Church in
Crisis
Theories surround Law’s visit
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome
A media frenzy, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Thus Cardinal
Bernard Law’s surprise trip to Rome in early December, amid new
revelations of sex abuse by priests and signs of financial meltdown in the
Boston archdiocese, generated rivers of speculation in the absence of hard
information.
Officially, the only comment on the trip came Dec. 9, from Vatican
spokesperson Joaquín Navarro-Valls, who issued a terse two-line
statement confirming Law’s presence and saying that he had come to discuss
“diverse aspects of the situation” in Boston.
As NCR went to press, there were indications that another
statement might be forthcoming.
Law, as has become his custom, avoided the press. He lodged in the
apartment of Bishop James Harvey from Milwaukee, who is the head of the
Pontifical Household. Since the apartment is behind Vatican walls, TV crews
could not lie in wait for Law as he entered and exited.
Even the identities of the Vatican officials with whom Law met
were not confirmed, though sources indicated they included two senior
cardinals: Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, and
Darío Castrillón Hoyos, head of the Congregation for Clergy.
Castrillón’s office handles cases of “alienation of
property,” the closest thing in canon law to bankruptcy, one of the items
Law came to discuss. Re is responsible for overseeing bishops -- including, if
it should come to that, asking for their resignation. Law was also expected to
see John Paul II before returning to Boston at the end of the week.
Unofficially, Rome was awash in theories about the nature and
purpose of Law’s visit.
Some Vatican officials privately suggested that the pope might
name a coadjutor bishop for Boston, meaning a prelate who would step in
alongside Law and assume some of his powers, presumably including the areas of
personnel and finance that are the heart of the present crisis.
The appointment of a coadjutor bishop would certainly have a
logic. It is a time-honored Vatican solution for troubled dioceses, avoiding
the necessity to remove the existing bishop while effectively placing the
diocese under new management.
As the story unfolded, a few names of possible candidates for the
position began to surface. They included Archbishop Edward O’Brien,
currently head of the military archdiocese in the United States; Archbishop
Harry Flynn of St. Paul and Minneapolis; and Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport,
Conn. Flynn is the chair of the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual
Abuse, and Lori is a member.
Other Vatican sources, however, downplayed the idea. An official
in the Congregation for Bishops told NCR Dec. 10 that “all the
options are open” and suggested that naming a coadjutor was not the
preferred solution. It would not satisfy those most insistent upon Law’s
resignation, he said, and could create conflicts between Law and the new bishop
that could simply aggravate administrative paralysis.
Still other sources insisted that Law’s resignation was not
really the focus at all, and that the potential implications of bankruptcy in
Boston formed the meat of Law’s Vatican conversations.
Technically, canon lawyers told NCR, it is not clear if Law
needs Vatican approval before filing under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code. Since the experts who revised the Code of Canon Law in 1983 never
anticipated such a situation, there is no clear response in church law. The
closest codicil governs what is called “alienation,” and requires a
bishop to seek Vatican clearance before selling, destroying or giving away a
certain amount of property. In the United States, that amount is currently
pegged at $3 million.
Canon lawyers debate whether bank-ruptcy counts as alienation.
Some argue that its aim is to protect property, hence it is not analogous.
Others, however, note that a bankruptcy filing would give broad powers over the
assets of the Boston archdiocese, estimated at $1.3 billion in real estate
alone, to a civil judge. Such a transfer of control to an outside party could
be considered alienation.
In any event, this canonical discussion is more theoretical than
real. A Vatican spokesperson told NCR Dec. 6 that politically speaking,
bankruptcy would be “impossible without consultation with the Holy
See.” Indeed, a Dec. 4 news release from the Boston archdiocese stated
that officials “must also seek approval from the Vatican” before
proceeding.
Sources told NCR that there are at least two serious
concerns within the Vatican about bankruptcy. The first is that going belly-up
might discourage future giving to the church, and not just in Boston. The
second, perhaps even more grave, is a basic reluctance to cede control of
church assets to outside parties. For some in the Vatican, with its European
cultural outlook, such a prospect is reminiscent of fascism and desperate
struggles to maintain the independence of church institutions.
As for the ultimate question about Law himself -- will he stay or
will he go? -- all bets seemed off.
In the end, the removal of a cardinal is a decision that can be
made only by the pope, and John Paul to date has taken a dim view of calls for
the resignation of church officials -- most prominently including himself.
“Jesus did not come down off the cross,” the pope said
recently when a cardinal brought up the prospect of a papal retirement.
Yet recent precedent exists for top churchmen to stand down when a
situation becomes ungovernable, especially in cases related to sexual abuse.
Three recent examples are Cardinal Hans Hermann Gröer in Vienna in 1995,
Archbishop John Ward in Cardiff, England, in 2001, and Archbishop Juliusz Paetz
in Poznan, Poland, in March 2002.
The question is, therefore, at what point the chaos in Boston
outweighs John Paul’s preference that when the going gets tough, the tough
stay put. As Bernard Law headed home, the answer seemed very much up in the
air.
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR Rome correspondent. His e-mail
address is jallen@natcath.org.
National Catholic Reporter, December 20,
2002
|
