A Time for Reform

Wednesday September 29, 2004

[This talk was delivered to the Union County Chapter of VOTF (Voice of the Faithful) on Monday evening, September 27, 2004. This is the unabridged version which is an expansion of the actual talk.]

A Introduction / Disclaimers

I come to you this evening as your guest; as your guest pastor, if I may. I will be speaking to you as I have spoken over the past twenty-one years to the members of my parish family at Saint Joseph in Mendham.

Although I am a canonist, pastoring is my skill. From the very beginning of my formation in the seminary, I wanted to be a pastor. The topic of my doctoral dissertation was “Pastoral Preparation of Secular Clerics in the United States,” 1966.

I have also studied theology but I am not a theologian. I read a great deal and I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don’t know a lot about everything. I am not a sociologist but I am a data-based rather than a power-based person. Decisions based on hard and soft data are more effective than those based on power or authority. This is key to much of what I will state later about the abuse of ecclesiastical power which I believe remains at the core of the cover-up of sexual abuse by clergy and religious. Another word for the abuse of power is clericalism, which is not restricted to bishops and priests. Clericalism is the restriction of power and privilege to an elite group that maintains an exaggerated image of its own importance. There are many clerical laypersons active in the development of Church polity and polices many of them well- educated professionals.

There are some personal disclaimers that I should make known to you prior to my observations about reform.

I am a baptized and confirmed member of the Roman Catholic Church. I accepted ordination and all that went with it. Although I as many others have struggled with the notion of mandatory celibacy, I continue to embrace it freely and without reservation despite the struggles that are inevitable. There are no cheap graces. At the same time, I cast no aspersions on my brother priests who in the course of time discovered that they have a dual vocation—one to the priesthood, the other to marriage and a family. In fact, my closest friends among the Roman Catholic clergy are married priests who with their wives and families have been extraordinary witnesses to me about the meaning of the common priesthood that we all received at baptism. They have also demonstrated to me that their ministerial priesthood remains alive in their sacrificial commitment to Christian service. I cherish my relationship with these men and their families.

All the above notwithstanding, I am not a “joiner.” Though I do recognize the good that they have done and the causes for which they have labored, I am not a member of the Knights of Columbus or the Legion of Mary though for the most part I support the efforts of both. I am not a member of Voice of the Faithful, Call for Action, SNAP or Link-up and other reform and/or support groups for survivors of sexual abuse. I am a strong advocate for Church reform and attend many VOTF and SNAP meetings and support most of their causes. I serve as a proactive consultant to SNAP and as a counselor to many of its members but I work as extensively with survivors who are not necessarily members of SNAP. I am also in frequent conversation with several ‘Catholics in the pew’ who are likewise are not joiners but who are nevertheless strong advocates for reform. I suspect that many priests fall into this later category though many appear reluctant to speak more openly for fear of censure or reprimand

In essence, I am a free spirit but in debt to the Holy Spirit whom I must obey—the Spirit which lives in all of us and who has spoken from east to west, from one age to another, and who continues to find new and creative ways to intervene in history and in the Church whether we like it or not, whether or not we are listening.

As of my retirement on August 1, 2004, I became a ‘pastor at large of a church without walls and of a parish without boundaries but still well within the Catholic fold. I love the richness of our tradition. I am a Catholic through and through and I am proud of my heritage and inheritance.

But I am a centrist who is searching for truth from inside and outside and from both sides of the aisle. Though I recoil from the terms, it might be fair to state that I am a moderate liberal or a liberal conservative. I am traditional in a traditional Church but I am not a traditionalist. To be traditional is indeed to be faithful to tradition but it also implies the ability to change our Catholic practices and discipline as we grow in our understanding of the teachings of Jesus as they have been passed down throughout the ages. In the words of Cardinal Newman, “To live is to changes and to become perfect is to have changed often.” Conversely, a traditionalist gets stuck in one age or epoch.

Our Church leaders are vested with legitimate authority but this does not entitle them to exercise their authority indiscriminately or in an authoritarian manner. They must be attentive to the voice of the Spirit within the Church. This is called the ‘sensus fidelium’ which in essence is the manner in which the teaching is received by the faithful.

I suspect many of you may have a more extensive background than I in the matters at hand. However, I do believe I can bring a perspective to the challenges that we face as Christians in the Roman Catholic tradition that may provide a context for your continuing discernment and discussion.

B The Issues

1.The Sexual Abuse of children and teens by clergy and religious

Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) was established in March of 2002 in response to the clergy abuse cover-up in Boston. Yes, we can now state that it was indeed a cover-up. However, as serious as it was, the abuse and its cover up were but the symptoms of a greater evil and that is the abuse of authority by some of those who held the highest offices of trust in the Church. As a primary witness to and a victim of the abuse of power by Church authorities, I believe many details of those abuses have yet to be completely disclosed and unpacked. In my opinion, most victims of sexual abuse by clergy and religious will not disclose their abuse. For valid reasons, they simply do not trust the system that has not yet been proven worthy of confidence.

My own involvement in the abuse issue began in April of 1985 when Mark Serrano disclosed my associate and to me the abuse he suffered on by James Hanley for almost seven years. Hanley was the pastor of St. Joseph Parish from 1972 to 1982. Although it might be well to discuss the nature of sexual abuse, I am hopeful that by now you have been informed or that at future meetings you will pursue the true nature of sexual abuse and its devastating effects, We do not have time this evening to do so nor would it be appropriate for me to speak for victims. They need to speak for themselves and I hope you will provide that opportunity. Unfortunately, there are still many Catholics priests among them who know little about abuse and there are voices that suggest that victims should get over it and get on with their lives. Moreover, some have even suggested that victims of clergy abuse are no different from victims of incest. As horrible as incest is, abuse by a trusted priest or religious is even more damaging because it severs the relationship between God and the victim. In effect, it is the slaughter of an innocent soul. Abuse by a priest is a tidal wave that has leveled homes and destroyed foundations of faith.

Was it my innocence, naiveté or was it my own denial that made me think that Mark’s disclosure would be handled with the care and sensitivity that it deserved. Little did I anticipate at the time the havoc that would result from Mark’s abuse and the abuse of thousands of other young men and woman and men across the country and across the world.

A sampling of the manner in which his case was handled will give you only a clue to the manner in which victims and their families have been re-victimized through a process that ostensibly was intended even by Church law to bring about justice and healing. [A disclaimer is in order here for the sake of those whom one of my mentors refers to as the ‘barracudas’, i.e., those who are on the attack against critics of the Church. They ask why victims and proactive victim-supporters keep nagging about the past instead of recognizing what the Church has done to correct the injustices. While I recognize the efforts that many churchmen have made, Bishop Bootkowski of Metuchin among them, the past can not be put to rest until the whole story has been told. My mantra remains as relevant and as firm as it was two years ago, “There will be no forgiveness and healing without justice; and there will be no justice until there is truth; and there will be no truth until there is full accountability.” In truth the full truth has not been told and the past remains present until all the facts have been disclosed and the truth validated. There are priests in ministry who have yet to be held accountable for past conduct that resulted in serious injury to men now grown old in years but who remain emotionally and spiritually handicapped by their abuse]

In 1994, I warned a particular bishop that there was a cancer within the Church and within his diocese that needed to be addressed. I pleaded with him and his staff to convene a summit during which the issue of sexual abuse might be unpacked and discussed thoroughly. I suggested that he invite psychiatrists, psychologists, attorneys, journalists, newspaper reporters, victim/survivors and yes, even recovering predators; that we gather for as long as it takes to unpack the issue and develop a response that would not only bring justice to the victims of clergy abuse but healing for those who inflicted the wounds. I was unaware at the time that Fr. Tom Doyle, OP, a former secretary to the Papal Nuncio in Washington together with Fr. Michael Peterson, MD, President of Saint Luke Institute and Mr. Ray Mouton, trial attorney, had submitted to the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) through Cardinal Law an extensive report on the abuse issue and the implications for its spiritual and financial impact on the Church in the U.S. The submission included specific recommendations for a comprehensive response that would meet the moral, legal, psychological and financial expectations and demands associated with the abuse of children and adolescents. Although Cardinal Law promised that these recommendations would be considered by the USCCB, the report and it recommendations never saw the light of day. It was “deep sixed.” My plea to the bishop also went unanswered and unacknowledged. The footings for the “wall of silence” had been poured.

You no doubt have heard that term used many times in recent years. The wall of silence is similar to the ‘iron curtain’ that separated the eastern bloc communist countries from the free west virtually cutting off all communication between the east and west. Under the guise of confidentiality and gag orders, allegations of sexual abuse by clergy were kept secret, discussion of the facts not allowed and pleas for action ignored. Yes, even the Church adopted means and methods that we might find in the corporate world and in the political arena to prevent the disclosure of wrongdoing. Double talk, evasion and prevarication are the characteristics of deceit. In the words of George Orwell, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Here are some examples of the subterfuge that has been characteristic of the effort to control the flow of information or the dissemination of disinformation. Others call it simply damage control.

a)Double files among diocesan personnel. In 1995, I was asked to assume responsibilities as the chair of a diocesan vocation board that reviewed the applications of aspirants for the diocesan priesthood. Shortly after my arrival in the office, I discovered that certain applicants and seminary students had double files. Upon inquiry I was told that there was sensitive information in the second folder that was confidential and not for disclosure beyond the office. A review of the ‘secret’ file, revealed ‘sensitive’ information that could prove potentially damaging to the candidate and, I might add, to the Church should it become public knowledge. In one case, there was evidence of a plea bargain agreement for ‘official misconduct.’ After investigation, it was clear that plea bargain could be traced to a more serious criminal act with overtones of sexual misconduct. A second candidate was accused of sexual solicitation by a seminary campus worker. Upon investigation, the evidence was substantial. Three other candidates were dismissed for a variety of reasons that could have rendered them highly questionable for advancement to Holy Orders. During this period, ordained priests with questionable backgrounds and credentials were being exchanged between certain dioceses ostensibly to give them a second chance or and a fresh start. Although I was not in a position to veto the acceptance or exchange of ordained priests at that time, I expressed grave reservations about the acceptance of those candidates about whom I was consulted.

b)Allegations of sexual abuse that go unacknowledged and then denied. As far back as 1984, I reported allegations of sexual misconduct of young boys directly to diocesan authorities of a certain diocese. I recommended a discreet investigation. After several weeks, I inquired of the diocesan official to whom I made the report whether the investigation turned up any evidence of sexual misconduct. The official replied that no evidence had been uncovered. He informed me further that the bishop had questioned the priest and that the priest denied having any sexual contact with boys. I replied, “Is that it? That was the investigation?” I was quite disturbed by the lack of any thorough investigation. Less than two years later, the priest was arrested and subsequently convicted of a sexual felony. He served time in a federal prison. He has since died. I found out many months later that I was only one of three persons who had reported him long before his arrest. One of the persons who reported him was the mother of one of the boys. The other was a woman who worked in the parish. She was chastised by the bishop for reporting the priest. To make matters worse, the bishop and his chancellor denied knowing anything about the matter prior to his arrest. And there is a great deal more to this story. Only recently I was ‘counseled’ by the diocesan attorney who is defending the diocese in a civil suit pertaining to this above case that I myself am liable for a civil suit because I did not report the allegations of misconduct to the county prosecutor! How clever is that? Had I known that was the law at the time (I did not) and surely had I the experience I know have, I would have gone directly to the prosecutor’s office as I did in a later case involving the abuse of one of my former parishioners by a priest instructor at a diocesan school. I discovered later that the prosecutor had no record of my report. Interesting.

c)Absence of paper trails. It is widely known that bishops and diocesan officials have turned to attorneys in order to protect priests and the Church from criminal prosecution. In most cases, the expiration of the statute of limitations has made criminal prosecution impossible. However, civil suits for damages connected with sexual abuse by a priest or religious were initiated only after dioceses turned to attorneys who stonewalled victims and their families and blew smoke in their faces. Victims were left with no other alternative than to institute these suits. Their primary concern was not money but justice. Diocesan officials with the advice of their attorney carefully protected paper trails. Only after court orders and injunctions were diocesan files opened for review. This is what blew the cap off the cover-up in Boston. However, Boston was not alone in the massive cover-up that ensued.

d)Legal lies and prevarications. A legal lie is not considered immoral. For example, when credible allegations are made against an individual, he can enter a ‘not guilty’ plea and still be telling the truth. No one is required to incriminate him/herself in a criminal case. However, in the matter of sexual abuse allegations, there is a fine line between legal and moral quilt. Many sexual predators are pathological liars and actually believe that they never abused anyone. In fact, as crazy as it may sound, some believe their victims wanted to have sex or that they were doing their victims a favor by educating them in preparation for a time when they would engage in sex. A prevarication is like a mental reservation. We learned about that term in moral theology in the seminary. When another party has no right to certain information that I hold, then I can withhold it from that person by talking around it in such a manner that I lead him in a direction that distracts or leads him away from the truth.

e)The diffusion of half-truths—incomplete information that not only fails to tell the whole story but which results in false information that gives the impression that the problem has been addressed. An example of this occurred recently in a newspaper exchange that I had with a certain diocesan official. The issue had to do with the allegations of sexual abuse mentioned above which I had reported to a diocesan official. In a recent newspaper reference to those allegations, a reporter inquired of the diocesan official whether or not he recalled my report. The diocesan official replied that my report was vague and had to do with ‘demeanor’ rather than with specific allegations of sexual abuse. In fact, the half-truth was that he acknowledged my report but he denied the content of my report. The diocesan official who has not been held accountable to this day remains on a diocesan review board and is charged with the responsibility of facilitating abuse allegations and is overseeing the implementation of diocesan sexual abuse policies.

f)Innuendos and coffee-urn gossip. During a visit to diocesan offices of a certain diocese, I was informed by an employee of that diocese that I was not liked by ‘the people upstairs.’ I informed the employee that he would do well to remind diocesan officials that they should be grateful that I have not told reporters everything I know and that reporters themselves have not revealed everything they know. There are no cheap graces.

Incidentally, of the reporters I have met over the last three years 98% are among the finest professionals I have known. They do not make up stories and rarely publish what they are unable to document. Dan Rather’s error in judgement notwithstanding, should they cross the line, their in house editors and publishers will scratch the story.

Indeed, “in the midst of warfare, morality becomes contraband.” (Mohanda Ghandi)

Despite the failures of many victim/survivors to achieve justice in the Church there are been some miraculous recoveries and healings. I believe they are among the contemporary saints of our day and their names will never be read from the roster of saints at the Vatican. They are strong but not combative. They are courageous but always respectful; they are transparent but not flighty or flakey. They have done their soul work and have come out on top. However, they are exceptional. Most do not progress that quickly and many will never recover.

2. Other issues that touch on and test the ordinary practice of the faith.

The absence of genuine dialogue. I maintain that even if bishops and pastors were to implement the prescriptions of the revised Code of Canon Law (1983) governing collaboration and the development of Church policy and practice, there would be a revolution in most Catholic dioceses and their parishes. In essence, I believe members of the Voice of the Faithful are asking no more or no less than adherence to these prescripts through genuine dialogue and collaboration. Thus its theme, “Keep the Faith; Change the Church.” People in the pew are asking for true dialogue in which everyone listens, especially Church authorities. Listening enables everyone not only to rediscover old truths—perennial truths—but also discover new truths or insights that may indeed result in attitudinal and disciplinary changes that do not affect our core beliefs as a church. Let me give you three examples:

a)The celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. For several years I have made a pastoral decision annually to use the fourth form of the liturgical celebration of this beautiful sacrament on the fourth Monday evening of Advent and on the Monday of Holy Week. The form is more commonly known as ‘general absolution’. Church discipline permits use of this form only for emergencies that are clearly defined and outlined. However, given the decreasing number of ‘available’ priests and the demands of pastoral ministry among other reasons about which I shall elaborate below, I expanded the notion of ‘emergency’ to include the large number of faithful and the paucity of priests.

The selection of appropriate scriptural readings, meditation, music and homily have combined to make these penitential liturgies a truly extraordinary spiritual experience not only for the 500 plus who attend but also for me and for the liturgical ministers. It has not been unusual for congregants to be moved to tears. Moreover, parishioners are not looking for an easy way out or a short cut to absolution. To be honest, most of them are not in a state of mortal sin and for those who may be dealing with serious moral issues, these communal celebrations have been a doorway to the individual celebration of the sacrament at a later time. In no way do I wish to disparage the private and individual celebration of this sacrament. I am suggesting only that the general become the normal or ordinary and the private/individual celebration become the extraordinary. I propose this for practical, theological, psychological and spiritual reasons.

1)There are simply not enough priests for a reverent celebration of the sacrament. It would take at least 25 priests to hear the confessions of 500 penitents within a reasonable period of time without extending the ceremony. I am aware that some parishes have opted for an abbreviated version of the sacrament suggesting that the penitent tell one or two sins to a standing priest assigned to one of the many stations in the church. I believe this is neither theologically correct nor liturgically appropriate. It is an abuse of the sacrament. Moreover, it is very unrealistic to assume that the elimination of general absolution will result in the long lines on Saturday afternoons or before major feasts. They simply will stop ‘going to confession” and the sacrament will disappear.
2)Theologically, the Church has the power and the authority to determine how the sacrament may be celebrated liturgically. Even if we subscribe to the biblical interpretation that Jesus gave authority to his apostles to forgive sins, he did not specify the manner in which forgiveness was to be imparted in his name. The penitential discipline evolved over time and in fact has changed over time. The insistence of the Holy Father and bishops on the private celebration is yet another indicator of the movement toward control and a form of spiritual totalitarianism.
3)The private and individual celebration of the sacrament is psychologically helpful for some but for many it presents a serious psychological barrier. This is not to suggest that it should not be recommended even to those who find it so difficult but it should not be imposed except as it was in the early church, i.e., in cases of murder, public adultery and the abuse of minors and apostasy. I can testify to the difficulty my mother experienced with the private celebration. On a particular occasion, one of her friends asked her if she went to confession often, She replied, “I go to my husband every night!” Good for her. Incidentally, it was none of her friend’s business. My mother was a daily communicant.
The recent abuse issue has complicated the private celebration and has diminished the confidence that many have had in the private observance.
4)While I do believe that private confession can be a spiritually liberating
experience, it can also become a crutch for some. It has been my experience that for many who frequent the sacrament on a routine basis, it becomes rote or promotes excessive scrutiny leading to scrupulosity. Again, my point is not to discredit the private celebration but to make it truly invitational and a very personal encounter with the forgiving Christ in morally serious matters. Speaking of which even in those extraordinary situations in which the Church allows a priest to administer general absolution, the priest is to ‘admonish’ those who may be in serious sin to confess that sin privately at his or her earliest convenience. In fact, the validity of the sacrament is conditioned on this mandate. Can you imagine God withholding pardon until you confess your sin privately to a priest. Of course the Church will respond, “Sincerity is based on your willingness to confess later.” What’s wrong this picture? Is this not a form of Phariseism that the Lord condemned? I think also of the millions of sincere believers of other religious traditions throughout the world who have been reconciled with God without a priest confessor.

b)Divorce and Remarriage and the reform of the annulment process. This is a big issue. We promote evangelization in the Church and invite people to become full members of the Catholic Church through the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) only to find out that a significant number of those who wish to be received are in a second marriage. For many this will necessitate a formal annulment that may take a year or more. Moreover, there are no guarantees that the annulment will be granted.

Then there are a large number of Catholics who are in a second marriage but who never applied for an annulment but are forbidden to receive Holy Communion until their second marriage is validated and blessed in the Church.

This is a topic that will take another full lecture and more. Suffice it to state that the annulment process which has proven helpful to many is too cumbersome for most and has become the antithesis of healing and therefore of evangelization. There is need for reform.

c)Mandatory Celibacy for Latin Rite Priests. Several years ago, I was invited by my bishop to consult with my parishioners on the matter of ordaining a former Episcopal priest who was married. His wife was a Roman Catholic and over time he came to the conclusion that he wanted to become a full member of the Roman Catholic Church. He acted on this decision and then requested ordination to the Catholic priesthood. (In as much as the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of Episcopal ordination, the gentleman in question had to be re-ordained. In any case, most of those with whom I consulted were in favor of his ordination but could not understand why validly ordained Roman Catholic priests who experienced a call to marriage could not be reinstated. The bishop in question did not understand the question. I could not understand the bishop’s density on this matter. The man was indeed ordained and now serves as a full-time ‘priest –in-charge’ of a large suburban parish. Apparently, church discipline does not allow married priests to become ‘pastors’ so they are designated as the priest in charge. My 92 year old father commented, “What kind of nonsense is this?”

d)Biblical and Theological Fundamentalism. Alas these are concerns that not only affect our Church but also our nation and our world during these troubling times. The inability of our leaders to distinguish between myth and truth is frightening and even destructive. Under the guise of the fear of scandalizing the laity, preachers and teachers continue to feed us biblical and theological drivel that smacks of what I call Santa Claus religion. They foster a juvenile approach to religious belief, e.g., in a God who rewards us with candy when we are good and coal in our stocking when we are bad. Insipid, really. Preachers need not fear to challenge the prophets of old and even St. Paul as long as they do not deny the underlying truth that was valid and appropriate for their times. The Catholic Catechism was a monumental undertaking and in truth not a waste of time. I have used it extensively in the preparation of homilies and talks. However, as with the Bible itself, it can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. It is not enough to quote text and verse but the teacher most know the fonts and sources and the rules of hermeneutics, e.g., the notes that determine if and when a teaching is infallible or simply the tradition. It is the not the role of a pastor to tell people how to think but to challenge them to be thinking Catholics a fortiori, the bishop.

None of these above issues challenge the core teachings of the Roman Catholic Church but they are demanding issues that need to be acknowledged and addressed in collaboration with theologians, biblical scholars, pastors and of course people in the pew. Yes, the discussion may lead to debate and may get messy at times but the discussion will continue whether or not our bishops like it. These are issues whose time has come. The age of spiritual feudalism is over.

D The Spiritual Challenge – Now comes the hard part. Don’t be alarmed but I believe most Catholics do not want reform any more than any one of us wants to reform our lives. It’s too hard to grow, to get well and to stay well spiritually. As a priest I engage in what I call pastoral transitional counseling. I enable people in trouble to get to the next step. Most hem and haw. It’s too much trouble to do the right thing.

With regard to Church reform, Catholics who are reasonably happy with their experience of parish are reluctant to protest or call for change. Moreover, those who are unhappy no longer practice. Some of us in the ‘middle’ are content to get our sacraments and get back to the routine of getting through the daily routine. These have been called the “hatched” (baptized), “matched” (married) and “dispatched” (buried) Catholics who do not have a high degree of ownership of their faith.

We want our monsignors to wear their purple and the bishops to don their mitres, and the Knights of Columbus to wear their plumes. Others are simply tired of the noise. Young people have resolved faith practice on their own terms.

Reform of the Church must begin with the reform of our lives under the direction of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is our source document. Vatican II one of many constitutional documents. The Beatitudes are the criteria; the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit are the barometer of true reform,

We are in this together, lay and ordained, pastors and people in the pew. We are not going back to the old way but we must accept the challenge to move on to a new order that reflects the mystery of God’s incarnate life in the Church, the Body of Christ.

Father Lasch
Pastor-at-Large
www.fatherlasch.com
emai: kel@fatherlasch.com

Recent Articles

Seventh Sunday of Easter 'B'

Living the Mystery at the town square As I walked recently to the Green in the center of Morristown after my…continue reading...

Sixth Sunday of Easter 'C'

In all things, charity It continues to astound me how the Scriptures come to life over and over again under different…continue reading...

Sixth Sunday of Easter 'C'

In all things, charity It continues to astound me how the Scriptures come to life over and over again under different…continue reading...

Fifth Sunday of Easter 'B'

Let’s stay connected. It’s not unusual to hear family members or close friends at the departure gates of life say to…continue reading...

Fourth Sunday of Easter 'B'

Watch out for the leopards! When my sister and I were kids, my father would whistle for us when it was…continue reading...