Moving Forward

The Abuse Summit that took place in Rome in February, 2019 is now over.   There is disagreement as to whether the Summit accomplished its goals or anything at all.   I think it did.   Leading up to the Summit, expectations were lowered.   Statements from Pope Francis and those who organized it made it clear that the success of the Summit will largely be determined by what happens after the Summit.   I agree.  Those that attended have returned to their countries from around the world and in some cases will have to begin the process of putting in place protocols to deal with the sexual abuse of children by clergy and bishops.   

Most accounts in the press have noted that the Summit was taken seriously by those who attended, and that progress was made in heightening awareness not only of the horrible crime of the sexual abuse of children but also of the cover-up of this situation throughout the world.   German Cardinal Reinhard Marx said, “Files that could have documented the terrible deeds and named those responsible were destroyed, or not even created”.   Pope Francis at the end of the Summit made a promise that the church will “decisively confront” the abuse of minors.  He also said: “I make a heartfelt appeal for an all-out battle against the abuse of minors both sexually and in other areas, on the part of all authorities and individuals, for we are dealing with abominable crimes that must be erased from the face of the earth.”  Will these strong words lead to action?

I believe so.    If nothing else the Abuse Summit has made it clear that the Church in moving forward and is more determined to rid itself of the terrible sin of the abuse of minors and its cover-up on a global level.   How this will be done will likely look different and different protocols and standards will have to be set up in each country.  This I believe is necessary since cultural factors, what is considered “abuse” and civil laws vary from country to country.  Victims and victims’ groups were angry that “zero tolerance” was not accepted by all.  I understand that.     Still, the Church knows that it needs to do all it can to protect the children it serves globally.   This is a big step by itself.   

An interesting dynamic that played out during the Summit is that the Church was reminded that if this reform does not happen, the secular press is ready to force it to do so once again.   The press, victims and victims’ groups have been relentless in their pursuit of justice.    During the Summit, the New York Times had a story on children of clergy and the Vatican admitted they had files on these cases.   The book “In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy” was published which claims that 80% of the Vatican clergy are gay.   The New York times also ran a front-page story entitled; “It is not a Closet, it is a Cage” which detailed the struggle of some gay clergy and the pressure they felt to keep their sexual preference private.  Clearly the press, victims and victims’ groups will continue to be relentless in their pursuit of transparency on the part of the Church.  This is good. 

However, solving the abuse issue in the Church cannot and will not solve the underlying issue of what the Church needs to do to bring about authentic reform which is needed.    One critique of the Summit is that it has worked under the illusion that the Bishops (Hierarchy) can reform themselves and bring about the needed change in the Church.  The Laity, who make up by far most of the Church has largely been left out of any type of needed reform. 

The sexual abuse of children by clergy is a symptom that developed in the Church because of an underlying problem.   There are many other symptoms we have seen such as: clericalism, the abuse of adults by clergy, clergy involved in financial scandals.  Some would say that homosexuality among the clergy is another symptom even though any link between homosexuality and the abuse of children by clergy has been scientifically proven to be false by the John Jay Study that was published in 2011 and can be found on the USCCB website.  Many other studies have come to the same conclusion. 

There are plenty of “symptoms” out there that show the Church needs reform.  Yet, if you just treat and deal with the symptoms you never solve the underlying problem.    Any management consultant would tell you this.  Medical professionals also know this.   For true reform, true healing to happen that can lead the church into the future the underlying problem has to be addressed. 

I believe the underlying problem is that the Church has functioned out of an old model of church that no longer works.  The credibility of the church is pretty much gone.   The present symptoms pretty much killed this old model and the church is struggling to find its identity and be relevant once again in the world today.  Let me explain.

For true reform to happen, a new model of church has to emerge.  Or, perhaps there has to be a better balance of the “Models” that Avery Dulles outlined in his classic book “Models of the Church” (Published 1974).  Avery Dulles often stated that one model of church that he outlined should never be seen as the only way of viewing the church or for the church to function.    Indeed, he believed that the church is a “mystery” and anyone looking to understand the complex reality of the Church must always work simultaneously with different models.   Any model used in isolation or used too much will lead to distortions because each model exhibits only one reality in our human experience of the world and the Church.  Looking at the church in different ways can help people who have very different outlooks of the church to move forward. 

I have always worked from the premise that the Church that Jesus envisioned (if he envisioned the Church at all) was a welcoming Church.  There is room for all, saint and sinner, progressive and traditional. 

Perhaps the underlying problem is that the Church (at least the hierarchy) has been working too much out of one model – what Dulles identified as “The Church as Institution”.  This model emphasizes canon law, the governing body of the church and views the members of the church as subjects of the Bishops and Priests.  This model focuses on the rights and authority of the hierarchy.  In this model the Pope, bishops and priests are responsible for teaching, sanctifying and ruling the laity. 

This model dominated the Church from the Middle Ages until 1962 and the start of the Vatican Council.   This model of Church certainly had its strengths.  For many years it gave a strong sense of identity for Catholics that led to a strong sense of loyalty.  Yet, it no longer is relevant given the crisis the Church now faces.    

There are some drawbacks to this model of church that became evident.   First, clericalism.  This was manifested by the control, domination and even oppression of the laity by the ordained.   At the same time, it consisted of passivity, blind obedience and non-involvement on the part of the laity.  This fed the clerical attitude and helped it to grow.    Second, there was an emphasis on law and the doctrines of the church.   The role of the laity was limited to pay, pray and obey.     The third defect was a sense of triumphalism which leads to a claim that the church has the fullness of divine revelation and the right to pass judgment on the personal and social obligations of all.

Yet, the laity are no longer passive and no longer looking to be a part of a church that focuses merely on law and doctrine.   Instead of triumphalism the laity are looking for a church that goes “outward” rather than focusing on itself.  

The vision of Vatican II certainly attempted to move the church beyond this model. There was never an attempt to get rid of it. Rather it attempted to incorporate it as one model among others.   Dulles’ book helped to do this.   Yet, under the pontificate of Saint John Paul II this model enjoyed a bit of a comeback and was favored.   Avery Dulles outlined some of other models in his book.  They are: The Church as Communion, The Church as Sacrament, The Church as Herald, The Church as Servant.  Later Dulles would add a chapter to the book called “The Church: Community of Disciples”.  This was sort of a unifying model that brings the previous five together.  But Dulles’ masterpiece was written in 1974 and the church is different today. 

Perhaps the way forward is for a new model to emerge which incorporates “the good’ of all the previous models and takes into consideration the present challenges of the Church in light of the present crisis.    This new model would have to emphasize the important role of the laity in the governance of the church.   It would do away with clericalism and focus more on equality among the “people of God”.   It would be a model which would be less focused on protecting itself from the secular world or battling with the secular world and focus outward on evangelization.  It would be a model which balances doctrine with mercy. 

If we learn anything from the present crisis the church is facing, it is that the old way of being church no longer is relevant and it caused many of the problems today that could have been avoided.   The way forward is not in the past. There is a vocal minority on social media and in the conservative press who would like to return to the “glory days”.   In fact, the “glory days” of the Church were not that glorious and likely contributed greatly to the problems the church faces today.    

I firmly believe there is plenty of room in the church for all – saint and sinner.   Pope Francis has been working out of a new model of church that is more inclusive than exclusive.   It is a church that balances tradition with mercy.   It is a church that is ecumenical rather than inward thinking.  He has not done away with tradition and church teaching.  He has simply kept it in perspective as Jesus did. 

Some church teaching will need to be retrieved such as the role conscience when it comes to church teaching.   Also, the significance of baptism as the sacrament by which we are “incorporated into Christ’s body and part of the People of God”.   Through baptism we become Christ’s disciples and “share the priestly, prophetic, and kingly office of Christ, and to the best of their ability carry on the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world” (Lumen Gentium).

Moving forward I am sure great strides will be made around the world in dealing with the crime of the sexual abuse of children by priest and bishops.   Great strides will be made in dealing with the issue of clericalism.   The church will look at the formation of priests and see what can be improved.   These “symptoms” will be addressed. 

Will needed structural change happen so that a new model of church can emerge?   This will take longer but I sense the laity and a good number of clergy and religious are no longer going to sit back and wait too much longer.   Clearly the old model of church no longer works.   I am not a theologian.  Perhaps we need a new Avery Dulles figure (or figures) to help clarify what this new model could look like.    I pray that in moving forward a new model may emerge that can enliven the church and focus it more on its mission which is the mission of Jesus – to build the Kingdom of God.