Link:
French TV inquiry accuses 25 bishops of abuse cover-ups
Given that many of these happened after the changes in the way bishops conferences handled abuse allegations, do we need to take a closer look at how we determine who becomes a bishop in the first place, and how parish priests are assigned?
Taking it as a given that a certain number of abusers will be drawn to the priesthood, just as they are drawn to other jobs that involve children like teachings and so on and so forth, and that it's impossible to weed out all the potential offenders before they offend, that leaves us with what has always been the biggest sin that the Church has had to deal with and why this is a scandal- that somehow these men, after abusing, remain in the priesthood, and are shuffled around to other unsuspecting parishes, and then predictably wind up abusing other children.
I am not claiming to have all the answers here, but my feeling is that accountability would help- accountability directly to the families who's children are affected and potentially affected by abusive priests. I don't mean accountability in the sense of stringing up the abuser- though I do think there should be mandatory reporting to the civil authorities of anything discovered that is not part of the sacrament of reconciliation- I mean accountability in the sense of involving the laity of a diocese and a parish more in the process of selecting a bishop and a priest or priests, and more say in the outcome of what happens to clergy career wise. When you let the children's parents and eventually the adult children have a say, and bishops and priests start to really look at themselves as working for the people they are supposed to be serving, I think that the accountability increases.
Oftentimes, I think the priests think of themselves as working for the bishop, who they take a vow of obedience towards, and the bishops think of themselves as working for the Pope, who is the one who selected them to be ordained as bishops and assigned them their positions in dioceses. At the same time, Popes often think of themselves as spiritual fathers to the bishops and bishops often think of themselves as spiritual fathers to the priests. These things are not bad in and of themselves, but one notices that the laity is almost entirely absent from that structure of pseudo-familial relations, and I think that can create problems.
Almost every other church I know that has a small "e" episcopal form of government- rule by bishops- gives the diocese a stronger say in selecting the bishops. Most Eastern churches in union with Rome have processes that end in the diocese selecting a bishop and submitting the name for approval by the Pope (If the Pope does not approve the selection, the process starts over with another name being submitted at the end of it). The Eastern Orthodox straight out seem to let the diocese choose their own bishops. The Episcopal Church has lay representatives voted on by ordinary parishioners represent their parish in voting on anyone who applies to be bishop, and then has a process whereby the the majority of dioceses in the national church (bishops and lay leaders) must approve or reject the selection before anyone is consecrated bishop.
One thing that especially strikes me is that in the Episcopal Church, any financially self-sustaining parish is allowed to elect a vestry (parish council) which hires a new priest in consultation with the bishop. It occurs to me that if in Roman Catholic parishes we had local Catholics looking at resumes of priests, including confidential files in confidence, it is unlikely that any priest who abused children would be able to go from one parish to the next if discovered. Even if it was "off the books", just having the parish council talk to people of past parishes these priests have worked at might expose most of the abusers and make it hard for them to find work. When a bishop who owes his position only to the Pope, and who thinks of the priests as his children, is granted sole discretion in where to assign priests, though, almost all of the emotional incentives in that system make the bishop want to give his "child", the priest, a second or third chance, at the expense of real children- which is sick. And, in the end, the bishop knows he is not accountable to the people of his diocese- he is accountable only to Rome, which is what leads to thinks like Cardinal Law being front and center at John-Paul II's funeral.
I think we need some real reform here. It's not just an issue where I want to make the process more democratic, it's an issue where we see that the fruits of a situation where clergy is completely unaccountable to the laity for anything is that the clergy does whatever it wants, and is more responsive to the people more like them- other clergy up and down the ladder.
I think congregationalism, where people of a congregation just select their own pastors and figure out their own beliefs and are not part of a diocese or accountable to a bishop or national and international churches in almost any way, is bad. That's the other extreme. But there is a middle ground between that and imbuing all authority, and all authority to decide who becomes clergy and where the clergy work, to other clergy, and centralizing it ultimately in one man in Rome, doesn't work either.
I think the parish should have a say in who it's priest is, and a diocese should have a say in who it's bishop is. That doesn't mean that they simply decide themselves. There could be a process where the bishop gets veto power over a parish's selection of a priest and the Pope gets veto power over a diocese's selection of a bishop, for example.
In ancient times, prior to the 11th century or so, Rome did not directly appoint bishops. They were chosen by local dioceses, and the the bishops of nearby dioceses would have to approve the selection and come and consecrate the priests chosen bishops.
And of course I am not suggesting throwing the process open to everyone. Any priest selected as a pastor or associate pastor would have to already be an ordained priest. We could limit anyone put forward to become a bishop to also having already been an ordained priest for a period of 10 years. There are ways to do this that incorporate safeguards that respect the nature and tradition of ordination, but also allow people to protect their children from predator priests and their accessories in the episcopate.
The time has come to really fundamentally overhaul this process. It's not just not optimal- it's not working at all. Children should be safe in church, and, too often, they aren't.
French TV inquiry accuses 25 bishops of abuse cover-ups
Given that many of these happened after the changes in the way bishops conferences handled abuse allegations, do we need to take a closer look at how we determine who becomes a bishop in the first place, and how parish priests are assigned?
Taking it as a given that a certain number of abusers will be drawn to the priesthood, just as they are drawn to other jobs that involve children like teachings and so on and so forth, and that it's impossible to weed out all the potential offenders before they offend, that leaves us with what has always been the biggest sin that the Church has had to deal with and why this is a scandal- that somehow these men, after abusing, remain in the priesthood, and are shuffled around to other unsuspecting parishes, and then predictably wind up abusing other children.
I am not claiming to have all the answers here, but my feeling is that accountability would help- accountability directly to the families who's children are affected and potentially affected by abusive priests. I don't mean accountability in the sense of stringing up the abuser- though I do think there should be mandatory reporting to the civil authorities of anything discovered that is not part of the sacrament of reconciliation- I mean accountability in the sense of involving the laity of a diocese and a parish more in the process of selecting a bishop and a priest or priests, and more say in the outcome of what happens to clergy career wise. When you let the children's parents and eventually the adult children have a say, and bishops and priests start to really look at themselves as working for the people they are supposed to be serving, I think that the accountability increases.
Oftentimes, I think the priests think of themselves as working for the bishop, who they take a vow of obedience towards, and the bishops think of themselves as working for the Pope, who is the one who selected them to be ordained as bishops and assigned them their positions in dioceses. At the same time, Popes often think of themselves as spiritual fathers to the bishops and bishops often think of themselves as spiritual fathers to the priests. These things are not bad in and of themselves, but one notices that the laity is almost entirely absent from that structure of pseudo-familial relations, and I think that can create problems.
Almost every other church I know that has a small "e" episcopal form of government- rule by bishops- gives the diocese a stronger say in selecting the bishops. Most Eastern churches in union with Rome have processes that end in the diocese selecting a bishop and submitting the name for approval by the Pope (If the Pope does not approve the selection, the process starts over with another name being submitted at the end of it). The Eastern Orthodox straight out seem to let the diocese choose their own bishops. The Episcopal Church has lay representatives voted on by ordinary parishioners represent their parish in voting on anyone who applies to be bishop, and then has a process whereby the the majority of dioceses in the national church (bishops and lay leaders) must approve or reject the selection before anyone is consecrated bishop.
One thing that especially strikes me is that in the Episcopal Church, any financially self-sustaining parish is allowed to elect a vestry (parish council) which hires a new priest in consultation with the bishop. It occurs to me that if in Roman Catholic parishes we had local Catholics looking at resumes of priests, including confidential files in confidence, it is unlikely that any priest who abused children would be able to go from one parish to the next if discovered. Even if it was "off the books", just having the parish council talk to people of past parishes these priests have worked at might expose most of the abusers and make it hard for them to find work. When a bishop who owes his position only to the Pope, and who thinks of the priests as his children, is granted sole discretion in where to assign priests, though, almost all of the emotional incentives in that system make the bishop want to give his "child", the priest, a second or third chance, at the expense of real children- which is sick. And, in the end, the bishop knows he is not accountable to the people of his diocese- he is accountable only to Rome, which is what leads to thinks like Cardinal Law being front and center at John-Paul II's funeral.
I think we need some real reform here. It's not just an issue where I want to make the process more democratic, it's an issue where we see that the fruits of a situation where clergy is completely unaccountable to the laity for anything is that the clergy does whatever it wants, and is more responsive to the people more like them- other clergy up and down the ladder.
I think congregationalism, where people of a congregation just select their own pastors and figure out their own beliefs and are not part of a diocese or accountable to a bishop or national and international churches in almost any way, is bad. That's the other extreme. But there is a middle ground between that and imbuing all authority, and all authority to decide who becomes clergy and where the clergy work, to other clergy, and centralizing it ultimately in one man in Rome, doesn't work either.
I think the parish should have a say in who it's priest is, and a diocese should have a say in who it's bishop is. That doesn't mean that they simply decide themselves. There could be a process where the bishop gets veto power over a parish's selection of a priest and the Pope gets veto power over a diocese's selection of a bishop, for example.
In ancient times, prior to the 11th century or so, Rome did not directly appoint bishops. They were chosen by local dioceses, and the the bishops of nearby dioceses would have to approve the selection and come and consecrate the priests chosen bishops.
And of course I am not suggesting throwing the process open to everyone. Any priest selected as a pastor or associate pastor would have to already be an ordained priest. We could limit anyone put forward to become a bishop to also having already been an ordained priest for a period of 10 years. There are ways to do this that incorporate safeguards that respect the nature and tradition of ordination, but also allow people to protect their children from predator priests and their accessories in the episcopate.
The time has come to really fundamentally overhaul this process. It's not just not optimal- it's not working at all. Children should be safe in church, and, too often, they aren't.
