws, and regulations. Christ would have you love your neighbor as yourself. That means you don't treat someone you have injured as the enemy. Christ would have you admit it when you make mistakes and atone for them. Christ would have you stop thinking you have all the answers and the rest of us have none." Roger D. Thome, Queen of the Miraculous Medal Church, Jackson, Michigan

"Think of the Catholic Church as the largest boulder in the universe. Due to its size and mass and weight it has always been impossible to move. Think of how VOTF can move that rock. The structure of the rock (analogous to the hierarchy of the Church leadership) is so dense and impenetrable that apparently nothing can be done to have any effect on it. The mass of the rock (think of we the members of the Church) has always been solid and static. Lately however, stresses and strains within the rock have occurred, which have caused cracks to occur. What was once so impossible to penetrate has become a bit porous and flawed.

The mass seems to sense that if nothing is done about the problems in the boulder it will surely disintegrate and, over time, crumble into meaningless shards and rubble. So, how do we interact with a hierarchy which has shown no signs of willingness to even discuss much less modify itself? We (the mass of that boulder) must stick together and somehow get the structure to pay attention to us and to itself.

We can and do have some chance with our parish priests, some of whom are willing to interact with us. It gets a lot harder to get to the pastors. The bishops are pretty much insulated from the laity. We must pray and continue to work with the hierarchy so that they will pay attention to our voices. The hierarchy seems immovable now, but with combined effort and prayer we can and will make a difference. Eventually, the bishops will listen. They will have to." Bob Dahlen, Ormond-by-the-Sea, FL

"Bearing in mind that serious and patient persuasion would be required to convince the Bishops to make changes in the way they exercise their leadership role, I would like to propose an idea that could make a significant difference in accountability without prejudice to episcopal authority.

There should exist some degree of 'fraternal accountability' among the bishops to ensure that norms such as 'The Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons' are followed, but there is currently no real mechanism for that to take place. The bishops should establish a process of 'Mutual Visitation' among the dioceses of the US Conference. This Mutual Visitation would be analogous to accreditation in schools and hospitals: A group formed from peer communities comes into an organization and visits and talks with elements of the organization (in this case, laity, clergy, religious orders, etc). The visiting group then prepares a report. Since the diocesan bishop currently has absolute authority within the diocese, no one comes into a diocese and reports independently; all reports to Rome go through the diocesan bishop. This is clearly a situation in which needed change might be very difficult to achieve. In the case of Mutual Visitation, an independent visitation group formed by other bishops would prepare a visitation report that would be sent to the Holy See. One strength of this approach is that an accreditation visit triggers a valuable process of self-examination in the organization preparing for it. A process of Mutual Visitation could therefore be an effective mechanism for encouraging renewal where it is needed. Margaret Roylance, National Chair VOTF Structural Change Working Group

"Talk to the priests and instruct them to speak from the altar and in parish meetings about the scandal of the abuse of children. Tell us that this is not what the Church wants for the present and future environment for adults and children in the Catholic community.

Bishops must hire CATHOLICS in the schools if we are to keep our Catholic traditions and move to the future as Catholic educators. No more than ten percent of the students ought to be non-Catholic.

Health systems must hire Catholic CEO's and adhere more strongly to the traditions and faith beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. No abortion, no euthanasia, no surgeries for sex alterations." Unsigned

We invite your feedback on the following exchange between three MA priests and David O'Brien, Loyola Professor of Roman Catholic Studies College of the Holy Cross, MA. (Respond to leaderpub@votf.org.) The priests' letter appears first, in italics. The O'Brien response follows, in roman text. What Do You Think?

(The signatories to the priests' letter are Frs. Roger J. Landry, Paul T. Lamb, and Thomas A. Frechette of the Fall River, MA diocese)

A Pastoral Letter From Your Priest

In recent days, several parishioners have asked us for clarification about the group called, "Voice of the Faithful," which is trying to make inroads on Cape Cod and within our Diocese of Fall River.

When VOTF had its first major convention in Boston on July 20, 2002, many of us followed it closely to try to discern its spirit. We were saddened to see the direction it took. The star speakers that day were well-known and oft-quoted critics of the Holy Father...

...and who publicly dissent from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

There's a truism that you can often learn a lot about someone from the people with whom he chooses to associate...

The same goes for VOTF, the leaders of which, of course, invited and paid for these speakers to come to address those at the convention.

When faithful Catholic clergy and lay people criticized what was coming out of the convention, spokesmen from VOTF publicly stated that the group does not take any formal positions on the controversial issues being advanced by several of the convention speakers and VOTF members. But this is not sufficient.

It is impossible for a group that want to be authentically Catholic not to take a position on issues such as the ordination of women, sexual morality, abortion, and the divine foundation of the papacy-all of which the Church has taken a position on. Not to take a position on such issues is to take a position; one cannot be both "agnostic" and "Catholic."

In short, because VOTF has given no indication that it fully supports all the defined teachings of the Church, we have grave misgivings about it and cannot recommend it to you.

As your priests, our foremost duty is to teach and defend the faith that has been handed down to us by Christ through the apostles and their successors...

The Church is not a society of independent thinkers with equally valuable opinions... To be truly Catholic, you can't pick and choose some truths to follow and others to ignore. Embracing the Catholic faith means embracing all of it.

We have particular concern for those Catholics who want to remain faithful to the Church who now belong to an organization that calls itself Catholic but refuses publicly to embrace authentic Catholic teaching. VOTF says its motto is "Keep the Faith; Change the Church." But if the leaders of VOTF are unwilling to assent fully to Catholic teaching, what faith-Catholics could legitimately ask-are they trying to keep? And if the organization is not really keeping the Catholic faith, then its proposals to "change the Church" should be viewed by faithful Catholics with justifiable suspicion. We encourage faithful Catholics who belong to VOTF to demand that the leadership of the organization explicitly avow Church teachings. If the leaders are not willing to do that, then we urge faithful Catholics to leave the organization.

The burden of proof is, of course, on VOTF to demonstrate its complete fidelity to Church teaching, by dissociating itself completely from groups and individuals that are obviously in dissent from Church teaching and gladly and willingly affirming their Catholic faith in all the defined teachings of the Magisterium.

Until such time as VOTF demonstrates a transparent faithfulness to the teachings of the Church, no priest who takes his responsibility before God seriously to promote, preserve and defend the faith would countenance allowing the group to use Church property for their meetings. The people of Troy learned a valuable lesson once and pastors would be derelict in their duty to do otherwise. We love you and love Christ too much to do otherwise.

1) The priests agree with VOTF's goal to support the victim/survivors of abuse, and VOTF's work to prevent any recurrence of abuse.

2) We all support "priests of integrity" (although you might find it interesting that no priest from any of the parishes on Cape Cod present at our last meeting stated that he has received any sign of support from VOTF, which makes one wonder whether for VOTF this is just a paper objective).

3) We agree that there is a need for "cultural change" in the Church, if we define cultural change to mean a transparently greater cult (worship) of Christ among all of us in our daily decisions.

The scandals resulted from the failure of priests to be faithful to Christ and to their promise of celibacy and of bishops to protect the flock from wolves in shepherd's clothing. But this grew within a general culture that was taking its moral obligations before God less seriously. Truly positive change will be directed toward a culture of greater fidelity to Christ in all the persons and activities of the Church.

4) We agree that there is a need for greater education of the laity in the teaching and ways of the faith, which is why, over the course of this year, we will be doing an extensive adult education series and why we have already started discussion sessions for parents of those in our CCD program and school.

5) We also welcome and strongly encourage a greater lay involvement in the mission of the Church, bringing Christ's teaching and love as leaven to our world. In all these areas priests and laity are already working together and, with God's help, bearing much fruit. If these were the only objectives of VOTF, the organization would not be objectionable.

The reason why VOTF is controversial, however, and why we cannot support it or recommend it to you is because VOTF has given indications by its deeds that its objectives transcend these publicly stated ones.

By its failure to subscribe openly to the whole deposit of faith while at the same time publicly associating with groups that oppose the faith, VOTF has done nothing but strengthen suspicions that, while appearing to promote dialogue and cooperation, it actually promotes an agenda in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic faith.

There is a better alternative than VOTF that lay Catholics who want truly to "keep the faith and change the Church" in ways that are manifestly consistent with our Catholic faith. We invite them to become more involved in the mission of the Church here at St. Francis Xavier. We encourage them to join their priests and fellow lay people as together we strive to fulfill the mission which the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II have entrusted to us: to live the faith and thereby, with God's help, strengthen the Church so as to change the world.

(In a related concern, please note that the VOTF Fall River, MA affiliate has issued a press release regarding their communication efforts with Bishop Coleman. It is available by emailing FallRiver@votf.org.)

David O'Brien's response:

Dear Father Landry:

I would like to respond briefly to the letter you and two priest colleagues published (Zenit 03111936) on the Voice of the Faithful. I would be grateful if you could share this letter with them.

I had the privilege of addressing a VOTF group on the Cape last spring. At that time, I wrote Bishop Coleman, whom I had met at the Stonehill College graduation a few weeks earlier. I offered to meet with him to discuss VOTF if he thought that would be helpful. Unfortunately he did not respond.

I cannot deal here with all the statements made in the letter, but I would like to make three points.

First, your letter does not honor the sincere effort which the VOTF and its leaders have made from the beginning to make clear their commitment to the church and their determination to work in and with and not apart from the community of faith and its leaders. Those bishops who have met with the VOTF have affirmed that point. Dr. Post and his colleagues have worked hard to avoid association with "well known and oft quoted critics of the Holy Father who publicly dissent from the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." They have distanced themselves from the groups associated with Call to Action, which many regard as dissenters. When critics assaulted them for the choice of speakers at their national assembly in Boston in the summer of 2002, they disassociated the organization from a European reform group whose representative addressed the gathering. (I spoke at that meeting and assume you did not include me among the dissenters). In their most recent statements regarding their controversial call for "structural change" (not "cultural change" as your text states) the organization has made it clear that it has in mind improving parish and diocesan pastoral councils and finance committees in order to bring about greater transparency, accountability and shared responsibility, goals altogether in line with Vatican II teaching and much of post Vatican II pastoral practice, as you well know. If you ask why a group is needed to promote these goals, you need only assess the state of these structures in most New England dioceses.

Second, your all or nothing approach to Catholic teaching allows no distinctions and amounts to a kind of papal fundamentalism. It does not allow for a hierarchy of truths, for distinctions between doctrinal and moral teaching, or between doctrine and discipline. Your position makes a joke of all calls for dialogue within the church, or even serious reflection on the genuine tension between many church teachings and pastoral practice. Readers of your letter would be astonished to learn that the Holy Father himself has called for serious dialogue about the role of the Papal office in the life of the church, and that one of our most respected retired bishops, Archbishop John Quinn, has responded with a scholarly discussion which would seriously modify your position. Doctrine and moral teaching arise from and always return to the life of the church as it is lived out by the communities of faith, as you well know. Your position regarding teaching would reduce theology to reflection on doctrinal formulations approved by Vatican authorities and catechetics to head-nodding recitation of the catechism. In his ground breaking encyclical Pacem in Terris Blessed John XXIII drew attention to the gap between the extraordinary advances in the technical education of the Catholic people, and their religious education, which remained, he said, "at an elementary level." Vatican II's calls for the universal pursuit of holiness, for shared responsibility for the life and mission of the church, and for an apostolate aimed at the transformation of our world, all arose from and depended upon an adult church of responsible, educated, thoughtful priests, religious and lay people. Your approach would cancel out the Holy Fathers appeal for a dialogue of faith and culture, reserving it for the professionals who help write Papal and Vatican pronouncements. Recently a Vatican reporter asked an official why they were writing an official statement on a controversial question on which the church is clearly divided: because the American bishops asked for it, he responded. Now we can see why: if a group, even bishops, does not have a Vatican imprimatur on any question, they will never satisfy people like yourselves. One is reminded of the nineteenth century English convert who yearned for a daily encyclical to guide his daily reading of the London Times.

Third, and by far most important, your letter, professing to speak on behalf of the priests of the diocese of Fall River, expresses no humility and less responsibility. Surely the crisis we have lived through is one that touches all of us who were and are part of the church. You and I were not on the moon when children were abused, when priests covered up for their brother priests and when bishops failed to provide leadership or even in some cases failed to protect the integrity of the local church and when we lay people deferred to bishops and priests and failed to ask tough questions when we served on parish and diocesan councils and committees. Fall River, like Worcester, has had some terrible cases, so bad that all of us react with genuine horror. But why did we not notice? Why did we not act when the stories broke over a decade ago, act to make sure that our diocese and our national church acted appropriately? And where were our priests between January 2002, when the latest crisis broke around us here in New England, and this moment? I have seen many cases in the region of compassion and a yearning for justice on the part of individual priests, almost none from presbyteral councils or diocesan pastoral councils.

The most important truth about Voice of the Faithful is that it is composed of a very few lay men and women who have attempted as best they can to take responsibility for their church. They are amateurs at our brutal church politics surely they can be forgiven a few mistakes. They are remarkable because they are so unique. The most ardent reformers apart from those you would dismiss as dissenters take the position best illustrated by a cover of Commonweal magazine featuring a large ear under the heading "Are the Bishops Listening?" Like you, the editors and most commentators seem to believe that only the bishops can act - the best the rest of us can do is speak up and wait. I don't have to tell you that the presbyterate shares fully the responsibilities of the bishop. How have you exercised those responsibilities in this crisis? That is not a self righteous question but one you should ask before accusing VOTF of being irresponsible. The Voice of the Faithful is composed of people who took seriously our talk over forty years that our church is the people of God, that we are the church, and that we share responsibility for the life and work of the church. They are striving to help resolve the crisis because they, unlike most of us for far too long, believe that they are already responsible for what has happened: that is why they have to take some responsibility for responding to victims, supporting beleaguered priests and seeking reforms that will allow all of us to better share responsibility in the future. That, my friends, is why they are important, and why they deserve at least a few words of respect before you demand that they accept what we have as the best we can do.

Peter Steinfels in his recent middle-of-the-road book says that we have a crisis in front of us as American Catholics and we would have had a huge crisis even if there had never been a sex abuse scandal. We will flourish or we will gradually erode on the basis of the choices that each of us makes in the next few months and years. Let's listen to one another, let's try to find the common ground that can support our common life. Let's pray for each other that we will find the grace and wisdom to be the presence of Christ - together - here in our part of the vineyard.

Voice of the Faithful, VOTF, "Keep the Faith, Change the Church,"
Voice of Compassion, VOTF logo(s), Parish Voice, and
Prayerful Voice are trademarks of Voice of the Faithful, Inc.

Voice of the Faithful is a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt organization.