The Catholic Abuse Crisis: An Ecumenical Solution?

Pope Francis, 500 leaders from other faith traditions and 25 refugees
meet to discuss the situation of refugees. Source
Perhaps a similar model with ecumenical leaders and abuse survivors can happen?

The abuse crisis in the Catholic Church can seem overwhelming. But what if, like in so many other crises, this one has created a crack in the surface through which the healing light of the Holy Spirit can break in? What if in the midst of all this tragedy and institutional and personal failing there is an opportunity for a greater Christian witness?

What if this were a moment for ecumenism?

As Catholics, we trust that the Holy Spirit always guides the Church--we also know this Church is comprised of very fallible human beings who are capable of just about any sin that human beings are capable of committing. History has reminded us of this all too well and often. The abuse scandal in the Catholic Church reveals many failings, but I would argue that the primary failing is the inability of leaders of the institution to hold themselves accountable.

In all fairness to them, no institution is fully capable of holding itself accountable. No person can effectively police him or herself. 3rd party accountability is the norm almost everywhere else in society. That's why we have independent regularly agencies to provide oversight and correction if an organization, business or government entity develops abuses of power.  

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were well aware of this problem. This is why they established a system of checks and balances. There are three branches of government as well as a balance between federal and state power. The system is not flawless, but it has more opportunity for correction than a rigid monarchy, which requires the good fortune of having a benevolent ruler for this level of accountability, and that may be asking too much of any one person.

Maybe other Church denominations could provide the necessary oversight and checks and balances, almost like a board of directors? Catholics already do that internally in varying degrees, where different religious orders may have a role in holding members of other orders accountable in some matters, for example. There are limits to how far this can go because ultimately all Catholic organizations fall under the same bishops and pope. So why not include other denominations? 

At the local level, pastors confide in other pastors from different denominations. They may often form friendships and hold each other accountable. People may be surprised to know how well their pastors get along with pastors from different denominations. The reason is simple: There are few others who understand their work and their struggles as well as other pastors.

At the global level, the Catholic Church has had "observers" and "consultants" from other denominations from a theological standpoint. We celebrated the role of these observers at Vatican II, for example. But we've never formalized those relationships in the sense of giving these people power within the system. Those are primarily friendly relationships.

The Proposal

What if a group of perhaps Lutherans, Baptists and Orthodox were responsible for receiving abuse allegations of Catholics? What if they were the ones who kept the records and made judgments about conducting investigations or involving secular authorities? Would they be willing if we asked them?

This would follow in the spirit of the early Church. It could be like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, but instead of solving theological disputes it could also settle institutional ones. This could be a true ecumenical council for the modern era. It may be what Christ intended for us all along.

This group would have to have real power and not just be a symbolic presence. Also, this would have to be done in such a way that if we ever were to offer the same service to them that we wouldn't mutually cover for each other. We certainly don't need a multi-denominational cover-up!

This would be a moment of incredible humility and trust in our fellow Christians. It may require some meaningful reflection on ecclesiology. But as Catholics, we already recognize people baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be incorporated into the same Body of Christ, even if we don't recognize them to be in full communion to account for our differences. There is already talk of having panels of lay Catholics and secular authorities having a role in bishop accountability, so why not include leaders of other Christian denominations?

This would really show that the Catholic Church is serious about full disclosure and full accountability. It would be a moment of gospel humility to hand over this power to our fellow Christian pilgrims from different church communities. After all, if we are not willing to give up this power to control information about allegations, then it begs the question: Why not? If we want to hold onto this power, is that because we are not willing to have full disclosure? Full disclosure is, well, full disclosure.

People may worry that other denominations may try to scandalize or sabotage the Catholic Church through a mechanism like this, but honestly, folks: Can we as Catholics do any worse than what we have been doing?

To my Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Orthodox and Coptic friends--and to every other denomination under the sun--not only could this be a great Christian witness, but let's face it:  Sisters and brothers in Christ, we need you.

CLARIFICATION: It is important to add that some of these other denominations may also have a history of abuse and cover-up, as well. This post does not suggest that they are guilt free in that regard. It is only suggesting that since these denominations are outside of the power structure of the Catholic hierarchical system, they may have a far easier time being fair and making sure all charges are followed through on and leaders held accountable.

ADDED:  If you go to a party and you ended up drinking too much, you give your car keys to someone else. If you've been drinking too much over the course of your life, you join an AA program and get accountability partner(s). These are supreme acts of responsibility. it means you are taking responsibility for your actions and you are serious about being held accountable for your actions. You say, "I have a problem and I want to do better." The Catholic Church needs to do something like this. It needs to hand the car keys over to someone else, not as a statement of failure but as a supreme act of responsibility.

And also, this endeavor would be in addition to, and not instead of, other regulatory oversight such as from secular authorities, the Catholic laity, etc.

Terrorism: Playing with Numbers

On this day known in infamy as 9/11, it is fitting that we talk about numbers.

I was in a debate recently with some friends about the NFL protests over police brutality. Some folks were saying there are no structural injustices in the police force. Rather, they argued there are some isolated "bad apples" who do bad things. The incidents may be bad, but the number of them is not statistically large when you look at a nation of 300 million (I'm paraphrasing a bit here).

Numbers can be funny. You can get them to say all sorts of things.

Today is the anniversary of 9/11. The attacks of 9/11 "only" directly caused the deaths of less than 3,000 people. But yet we all know how traumatic that day was to the whole nation. Laws were changed as a result. Wars have been waged. The whole attitude of our nation changed and to my eye still hasn't recovered. We've become a darker, more fearful and more hostile place since then.

In recent reports, there were 98,000 public schools in the U.S and 33,000 private  The Parkland school shooting was the 208th school shooting since Columbine 19 years ago. 208 school shootings seems like a large number until you compare it with 131,000. There is “only” a 1 in 629 chance that your school will be one of them--more likely than winning the lottery by far but still a slim chance.

4,400 people were lynched in the Jim Crow years, most of them African Americans. As horrific as that is, you could argue that is "only" 55 per year--nearly 5 per month if you average it out. "Only." Another way of looking at it: That is 5 people per month--every month--for over 80 years. Can you imagine what that does to the psychology of a population living with that (literally) looming over their heads?

Not only is the number of lynchings bad enough as it is, but for every person lynched there have been no doubt dozens more who have been beaten, robbed, raped and threatened. Lynching was used (and is still used) as a weapon of terrorism against a whole population of people. Step out of line, express yourself too much, ask for too much, and even worse, demand too much, and the threat of lynching was always there. There were people who no doubt spent their whole lives looking over their shoulder, monitoring every word they said and behavior they made in order to avoid a situation that could escalate to lynching. They hid their God-given light so as not to attract too much attention or anger. That’s how terrorism works.

And THAT is the situation many African Americans find themselves in today when it comes to their relationship with the police force. We know there are good cops. I assume--and hope--that the majority of them are good. I have friends and family members who are cops. I haven’t seen any of them on their beat, but as far as I know all of them are good. I trust in that. But there is a significant percentage of cops who are not so good--some reports say the number of bad cops is as high as 15%. If so, that's huge. But perhaps worse, there is a system that covers for them--a system of loyalty, secrecy and power.

For every killing, there are no doubt dozens of instances of racial profiling, harassment, beatings,  rapes, wrongful arrests, wrongful convictions and disproportionately long prison sentences compared to whites. And for every one of those, there are millions of our fellow citizens waking up today wondering, ”Is it going to be me today?”

The situation is not unlike the problem with abuse in the Catholic Church. Many of us are hesitant to speak up because we know many good priests. We don’t want to disparage all of them in one swoop.  But the small percentage of bad priests has caused a huge problem. And even worse, the system has been willing to cover for them. That’s the problem with see today with the police. The system seems unable to hold police officers accountable.

Perhaps you have heard the litany of names of wrongful deaths alleged and remembered by groups like Black Lives Matter--Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Mike Brown, etc. To my friends who say that list of atrocities--however horrible it may be--is not statistically significant in a population of over 300 million, I hope this post has shown that not to be the case.

This is why NFL players are taking a knee.

Our Greatest Sin: Quick to Judge, Exclude and Comdemn

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/jesus/final-ministry/trial-before-sanhedrin/

Good people can rightly disagree on a number of issues. We often forget that. Our culture is heavily polarized. We've grown accustomed to the culture wars. Our political parties have drawn hard lines between each other to where working across the aisle can be considered scandalous instead of wise and prudent. Both the professional media and social media have a role to play in these divisions, as well.

What bothers me the most is not that people disagree on important issues. Disagreement will happen. It's that we can be so quick to judge, exclude and condemn.

For example, anyone who has looked at the hard issues around war, peace and violence knows that there are rarely easy answers. This is specially true with nations with long and complicated histories. I've been in academically tedious debates over the nuances of Just War Theory. Folks may argue from a Christian perspective either for or against war. I can appreciate the points on all sides. But what I can't understand is that some folks are just so eager to go to war. At the drop of a hat, it's All Systems Go.

It's the eagerness to go to war that keeps me up at night.

My own Catholic Church has a long history of theological debate over this issue. But even if war is somehow deemed to be "necessary," it should always be a last resort. It should always come with great sadness. It should always be seen as a sin that all else has failed to prevent it, including our own individual efforts. But when we go to war, I just don't see much regret or sadness. I see triumphalism. I see blood lust. I see dehumanizing of the opponent and cheers over bombings.

I see this playing out around other issues:

Anyone who has looked at the issues around immigration knows that there are no easy answers. There are desperate, hungry people at the border. At least some of their desperation (if not all) is the result of our own policies. But there are points to be made about maintaining borders and knowing who comes and goes. Good people can rightly disagree. But what bothers me is that some of my fellow Americans are just so eager to shut the door to our neighbors before hearing their concerns. They find some technicality in the laws as an excuse to shut their hearts and minds, but let's be honest: The law isn't the real reason for their push to exclude.

Take the death penalty. Sometimes a person on death row has another story to tell. His legal team may be screaming, "Wait! Don't execute! We found new evidence!" I'm shocked by how often they have great difficulty even getting the testimony heard. Before even seeing the new evidence, others say, "Sorry, too late, the case is closed!" They don't even want to hear the evidence. I've worked with groups petitioning the state governor just hours before an execution trying to halt the process so it can be re-evaluated. What's the rush? A life is at stake!

Abortion. Anyone who is a parent knows the great responsibility that comes with parenting. It's an enormous life vocation that challenges every fiber of your being--and that's even if you have a supportive family, access to medical care, gainful employment and are in a socially-acceptable relationship. You don't have to convince me how difficult the life circumstances of some folks may be. But what bothers me the most is how quick many are to devalue the life in the womb and find a reason to abort. Maybe we'll never agree on when life truly begins, but there are many medical indicators that it's very early, and many faiths teach that it's conception. Why the rush to devalue that life?

Take the current NFL protests against police brutality started by Colin Kaepernick. Virtually all the opposition is focused on the method of protest while all but ignoring the stated reasons for the protest. We should all be saying, "Gosh, something extremely important must be going on to compel these players to make such a bold and dramatic statement, even to the point of risking their entire careers over it." It should make us stop in our tracks and listen to their concerns. The whole nation should proverbially sit down and talk this out. Instead, many are quick to shout them down before hearing their concerns. These athletes are practically shaking us, trying to tell us that something big is going on that we aren't paying enough attention to. But we're still avoiding it, so quick to deny before hearing what they have to say.

My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.
- James 1:19-20

By contrast to these examples above, God is slow to anger (Psalms 103:8 and 145:8). God is eager to love (John 3:16), eager to forgive (Matthew 18:21-22) and eager to include (Mark 2:13-17). Jesus was constantly including people that society wanted to exclude, marginalize or offer only a secondary status. Dozens of verses directly attest to this. This is not just a description of God's behavior, but rather we are called to follow their example (James 1:19-20).

People often cite the example of Jesus overturning tables in the table as an example of biblically-justifiable anger.  Yes, but we forget that Jesus was also slow to anger. This does not mean we rush in angrily as a general way of life. Jesus' one example of anger does not mean that all of our anger is justifiable. It means that righteous anger has a role, but that role is not open-ended. The same is true with teachings about war and violence. Perhaps they are justified in some rare instances, but we should be very slow to choose them and always do it with sadness and much regret.

Probably no other instance in the Bible speaks to this more than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus himself. It was a sham trial, a mockery of justice. There was no case against Jesus, Pilate even said so. The crowd shouted "crucify him!" When Pilate tried to reason with them, the crowd only shouted louder. Mob mentality ruled. Nothing puts the masses into a rage more than challenging the social hierarchy. Jesus was constantly putting the last first and including where society wanted to exclude. How different is that from us today who want to exclude the immigrants, condemn the prisoners, dehumanize the unborn or the people in other nations, and shout down those kneeling for justice?

In every one of the examples above, I see a reenactment of the same sham trial. It's the same mockery of justice and mob fervor. The same mob fervor that put Jesus on the cross is the same impulse that puts immigrants in detention centers and separates their families. It's the same impulse that rushes a person to the execution chamber despite compelling evidence of innocence. It is the same sham trial that finds the flimsiest of excuses in the law (or in Church Teaching) to rationalize evil and rush to war, rush to abortion and rush to exclude, condemn and dehumanize. Those who work with the poor, the suffering and the marginalized know that the crucifixion is an ongoing reality in their lives.

"Black lives matter."
"Crucify them!"
"This prisoner may be innocent."
"Crucify him!"
"This fetus is a child."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These immigrants are our brothers and sisters in need."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These Islamic nations are our neighbors too!"
"CRUCIFY THEM!!!"

Good people can disagree. Even though I have pretty strong opinions about all of these issues, I can at least respect the points from people who differ. But what I can never be comfortable with is the resistance to even hearing the points on the other side. It's the eagerness to exclude, condemn and judge before hearing what others have to say that is so hard to reckon with. Those are signs there is something more going on than mere disagreement. It means that people are resisting the message and resisting the messenger. Where is the resistance coming from? Where is the real discomfort coming from?

Ecumenism: The Narrow Path that Avoids Cheap Grace

The narrow path (stock photo):
On one side, a steep drop off.
On the other, a difficult climb.

In working toward better relationships--and ultimately unity--among followers of Christ, I often find people who hold two extremes views. Both of them can be guilty of fostering a kind of cheap grace.

The first are those who are satisfied with division. In the name of doctrinal or moral purity, they are quick to draw hard lines between their group and others. They sometimes even celebrate divisions along these lines, including denominational splits and reformations. These tend to be conservatives.

The other group sees unity everywhere. They simply see unity as self-evident and can't be bothered to dig any deeper. They aren't invested in the work of building unity by addressing the points of division head on, which can often seem too tedious to them. They often act as if unity is already present and they don't have time to sweat over the details. These tend to be liberals.

Both sides are guilty of giving up too easily.

To the first group, yes, there may be times when some formal split may be necessary. But it's not so simple. Scripture calls us in many places to promote the reconciliation of all back to Christ. And even if some demarcation may be regrettably necessary, we should always, well, regret it--we should never celebrate it. On top of that, no group is all good or all bad. God has clearly showered gifts to all people, even to those outside your chosen group. We can maintain hard lines, but those hard lines do not seem to match God's actions nor God's call to us.

And to the other side, if the rules don't matter, then why have them? It is one thing to have a vision for unity. Perhaps from the standpoint of Christ himself, all Christians are already united in him in some mystical way that we cannot fathom. Still, that does not spare us from the hard work of making that unity visible in our lives right now. We can simply say that 'all Christians are one', but our Christian denominations have rules and doctrines on the books which directly contradict that. There have been mutual condemnations and other exclusionary practices. We worship separately, we do charity separately and we often marry separately. Those divisions between denominations have left a long history of real human suffering in their wake, and many of those wounds still need a healing touch. If unity were so self-evident, we should work with our churches to make sure the rules, rubrics, doctrines and practices match what we believe in our hearts.

This is why I always respect those who work hard to thread the ecumenical needles. If Christ calls us together, we should find a way to say that out loud in a way that is consistent with what our respective denominations say. Our rules and practices should reflect that. The work can be incredibly tedious when it comes to hairsplitting differences over doctrines, but again, if those doctrines don't matter, why do we have them?

I appreciate that some folks don't have the patience for this. They may simply say they need to live their lives today and not wait for the churches to come around. People marry across denominational lines and take part in worship celebrations across the board whether they are members or not. There is some merit in this. In some ways, these are the pioneers who help us envision a more unified future. But if we acknowledge this, we have to--by the same logic--respect the folks who want to stay within their divisions for the same reasons.

This is why I want to hold up the ecumenical workers who try to untangle this mess--so that those who feel there is a need for division can be satisfied that that need no longer exists, and that those who believe unity is the ultimate reality can be satisfied that we are able to say that out loud and be consistent in all our statements and practices.

In a time when both sides have difficulty getting excited about the work of Christian unity, I hold that this is work worth doing. But it is a narrow path that takes great trepidation to walk. But it is also a path of love--love for the churches as they are and love for the vision of the unified Kingdom that Christ calls us to. With two outstretched arms, ecumenical workers try to hold both together and become the bridge between them. This is good work.