January 15, 2013      Martin Mallon  (Ireland)      Martin's previous articles

            WHY ARE BISHOPS NOT ACCOUNTABLE?

Bishops do not appear to be accountable, within the Church, for not reporting child abuse. The case of Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Mo, illustrates this as he was criminally convicted for not reporting a charge of child abuse, yet he has not been sanctioned by the church. The US bishops’ conference met recently, after Finn’s conviction, and the conviction was not raised.  

In February 2012 a major international conference was held in Rome on the clerical child sex abuse crisis. As John Allan reports “Several speakers acknowledged that holding bishops accountable is still a challenge”. Read full article here

 Who can hold bishops accountable? We know the Pope can as he has sacked bishops in the last few years such as Bishop Bill Morris. We do not really know why Bill Morris was sacked, but in observing priests who have been silenced by the present administration even suggesting that the matter of women's ordination could be discussed is a likely candidate. The point is that the Pope can and does sack bishops, but not for clerical child abuse and related offences.  

Jason Berry  has pointed out that Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle, who is  in charge of the Vatican’s supervision of the Leaders of Catholic Women Religious (LCWR), is far from spotless. Sartain used to be the bishop of Joliet, Ill and Berry writes that :  

In spring of 2009, a Joliet seminarian, Alejandro Flores, was caught with pornographic pictures of youths, some of which appeared to be of underage boys. No criminal charges were filed.  

Sartain ordained Flores three months later, in June 2009. Then in January 2010, Flores was arrested for molesting a boy. He pleaded guilty in September 2010, the same month that Benedict promoted Sartain to archbishop of Seattle.  

It is interesting to note that Flores “pleaded guilty in September 2010, the same month that Benedict promoted Sartain to archbishop of Seattle .” Accountability? Berry’s article can be found here  

The dismissal of Fr Roy Bourgeois, who will be 74 on January 27, from the priesthood, and the Maryknoll Order, due to attending the ordination ceremony of a female priest has recently been finalised. This is risible.   

Where is the accountability of bishops, including the Pope? Who does the Pope answer to for his decisions to sack or retain bishops? No one, in this life.  

It is difficult for many members of the Catholic church to stomach the fact that Cardinal Bernard Law, Bishop Robert Finn and Archbishop Peter Sartain are held in high esteem by the hierarchy of the church while the likes of Bill Morris , Roy Bourgeois, Tony Flannery, Brian D’Arcy, etc are sacked, defrocked or censored.  

How are all the bishops to be held accountable? They cannot be held accountable, under current church structures, and unfortunately there is little sign of any change of attitude in the Vatican ; if anything the Vatican ’s stance is hardening.

 Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, on the publication of the Murphy report into the  Dublin diocese, called for the resignation of Irish bishops who had been present at meetings when clerical child sex abuse, abusing priest transfers and cover-ups were discussed and carried out. He was put in his place very quickly by Pope Benedict, who refused to accept most of the resignations. Why did the Pope think such resignations inappropriate? He sacked Bill Morris for being a good pastoral bishop. There is something rotten in such a culture and system.  

The proper implementation of collegiality and subsidiarity, as called for by Vatican II, would ameliorate these problems. However, we must also face the fact that in the last thirty odd years most bishops have been selected based on the criteria of agreeing with church disciplines, such as celibacy and not ordaining women, and that they would not question the authority of the Roman Curia. Hence, more action is needed.

 One good sign is the Association of Catholic Priests, now operating in different countries. These associations are questioning many of the current church structures and disciplines. However, as yet there is little sign of the laity being asked to fulfil their priestly, prophetic and kingly roles in the church as called for by St Peter (1 Peter2:9) and the Second Vatican Council. Until the laity take their proper role in the church it is unlikely that church structures and administration will change to the extent now required.  

What does Jesus think of the present authoritarian church structures? In his book, Christianity’s Dangerous Memory, Diarmuid O’Murchu notes that Jesus:  

…was a fierce critic of the prevailing power structures, but that dangerous Christian memory has been largely suppressed and ignored. For almost two thousand years Christians have been living in the shadows of imperial myopia. The lure of imperial power has darkened our perceptions and confused our allegiance. The culture of patriarchal codependence has indoctrinated millions into passive submission to a ruling, controlling God, demanding tough sacrifices and merciless in punishing those who deviate in their allegiance. (Crossroad Publishing Co, U.S.A. , 2011, pages 7-8)

 The passage above does appear to describe the attitude of the Vatican , which is currently “merciless in punishing those who deviate in their allegiance.” We only have to look at Bill Morris, Roy Bourgeois and many others being censored, not to mention the treatment of the LCWR in the U.S. , to see that this describes the present situation.  

Change is necessary, the Holy Spirit will ensure it happens, but the Spirit needs and wants us to operate for him in effecting this change. Let us pray that enough of us cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s promptings to bring about this new church structure and culture.  

We can and must believe the Prologue of St John’s Gospel, that Jesus is “the light ” and that:t he “light shines in darkness, and darkness could not overpower it.” (John 1:4-5) Whatever that darkness is, it will never overpower the light.  

In verse 14 we read that “his own people did not accept him”. As O’Murchu wrote Jesus “was a fierce critic of the prevailing power structures”, and we should remember that while “the law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17) It is difficult to stand up for the truth.

 We must examine ourselves, let Jesus shine in us and let him show us our own darkness. Let us be merciful, that mercy may be shown us. Peter said, when we are proclaiming the “reason for the hope that you have”, “give it with courtesy and respect and with a clear conscience, so that those who slander your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their accusations”(1 Peter 3:15 -16 )