As time has passed, it has become increasingly clear that the crisis, although obviously involving the abuse scandal and the bishops' response, is a far larger matter that raises profound issues of authority, accountability, and participatory decision-making.
When the U.S. bishops gather in plenary assembly in Baltimore two months from now, their immediate task will be putting in place a new system of episcopal accountability in dealing with sex abuse. Its elements will likely include a code of conduct for themselves, a hotline for receiving complaints, and a framework for judging bishops who commit abuse or cover it up when committed by others.
The bishops were preparing to vote on just such a system at their general meeting last November when Pope Francis told them to put off acting until after his "summit" on sex abuse in February. Now the bishops should find it relatively easy to adopt a plan for accountability at their June 11-13 gathering, and the Vatican, one assumes, should find it easy to say yes.
And then the bishops will have put the crisis in the Church arising from the abuse scandal behind them, and everything will get back to normal.
Except, of course, that it won't. And arguably shouldn't.
As time has passed, it has become increasingly clear that the crisis, although obviously involving the abuse scandal and the bishops' response, is a far larger matter that raises profound issues of authority, accountability, and participatory decision-making. In Baltimore the bishops would do well to take preliminary steps toward addressing these matters by authorizing a feasibility study of a plenary council or regional synod for the United States.
Here we can learn from the Church in Australia.
Australian Catholics have suffered their own dark night lately. Morale has taken a beating from clergy sex abuse and the conviction of Cardinal George Pell on charges of abusing two boys years ago. (The Cardinal is appealing the decision.) But, nothing daunted, the Church is pressing ahead with plans for a two-session plenary council in October 2020 and May 2021. Over 20,000 suggestions have come from 75,000 Catholics in "listening and dialogue" sessions hoping for a turn-around.
The idea of doing something similar here is by no means new.
Following the famous Dallas assembly in 2002 at which the bishops adopted a "zero tolerance" policy on abuse, eight bishops circulated a proposal for a plenary council to address the underlying issues brought to light by the scandal. They included Bishop Daniel DiNardo of Sioux City, Iowa -- now Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the U.S. conference of bishops -- and Auxiliary Bishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, originator of the idea, who is now Detroit's archbishop. The proposal generated discussion but ultimately was not acted upon.
The time has come to revive it -- not as a panacea but as a realistic way of addressing urgent needs. A plenary council with voting participation by bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and laity is the highest form of legislative assembly for the Church in a particular country. If approved by the Holy See, its decisions are law. There were three such gatherings in the U.S. in the 19th century but there has been none since. And if a plenary council is not the best approach now, a regional synod, perhaps more appealing in the present pontificate, is a workable alternative.
The Catholic Church is an unusual entity whose fundamental structure is simultaneously hierarchical and communitarian. The tension this creates can be fruitful or destructive, depending on what Catholics make of it. The hierarchical dimension has long been dominant, but the time has come to give far more attention to the communitarian dimension than it now receives. The crisis is real, the need is obvious. The next move is up to the bishops.
- Russell Shaw is the author of more than twenty books. He is a consultor of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and served as communications director for the U.S. Bishops.