Sorry is just not enough. I have been reading through all of the responses to the Archbishop McCarrick case and the Pennsylvania grand jury findings by various bishops from around the United States. Those whose responses I have gotten through all say essentially the same thing: "It is terrible that these things have happened;" "It is a tragedy that clerics have violated the sacred trust of their offices;" and other similar statements that all culminated with: "We are sorry."
Our Lord's example of mercy calls to us as we read these various expressions of sorrow over the sins of their brothers, past and present. While the Lord was all about forgiveness in his ministry, he was also about justice as we recall from St. Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 21:12-16) as he responded to abuses by the temple leadership and cleansed the temple of profiteers (who were undoubtedly giving kickbacks to the leadership). Justice is what is needed now.
I think looking at how large secular organizations deal with failures of leadership might be instructive. Although large corporations have as their primary goals earning profits for themselves and their share holders; fiscal and fiduciary responsibility, we can look at the church leadership in this instance as having the parallel responsibility for the care of the spiritual wealth of its members.
When a president or chief executive officer if found to be tolerating or exhibiting behaviors that are counter to the companies stated standards and objectives, even if they are essentially the top of the heap, they are removed, fired, and in some cases sent to jail. There are severe consequences to leaders who fail to live up to behaviors expected of their jobs as executives.
We can use as an example the recent story of John Schnatter founder and CEO at Papa John's Pizza. He was heard using racial slurs in a business meeting (the "N" word) and was immediately fired from his post and removed from all events that represented the organization he founded.
If a secular company (and Papa John's is by no means alone - there are numerous examples) holds its leadership to the highest levels on ethical and moral behavior, should the Catholic Church do less? There has been a long standing culture of "mercy" within the Catholic hierarchy. The leaders no doubt thought they were protecting the reputation of the Church by keeping quiet about gross infidelity to the most sacred vows taken by the celibate clergy. But in the end, it is clearly a moral failure on the part of our bishops if they do anything but allow secular law to have precedence, especially since the Code of Canon Law does not adequately address these moral failures.
Of course that begs the question: "Why doesn't the Code of Canon Law specifically address these issues?" Why doesn't the Code of Canon Law hold its leaders to the highest standards of behavior? Sacred scripture certainly does:
"Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?
He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment. He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap." (1 Timothy 3:2-7)
I suspect the Code of Canon Law does address these issues at a broad level. However, who could have anticipated such a moral failure coming from such a high office? I suppose anyone who studied Church History of the Middle-ages would have.
If the bishops want to find a way to redeem themselves and regain the trust of the people of the flock, they must find a way to hold themselves accountable so that speedy justice may fall on any who violate the guiding moral principles of the Church.
I conclude by saying that in my thirty-three years of ordained ministry I was never ashamed to be a member of the Church hierarchy, until now. My saving grace is I don't need to wear clerics on a daily basis.
Pax
Our Lord's example of mercy calls to us as we read these various expressions of sorrow over the sins of their brothers, past and present. While the Lord was all about forgiveness in his ministry, he was also about justice as we recall from St. Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 21:12-16) as he responded to abuses by the temple leadership and cleansed the temple of profiteers (who were undoubtedly giving kickbacks to the leadership). Justice is what is needed now.
I think looking at how large secular organizations deal with failures of leadership might be instructive. Although large corporations have as their primary goals earning profits for themselves and their share holders; fiscal and fiduciary responsibility, we can look at the church leadership in this instance as having the parallel responsibility for the care of the spiritual wealth of its members.
When a president or chief executive officer if found to be tolerating or exhibiting behaviors that are counter to the companies stated standards and objectives, even if they are essentially the top of the heap, they are removed, fired, and in some cases sent to jail. There are severe consequences to leaders who fail to live up to behaviors expected of their jobs as executives.
We can use as an example the recent story of John Schnatter founder and CEO at Papa John's Pizza. He was heard using racial slurs in a business meeting (the "N" word) and was immediately fired from his post and removed from all events that represented the organization he founded.
If a secular company (and Papa John's is by no means alone - there are numerous examples) holds its leadership to the highest levels on ethical and moral behavior, should the Catholic Church do less? There has been a long standing culture of "mercy" within the Catholic hierarchy. The leaders no doubt thought they were protecting the reputation of the Church by keeping quiet about gross infidelity to the most sacred vows taken by the celibate clergy. But in the end, it is clearly a moral failure on the part of our bishops if they do anything but allow secular law to have precedence, especially since the Code of Canon Law does not adequately address these moral failures.
Of course that begs the question: "Why doesn't the Code of Canon Law specifically address these issues?" Why doesn't the Code of Canon Law hold its leaders to the highest standards of behavior? Sacred scripture certainly does:
"Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?
He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment. He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap." (1 Timothy 3:2-7)
I suspect the Code of Canon Law does address these issues at a broad level. However, who could have anticipated such a moral failure coming from such a high office? I suppose anyone who studied Church History of the Middle-ages would have.
If the bishops want to find a way to redeem themselves and regain the trust of the people of the flock, they must find a way to hold themselves accountable so that speedy justice may fall on any who violate the guiding moral principles of the Church.
I conclude by saying that in my thirty-three years of ordained ministry I was never ashamed to be a member of the Church hierarchy, until now. My saving grace is I don't need to wear clerics on a daily basis.
Pax
