The Real Agenda Voice of the Faithful can be part of the solution B Y R O B E R T M. R O W D E N
S
t. John Chrysostom once w a rned: “Whoever is not a n g ry when there is cause for anger sins.” The 25 Catholics who gathered in the basement of St. John the Evangelist Church in Wellesley, Mass. on a Monday night in January 2002 were angry indeed—angry and e m b a rrassed because of the sexual abuse of so many children by priestp redators in their own archdiocese, but angry especially because incidents of abuse had been kept secre t by archdiocesan leaders for whom concealment appeared to be the number one priority, while known predators were transferred from parish to unsuspecting parish. Any financial settlements with victims w e re made in secret and were often contingent upon maintaining secrecy. The scandal and its extent were documented in The Boston Globe, and soon all were reminded that c l e rgy sexual abuse had infected the Church in many dioceses in the United States and in many nations. By spring, crowds had swelled to 700. In July 2002, a convention of this newly formed group, called Voice of the Faithful, and known as VOTF, drew over 4,000 part i c ipants. Today the membership of Voice of the Faithful numbers over 33,000 Catholics in 40 states and 21 countries, largely through 200 parish affiliates. VOTF has defined its mission: “To provide a prayerful voice, attentive to the Spirit, through which the faithful can actively participate in the governance and guidance of the Catholic C h u rch.” Its goals remain: to support those who have been abused, to support the vast numbers of fine priests of integrity who were devastated by the crisis, and to shape s t ructural change within the Church. This third goal, structural change, has raised eyebrows, caused understandable concern among some leaders, and allowed the dismissal and banning of VOTF by those for whom “change,” in reference
16
BOSTON COLLEGE
|
to Church s t ru c t u re, appears intrinsically subversive. There are those who say that the laity should have no role in Churc h g o v e rnance, since it is the function of the bishop to teach, govern, and sanctify. Such a view is not supported by Canon Law. Canon 212, for example, states: “In accord with the knowledge, competence, and pre e minence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they
fidently assign offices to them in s e rvice of the Church, leaving them f reedom and scope for activity” (No. 37). From the “Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity”: “While pre s e rv i n g intact the necessary link with ecclesiastical authority, the laity have the right to establish and direct [apostolic] associations and to join existing ones” (No. 19). VOTF seeks a link with authority in every diocese for respectful dialogue, but it will not negotiate its right to exist as an association of faithful Catholic lay men and women. Suspicion of motives,
The crisis has magnified the realization that the laity are absolutely powerless in the government of their Church. There is a total lack of institutional checks and balances that would allow them some say about how authority is exercised. have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful.” Again in Canon 129: “Lay members of the Christian faithful can cooperate in the exercise of this power [of governance] in accord with the norm of law.” The documents of the Second Vatican Council call for active lay participation in C h u rch affairs. From the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”: “The s a c red pastors should recognize the dignity and responsibility of the laity in the Church. They should willingly use their prudent advice and con-
C21 RESOURCES
|
FALL
2004
misinterpretation and misinform ation about VOTF are rampant. It is accused of doctrinal heresy, seeking to establish parallel Church stru ctures, anti-episcopal bias, and alignment and identification with a n t i - C h u rch victims-rights groups. The recent crisis arising from sexual abuse by members of the clergy has impaired the teaching authority of the hierarchy and has demonstrated that the present system of Church governance is seriously flawed. While the vast majority of bishops and priests are able, sincere, holy,
and truly dedicated to Christ and his C h u rch, some bishops, by what they have done and what they have failed to do, have enabled and facilitated multiple child rape. Saying this is not a sign of anti-episcopal bias. It is a fact that has been demonstrated many times and in many places. Although priest-predators have been properly and appropriately removed f rom ministry, and many have been c h a rged, tried, and convicted of crimes, those bishops who failed in their basic responsibility to pro t e c t our children have not been charged, condemned, censured, or even criticized by higher authority. There are no stru c t u res of accountability for them. Fellow bishops, many of whom have publicly apologized to victims and are complying with the provisions of the Dallas charter, have nevertheless remained silent. Card i n a l Francis George, on the eve of the bishops’ meeting in Washington, D.C., said, “There have to be sanctions for a bishop who has been negligent the same as there are sanctions for a priest.” The bishops, however, were asked only to commit themselves to “fraternal support, fraternal challenge, and fraternal correction.” In the words of the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus: “pretty limp.” In fact, the only time in memory when a bishop has been publicly criticized by other bishops was when Cardinal Joseph Bern a rdin made his doctrinally sound case for the Common Ground Initiative in the document Called to Be Catholic, in 1996. He was publicly criticized by Card inal Bern a rd Law of Boston, and later, somewhat less vehemently, by Cardinals James Hickey of Washington, D.C., Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, and Adam Maida of Detroit. VOTF believes that now, more than ever, dialogue is needed among bishops, theologians, priests, and lay people. Reconciliation is a mark of Christ’s presence among us. The American laity, better educated and informed than ever before, actively