To change the Catholic church, start with its bishop selection process
Raleigh News & Observer.
August 20, 2018 10:54 AM
Mounting evidence of
the widespread failure of Catholic bishops to report cases of child
abuse by clergy, as well as their recycling of abusive priests from
parish to parish, should lead to a closer look at the process by which
bishops are selected. Putting it briefly, they select their own
episcopal colleagues. Yes, nominations must be approved by Rome, and
technically, the pope appoints bishops, but the selection process, the
vetting, takes place on a more local level.
Bishops, like
executives in any organization, are likely to select men who share their
perspective, who have been their close associates. In general, new
bishops are enlisted from the bureaucracy of the dioceses in a region.
With some hopeful progress, Pope Francis has been encouraging the
selection of more “pastoral” bishops. That’s code for bishops who have
been priests out in the trenches, as it were, not “office boys.”
The spotlight
has been focused on Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, stripped by the pope
of his rank as a cardinal over allegations that he sexually abused
minors and seminarians. McCarrick had a strong voice over many years in
selecting the bishops now at the helm of dozens of dioceses.
With the present system
in place, the Catholic people everywhere are likely to be suspicious of
their own bishops. Was it only McCarrick, and the bishops of
Pennsylvania, of Chile, and of Australia who were soft on pedophilia?
Was Pennsylvania somehow unique in producing 300 offending priests over
many decades?
The only way to lift
the cloud of suspicion is a radical reform of the method of selecting
bishops. Lay men and women must be part of the process. At the present
time, not even priests have a voice in the selection of their bishop.
When I was a priest in
the Diocese of Brooklyn in the 1960s, energized by the idea of
collegiality that emerged from the Second Vatican Council, a Priests’
Senate was established. Rank-and-file parish priests elected delegates.
The group, which functioned in an advisory capacity to the bishop, met
with high hopes of having an effective voice in church affairs,
including the selection of the bishop. (To our shame, we were so taken
up with the “junior clergy” having a voice that no thought was given to
the laity also being represented.)
What happened? Although
not a member of the senate, I followed its proceedings with high
expectations. The bishop listened to the priests, which in itself was a
step forward, but seldom took their advice. After a few years the
initial energy waned and many of the younger clergy, myself included,
left the ministry. A voice in church governance was not the only issue,
of course. Mandatory celibacy was also in the cross hairs of anticipated
reform.
In North Carolina
during the same period, tension between the bishop and priests over the
issue of power sharing reached such a high pitch that in 1969 nearly a
quarter of the priests in the state wrote a letter calling on Bishop
Vincent Waters to resign. Waters ignored the letter, and as in Brooklyn
and elsewhere, the priests either resigned from ministry or became
resigned to the status quo.
Of course, parish and
diocesan advisory groups do exist today. They are toothless. The main
thing bishops want from lay consultation is assistance in fund raising.
The bishop alone, selected by a secret process, controls the show. He
may be personable, but his “flock” has no say in the selection of their
“shepherd” and no meaningful voice in governance.
It should not be all that surprising that the cesspool, having at last been opened, is emitting such a sorry stench.
William Powers, the author of Tar Heel Catholics: A History of Catholicism in North Carolina, lives in Chapel Hill.
No comments:
Post a Comment