EDITORIAL Another step toward what could be
The meeting of the Voice of the
Faithful lay group in Boston June 20 marked a new moment in the history of the
church in the United States if only for the reason that church authorities
there did not openly oppose it.
That may seem too minimalist an assessment of its significance --
and the hunch here is that in time the gathering could well prove to have far
greater importance -- but it is also a telling measurement of success. Too
often lay people calibrate progress in gaining openness and participation in
church matters in the tiny increments of what was allowed or, worse, what was
ignored. Too rare are the times when significant lay initiatives are embraced
and celebrated.
What may make this meeting an important indicator of things to
come, however, is the fact that Cardinal Bernard Law not only refrained from
openly opposing the gathering, he was simply unable to stop it. He has become
the sad symbol of how far removed Catholic leadership has become from the
Catholic faithful. Further evidence of that remove was on display when he
stubbornly asserted that the diocese would not accept funds collected by the
Voice of the Faithful for use by church agencies because the money would bypass
his direct control. The day following Laws announcement, local officials
of one of the largest social service delivery agencies in the church, Catholic
Charities, said the agency would accept such funds, treating Voice as it would
any other donor.
It is impossible from the outside to know who is advising Law
these days. It was clear from the gathering in Boston that he has lost the
support and respect of many who would never have thought, before the scandal
broke out anew in that city, of opposing the cardinal in public.
Inside the Hynes Convention Center, the message was not nearly so
muddled. But where is all the energy and hope and aspirations of the meeting
leading? No one is certain. Fueled by outrage over the sex abuse scandal, the
group developed plans for enrolling more Catholics, for strengthening the
organization at the parish level, for petitioning other leaders to make bishops
accountable and for providing alternative channels for Catholics who want to
continue supporting the works of the church but who understandably want to keep
lay control and oversight of how the money is used.
Moving, however, from the fervor that outrage can spawn to the
kind of grinding everyday tasks that building an organization requires can be
difficult, tedious and expensive work. It is worth the effort if Voice of the
Faithful links its work to the wider web of historic renewal groups that
matured long before the scandal.
Voice of the Faithful is correct to try to steer a course now that
avoids the ideological and theological issues that have driven other groups,
conservative and liberal, over the years. It is correct at the moment to focus,
first, on the sex abuse issue and then, more broadly, on the issues of
governance that arise from the scandal.
At the same time, those in Voice have to recognize that their
organization shares the foundation put in place by hosts of other groups that
have kept the dream of renewal alive during the last several decades when, at
times, resistance to such thinking has been overwhelming.
Voice has the chance to serve as a new link among groups across
the spectrum of interests and ideology that fall under the overarching issues
of the use of authority and power by the hierarchy.
It is easy to imagine, as historian David OBrien of Holy
Cross College put it, that if the renewal impulses of Vatican II had been
allowed freer rein during the past two decades, if the hierarchy had not
resisted lay involvement but invited it, that many things would be different.
The scandal that now plagues the church would probably have ended years
ago.
And it wasnt just liberals who were cut out of the action.
Liberals, conservatives, moderates and everyone in between were left to bicker
among themselves because the bishops never put in place any avenues for
meaningful participation by laity in decision-making. Look at the numbers --
there are 63 million U.S. Catholics and 300 bishops. It would be easy to feel
left out. Indeed, the current crop of bishops was largely responsible for
reforms to their national conference that considerably diminished the role of
lay experts in their deliberations.
No one is suggesting that the differences along the ideological
spectrum in the church would disappear simply if bishops were to begin
providing places at the table for all persuasions. Different visions of the
church will always cause conflict -- such differences and accompanying
arguments have been with us since the earliest apostolic times.
But now we are left only to shout across divides. Being invited to
the larger conversation with greater authority for making decisions on church
matters might go a long way toward helping us all discover where we agree.
Ultimately, if the issues of ecclesial power and authority -- and
their misuse -- are going to be addressed, if reform is to take hold, lay
Catholics are going to have to press the point about how candidates are
encouraged to priesthood and how bishops are selected.
In the selection of bishops, especially, secrecy and lack of
accountability have grown up around the process and have contributed to the
scandal.
Such deep and essential reform, of course, is down the road. It
will not occur, however, if American Catholics do not continue to make the case
and remain diligent in organizing and talking. It is one more group, one more
step along the way to what could be in this church. It is tolerated today. We
hope for the day when Voice of the Faithful and other groups are welcomed as
essential voices throughout the church.
National Catholic Reporter, August 2,
2002
|