December
16, 2012
David
Timbs
Promotion or Provocation?
Over
recent years the Vatican has called on a rather large number of senior American
bishops to serve in various branches of the Church’s central bureaucracy. Some
had been recruited as diplomats or officials in the Curia. One or two had
probably become an embarrassment in their native country for one reason or
another. In these situations a classis solution is to promote them in order to
get rid of them. All of the Americans in the Vatican service were already
Cardinals or were later made so: Stafford, Law, Levada, Burke, Foley and Harvey.
It
seems that another American is about to be added to the list. Vatican Insider – La Stampa journalist Marco Tosatti recently
cited an impeccably reliable source that Bishop Olsmsted of Phoenix, AZ will
soon join the Roman Curia. According to Tosatti, Olmsted will become secretary
of the Congregation for Institutes of the Consecrated Life and Societies of
Apostolic Life. [1] If this eventuates, it may be construed as a victory for the
true believers of the Church Militant
or as a disastrous miscalculation by others less enthusiastic. The latter group
have a catalogue of evidence to support their scepticism and worst fears.
But whatever side of the divide one is on, such an appointment would be
controversial maybe even provocative to say the least. Why? The answer lies in
the position itself. In recent years it has taken on great symbolic meaning for
all Catholics but especially for the women religious of the USA.
The
Apostolic Visitation debacles
In
late 2009 the CICL Prefect Cardinal Franc Rode ordered an apostolic visitation
of Women Religious in the USA. The
specific focus of attention would be on the membership and culture
of the Leadership Conference for Women Religious. From the outset the visitation
was roundly criticised by many, especially the LCWR and its supporters. It was
described as ill-advised, ideologically inspired and with pre-determined
conclusions. While the stated aim of the assessment was to rectify alleged
irregularities such as growing secularism and a feminist attitude, Rode’s CICL
clearly wanted to impose a regime of strict control and compliance on the US
religious women. It backfired but something had to be done to defuse an
explosive situation. What followed was a much more positive and conciliatory
approach from the Vatican. Cardinal Rode and the CICL secretary were replaced.
The
newly appointed Prefect was Brazilian Archbishop Joao Braz de Aviz and his
assistant was the former Superior General of the Redemptorist Congregation,
Archbishop Joseph Tobin. The Visitation of the LCWR was resumed. It proceeded in
an atmosphere of relative calm, conciliation and genuine dialogue. [2]
Unfortunately, its report was archived almost immediately and much of the good
work subverted by another branch of the Roman Curia, the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith.
The
Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Levada now ordered a doctrinal
assessment of the LCWR. It was not to be another canonical Visitation.
Levada commissioned three American bishops to conduct the appraisal: Archbishop
Sartain of Seattle, assisted by Bishops Paprocki of Springfield, Il and Blair of
Toledo, OH. This was too much for the CICL secretary. Archbishop Tobin resigned
his position in protest. Rome then did what Rome does. Tobin is now the
Archbishop of Indianapolis.
The
advent of a Polarizer
The
Levada intervention has now devolved into a second PR disaster, with vast and
angry support for the LCWR coming from many sections of the Church. It is in a
kind of bureaucratic limbo and generally regarded as just another example of
clerical interventionism from on high. While the doctrinal assessment remains
within the jurisdiction of the CDF, the suggested appointment of Bishop Olmsted
as the new secretary of the CICL will send a very ominous message to religious,
female or male.
Olmsted
has not exactly excelled in the areas of subsidiarity, open dialogue and
enlightened governance. In fact, Olmsted has become something of a lightning rod
not only for controversy but divisiveness.
It
was he who excommunicated a religious sister and her staff at St Joseph’s
hospital in Phoenix. The record shows that he was utterly wrong both in Canon
Law and in Moral Theology. He has not apologised. Michael Clancy of the Arizona
Republic, writing in a 09/12/’12 response to the La
Stampa report comments, “Olmsted has been a polarizing figure during his
tenure in Phoenix, winning the support of traditionalists and conservatives but
alienating a significant number of liberal Catholics. His decision to declare St
Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Centre no longer Catholic received international
attention.”
During
his time in Phoenix, Olmsted has also gained a reputation for being something of
a fire brand and a self-appointed flag flier for causes espoused by some members
of the American hierarchy. The bishops, even the Vatican, are adept at gauging
public responses on issues in advance of a policy launch. It’s a form of
ecclesiastical market research done to ascertain public sentiment on different
issues. Olmsted had done extensive work in this area. It is well documented that
he has tested the tolerance levels of Catholics in his diocese on hot issues
such as limiting communion to host alone and restricting altar service to males.
[2] He knew what he was doing. He knows Rome well and Rome knows him. By
education, inclination and experience, he has thoroughly absorbed Romanita,
the mind and worldview of ecclesiastical
bureaucracy. He shares some notable and interesting company among the American
hierarchy. Bishop Slattery of Oklahoma City and Bruskewitz, Emeritus bishop of
Lincoln Nebraska, are stand outs.
It
is entirely possible that Olmsted had become so provocative and aggressively
confrontational that he is seen as a liability in the US. The USCCB has enough
public confidence credibility challenges as it is. Equally, it might be deduced
that he has been rewarded by Rome precisely for those reasons. He has very
carefully and selectively directed his hostility against the oppositional
culture of death, secularism and moral relativism. This would not have been lost
on the Vatican. It mirrors the official rhetoric of the new crusading
evangelical bishops. Rome warmly endorses all of that. But when this kind of
aggressive posturing becomes too much for local tolerance levels, there is
always the option of repackaging it and marketing it in the Roman Curia.
Honour-shame societies do this
sort of thing all the time.
[1]
For the Vatican Insider article
‘breaking the news’ of Bp Olmsted’s appointment, click here.
[2] See an earlier item on his predecessor, Archbishop Joseph Tobin CSsR, who
was appointed a member of the team conducting the first apostolic visitation of US female religious, here
and here.
[3] For a small catalogue
of controversy so far during Olmsted’s governance as bishop of Phoenix, click here.
David
Timbs writes from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.