Unfulfilled Promises of Vatican II- Part

In the last two segments of "The Unfulfilled Promises of Vatican II" I argued that the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI were largely responsible for a purposeful retrenchment of the institutional church in opposition to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

Good Pope John's refreshing quip of opening the windows of the church to let in some fresh air has been replaced by a cynical closing of this window (of opportunity) and an about-face in regard to expanding local control of bishops, priests and laity.

Question # 1: Would the church have had the horrific sex-abuse scandal, first uncovered in 1984 in a Louisiana diocese and then in Boston by the Globe in 2002, if local control existed over the selection of bishops?
Some may consider this question naive given the reality of the present- day monarchical church. However, it may be instructional to fantasize about such a church where true local control of parishes and dioceses was the policy. The bishop would be selected from among the priests of the diocese. The new bishop would be familiar with the needs of the local church and would be able to foster trust and confidence among the people. This idealic Church would be devoted to simply bringing Christ's Peace to all people without the triumphalist attitude we've witnessed over the past 45 years.

Question # 2: On the parish level, would effective lay involvement in the administration of a parish have allowed bishops to move abusive priests from one parish to another?

In my view, this abuse of power would not have occurred because lay leaders would have asked for the full work history of Father X and why he was now in our midst. Can you imagine a bishop trying to "get rid" of Father X to another parish if he knew the parish laity would strenuously object? The answer is obvious. Effective lay involvement would thwart any attempts by the bishop to move these abusers around, so, ergo, only silence and obfuscations occurred when Father X was transferred. In some ways, the institutional Church was (is) like some police departments. When you have a problem person, just send him (her) to the far reaches of the department (diocese) and, as they used to say " no one would be the wiser."

There is precedent for a managerial lay board in Catholic parishes in this area. As far back as 1785, lay trustees managed the administrative obligations of its parishes in pre-diocesan New York and the City of Brooklyn. This system, not without its own conflicts, continued until 1855 with the ascendency of strong administrative bishops, like Bishop John Hughes in New York and Bishop John Loughlin in Brooklyn. Then, as now, the number of priests available was insufficient, so the laity took the initiative with the founding of parishes, such as St. James Church (now the Pro-Cathedral) on Tillary Street, Brooklyn in 1823. Famous lay leaders such as Peter Turner and Cornelius Heaney of Brooklyn committed their full resources to establish this first parish and other parishes in the early days of the American Catholic Church. In fact, Peter Turner also founded the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum in 1829, the beginning of Catholic child care in the United States. Cornelius Heaney, an affluent lay Catholic from New York moved to Cobble Hill, Brooklyn in 1835 and was responsible for the founding of Brooklyn's second Catholic parish, St. Paul's on Court Street. Heaney was also the benefactor of the Brooklyn Benevolent Society in 1845 whose mission was the care of poor children and widows. In 1853, the Diocese of Brooklyn was established which included all of Long Island until 1957, when the Diocese of Rockville Centre was formed.

I am not suggesting, however, that the Church return to a system of trustee-ism in our parishes. It is obvious that the institutional church is not a democracy. What I think we need today is a loving system of mutual respect for the rights and obligations of the bishop, his pastors and the laity. First and foremost, lay leadership in each parish needs to be enlivened with real control over administrative matters especially finances. Then there needs to be an atmosphere of trust among bishops, pastors and lay advisers, today sorely lacking in many dioceses. Finally, the bishop needs to empower each parish to fulfill its mission without excessive episcopal interference.

No one needs to win the argument about whether the documents of Vatican II have been fulfilled or not. Since that heady, expectant time of John XXIII, there has grown up in the American Church a terrible polarization of those who believe Vatican II and its implementation went too far and those who believe that the long-awaited changes have still to fully play out in the lives of Catholics around the world and especially in the American Church. What we need to do is come together as a pilgrim church, knowing that our mere human efforts are doomed to fail... unless we have Christ to help us. St. Paul said it well: "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:13)

Edward J. Thompson, Sr.
March 1, 2010