Focus of Summit turns to accountability, bishops, and footnotes

Two American prelates, Cardinals Cupich and O’Malley, offered thoughts on how bishops might hold each other accountable.

Pope Francis prays Feb. 22, 2019, the second day of the Vatican meeting on the protection of minors. (CNS photo/Vatican Media via Reuters)

(ROME – February 22nd, 2019) The participants in the Vatican’s meeting on child protection are serious and determined. Just what it is, about which they are serious and determined is a different question, with objects sometimes more difficult to identify and not always entirely encouraging when one is able to pin them down. On Friday — the second of three days of working sessions — the focus was supposed to be on accountability.

The focus was on accountability: primarily — not to say, almost exclusively — on bishops’ accountability to each other. “As we take up our collegial and collective sense of accountability and responsibility,” the Archbishop of Mumbai, Cardinal Oswald Gracias, said in the Friday morning address that introduced the theme for the day, “we will inevitably encounter a certain dialectic. For our collegiality does indeed express the variety and universality of the People of God, but also the unity of the flock of Christ.”

“It cannot be disregarded that dealing with the topic of abuse in the right way has been difficult for us in the Church,” said Cardinal Gracias, “for various reasons,” though he left largely unexplored the differences in the ways in which the abuse crisis has been difficult for bishops, whose failures enable abusers, and for victims, who are gravely and irreparably harmed and injured by the abuse the bishops have enabled by their failures of governance.

“We as bishops also bear responsibility for this,” Cardinal Gracias went on to say. “For me, this raises the question: do we really engage in an open conversation and point out honestly to our brother bishops or priests when we notice problematic behavior in them?” he asked. “We should cultivate a culture of correctio fraterna, which enables this without offending each other, and at the same time recognize criticism from a brother as an opportunity to better fulfill our tasks.”

A bishop offend another bishop? Heaven forfend.

“Closely related to this point is willingness to personally admit mistakes to each other, and to ask for help, without feeling the need to maintain the pretense of our own perfection,” Cardinal Gracias continued. “Do we really have the kind of fraternal relationship, where in such cases we don’t have to worry about damaging ourselves, simply because we show weakness?”

In an anecdotal parenthesis to his main speech, Cardinal Gracias shared a couple of encounters with victims he has had during the course of his own ministry, beginning with his recollection of one man he had met some years ago.

“He was very bitter, [he] could not forgive,” Cardinal Gracias said. “Thinking he required counseling for healing, I spent quite some time discussing the matter with him rationally.” I made no headway. Only much later, I realized — as I do now — the very long-lasting, sometimes lifelong damage this abuse does to the person — to the psyche of the person.”

If Cardinal Gracias ever made any attempt to secure a measure or semblance of justice for that man, whose inability to forgive his abuser was apparently so perplexing and consternating to him, he made no mention of it during his remarks.

Cardinal Gracias also spoke of some young victims he has met, noting, “It shocked me, how this changed the personality of the person.” That’s what shocked him.

“I realize we can hardly ever get it right,” Cardinal Gracias went on to say. “We must have the humility to admit we make mistakes. “We learn, from our mistakes, how to do better the next time,” he continued, raising the question — unanswered and unaddressed — of how many mistakes a bishop can or ought to be allowed to make before he is faced with real consequences.

Cardinal Gracias is himself accused of seriously mishandling an abuse case in 2015, and other cases.

When this gathering of the heads of the world’s bishops’ conferences opened on Thursday here in Rome, Pope Francis surprised participants and journalists, alike: first, with a call for “effective, concrete measures” to combat the scourge and scandal — in the technical, theological sense of the term — of the sexual abuse of minors in the Church; then, he issued a list of twenty-one “reflection points” that Archbishop Charles Scicluna — adjunct secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with a special portfolio for combatting sexual abuse and one of the meeting’s chief architects — described as a “roadmap for our discussion” and “very, very concrete.”

“It’s an understatement to say they have to be taken seriously,” Archbishop Scicluna said. “That’s an utter understatement — and even if there are things that haven’t been discussed enough, they are going to be part of the follow-up to the meeting,” Archbishop Scicluna continued on Thursday.

On Friday morning, Archbishop Blasé Cupich of Chicago offered one model of reform: the so-called “Metropolitan” model, which would put metropolitan archbishops in charge of investigating and disciplining wayward bishops within their ecclesiastical provinces. Reminded during the Friday briefing that both Theodore McCarrick and Cardinal Bernard Law were metropolitan archbishops, Cardinal Cupich responded, “You have to read the footnotes.”

Cardinal Bernard Law was the Archbishop of Boston, who resigned in disgrace in 2002 in the wake of the Boston Globe’s Spotlight investigations revealed systemic coverup and enabling of abuse in his archdiocese. Theodore McCarrick was once the Archbishop of Washington, DC. He was punitively dismissed from the clerical state a week ago, after being found guilty of sexually abusing both minors and adults.

Also during the briefing on Friday, Cardinal O’Malley expressed hope that the Vatican would soon release its report on how McCarrick was able to rise through the ranks and remain for so long in a position of great power and prominence within the Church’s leadership structure. The report is to detail findings from New York, Metuchen, Newark, and Washington, DC. McCarrick’s influence in both the US Church and in the Vatican, however, is widely believed to be much broader than those four jurisdictions — where he served — and very deep.

Asked how the bishops propose to hold each other accountable, and why the faithful ought to believe their promises such episodes will not repeat themselves, Cardinals Cupich and O’Malley responded in turn.

“[T]his is a matter of — first of all — accountability on my part: that I am going to live my life this way,” that is, as a moral and upright person and a disciple of Christ, “and then, to make sure that we are supportive of each other to live the Gospel.” Cardinal O’Malley broadly agreed, and then offered, “We are talking today about collegiality — about our obligation to each other — I would hope that any bishop, who is aware of this kind of misbehavior, would certainly make that known to the Holy See, and not feel that in any way we should try to cover it up or turn a blind eye to it.”

Their failures in those regards are chiefly responsible for the disastrous circumstances in which we find ourselves. The Vatican had word of McCarrick’s reputation no later than the year 2000 — eighteen years before taking any meaningful action against him. In 1994, the papal representative at the time, Archbishop (now Cardinal) Agostino Cacciavillan got a tip and asked then-Archbishop of New York, Cardinal John O’Connor, to make discreet inquiries.

In an October 2018 interview, Cacciavillan told the Catholic News Service, “It was not a formal complaint, but the expression of a concern,” and that he enlisted O’Connor, because he was closest to McCarrick geographically. “No one better than the archbishop of New York would know what was happening in the Archdiocese of Newark.” Cacciavillan also told CNS he neither confronted McCarrick directly, nor reported the matter to the Vatican.

On the subject of investigating and disciplining high-ranking bishops accused of malfeasance — of holding metropolitans, supposed to be the chief overseers according to his proposal, when they are themselves accused of wrongdoing — Cardinal Cupich also explained that he had carefully considered the matter and offered numerous alternatives, which he did not present in his spoken remarks. “I didn’t want to get into the alternates, but there’s a whole, long paragraph about what you do if the metropolitan is accused.” Cardinal Cupich briefly rehearsed some of the alternatives, which can be found in footnote 6 of his text, available — along with all the other speeches delivered during the working sessions — at www.pbc2019.org.

During the Friday briefing, Cardinal Cupich also spoke to the need for the involvement of the laity. “What is important however is to make sure that, whoever the bishop is, who handles it, that there is lay involvement as well, for transparency — because, I think, that makes it not only transparent, but it makes it ‘Church’ — where, we’re all in this together.”

Whatever the future of Cardinal Cupich’s specific proposal, the need to involve the laity, not only in consultation, but in governance of the Church, is not a consideration that can be postponed. As Adam DeVille put it in an analysis piece for these pages:

[W]hy not look at practical reforms to ecclesial structures? Why not honestly discuss power? Why not candidly admit that the current centralized papacy is an historical aberration and, I would argue, a theological disaster? What is to be lost by examining the monopoly on power that bishops have in their dioceses, and priests in their parishes, neither needing to have any formal input from the people of God in councils and synods until and unless these clerical overlords deign to “consult” the people from time to time?

If the present crisis has done anything, it is to force Catholics to realize that few, if any, should be entrusted with the kind of power clergy have in the Church today. The present system whereby bishops are in practice accountable to nobody is not traditional (or Traditional) in any sense of the word; nor is it a part of the “divine constitution” of the Church. It can and must change, and no degree of discomfort with this fact can be allowed to hold back the necessary changes—from the parish to the papacy—that the Church should now undergo.

“Although the meeting, we know, is a short one,” said the Director of the Press Office of the Holy See, Alessandro Gisotti, at the start of the briefing for journalists covering the meeting on the protection of minors in the Church on Friday, Day 2 of the gathering, “there is the conviction that the fruit will be long-lasting.”

Fr. Federico Lombardi SJ, moderator of the working sessions, told journalists at the Friday briefing he has found the atmosphere, “[V]ery serene, positive.” He went on to say, “I do not sense tensions in the assembly.” If the impression Fr. Lombardi conveyed an accurate reflection of the temper and temperature of the New Synod Hall where the meeting’s sessions are being held, there is cause for some concern. If there isn’t tension in the room, there ought to be.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Christopher R. Altieri 102 Articles
Christopher R. Altieri is a journalist, writer, and editor based in Rome, Italy. He spent more than a dozen years on the news desk at Vatican Radio. He holds the PhD from the Pontifical Gregorian University, and is the author of The Soul of a Nation: America as a Tradition of Inquiry and Nationhood.

7 Comments

  1. “Fr. Federico Lombardi SJ, moderator of the working sessions, told journalists at the Friday briefing he has found the atmosphere, ‘[V]ery serene, positive.’ He went on to say, ‘I do not sense tensions in the assembly.’ If the impression Fr. Lombardi conveyed an accurate reflection of the temper and temperature of the New Synod Hall where the meeting’s sessions are being held, there is cause for some concern. If there isn’t tension in the room, there ought to be.”

    Yes, that’s it, the sham “peace” I spoke of previously…after just the right milligrams of self-delusion…and perhaps some degree of demonic possession. Yes, that’s it, the de facto “Ignatian” synodal “new church” where hierarchs, clerics and the laity are approached as human ouija boards in order to “discern” where there is NOTHING to “discern” and the “process” is just a certain amount of waiting (also “discerned”) to do what you really wanted to do anyway.

    Cardinal Gracias: life Without details…just vibes and vibes about vibes. And yet…let’s pause here… was a balance achieved towards precision with Cardinal Cupich’s “footnotes” retort regarding McCarrick and Bernard Law?

    Somewhere between blurry wide angled views and allegedly clarifying extreme close-ups…there is a “middle” forgotten by these manipulators and formerly coquettish, enamored of “advancement” ex-seminarians…this is the “middle” of the very same “virtue” Aristotle and St. Thomas spoke of…better spoken of by Christ Himself as “the straight and narrow” and by St. Paul who said in Philippians 2:12 “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

    Yes, when this assembly is seen as a synod “ex-seminarians” it all makes sense. This is a “coming to be” spoken of in Aristotle’s Physics, a text in my opinion which points more to God in its consideration of “motion” than anything uttered by most of this assembly of ex-seminarians.

    This is the canonization of St. Hegel…which requires some form of a wimpy cop in a wimpy yet sometimes overly strident voice to say “Move along! Nothing to see here! There’s other stuff!” as contradictions emerge. Or someone at the top to declare the opposite without hesitation and as ruthlessly as the now familiar cornered thug in a movie…and term a call for “justice” as something from the Evil One.

    Prayer and fasting.

    • ´was a balance achieved towards precision with Cardinal Cupich’s “footnotes” retort regarding McCarrick and Bernard Law?´

      Cardinal Cupich´s presentation can be accessed at https://www.pbc2019.org/fileadmin/user_upload/presentations/22feb/22_Feb_2_Cardinal_Cupich_PBC_ING-.pdf

      FWIW, the footnote in question (No. 6) reads as follows: ´Alternatives to the Metropolitan should be established if he is the accused or if the Metropolitan See is vacant. The alternate could be the nearest Metropolitan within the same episcopal conference, or one from a list created a priori by each episcopal conference. Otherwise, the allegation could be forwarded to the senior suffragan bishop of the Province, who assumes the role of the Metropolitan in these cases. In the case of an allegation against a bishop of an Eastern Catholic Church, it could be forwarded to the Patriarch, the Major Archbishop, or the Metropolitan of the Metropolitan Churches sui iuris, depending on the structure of the Eastern Catholic Church, unless another provision is made by the Holy See.´

  2. Very funny, Blase is Blasé. How about the higher up correcting the highest us? What has come of the dubia of Cardinal Burke and colleagues?

  3. If I hear of anything, I will simply report it to the police. How they report on each other to cover their strange caste matters little if people file a complaint of possible criminal activity to authorities. In America, I trust our courts more than these mediocre managers.

  4. Why not candidly admit that the current centralized papacy is an historical aberration and, I would argue, a theological disaster? What is to be lost by examining the monopoly on power that bishops have in their dioceses, and priests in their parishes, neither needing to have any formal input from the people of God in councils and synods until and unless these clerical overlords deign to “consult” the people from time to time?

    If the present crisis has done anything, it is to force Catholics to realize that few, if any, should be entrusted with the kind of power clergy have in the Church today. The present system whereby bishops are in practice accountable to nobody is not traditional (or Traditional) in any sense of the word; nor is it a part of the “divine constitution” of the Church. It can and must change, and no degree of discomfort with this fact can be allowed to hold back the necessary changes—from the parish to the papacy—that the Church should now undergo.

    Contrast those remarks with these of bishop and martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch, who knew the Apostle John, and no doubt had a good grip on the way Christ intended His Church to function:

    It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.
    – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

    I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ …
    – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

    … you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ … let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ …
    – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

    For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop.
    – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

    See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.
    – The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

    If he begins to boast, he is undone; and if he reckon himself greater than the bishop, he is ruined. … Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God!
    – The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp

    Of course, in those days, being a member of the hierarchy could be very dangerous to one’s health. The above are the remarks of bishop and martyr Ignatius of Antioch. Catholics should revere and obey men willing to die for Christ.

    There are still holy priests and bishops in the Church, regardless of how sick the Church has become. And denying that it is very sick these days is outrageous. Even so, I know from personal experience that laity given too much control in a parish can be disastrous. We had a holy and good priest who was pressured into accepting policies that insulted many poor parishioners who couldn’t afford to pay full tuition at the parish school but did endless volunteer work for the parish to make up for that. The parish council was wrong. A parish should not be run like a business. Lay involvement is good up to a point, but holy men using the grace that comes with their office must have the final say,

    The Church functions properly with a hierarchy that is willing to be martyred for the sake of the Truth. If it has that kind of hierarchy then Ignatius’ admonitions make perfect sense.

    I think one reason Ignatius was willing to die for Christ was because he believed in the Scriptures, unlike many of our bishops who were very likely taught in the seminary that anything miraculous or far-fetched in the Scriptures was probably a didactic parable, a myth or a legend. The Early Church Fathers believed in the Scriptural accounts of the miraculous intervention of God on behalf of those who serve Him, even if that miraculous intervention takes place after one had been martyred. One just can’t have the resolve to do the right thing when doing so is very difficult, if one doesn’t believe in the historicity of the scriptural accounts of God’s miraculous interventions where the Church Fathers unanimously considered them historical. One needs to have a firm grip on Almighty God’s ability to make the worst situations turn out gloriously in the end — in this life, before the final end — if one just does the right thing.

    While some lay involvement in the Church’s handling of clerical abuse is probably a good thing for now, what we really need is a hierarchy whose belief in the Scriptures is not contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Church Fathers. They will then find the courage to consistently do the right thing, as they will be confident that God will bless their doing so, even if that will have very negative consequences in the short-term.

    In case you are wondering: Yes. I think many prelates and priests today are not even believers.

  5. Archbishop Vigano too needs to be brought to account for ignoring a letter sent to him in 2012 by an alleged victim of McCarrick. He has the nerve to accuse Pope Francis and sundry other prelates of covering up abuse, and yet it seems he has done exactly the same thing. I am afraid he is looking more and more like a hypocrite.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Focus of Summit turns to accountability, bishops, and footnotes -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*