Cardinal Law Seeks to Curb Organizing by Laity [Orders Priests Not To Cooperate with Parish Leaders]

Cardinal Bernard F. Law is cracking down on efforts by lay Catholics to organize in Greater Boston, ordering priests not to cooperate with an evolving coalition of parish leaders.

In a move that has stunned the most loyal core of church activists, parish council members who are generally more traditional and deferential than members of reform groups, Law instructed his top aide to tell priests that a proposed association of parish councils is "superfluous and potentially divisive" and that laypeople must live out their desire for equality "within the hierarchical structure of the church."

"The archbishop [Law] does not endorse or recognize the proposed association," Bishop Walter J. Edyvean, vicar general of the Archdiocese of Boston, wrote in a letter faxed to all priests Thursday night. "As pastor or parochial vicar, you are not to join, foster or promote this endeavor among your parish pastoral council members or the community of the faithful at large.

The letter appears to be part of a broader church effort to rein in advocates of change who have been energized by the clergy sexual abuse crisis roiling the church. Last week, Edyvean summoned the leader of a nascent priests' alliance for a talking-to at the chancery, and some regional bishops have begun meeting with other organizers of the priests' forum in discussions that some are describing as ''reprimands'' and others are describing simply as exchanges of information.

At the Vatican this week, the US cardinals spelled out no role for the laity in the communique they issued in response to the clergy sexual abuse crisis, although at a news conference they said that omission was an oversight. The communique did order pastors "publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent."

The proposed association of parish pastoral councils is the most moderate of a variety of lay organizations that have sprung up because of the clergy sexual abuse crisis, including groups that are organizing protests and vigils and financial boycotts, and the Wellesley-based Voice of the Faithful, a fast-growing organization that is garnering national attention as it pushes for a greater laity input in the church.

The association of parish councils is the brainchild of David W. Zizik, vice chairman of the parish pastoral council at St. Theresa Church in Sherborn. Zizik is no radical - he studied theology as an undergraduate at Boston College, traveled on a pilgrimage to Rome with Law, is studying part-time for a master's degree in ministry at the archdiocesan seminary while working as a lawyer, and has been critical of groups that have held protests or news conferences about the clergy sexual abuse situation.

Zizik had consulted with a canon lawyer before putting together the proposed association, and then last Saturday floated it by\e-mail to a group of priests, laypeople, and theologians.

In the e-mail, he said: ''The absence of meaningful relationships between laity and hierarchy within our Church, and the presence of what appears to be a culture of insularity and secrecy within the hierarchy, are matters that lay faithful should and must be concerned with, because they have contributed directly to the creation of the child abuse problem within our Church and, unless remedied, will continue to cause damage to the Church in the future.''

He wrote that he envisioned the association as a means for communicating the concerns of laypeople to their archbishop, writing ''if we are thoughtful, constructive, and prayerful, and remain faithful to our Catholic faith and tradition, I believe that we can accomplish something meaningful within our Church.''

The archdiocese has not expressed its opposition to him; in fact Zizik never got a response to a letter he sent Law in early March suggesting greater consultation with laypeople, and he only learned of Law's concern about the proposed association when a reporter called.

''It's astounding to me that this church seems to be so afraid of dialogue with its own members, people who love it and who would give almost anything to see the church get back on track,'' Zizik said.

''This is a church that's supposed to invite the disenfranchised in - Jesus invited prostitutes and tax cheats - so it's almost bizarre to see the response of our church leadership. There is a pathology in our church that needs to be rooted out, and people are going to begin to vote with their feet if we don't do something about it.''

Law's spokeswoman, Donna M. Morrissey, did not return a call seeking comment yesterday.

Edyvean said in his letter that the appropriate representation for ''the people of God of the archdiocese'' is the archdiocesan pastoral council, an existing panel of laypeople, nuns, and priests, and suggested that the appropriate representation for priests is on the Presbyteral Council. Edyvean said ''discussions have begun'' to make those groups more effective.

But lay leaders say the archdiocesan pastoral council has operated in virtual secrecy and does not represent the broad cross-section of church leaders, and priests have voiced similar complaints about the Presbyteral Council, which they say has largely been a forum for Law to talk but not listen. Law canceled the last meeting of the council.

A specialist on canon law said Law is within his rights to oppose the association of parish councils because parish councils are supposed to exist within parishes as advisory boards to pastors.

''Everything in that letter is true and canonically accurate, but of course it's a judgment call as to whether this association is superfluous and potentially divisive,'' said the Rev. James A. Coriden, a professor of theology at Washington Theological Union, who said he has never heard of an attempt by parish council leaders to organize across a diocese. But Coriden says canon law also grants lay Catholics a freedom of assembly within the church.

Others questioned the political wisdom of Law's move at a time when many laypeople are outraged, calling for his resignation, and withholding funds from Catholic organizations because of concern about Law's handling of priests accused of sexual abuse.

''These guys just don't get it,'' said William V. D'Antonio, a sociologist at Catholic University of America and the author of ''Laity, American and Catholic.'' ''They're still trying to tell the laity, `We run the show, and we'll tell you when we want to hear from you, if ever.' It's incredible that this is continuing in light of all that's passed.''

Lay leaders who had been trying to work within church structures were clearly shocked.

''This is astonishingly stupid,'' said Mary Jo Bane, a professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a member of the parish council at St. William Church in Dorchester, who helped draft the proposal for an association.

''Here you have a budding effort by mostly pretty moderate folks to bring parish councils together to make them more effective. If the cardinal were interested in genuinely involving the laity, this should be precisely the sort of thing he should want to happen.''

We are watching a tragedy unfold before our eyes.

Cardinal Law, who has forfeited the trust of his flock by his "handling" of the pederasty crisis, now seeks to prevent any massing of the voices that might call for his ouster. What possible purpose could this serve, other than the protection of his position, power, and perquisites?

Because the Church is hierarchically governed, it is more, not less, exposed to grass-roots rebellion than a dispersed, nonhierarchical organization such as characterizes most Protestant faiths. If the laity becomes convinced that the hierarchy does not labor in the best interests of the whole Church, it will revolt in a spectacular manner. There will be schism.

Schism would not destroy the Church, but it would weaken it, and contribute to the weakening of Christianity in the near term. If two bodies of adherents, with divergent views on any important topic -- and the authority and accountability of the Princes of the Church certainly qualifies! -- were both to claim to be the Catholic Church in America, at best the Vatican would have to choose one, implicitly excommunicating the other.

Over time, we could see a strengthening of Catholic Christianity from such a process, as the excrescences were flensed away and the core of Christian belief, the teachings of the Redeemer, once again took center stage, but it would be a long and painful ordeal. I can only hope that we find a gentler path, and that Cardinal Law, whose self-obsession has now gone entirely too far, can be persuaded not to obstruct it with the shreds of episcopal authority that remain to him.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

Lay and the Church are taking a very wrong turn here. Associations of private individuals uniting for a common cause is what America is all about. It began with Ben Franklin starting libraries and fire fighting units in colonial America. It is what distinguishes Americans from others who cannot act without official sanction from some authority. Local accountability at the congregation level would have prevented this coverup scandal in the Catholic church. The real problem is the power hierarchy that allows all decisions to flow down from the top. Without this top down organization, such broad coverups are not possible. Human beings have never been able to exercise that much power without abusing it. Religious leaders are no exception as history well demonstrates.

I don't think Cardinal Law understands what's happening. You know the old saying, "what happens if you throw a party and no one comes?"
Well, what happens if:
1. Everyone comes to Church, but no one puts as much as a penny in the collection basket.

2. No one comes to Church at all. (Maybe they try another church)

That would cause a response from Law. Year ago, in a drunk driving campaign, he was photographed with Dukakis in front of a StatePolice Cruiser. The message was to the effect that the State (represented by PeeWee) and G*d, (Represented by Law, or perhaps impersonated by him) would come down hard on drunk drivers.

Upon seeing this poster, I was convinced Law liked politics a little too much.

The recent press concerence on Boston Radio showed bad faith. It was a credit to the debating techniques for which I respect Jesuits, but not in this instance. The "press conference" was indeed worthy of Aquinas.

Or lawyers.

The RCC in America is on a slippery slope. Worse, as it slowly sinks, those leaders who were the prime enablers of the predators, continue to rebuff offers of assistance. Instead, under the banner of "zero tolerance", they promise to rid the Church of "notorious" offenders. What nonsense!

What the faithful should find most disturbing is that this effort is yet another clear and unambiguous indication that the Cardinals and Bishops want to keep this "problem" bottled up. They do not want to expose the true breadth and depth of it.

They will do anything within their power to keep their power.

The Church leadership, particularly in the US, fears outside intervention. This action is a slap in the face and clear repudiation of the loyal laity. Lay people everywhere--without whom parishes across the country would literaly fall apart--are being reminded that they are truly outsiders whose voices have no meaning. Tend to the administration, publish the bulletin, run the RE and outreach programs, order the flowers and count the money. But but don't offer your opinions.

But money talks in the Church. This is the one area where the faithful can and must exercise control. Whereas the leadership does not want the interference of the faithful in what they preceive as "internal" matters, they could not continue to lead the lavish lifestyles they have become accustomed to without levying taxes upon those precious weekly envelopes and special appeals.

I have begun placing empty envelopes in the collection plate. My regular giving has been diverted to local catholic charities that do the real work with little or no overhead. I will no longer support a failed leadership that cannot or will not recognize our interest in this serious matter.

"Associations of private individuals uniting for a common cause is what America is all about. It began with Ben Franklin starting libraries and fire fighting units in colonial America."

Actually, it started well before Franklin's activities. Probably about a week after the Pilgrims got off the boat. The entire early American colonial experience was about groups of people organizing themselves to accomplish tasks, from raising barns to stitching quilts to defending themselves from attack. And, imagine this, they DID IT ALL WITHOUT INSTRUCTION OR AID FROM THE GOVERNMENT (and in "some" cases, against the specific wishes of said government).

I don't know what it's going to take to shake up the heirarchy in a serious way. This morning, we were treated to an account of how a didocese elsewhere in Florida is not going to press charges against a priest who stole $83,000 from his parish. He had already been found guilty of dealing meth and Ecstasy out of his condo in New Orleans (!!!). Because the diocese would not press charges, the state AG dropped the grand theft charges.

I'd certainly be upset if I'd been dropping money in the collection plate in that diocese. And I'm sure other people are uspet, and there will be fewer dollars going into their coffers now than before (even leaving aside what Fr. Drug Dealer was taking out).

Tend to the administration, publish the bulletin, run the RE and outreach programs, order the flowers and count the money. But but don't offer your opinions.

I'm not intending to be critical of the RCC, because I admire many of its attributes, including adherence to long standing tenets of morality, but the RCC has always operated as a "benevolent dictatorship" both at the parish and the world-wide levels. Their handling of this pederasty matter is little different of their handling of any matters--they do it without the input or concerns of the laity because they "know best". There's nothing new here, so it surprises me that the laity is getting all worked up about it--all of a sudden wanting a say in matters when they've always been locked out of decisions before yet didn't seem to mind.

I'm sure that the RCC in the US is one of the wealthiest in the world, yet RC's in the US represent a small percentage of all the RC's worldwide. How much of an effect will it have if RC's in the US withhold $$$, yet there is no similar action in other nations?

You're right. Money does talk in the RCC. That's one of the issues that motivated Martin Luther.

It's also true that the priesthood is the world's largest fraternity. And now the world knows that some of the local chapters are for gays only. There is a lot of dirt on a lot of RCC leaders and they intend to protect themselves.

Our local Bishop is a pompous little man motivated by his desire to become a Cardinal. While some RCC leaders are motivated by their love of God, too many are motivated by a love of power and by their own arrogance.

Organizations that are not open to scrutiny and reform become sesspools of corruption. The closed society of the priesthood is a prime example.

My wife is Catholic, I am not. Over the years the Catholic Church has reached deeper and deeper into the barrel to find priests to serve in our parish. Our current priest is, quite frankly, a revolting and disgusting human being. He will be with us until he dies or retires. Then there will be no priest.

My wife and I have had many discussions about the positive nature of the fact that Protestant Churchs can hire and fire their ministers. Any Lutheran or Methodist minister accused of child molestation would have a hard time finding a job.

Don't take these comments the wrong way. The RCC has been and continues to be the source of much good in the world. Among the priesthood the many priest are paying for the sins of the few. My issue is with the closed nature of the leadership of the RCC. It's hard to imagine that this is what Christ intended the Church to be. Christianity is not about politics, power and appearances. It is about love, forgiveness and humility.

While some RCC leaders are motivated by their love of God, too many are motivated by a love of power and by their own arrogance.

How true and the real fact of the matter is that they don't believe their own religion, but like the life style and ego pleasing drug of the powerful

They are just like the US members of congress who grave only power and though swearing allegiance to the Constitution could care less about it

It is not possible to compare today's RCC problems with those of the past.

First, because the laity is much more integral to parish life than at any other time in history. Second, because the manifestation of this issue (even if it has been going on for years) is out in the open and will not go away of its own accord. Indeed, as much as the leadership tries to push it aside the more the faithful (be they lay persons or not) must take up the challenge.

As for money, make no mistake about it, US Catholics fuel the RCC engine world wide.

But I must take you to task on your use of the term pederasty. No matter how much the church attempts to confuse the matter you must understand that this is not about pederasty. The pederast is a mature male who seeks gratification with pre-pubescent boys. In fact, only a very small number of cases of priestly pedersty have been reported. No more so than one would expect in the population at large.

Indeed, the problem confronting the RCC today clearly involves homosexual men who prey on post-pubescent teenage males,.

It's not about the sexual abuse of boys or girls. It's not about heterosexual rape. It is about queer predator priests who use their position of authority and power to gratify their deviant sexual desires with young men in their charge. And this must be stopped.

My wife and I have had many discussions about the positive nature of the fact that Protestant Churchs can hire and fire their ministers.

This in fact was how (some) parishes handled the issue in the United States, back in the 19th century.

Unfortunately, while it took care of some problems, it introduced others, and resulted in schisms.

I wouldn't want to see a priest or a bishop locked out of a church (something that literally happened), because the lay trustees didn't want him to enter.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.