The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe Policy Myth versus 'Accountability with Teeth'
by John L Allen Jr on Sep. 09, 2011
Mythology is not only loads of fun, but often highly profitable. For proof, look no further than this: Dan Brown has written a book about the Vatican, which was pure fantasy; I’ve also written a book about the Vatican, which, if I do say so myself, has a fairly decent grasp of the basic realities. Care to guess which one sold better?
Yet mythology is also dangerous, never more so than when it fosters misleading diagnoses of serious problems. We’ve seen two good examples recently vis-à-vis the Vatican, both involving the sexual abuse crisis.
The bit of mythology in play, which we might call the “Policy Myth”, is the following: When Rome says “jump,” everyone in the Catholic Church responds, “how high?” If there’s a problem in the church, therefore, it must be due to some Vatican policy (either explicit or secret); to resolve the problem, the trick is to get the Vatican to issue new marching orders.
As the Italians would say, Magari! If only it were as simple as flipping a switch in Rome, and all would be well. Catholicism, however, is a remarkably decentralized system with regard to everything other than doctrine, so the correlation between Roman instructions and application on the ground is rarely exact. Putting the focus on policy obscures what is often the far more decisive question of accountability for how it’s implemented.
The two instances where the Policy Myth has cropped up most recently involve a lawsuit in Oregon, and a highly public standoff between the Vatican and the Irish government.
The Oregon case
In late August, the Vatican released what it said were all the documents in its possession related to the case of Fr. Andrew Ronan, a onetime Servite priest born in Armagh, Ireland, who was laicized in 1966, after serving both in Ireland and America, and who died in 1992. In 2002, an American who says that Ronan abused him in 1965 filed suit in federal district court in Oregon, naming the Vatican as a defendant.
The heart of the suit, as conceived by attorney Jeffrey Anderson, is that every priest in the Catholic Church is a Vatican employee. The case has already made legal history, in that it’s the first instance in which an American judge has approved limited requests for discovery, meaning requests for documents and other information, despite the Vatican’s status as a sovereign entity under international law.
For sure, the documents released last month don’t cast church officials in an especially flattering light. Servite leaders in Ireland became aware of Ronan’s sexual misconduct with seminarians in 1959, triggering a transfer to the United States but no other measures that might have kept further victims out of harm’s way. In 1966, officials were still hoping that Ronan could leave the priesthood, at his own request, “quietly and without any open scandal.”
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
What the documents also show, however, is that prior to 1966, when a petition for laicization reached Rome (and was swiftly granted), the Vatican had heard of Andrew Ronan exactly once: In 1953, when the Servites requested a routine exemption from church law to allow him to serve as a novice master despite being under the established age. There’s no indication the Vatican was even aware of Ronan’s 1959 transfer from Ireland to America, or of confidential correspondence among Servite officials about Ronan’s propensity for what one 1963 letter described as “this perversion.”
From the record, it seems that failure to deal more aggressively with Ronan was not really a breakdown in policy so much as prudential judgment. Indeed, when Ronan’s name was floated for a seminary assignment in 1963, a Servite provincial wrote the order’s top official to insist that giving Ronan the job would be “contrary to all precepts of the church.”
What this means in terms of the Vatican’s legal exposure, I’m not competent to say. Analytically, however, the problem with thinking that the Ronan case is primarily about Vatican policy is that it takes everyone else involved off the hook. It also suggests the abuse could have been prevented if only the Vatican had a different set of policies, which, as we will see below, isn’t necessarily so.
The Row between Ireland and the Vatican
Last Saturday, the Vatican released an unusually detailed 11,000-word statement in response to criticism by Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny, which came in the wake of a critical government report on the rural Cloyne diocese. It found that abuse allegations were mishandled in Cloyne as recently as 2009, despite pledges of “zero tolerance” from the bishops.
Kenny laid much of the responsibility at the Vatican’s doorstep, saying on July 20 that the report illustrates “the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism … the narcissism that dominates the culture of the Vatican to this day.”
Central both to Kenny’s criticism and the Vatican reply is a 1997 letter from the papal nuncio, or ambassador, to the Irish bishops, relaying comments from the Congregation for Clergy in Rome. The letter advised the Irish bishops that some elements of a draft set of sex abuse guidelines the bishops had developed in 1996, including support for “mandatory reporter” policies on child abuse, could conflict with canon law.
That letter has been repeatedly cited as affording cover to church officials who swept abuse cases under the rug. The Vatican, however, said the letter was not intended to prevent the bishops from reporting child abuse to the police, but to make sure that possible conflicts with church law would not allow abusers to evade ecclesial punishment on a technicality.
Whatever gloss one adopts, here’s the key point: The breakdowns in Cloyne continued well after the Vatican had adopted tough new policies on abuse, including an expectation of cooperation with police and prosecutors. The basic failure in Cloyne was not a lack of policy from Rome, therefore, but rather the stubborn unwillingness of a bishop and the coterie around him to implement it.
The most astute observation came from Dublin’s outspoken Archbishop Diarmuid Martin –who, to be clear, is nobody’s idea of a lapdog for Rome or an apologist for the church’s record on the abuse crisis. With reference to the leadership in Cloyne under former Bishop John Magee, Martin dismissed the idea that a “smoking gun” in the Vatican could explain their choices.
“The fact is that these same people … continued to reject the clear norms approved by Pope Benedict when they were published,” Martin said. “They were people who regarded only their own views and would take no note of study documents, of framework documents or even of approved papal norms.”
(Magee, by the way, served as a private secretary to three popes -- Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. Perhaps that helps explain why he and the people around him felt free to follow their own lead, flouting not only the policies of the Irish bishops but also the new dispensation from Rome.)
Policy and Accountability
Here we arrive at the nub of what makes the Policy Myth dangerous. The Vatican can issue all the edicts and amendments to canon law it wants, but that’s no guarantee, and never has been, that they’ll be faithfully implemented.
Roma locuta est, causa finita est may be a terrific legal epigram, but it only goes so far in capturing real-world Catholic practice.
Formal policy, of course, is critically important. New norms adopted by the Vatican since 2001 represent a step forward, as do the policies adopted by various bishops’ conferences. Yet as Martin put it, policies remain words on paper without an “on-going process of independent monitoring and reviewing of day-to-day practice.”
Bottom line: Both the Ronan case and the dispute between Ireland and the Vatican do indeed illustrate a serious problem in the church, but it’s not a problem of policy. It’s a problem of oversight and accountability. If the rule of astute statecraft is “trust but verify,” one would have to say that outside the strictly doctrinal realm, Catholicism is long on trust but sometimes woefully short on verification.
Smart bishops today get this. They know that when a church official anywhere mishandles important matters, such as charges of abuse, it damages their collective credibility – especially in a 24/7 global media environment, in which a scandal in an obscure place like Cloyne, with a total Catholic population the size of some American parishes, can become a worldwide cause célèbre.
That’s why Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, says in a forthcoming book-length interview with me that he would welcome new systems of “accountability with teeth” for bishops and other officials. Such checks and balances wouldn’t inhibit the teaching authority of bishops, he says, but enhance it, by giving people more confidence in the system.
In an interview just before his appointment to Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles Chaput struck a similar note: “We should have accountability for our actions in the church, and bishops should be as accountable as priests and laity,” he said. “I’m sympathetic to the idea that there should be real consequences, with teeth, to acting contrary to the law of the land, the discipline of the church, or the moral law of God.”
Forces interested in genuine reform would do well to press such leaders to put their money where their mouth is, fleshing out what “accountability with teeth” would look like – especially in a church with more than 5,000 bishops, as well as scores of religious communities and other jurisdictions, but just one pope. That effort, and not a fruitless quest for some magic bullet in Vatican policy, is where the action is.
American lawyers and Irish politicians alike, take note.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Cue the "but it's still all
Cue the "but it's still all the Vatican's fault..."
I told you so.
I told you so.
Given this situation of not
Given this situation of not having enough "smart" bishops around, you have to ask where were the smart ones when they came up with oncoming worldwide train wreck of the imposition of the new English translation of the Roman Missal? If anything, this act of stupidity will do more harm to Church credibility in local dioceses come the First Sunday of Advent than any sex scandal could, mainly because not every diocese is sex scandal ridden, but they will have an angry faithful saying stuff like "What's this 'consubstantial' crap? if I can't say it in under two syllables, forget it!"
I agree with you, JHF. It's a
I agree with you, JHF. It's a somewhat strange imposition on the laity. If you've ever studied Thomas Aquinas, you will recognize this latinized language. This change is an attempt by the Vatican to get back to what they call the original meaning of the text. Consubstantiation is a description of how the Trinity exists as three persons in one nature. It does seem to be a sort of obscure reference that maybe should be in a theology textbook. But with this current pope there's nothing like obscure references to fog up the people's minds, Maybe it's a slight of hand trick so we'll all forget the real problems of this church.
For an example of
For an example of "accountablity with teeth," look at how Rome has handled some of the recent cases of priests and bishops speaking in favor of (or in favor of speaking about the possibility of speaking about possibly being in favor of) women's ordination. Rome has acted swiftly--at least by Roman standards--to silence, remove, or force into retirement these men. When it chooses, the church seems very capable of overcoming the problems Allen highlights.
None of this reform would be
None of this reform would be necessary if the false idols in the Catholic church just did the right thing about child rape in the first place.
Here's what Jesus would do:
1) actively search for victims, making them want to come forward
2) heal the victims at any cost, paying unlimited money for therapy
3) put the pedophile priests in jail, and if local laws didn't allow it, create a church "dungeon"
4) create a public edict that says that pedophiles will not be forgiven in confession
5) tell the truth, admit guilt, apologize genuinely and profusely
The Vatican does the exact opposite of everything above. They are the false idols God warned you about, and God couldn't have made it simpler.
Why can we see that, while
Why can we see that, while they can't :( ?
"What this means in terms of the Vatican’s legal exposure, I’m not competent to say. Analytically, however, the problem with thinking that the Ronan case is primarily about Vatican policy is that it takes everyone else involved off the hook. It also suggests the abuse could have been prevented if only the Vatican had a different set of policies, which, as we will see below, isn’t necessarily so."
The Vatican would have had very different policies if Rome had not patronised (instead of rebuking) a toxic notion of the clergy that had the practical result of making the laity second-class Catholics. Because they were second-class, and because the teaching of Jesus was less important than Rome's ideas about the teaching of Jesus, dreadful warnings by Jesus about the punishment of those who scandalise the little ones were either forgotten, or Romified so as to support the Roman ideology. The care of the weak and defenceless was sacrificed to a cult of the priesthood, that made the clergy into inhumanly pure and angelic beings. And all this preposterousness was topped of with an ideology of the episcopate that rendered any Catholic who took a bishop to court subject to excommunication for doing so. That is a perfect example of a law that was intended to protect the clergy from injustice, becoming a law with which to protect suspected wrongdoers in the episcopate from being tried by their fellow-Catholics - or by anyone else.
My guess is that a great deal more pus is still to come out of this very large and old boil. The one consolation is, that it has been lanced, largely by Catholics.
Jesus who? I hope you're
Jesus who? I hope you're talking about a nice Mexican man, because the only Jesus we read about in the gospels doesn't talk about dungeons and teaches us to forgive seven times seventy times.
Jesus loves all people, there
Jesus loves all people, there is no way He would put people in dungeons. In reading Scripture I find Jesus sitting with sinners. His very presence led people into repentance.What we need is a call to repentance of all the people in the Catholic Church, for failing to create a community where Gods love can truly find expression. My prayer would be that we as Catholics surrender ourselves to God Mercy and seek his face as to the way the Church should go.
John's comments are, as
John's comments are, as always, thought provoking. I find one clear example that suggests John's insights are slightly off the mark: Bishop Morris.
Rome has "limited" power over some things, and absolute power over others. If the Pope can sack a bishop for the mere suggestion that women be ordained at some point in the future, he can sack a bishop for carelessly reassigning pediphiles."If only it weren't so!"
On problems with the “Policy
On problems with the “Policy Myth” . . . when Rome says “jump,” everyone in the Catholic Church responds, “how high?”
I doubt if anyone who knows anything about the Church seriously believes this. In any case, it's not the real problem, is it? What is not mythological, however, and is certainly part of the rpblem, is the conception of ecclesiastical accountability. Archbp. Chaput is quoted as saying that we -- bishops, priests, laity -- should be held accountable. But what does this mean in real life? To whom should we -- laity, priests, bishops -- be accountable. All to often, it seems, the Church's view of accountability is limited to a hierarchical accountability upwards: e.g., the laity to their local pastors, priests to their bishops, bishops to the Pope and Curia. (and the Pope to -- ?)
But should there not also be an accountability downwards? (I use downwards, of course, as a relative term) Should there not also be a sense in which the ordained, be they priests, bishops, or popes, are accountable to the faithful? How should that accountability be exercised?
I may be wrong, but I doubt if this is what Archbp. Chaput has in mind. How would he translate "Servus servorum Dei," and what would he mean by it, I wonder?
Begs the question,
Begs the question, accountable to whom?
The Son of God personally
The Son of God personally chose and trained His Twelve Apostles for three years but that did not stop them from selling Him out, denying Him running from the Cross except for John and Judas taking his own life. Neither does flawed human nature prevent lawyers from lying, bishops from trashing their accused clergy canonically and in civil law. Or police from taking bribes, and married and single public school teachers from abusing minors in 2011, and US and UK soldiers from abusing prisoners.
Nor does being a practical Irish Catholic Taoiseach (Prime Minister) from blaming the Pope in a savage libel for the failures of his three predecessors' secretary for ignoring his brother bishops' and this Pope's clear guidelines when he was bishop of Cloyne as he allowed his VG to mix up his concern for the clergy and protection of minors.
The answer is conversion, not laws or policies or overseers unless the conversion includes a sincere effort to provide justice to all.
These guys are on track. The
These guys are on track. The American bishops' 2002 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People is a good system. Unfortunately, it relies of self-reporting by pastors and farther downstream by bishops. I am a pastor and I periodically receive forms from the diocese that require me to report on the implementation of the charter in my parish. Parish clergy, staff, and volunteers are required to have background checks and training in order to comply with the charter. I can fill out these forms any way I choose, checking "yes" or "no" at my whim and convenience. Some of it can be verified by the diocese, but some of it can't. I do, from time to time, fudge my answers on the forms because I fail to do the necessary work. But I get away with it because, as the above piece points out, "Catholicism is long on trust but sometimes woefully short on verification". If I'm doing it, I have to believe other guys are doing it, and that includes some bishops. Does this expose our children and young people to possible abuse? Yes it does. What's an overworked, underfunded pastor or bishop to do? I don't know. But if the church is to be honest and the charter is to work, there must be some kind of enforcement, oversight, and penalties for non-compliance.
Come on, John, if the Vatican
Come on, John, if the Vatican were long on trust and short on accountability, the pope wouldn't have sent an archbishop from Denver to Australia to dig up dirt on a bishop who dared to use the words woman and ordination in the same sentence. At the same time Bishop Magee still chairs his diocese despite evidence that he has violated both civil and church law. The church publishes policy to try to get itself off the hook, but the actual policy is in its actions. The vatican has no problem enforcing what it deems to be important and using "published" policy for what it doesn't.
"the pope wouldn't have sent
"the pope wouldn't have sent an archbishop from Denver to Australia to dig up dirt on a bishop who dared to use the words woman and ordination in the same sentence."
Er, not quite. I mean, if Bp Morris had written a sentence saying 'women were not suitable candidates for ordination' do you seriously think Chaput would have appeared? Of course not.
Bishop Morris publicly raised the possibility of women being ordained and (equally serious) of recognising orders of Protestant denominations.
Here is the relevant statement in his Advent 2006 letter:
************************
"Given our deeply held belief in the primacy of Eucharist for the identity, continuity and life of each parish community, we may well need to be much more open towards other options for ensuring that Eucharist may be celebrated. As has been discussed internationally, nationally and locally the ideas of:
• ordaining married, single or widowed men who are chosen and endorsed by their local parish
community;
• welcoming former priests, married or single, back to active ministry;
• ordaining women, married or single;
• recognising Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting Church Orders"
***********************
Now, Bishop Morris, author of this statement, has his own take on these words.
In response to a hostile (accurate?) article, here is his 'translation' of these utterances - which he made in plain English:
****
The article says, “in his 2006 Advent Pastoral Letter, Bishop Morris stated that, ‘if Rome would allow it,’ he would be prepared to ordain married priests and women priests. He also said that, due to an ageing clergy, the Church should be open to recognising the validity of Anglican, Lutheran, and Uniting Church Orders.”
At no time in my Pastoral letter of 2006 did I make such statements.
I acknowledged that there are discussions of these issues in places around the world which is not saying that I actively support them or promote them but simply a statement of fact. The editorial said that I had canvassed these ideas which is also wrong.
***
So when Bishop Morris said: "we may well need to be much more open towards other options", he was not saying he actively supported them, or promoted them or canvassed them !!! He was simply acknowledging that "there are discussions of these issues in places around the world." !!!
George Orwell, where are you now?
"Accountability with teeth"
"Accountability with teeth" yes, this is what is needed. But it would help a lot if the bishops in a country could come together and make a decision for their country. This has not happened thus far in the United States because the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCC)is not permitted to make a decision for their country. They can come together to talk about it, and can even recommend a policy as happened under Bishop Wilton Gregory in 2002 ("Zero Tolerance"). But canon law still permits each individual bishop to act on his own. Each bishop can do what he wants in his own diocese as long as he conforms to Vatican rules, not those of the USCC. The Vatican claims complete jurisdiction over the whole world. So it seems that the Vatican should take a good deal of the blame for whatever happens. The buck stops there.
"So it seems that the Vatican
"So it seems that the Vatican should take a good deal of the blame for whatever happens. The buck stops there."
It should. The Starship "Enterprise" (class: NCC-1701; commander: Capt. James T. Kirk) is refreshingly moral & responsible by comparison. One stardate, long after the Federation is old "history", the Papacy may actually get round to having as much of a sense of responsibility as a fictitious character in a "space opera". For now, the Vatican is behaving more like a sarlacc.
There may yet be a positive
There may yet be a positive outcome arising out of the sorry state of church-state relations in Ireland. The Irish people have crossed the Rubicon with the church of Rome and now know that a modern state cannot entrust core functions including education to men who swish about in soutanes.
The Irish republic must establish (as with any modern state) a public school system free of compulsory sectarian studies. Let those who want religious education (of whatever flavor) receive it from their house of worship in after school education.
Mr. Allen, do you really believe Bishop Magee, a Vatican insider, is some sort of rogue actor? Was Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos of the infamous letter to the French bishop cheerleading coverups and non-reporting to police ever deprived of his red hat? Actions speak louder than words, even 11,000 word responses fashioned by the gimlet eye of the canon lawyer.
Allen's technically right
Allen's technically right here: "The basic failure in Cloyne was not a lack of policy from Rome, therefore, but rather the stubborn unwillingness of a bishop and the coterie around him to implement it."
Allen doesn't admit, however that this "stubborn" (and reckless and secretive) "unwillinngess" to act is, indeed, Rome's fault. Because Rome virtually never enforces church abuse policy.
Reminder: It took decades, massive media coverage and dozens of victims before Rome "invited" Maciel to "lead a life of prayer." Reminder: out of an estimated 100,000+ child molesting clerics across the globe, only a few hundred have ever been defrocked by Rome. Reminder: Only a handful of complicit church supervisors have ever been disciplined, in any way, by Rome.
So it's fairly cleary why Irish church officials didn't suddenly reverse centuries of deceit surrounding child sex crimes. Why should they, when those at the top talk openness but practice secrecy?
David Clohessy, SNAP
If there's someone who has
If there's someone who has less credibility than the bishops it's David Clohessy and SNAP. There is nothing in heaven or on earth that Rome could do that would satisfy Clohessy.
The people who blew the
The people who blew the whistle on sex abuse in the Church are David Clohessy and SNAP. It is a miracle that they could find each other and organize to hold the professional religious class accountable. If they can make a living that way, then, I say, it is right and just so to do.
While there are some good
While there are some good points to this article, it seems more like an article written by the Vatican defense attorney. If Rome just demanded unity on doctrinal matters, please inform us of the locations of all the parishes who will not obey the call to change the language of the english liturgy-a pastoral matter? The American Church has for years asked "how high" when the Vatican said "jump." Please John, we are not that naive. Some of us refuse to drink the Kool Aid.
I bought and read Dan Brown's
I bought and read Dan Brown's book, John. And I bought and read yours also - a much more fulfilling experience, I must say!
"Bottom line: Both the Ronan
"Bottom line: Both the Ronan case and the dispute between Ireland and the Vatican do indeed illustrate a serious problem in the church, but it’s not a problem of policy. It’s a problem of oversight and accountability."
And it is the Vatican that is responsible for oversight and accountability. They don't practice either. When Boston was in full meltdown in 2002, Bernard Law offered his resignation months before it was finally accepted, but John Paul II refused to accept it. When Law finally did flee to Rome, he received the cushiest of soft landings imaginable. This was a signal to every bishop that the Vatican expects them to cover-up abuses, and, even if such a bishop does get caught by the nasty press and victims, the Vatican will provide a plush retirement and safe have from prosecution.
Since the Vatican refuses to do its job, it is up to the press, the victims and the faithful to make sure criminal courts do theirs. When bishops start going to prison then they might get a clue.
So, folks, "Catholicism is a
So, folks, "Catholicism is a remarkably decentralized system with regard to EVERYTHING other than doctrine". There you have it from John Allen's mouth. Over the years I have not always agree with criticisms of John Allen - but here he reveals he is seriously delusional - or choosing not to look at reality. How about the appointment of bishops? Chaput, anyone? Or the sacking of bishops? Morris? How about the investigation of US nuns? How about the suppression of one new translation of the missal, and the imposition of another? One could go on and on, citing examples where decisions in both policy and practice are dictated, controlled, or forcibly changed at the local and international level by Vatican order.
The appointment of bishops is the best example, however. Currently, every bishop in the world is directly appointed by the Pope - and is answerable, when all is said and done, only to him. Local consultations can be, and often are, simply ignored when the Pope wants someone else. No doubt he consults some of his chosen advisors most of the time - those in the inner circle of Vatican power, including Rome appointed power-brokers around the world, like Pell in Sydney or George in Chicago - but the choice, the power, remains his. This is hardly decentralization, Mr Allen. It is not about doctrine, and it directly affects the life of the local church in basic ways.
Oh yes, then there was that pesky claim that the Roman Pontiff has direct and immediate spiritual and jurisdictional power over every individual Catholic.
John - either take your meds or wake up and smell the coffee! Catholicism remarkably decentralized ??? Best laugh I've had all day! You just have to wonder why he said it, and if he really believes it - now that would be scary!
I am afraid I have to agree.
I am afraid I have to agree. John's argument is just not grounded in any reality that most people have experienced. I would agree that making something a policy does not gurantee it's success, but to pretend that Rome has no control over anything but doctrine is downright silly.
A hierarchy is a terrible model, but if they are continuing to employ it, you cannot have it both ways: either you are legally accountable or not. If not, stop micromanaging and let regional leadership lead. If so, then you are responsible, and litigation is appropriate. I am actually hopeful that our current structure will collapse under litigation, that we return to the margins, because we do not do well in power. The Vatican being its own state has always puzzled me, and seems so many distant steps removed from the first followers of the Way.
The Vatican can not
The Vatican can not micromanage the entire Church. That should be a given to anyone with half a brain.
ptoner is absolutely spot on
ptoner is absolutely spot on - I cannot see Our Lord acting like this.
You are using the word "myth"
You are using the word "myth" to be synonymous with fiction or duplicity or lying or error. Myth has a valuable meaning that is not derogatory. It has to do with spiritual ideas being formed within a culture over a long time through collective unconscious, shall we say, and it aims to be true in a way that is different from scientific truth. Myth does not mean wrong or stupid or malevolent.
Right on target: If you don't
Right on target:
If you don't distinguish, for instance, a Creation Myth from a popular best-seller, you'll end mixing Genesis with Dan Brown. Words have a meaning, and jugling with words is a dangerous game. To know more about the importance and onipresence of myth in all cultures and all along human history, just take a look at Mircea Eliade's history of religions.
Great assessment of this
Great assessment of this issue. Let it be so!
John's last paragraph says it
John's last paragraph says it all.
If Benedict wants the
If Benedict wants the Maryknolls to remove Ray Bourgeois he is gone. Roma locuta est.
Roma locuta
Roma locuta est.
----------------
Epitaph for a dead or dying institution out of touch with reality. Reminds me of Generalissimo Francisco Franco during the Spanish civil war having a man shot for criticizing the quality of the soup he had to drink in Franco's camp. Franco was forced to retreat and lost that particular struggle,but the quality of the soup remained terrible just the same. Applying discipline or punishment in the form of having one shot has its limits as effective punishment. It isn't a solution to your problem and you can end up destroying more of your own men than your enemy will.
The greatest event in European history in the last 500 years is taking place now amidst these pathetic calls to "Roma locut est". We're witnessing the demise of the last leg to the Roman imperial stool, the Catholic Church as an intellectual weapon and a force of authority. There are no armies, no kings and emperors to bribe or foreign fleet and armies to manipulate, no monopoly of information of any kind. With its wealth now in a very precarious state.
It remains the work of an eventual successor to Benedict to either continue the present course of ecclesial self-destruction by visionless and venal men out of touch and out of date, or to completely revamp and re-invent Catholicism. Without it, the RCC becomes little more than a quaint cult.
You ask for accountability.
You ask for accountability. Just look at the situation of Cardinal Law.
He should have been allowed to retire to a life of prayer and contemplation in a monastery.
The Roman Catholic Church,
The Roman Catholic Church, both local and at the top,needs a lesson in common sense. When a crime is committed, contact the secular authorities period. Priests have been getting a free pass on many illegal and immoral deeds for too many years, just because of the "backwards collar".
The Roman Catholic Church,
The Roman Catholic Church, both local and at the top,needs a lesson in common sense. When a crime is committed, contact the secular authorities period. Priests have been getting a free pass on many illegal and immoral deeds for too many years, just because of the "backwards collar".
===============================================================================
and don't forget his bishop's palm crossed dollar too.
Nice try, John. There may be
Nice try, John. There may be only one pope, but he is an absolute monarch who works his will whenever and wherever he chooses. Look what happened to the two prelates who dared to broach the issue of women's ordination. As for Dolan and Chaput, talk or--as my Tipperary-born father called it--blather is cheap. The Bishops have done a lot of talking about tough norms to protect our children. Kansas City and Philadelphia show how effective that blather has been. Dolan needs to stop drinking top-shelf Irish whiskey and glad-handing big shots and become a real bishop in the mold of Helder Camerar. Now that Chaput is virtually assured of his red hat, he should stop being the pope's hatchet man and try being a pastor.
"That’s why Archbishop
"That’s why Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, says in a forthcoming book-length interview with me that he would welcome new systems of “accountability with teeth” for bishops and other officials. Such checks and balances wouldn’t inhibit the teaching authority of bishops, he says, but enhance it, by giving people more confidence in the system."
Brave talk Archbishop, but you already know that dog won't hunt. The pope has already issued a directive that said that bishops are responsible only to him.
I think we once had
I think we once had "accountability with teeth." It was called the Inquisition. I say, be careful what we wish for.
TOO BIG TO FAIL.... NO
TOO BIG TO FAIL....
NO ACCOUNTABILITY ANYWHERE...
PARISH PRIESTS ABUSING PARISHIONERS and
we have no where to turn. NOT JUST SEX ABUSE,
OR IS IT? Since most us of parish workers are women.
What a HOAX the Roman church calling itself
"catholic" and calling itself a "church".
The Vatican, the Bishops, the Pastors are FAILING
in "being church" in "being the Kingdom of God".
In GOOD CONSCIENCE I had to leave my abuser.
Dear Mr Allen, Doctrine is
Dear Mr Allen,
Doctrine is not the same thing as policy. That is all.
James
It has been obvious for years
It has been obvious for years that an institution w/ one person at the head & 5000+ middle managers cannot function well. If AB Dolan & Mr. Allen finally recognize that, maybe they will start listening to organizations such as Voice of [some of] the Faithful, who have been advocating non-doctrinal changes in the structure of the institution for years. If so, I would like to see what AB Dolan proposes, & a column from Mr. Allen on the subject, as well.
I wonder about investigative
I wonder about investigative journalist Carmelo Abbate, he too recently wrote a book about the Vatican; in relation to it's hypocrasy, active homosexuality in the ranks and gay bars, seminarians and clergy affairs and their offspring, the ones whose lives weren't snuffed out through abortion that is.
No libel action so far, just silence.
Hoping to get a couple of copies to send to those who can read Italian and French, there's a few in Australia, if they don't already have one of course.
Well stated. The most
Well stated. The most important piece of the puzzle still missing in the Church's response to the mishandling of sexual abuse claims is a set of norms for holding bishops and major superiors accountable for disregarding norms. Since so many cases of sexual abuse were reported decades after they occurred, said norms would have done little to change the current situation. They would, however, help to reduce the number of future cases.
It's nice that Archbishops
It's nice that Archbishops Dolan and Chaput are talking about the need for accountability for the child abuse crisis. The Vatican can demonstrate very easily that this is all more than mere talk, and it doesn't have to reach very far to do it. It can strip Cardinal Bernard Law of the cushy and prestigious post he now has in Rome. "In a church with more than 5,000 bishops, as well as scores of religious communities and other jurisdictions, but just one pope," surely the one pope isn't powerless to start demonstrating accountability in his own backyard.
It is not clear what John
It is not clear what John Allen is trying to say here, but it appears he is carrying water for the Vatican in the media as the Vatican faces efforts to place culpability upon its shoulders for priestly abuse. Allen uses the 1) foreign government argument, 2) the bundling bureaucracy argument, 3) everything is done at the local level argument, 4)there is no mechanicism for enforcement of Vatican edicts argument, ad nauseum.
However, ask oneself: "When the Vatican wants to go after one of its bishops and priests for something, when has the Vatican not be able to do so even in the outback of places like Australia?"
With all due respect
With all due respect John,
What kind of shot is that "Irish politician" remark?
Neither the "Irish politicians" nor the "American lawyers" systematically allowed the abuse of children.
The most convincing "accountability with teeth" is a jail cell door slamming shut behind the perpetrators.
Bishops are not exempt from the laws of the countries in which they operate. Period. Just like everyone else.
Please tell me what is so difficult to understand about that.
I agree with John Allen on
I agree with John Allen on the issue of accountability .....He touches on an aspect of how businesses and corporations live or die in the business world.The idea that the Clerics in the Church from the Pope on down to the "lowly" Parish Priest have no evaluation system as to their performance is a major reason why we get miserable sermons and more importantly why there is frequently no growth in the quality of Catholic services.It seems that once a priest is ordained that he is guaranteed a "job" forever regardless of his performance...This goes equally for Bishops who seem to forget that they are first and formost Priests long before they become bishops....
If we had a system whereby Priests were evaluated on a regular basis by their parishioners according to an objective protocol their performance would improve or there would be consequences. CEOs in every major company serve at the will of their Boards and unless they perform satisfactorily they are out of their positions.
Good idea, Gene Clarke: I
Good idea, Gene Clarke:
I agree. Even if the diocese had a publicly known evaluation system.
Sermons would be a great place to start!.
Also the music.
Perhaps a parish could have its own club which evaluates the priest.
I guess it would have to meet outside the church property.
I wonder if they do have job descriptions and goals for priests? Anyone know?
Without brains but with
Without brains but with teeth:
Your comments reveal an appalling view about what's happening in the Vatican and the church: with teeth, like wolves, but without brains, like the sheep. The flock is going astray, haven't you noticed? There are no Good Shepards anymore. Just a bunch of blind bureaucrats, leading the lambs into the abyss. Please: look at the mirror. You are not an example of Christianity and sanity. Dan Brown was better: he just wanted to gain some bucks and didn't harm the faithful. You have your bucks and privileges, as a servant of the powerful, but you have too the capacity to harm a lot Our - not your's - common Faith.
Mr. Allen: Need material
Mr. Allen: Need material for a new book? Have you been to Boston lately? The current Cardinal/Archbishop is asleep at the switch and seems accountable to no one, while the Roman Catholic Church is crumbling.
I repent my tendency to blame
I repent my tendency to blame everything on the Pope. Now I wait for some repentance on the part of those who say: If the Pope hasn't said it, its not valid.
This is a good article.
This is a good article. "Trust but Verify" is a good idea and practice whose idea has come. In the past this would be more difficult but today less so.
There is no "magic bullet of policy" from the Vatican that will instantly stop problems of sex abuse by priests. Agreed. And this idea that every Catholic priests is an employee of the Vatican is indeed based on some mythology.
"The heart of the suit, as
"The heart of the suit, as conceived by attorney Jeffrey Anderson, is that every priest in the Catholic Church is a Vatican employee. The case has already made legal history, in that it’s the first instance in which an American judge has approved limited requests for discovery, meaning requests for documents and other information, despite the Vatican’s status as a sovereign entity under international law."
I quote John Allen's article concerning a lawsuit against the Vatican by attorney Jeffrey Anderson. Mr. Anderson also has suggested that all bishops are employees of this so-called sovereign state. I wish to counter John Allen's point of " a policy myth" that somehow the Vatican is not responsible for its bishops' decisions, suggesting that the bishops are independent of Rome. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If the pope wants to remove a bishop, he can do so immediately and without any cause. To say that bishops are independent contractors is ridiculous. They are not only employees of the Vatican but they are servants to it as well. One step out of line, and they are removed. The real myth is that Vatican policies do not affect the decisions of bishops. What other reason then for ad limina visits to Rome every four years?
Terrific, and sobering,
Terrific, and sobering, article.
I take your point about the
I take your point about the Vatican "issuing all the edicts and amendments to canon law it wants, but that’s no guarantee, and never has been, that they’ll be faithfully implemented." Yet the Vatican sits at the tip of an autocratic governance structure (absolute monarchy) that perpetuates this situation. Nothing will really change until new forms of governance are developed. The Pope is an autocrat; bishops are autocrats; parish priests are autocrats. It's *impossible* for "accountability with teeth" to exist in an autocracy because it would impinge on the existing powers of the bishops etc.
"Forces interested in genuine reform" would be wasting their time to "press such leaders to put their money where their mouth is." It would be much more effective for the faithful to funnel their money around parishes and diocese to where it is ultimately spent until structures of governance develop that reflect authentic transparency and accountability.
In the meantime, even though the Vatican can't guarantee implementation of its policies, it can still intimidate and coerce, as in the current situation with Levada and the journal Theological Studies.
Dear John, you write,
Dear John, you write, "Catholicism, however, is a remarkably decentralized system with regard to everything other than doctrine." John, are you deaf, dumb, and blind?
"Catholicism, however, is a
"Catholicism, however, is a remarkably decentralized system with regard to everything other than doctrine, so the correlation between Roman instructions and application on the ground is rarely exact. Putting the focus on policy obscures what is often the far more decisive question of accountability for how it’s implemented."
## That is where the Vatican has put the emphasis in its attempts at self-justification in Ireland: on policy, not on moral things such as accountability for how policy is implemented.
“The fact is that these same people … continued to reject the clear norms approved by Pope Benedict when they were published,” Martin said. “They were people who regarded only their own views and would take no note of study documents, of framework documents or even of approved papal norms.”
## So why were they elected bishops, or else, chosen by bishops to work for them ? A business run this incompetently would collapse. Maybe the CC is a Super-Giganta-Enron, "too big to fail".
"That’s why Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, says in a forthcoming book-length interview with me that he would welcome new systems of “accountability with teeth” for bishops and other officials. Such checks and balances wouldn’t inhibit the teaching authority of bishops, he says, but enhance it, by giving people more confidence in the system."
## Some sackings of bishops would not be undeserved.
"In an interview just before his appointment to Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles Chaput struck a similar note: “We should have accountability for our actions in the church, and bishops should be as accountable as priests and laity,” he said. “I’m sympathetic to the idea that there should be real consequences, with teeth, to acting contrary to the law of the land, the discipline of the church, or the moral law of God.”"
## Not before time.
"Bottom line: Both the Ronan case and the dispute between Ireland and the Vatican do indeed illustrate a serious problem in the church, but it’s not a problem of policy. It’s a problem of oversight and accountability."
The Vatican seems not to agree - it has not yet admitted any responsibility for the simply indescribable way in which it has behaved. It's all very well to blame the Irish state, but if it had not kow-towed to the men in mitres, they would probably have issued a few excommunications until their will was done - look how they behave in the US ! No consideration of the past life of the Irish State that ignores the power & might of the over-mighty hierarchs and priests & religious can be historically balanced or honest or complete. So blaming the State won't wash.
America needs a true
America needs a true synodical system of governance with all bishops equal, with an equal voice, and not puppets of the Patriarch of Rome. Archbishop Dolan and his colleagues may be truly holy men, but they owe their flocks far more than simply being functioning as parrots for the Vatican.
USCCB should set up its
USCCB should set up its website, parallel to bishopaccountability, with the names and photos of all priests credibily accused. The shame of having one's naem listed on such a forum, hopefully will act as a deterrent. I am sure most of the lawsuits would go away. the "abused" are interested in acknowledgment,rather than financial compensation.
...Whaaaat? No compensation?
...Whaaaat? No compensation? Sue the whole lot and render their rings into a form of real currency. In Ratzinger's case some baroque casket closures. I saw him televised from the Vatican recently and he was offered a hand up for support. Not much longer and a library of secrets will find it's way to burial beneath St. Peter's. The affrontery. The unholy house of lies shudders. This is what happens when the devil holds your dance card, and there's a whole lot of jitterbugging going on...ask his not so holiness for the key to the Vatican vaults in the Swiss mountains and prepare the senior citizen they call 'holy' for quite the finale.I maintain a distance as to avoid the soul sucking power of the Vatican vortex.
The idea that bishops will
The idea that bishops will ever voluntarily hold one another accountable, or be accountable to their constituency is the real myth. We have bishops who have refused to comply with the Dallas Charter... the USCCB has done nothing to discipline them. In fact, one was just promoted head to the Diocese of Santa Rosa.
At very least, the USCCB should have refused to seat in voting sessions or consider in good standing these non-compliant bishops. They have not done so.
Roman Catholics have a
Roman Catholics have a greater obligation to their own conscience. They cannot continue to participate in serious sin by supporting a morally bankrupt hierarchy who have lost their primary function: to be icons of Christ on earth and of his apostles. It's obvious that iconography has been besmirched.
You owe to yourself to remove yourself from under their omophorion and embrace the One, True, and Holy Orthodox Faith of the Fathers.
"Forces interested in genuine
"Forces interested in genuine reform would do well to press such leaders to put their money where their mouth is, fleshing out what “accountability with teeth” would look like – especially in a church with more than 5,000 bishops, as well as scores of religious communities and other jurisdictions, but just one pope. That effort, and not a fruitless quest for some magic bullet in Vatican policy, is where the action is."
There WERE "forces interested in genuine reform" and they all hopped into their mitres and popped off to ROME to convene an ecumenical council, better known as Vatican II, remember?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents...
Memo to American lawyers and Irish politicians alike:
Perhaps this document (cf. supra) is where all of that corporate POLICY MYTH silliness of which Mr. Allen writes got started?
II, 9: In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
III.35.4: All Religious, exempt and non-exempt, are subject to the authority of the local Ordinaries in those things which pertain to the public exercise of divine worship-except where differences in rites are concerned-the care of souls, the sacred preaching intended for the people, the religious and moral education of the Christian faithful, ESPECIALLY OF THE CHILDREN, catechetical instruction and liturgical formation. They are subject to the local Ordinary also in what pertains to THE DECORUM PROPER TO THE CLERICAL STATE as well as in the various works which concern the exercise of the sacred apostolate. Catholic schools conducted by Religious are also subject to the authority of the local Ordinaries for purposes of general policy- making and vigilance, but the right of Religious to direct them remains intact. Religious also are bound to observe all those things which councils or conferences of bishops shall legitimately prescribe for observance by all.
Death of a Diocese GEOFFREY
Death of a Diocese
GEOFFREY PURCELL
For several decades the five dioceses in the Australian state of Queensland have been synonymous with that strange religion of Conciliarism and, consequently, the lowest Mass attendances in the land. On 2 May 2011, therefore, after such a long period of Vatican neglect and inexorable decay, it was mildly surprising to actually hear read out at all parishes of the Toowoomba diocese, a letter announcing the resignation of Bishop William Martin Morris. Thus ended eighteen years of his Modernist "leadership". And the chattering classes didn’t like it!
Now that was news; not only in our local small town paper but in media outlets around the country and abroad. It made the front page of the national paper, The Australian, and seemingly every radio and television station. The near universal opinion seemed to be that the nasty, undemocratic Vatican had squashed a free thinking and thoroughly nice bloke. No wonder the Church is becoming irrelevant if its "foreign leadership" cannot move with the times and so badly mistreats such popular figures.
Nice story. Shame about the facts!
Background
Queensland has long been dominated by Modernist prelates. Some suggest that Francis Rush, a former Archbishop of Brisbane, influenced the selection of the bishops statewide. All seemed to have some connection with him, while card-carrying membership of the “New Church” was compulsory.
The current Archbishop of Brisbane, John Bathersby, should be familiar to CO readers from the February 2011 edition, where the editor recounted his support of the "witches of Brisbane" and the scandalous St. Mary’s parish. In light of the May CO, I should add that in 1996 he was also mentioned in the press as having proposed the toast to a newly installed Grand Master at a Masonic lodge.
In that regard, it is indicative of how Toowoomba has since been accommodated to the Party Line that last year its diocesan magazine gushed about an award given to a local priest by the Lodge of which he was a member! Faced with such routine and brazen treachery, it is hard to believe that prior to William Morris being elevated and given charge of the diocese, Toowoomba had the distinction of having the last Catholic bishop in Queensland, Edward Kelly, who was personally orthodox.
Indeed, when Bishop Morris became the ordinary, in 1993, the diocese had over 40 active priests. We now have 12. (Toowoomba diocese is almost twice the size of the British Isles.) Traditionally, with its vibrant Irish and Italian communities, the diocese was a net supplier of priests and religious to others. Currently, we have not had an ordination for the diocese for a decade.
How ironic that the latest seminarian from the area was recently ordained in Sydney, for the Fraternity of Saint Peter, by Cardinal Pell. And how telling that for the last seven years "Bishop Bill" would not have been aware of him, since he attended the Latin Mass community in Brisbane. Needless to say, the FSSP is not allowed anywhere in Queensland as they look, talk and act like Catholic priests. So he has been assigned to work in New Jersey, USA.
Modernist Central
There is a fully-funded Catholic school system covering our vast diocese. If there are any students who emerge after twelve years of schooling with their faith intact it is a well kept secret. My own children and those of a small number of other families were home-schooled. They have kept the Faith.
Greying baby-boomers constitute most of the Mass congregations and they have provided the support base for Bishop Morris and his “progressive” priests, who also average about 65 years of age. Every year there are less people at Mass yet this does not deter the diocese from pushing the same tired and failed practices. This is the Vatican II "Springtime" in action!
Their only success has been the promotion of ecumenism and the lay-led “priestless” Church. While working as a doctor in rural and outback communities, one of my sons had difficulty getting to Mass because an advertised Mass could turn out to be a lay-led "Eucharistic Service." Further, notices on church doors throughout the diocese advise that on certain days a combined service will be held at the Anglican church. I know of at least one case where a Catholic priest concelebrated a requiem Mass with an Anglican minister at an Anglican church. The religiously illiterate congregation did not even flinch. Nor do they object when the deceased are routinely canonised at CINO funerals passed off as Catholic.
About a decade ago our parish priest had arranged for two priests from Poland to come to the parish. Bishop Morris refused to allow it. The responsible Polish bishop was flabbergasted. He called the parish priest and asked, incredulously: "Does he realise that I have approved this transfer?" What he did not appreciate was that because his priests were Catholic they would never be tolerated in Toowoomba; aka Modernist Central.
We have had eighteen long years of the most heinous liturgical abuses, such as "clown liturgies." In 1996, the Bishop presided before 2000 high school students at the Toowoomba show grounds with his face fully painted and matching clown faces on his stole. He also did "clown confirmations," with one local paper featuring his clown face, complete with red (ping-pong ball) nose.
The Third Rite of confession (general absolution) was the norm in many parishes until the Vatican stepped in after an allegedly "disloyal and un-Australian" campaign by a "secret fundamentalist group of Catholics" (otherwise known as "the Temple Police"). In some of these "rites," people wrote out their sins on paper and placed them in a container so they could be burned. In one parish, on the rare occasions when individual confessions were held, the priest asked the last person to hear his confession! The Third Rite still goes on in many parishes despite the Vatican injunction but is now called "communal reconciliation." At least one parish still has children receiving their first confession in this way.
Final undoing
In the end, though, it was the Bishop's infamous Advent Letter of 2006 that undid him. Among other things, he suggested that in order to solve the shortage of priests (which he helped to create) we should be open to accepting married and women priests and recognise Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting Church orders. Even Modernist Rome balked at that! I would be surprised if the Uniting Church – a particularly trendy combination of Presbyterian and Methodist congregations – even know the meaning of "orders."
In April 2007, the diocese had a visitation from Archbishop Chaput of Denver, Colorado. He listened to submissions from all sides and filed his report. We now know that in October 2007 the Congregation for Bishops, "in the name of the Holy Father," asked Bishop Morris to resign. It was the first time anyone in Australia could recall a bishop being dismissed for doctrinal reasons.
Apparently he tried to negotiate terms and conditions thereafter, all the while refusing to modify his heterodox/heretical stance. Thus, his doleful leadership has dragged on for yet a further three-and-a-half years longer than necessary.
The Morris Effect Â
The damage to the Faith during the Bishop's tenure, due to his total dereliction of duty, is incalculable. Nowhere is this more evident than in the emotional and pathetic response to his dismissal by many who would regard themselves as loyal Catholics. After being fed stones instead of bread for so long they have morphed into CINOs: clueless, even about basic beliefs.
For the rest of us who have had to live through this catastrophic eighteen years for the Church, the Morris saga is painful and personal. To see the light of a once vibrant and faithful diocese whimper and fade, almost to the point of oblivion, through a combination of negligence, heterodoxy and heresy emanating from the bishop and his Modernist lackeys, both clerical and lay, is the most painful experience of my life.
Catholics constitute nearly 30% of Australia's total population; nominally the largest religion. Just what percentage of that figure still attends Mass in our diocese is difficult to say exactly as no figures are kept. But I would suggest that it is now well below 10%, in line with the dismal trend throughout Queensland. And with this death of the diocese, the Culture of Death itself, in the form of Planned Parenthood, is now being invited into CINO schools as part of "sex education." No wonder the young are missing in action. The victory of secularism is all but complete.
The burning issue for us now is: who will replace William Morris? And also the Modernist Archbishop of Brisbane, who is due to retire at the end of July? Two mitred crooks leaving simultaneously is a cause of real joy. But although I will raise a glass to that happy occurrence and the reforming opportunity it offers, I cannot drink rousing toasts to a reversal of the Morris Effect and a rebirth of Catholicism in the diocese. That would be unrealistic. I will, however, continue my rosary and prayers for Bishop Morris's conversion, drawing strength from the marvellous turnaround of Abby Johnson (CO, April 2011). Miracles do happen.
Rome is the only one who can
Rome is the only one who can have teeth when it comes to bishops. Only Rome makes the decisions of who is appointed. Only Rome can fire them.
Rome is responsible when they are the only ones with the power to act and they refuse to act. The conclusion when they refuse to act is that they do not hold protection of children from pedophile priests as very important, in the grand scheme of things.
Jesus weeps.
Do you really honestly want
Do you really honestly want to end abuse? Okay, then don't ordain homosexuals to the priesthood. That would effectively eliminate the vast majority of potential abusers. If you say that would be wrong then you DON'T want to protect children and have no business posting about it. It's that simple folks. Even better, the Vatican has in fact approved of this policy. Why are some of you against this policy? Because everyone knows what the problem is and who the problem is, but far too many are afraid to say it. It isn't politically correct, but it is true. It's easier to blame the "Vatican" then the real perpetrators. Everyone wants to cover up the obvious, but those of us on the inside know the truth. Ban homosexuals from ordination and end abuse. Period.
So, let's see who REALLY wants to protect the kids and who is more interested in scoring points against the Vatican.
I would go farther than Fr.J.
I would go farther than Fr.J. How about banning all present homosexual cardinals and bishops? What would be left of the church hierarchy?
Post new comment