Home
Our Mission
Our Goals
Who We Are
Where We Are
Child Protection
Survivor Support
Clergy Support
Prayerful Voice
Positions
Statements
Educating Ourselves
Coming Events
History
Site Index
Contact Us
Links |
by Sean O'Conaill
(Published in Doctrine and Life, February 2003)
AS A TEACHER of history I had often to explain to pre-university
students how different the world was when it was governed by an
unquestionable hereditary nobility who monopolised wealth, power and
privilege. If I was still teaching I would probably now point to our own
Catholic Church as the last remaining vestige of that system.
However, Catholic teachers in Catholic schools are unhappily still only
too fearful of the consequences of doing any such thing.
Those students found it very difficult to get a real grip of a world in
which the fortunes of individuals were far less dependent upon their
abilities than upon the vagaries of patronage. Accountable to no one, in
a world where public examinations didn't exist, people of power had
absolute discretion in employing and promoting their own favourites -
and the obsequiousness required of an applicant was often corrupting and
bitterly resented. Not even the towering genius of a Mozart gave
immunity. His loss of the favour of one patron - the Prince Archbishop
of Salzburg - led to him being kicked down a flight of stairs by this
worthy's servant.
Sometimes good movies help explain the situation - and none is more
helpful than A Man for All Seasons. The opening sequences show
Lord Chancellor Thomas More, disillusioned by the corruption at the
court of Henry VIII, dealing with the overtures of a young graduate,
Richard Rich, who wants to find his way to that court, as a member of
More's retinue. Suspecting that Rich will be all too easily corruptible,
More suggests that he become a teacher instead. But Rich's eyes are
fixed too firmly upon a court appointment. When More turns him down,
Rich turns to another rising star at court, Thomas Cromwell.
Cromwell prevails upon Rich to give false testimony against More on the
matter of the king's marriage to Anne Boleyn. More goes to the block
while Rich becomes Attorney General of Wales.
While the actual history of this matter is probably not so clear cut,
the real connection between unaccountability, patronage and corruption
is made crystal clear in that film. How many Catholic churchmen are
aware that their own unaccountability, allied to their own power of
patronage, is a deeply corrupting circumstance in their own Church?
Take the simple fact that a bishop has virtually absolute discretion in
the matter of clerical appointments, and very considerable leverage in
the matter of appointments in most Catholic schools. Can this encourage
independence of mind and intellectual and moral integrity in present
circumstances in the Catholic educational system? My own experience and
recent observation strongly indicate the contrary.
THE LEDWITH CASE
Take, for example, what is now known as the Ledwith affair. The Ferns
Report concluded that the bishop trustees of Maynooth had been seriously
mistaken in their reaction to the reporting by Maynooth Dean Gerard
McGinnity in 1984 of inappropriate behaviour by Monsignor Ledwith in
relation to young seminarians. While Fr McGinnity had been sacked for
his effrontery, Ledwith had been promoted to the presidency of the
college - but had later been compelled to resign.
The McCullough Report into that affair had also discovered that Ledwith
was believed to have 'too much interest in a few' of the Maynooth
seminarians. It also declared that the investigation undertaken by some
of the bishop trustees of Maynooth into McGinnity's report had been
inadequate. Ledwith's rapid rise, and the trustees' brusque treatment of
McGinnity, suggest also that whereas Ledwith was a firm favourite of
those bishops in 1984, McGinnity most definitely was not.
Favouritism and patronage are close cousins. The power of an academic in
a university to help or hinder a student is notoriously prone to
corruptive exploitation. So, visibly, is the power of a bishop trustee
of Maynooth to help or hinder a member of the Maynooth staff by
promotion or the contrary. That bishop trustees are not accountable to
the Church community they serve is now a circumstance deeply troubling
to that Church community. The People of God should not need to be
beholden to secular institutions to regulate the leaders they themselves
finance. Many are already asking why their Church contributions should
be less effective in making their bishops accountable than their state
taxes and their television licence fees.
Is a trustee who has bankrupted the trust required by his office still,
de facto, a trustee?
The unaccountability of bishops means, of course, that they can safely
dodge that question. But the tendency of so many of those charged with
educating the Church, to dodge the Church's questions - now well
established after more than a decade - is in itself an abdication of
leadership, a challenge to faith, and a corrupting circumstance for
those below them in the chain of command. If a bishop cannot face direct
questions from his people, how can he persuasively ask a subordinate to
do so? And how, in the wake of the Ledwith affair, and in the absence,
so far, of any significant reparation to Fr McGinnity, can he argue that
integrity is a virtue favoured by the Catholic educational system
overall - especially at its pinnacle?
STUDENTS
Since retiring from teaching in Catholic schools in 1996 I have
maintained contact with colleagues. Without exception they confirm my
own strong suspicion: for a teacher to express serious criticism of
Irish Catholic Church leadership is still considered, by most teachers,
to be probably fatal to any prospect of promotion. Rightly or wrongly,
Catholic teachers believe that it is fatal to get 'on the wrong side of
the bishops' - and ambitious career teachers will edit their verbal
utterances accordingly.
That fear is in itself an obvious source of corruption. But the
corrupting influence does not stop there. Faced with the reality that
school authorities in Northern Ireland write references for them as part
of the university entrance system, many Catholic students in my time
tended to be utterly conformist in every respect until the end of final
school term; and then to express their indifference to (and some times
resentment of) their Church by abandoning all contact with it at that
point - forever. This can be confirmed simply by interrogating Catholic
university chaplains on the numbers of Catholic students who make any
kind of contact with them, and by scanning Church congregations for
young people in the age-range eighteen to thirty-five.
As the power of patronage, especially when accompanied by lack of
accountability, is so clearly a corrupting influence on our Church, the
case for making accountable those who dispense patronage is now
overwhelming. The problem is, of course, that, being unaccountable,
these dispensers of patronage do not need to agree.
Indeed, if we study Boston, the signs are that Church leaders are still
determined to prove that those who speak out with integrity will not
prosper. Priests who did so against Cardinal Archbishop Bernard Law
of Boston in 2002, forcing his resignation, have found themselves
penalised in the transfer process by his successor. And supporters of Fr
Gerard McGinnity who protested on his behalf at Armagh cathedral in late
2005 have been met with further whispered attempts to undermine his
reputation. No sign of reparation, or remorse, there. But then the
promotion of Cardinal Law to a prominent role in Rome by the late pope -
even more prominent since the death of John Paul II - sends the very
same message.
SEEKING INTEGRITY
The struggle for integrity is probably an endless one, especially for
the Christian. How sad that most of the appointed leaders of our Church,
in Ireland and elsewhere, have still not visibly committed themselves to
it, or been able to read the signs of the times.
For example, how many Irish bishops have recognised generously the
public service provided by the media in opening our eyes to the series
of scandals that have overwhelmed the Irish Catholic Church since 1994?
How many are moved to contrast the freedom of the secular press and
other media with the Byzantine secrecy with which the clerical Catholic
Church conducts its business? From the UTV documentary Suffer Little
Children on Brendan Smyth
in November 1994, to the BBC documentary Suing the Pope in 2002,
all forward progress in the Church's handling of the issue of clerical
child sex abuse has been driven by secular media revelation.
Nevertheless, there are still senior Irish bishops who blame the secular
media for all of the bad news they publish - as though most of that bad
news had not in fact been created by the clerical Church's own deceitful
denial of justice to those it has wronged, and denial of transparency to
the wider Church.
Why does information travel faster in secular culture than in the
culture of the Church? Why are secular journalists free to inform us lay
Catholics of our Church's internal shortcomings, while clergy feel
obliged to tell us nothing and to toe the party line? Here again the
reason is the corrupting effects of an unaccountable patronage system.
To put the situation in the bluntest terms, the best journalists are
paid to educate their readers, while Catholic clergy are rewarded only
for being loyal to bishops whose notion of education is mostly closer to
that of mushroom farmers: we lay people are to be kept totally in the
dark because the unaccountable patronage system (which they mistakenly
call 'the Church') has to be protected at all costs.
The tendency for this system to surround a bishop with servant
sycophants who simply cannot give their superior a 'reality check' is
now notorious in Ireland. It favours the deep-seated culture of denial
that prevents the hierarchy from getting a real grip of the situation.
It also causes deep fissures in the fraternal relations of clergy.
LEARNING BASIC CHRISTIANITY
Secular culture is therefore now teaching basic Christianity to a 'slow
learner' hierarchy - and that is the most profound reason for the rapid
secularisation of this island. Twenty years ago most people in Ireland
supposed religion to be the source of all morality. Our hierarchy have
now persuaded many of us that religion is just as likely to be the enemy
of morality - when it denies us the truth, and often justice as well.
It is not as though the Ferns Report is completely unchallengeable
either. The Report comes badly unstuck when it says (p. 256) 'bishops
put the interests of the church ahead of children'. Those children were
also - all - equal members of the Church, and the Church as a spiritual
community has been deeply injured by the action of those bishops, so
this is strictly nonsense. However, we cannot expect an Irish bishop to
say so. The reason is that what was actually put before children was the
closed clerical system that is so clearly misgoverning the Church -
which every bishop is nevertheless oath-bound to protect as though it
was the Church.
It needs to be said clearly: a secular culture in which power is
dispersed has been shown to be more likely to permit the reign of truth
and the growth to adulthood of the Catholic laity - and to prevent
abuses of power that the current Church system did nothing to prevent.
It is therefore superior, in terms of Christian morality and education,
to a medieval system in which the power and status of an unaccountable
oligarchy has been prioritised as though it was the will of God - even
after that system has been clearly shown, to the whole world, to be
dangerous to the bodies and souls of children.
To put an end to a corrupt and corrupting system, unaccountable control
of Church patronage must therefore be ended as rapidly as possible by
those who actually fund it - the Catholic laity. Until full
accountability has been institutionalised in our Church, we fund the
present system at peril to the very survival of the truths and values
that are our foundation. At present we are actually participants in
corruption, because we give free rein to those who control the patronage
system of the Church, who remain unaccountable, who wield that patronage
still to maintain their 'authority', and who have (mostly) learned too
few of the most important lessons of the past eleven years.
|
VOTF™
Mission Statement
To provide a prayerful voice, attentive to the Spirit,
through which the Faithful can actively participate in the governance
and guidance of the Catholic Church.
Our Goals
1. To support
survivors of clergy sexual abuse.
2. To support priests of integrity
3.To shape structural change within the Catholic Church.
|
