The U.S. Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Scandal: A Media/Religion Case Study
By Frances Forde Plude
[This text, in a somewhat edited version, appears in the book Belief in Media: Cultural Perspectives on Media and Christianity, published by Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004.]
Various chapters in that book were written by members of the International Study Commission on Media, Religion and Culture. I served on this Commission, a small ecumenical think tank that met with scholars and practitioners around the world to probe the challenges of being church in a digital culture. The Commission also funded fifteen doctoral scholarships in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to develop new scholars in those intersecting fields.
NOTE: Statistics cited in this text were current in 2002. Many changes occurred after that date in the statistics, revelations, and trends on this topic of sexual abuse.
The single most important person in my life has been a Roman Catholic priest who, at 86, was deep into an Alzheimer’s fog. This disease spared him from awareness of the most critical crisis to confront his Church since the Reformation. During his fifty years of service, this sensitive priest saw Catholics become major players in American culture. He rejoiced during Vatican Council days as the Church re-invented itself in relation to the modern world, along with other heady revolutions of the 1960s. And then he watched a culture of dissent descend upon his Church as Catholics disagreed strongly about how to implement the theological advances of Vatican II.
It is now clear that many priests (and others) within the Catholic Church have imposed sexual experiences on vulnerable individuals (male and female), many of them youth. This involves a relatively small percentage of priests; it is also a small percentage of sexual abuse cases among the total population. Still, the harsh reality of this scandal (and perhaps, even more, the failure of church leadership to deal appropriately with problem priests), is now eating away at the heart of Catholic culture in the United States. This commentary reviews that reality with emphasis on the role media have played in the drama.
I will attempt to analyze the situation primarily ‘from below’ rather than focusing on the perspective and the policies of the institutional Church and its leadership. Part of this experiential analysis flows from my own personal knowledge of the Catholic Church and a significant number of priests, several of whom have been unmasked as sexual abusers.
I will view this case study primarily from within the contextual arena of its media environment. My research consists of a serious review of major U.S. newspapers, radio and TV coverage, several respected Catholic journals and many Internet sites. As this media coverage accumulated certain trends emerged. I have attempted to identify these patterns and ask appropriate questions. To what extent have media reported on the issue thoroughly and without bias? How has the Catholic Church responded to media coverage? What unique role has the Internet played as a media forum? And how must the leadership in this church (and in other churches) alter media reactions and their own internal membership communication flows in the light of a global mediated environment?
An analytical lens in reviewing the media context will be questions of how dialogue or a dialectical process permeates church communication realities. What conflicts seem inherent? How can these tensions be dealt with if the Catholic Church is to heal itself and emerge once again as a major moral force in a postmodern world?
The U.S. Catholic Church Infrastructure
The Roman Catholic Church represents one of the largest religious and social service systems in all of history. As this is written, the current global Catholic population is 1.045 billion and there are 62.2 million Catholics in the United States – 22 per cent of the nation’s population.1 There are 19,093 Catholic parishes or congregational units in the United States2 and the Catholic Church sponsors 1,110 hospitals and health care facilities, 1,085 residential care facilities, 8,170 schools and 233 colleges and universities. In addition, there are 1,406 affiliated social service agencies known as Catholic Charities USA. This clearly is a potent force for faith and service in U.S. culture.
Staff personnel figures within the U.S. Catholic Church show significant trends. There are currently almost 45,000 priests but this number is down from 58,632 in 1965. There are 74,177 vowed religious Sisters, a 100,000 decrease from their 1965 figure. However, there are 30,000 laypersons or religious in various church ministries and another 30,000 in training. There are 13,000 lay deacons, 150,000 Catholic-school teachers, and 25,000 lay associates of religious orders. So the decline in vowed priests and religious is somewhat offset by a growing population of certified lay ministers.
The integration of Catholic institutions and Catholic population into U.S. culture perhaps masks three other factors. First, there is a distinctive dialectic between the American character and Roman Catholicism in the U.S. The Church membership reflects the individualism, the enthusiasm, and the consumerism of Americans in general, along with the somewhat secular attitude of the American population.
Secondly, there is a dialectic within broad changes in Catholicism identified in a recent sociological study by Richard A. Schoenherr entitled Goodbye Father (Oxford University Press). He mentions a movement from dogmatism to pluralism, tension between the celibacy rule and a growing personalism of human sexuality, a strong feminist culture and growing empowerment of the laity. It is not presently clear to what extent these factors are involved in the clerical abuse scandal, but all almost certainly play a role.
The third factor, which may affect the media response to the Catholic Church sex scandal, is identified as “the new anti-Catholicism” by scholar Philip Jenkins in a book of that title.3 Jenkins notes that racist and anti-minority attitudes and comments are branded unacceptable in U.S. culture. However, he claims that even before the sexual abuse scandal it has been possible to indulge in anti-Catholic bias and rhetoric – beyond what could be legitimate critique. Any critical response to such prejudice is branded as Catholic Church censorship. Some analysts see some aspects of the “media frenzy” over the sexual abuse crisis as part of this anti-Catholic prejudice. While he praises The Boston Globe for their work, footnotes throughout the Jenkins book cite many examples of news stories and headlines that are grossly slanted. I would add that many of the stories were perhaps constructed to sell in a competitive news market -- along with this inherent bias.
The Scope of Ministerial Sexual Abuse
The first thing to be said about sexual abuse by church personnel is that we do not presently have solid data about the extent of the problem in the Catholic Church, in other religious groups, or in the population at large. Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune is Founder and Director of the Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence. In an article in Christian Century (26 August 1992) Fortune cites a Fuller Theological Seminary dissertation suggesting that as many as 38 per cent of ministers or clergy are sexually involved inappropriately with their congregants. This shockingly high number may not be true. If it is true, it may be the result of the vulnerability of many individuals when they approach a minister or priest about a problem; and it may simply be an abuse of pastoral power.
Concerning youth abuse in general The Economist (6 April 2002) notes: “Sex offenders who prey on children go where children are… They teach in schools, coach sports teams, run scout troops and day-care centers.” The journal cites researcher Charol Shakeshaft’s findings that 15 per cent of pupils in schools are sexually abused by a teacher or staff member between kindergarten and high-school graduation. Many of these institutions make private settlements and move abusers out with letters of recommendation, known as “passing the trash.”
The extent of sexual abuse cases involving U.S. Roman Catholic priests is hard to quantify. Some reasons for the lack of certitude include:
The culture of confidentiality and secrecy in the Catholic Church
The lack, until recently, of available court records; and
The hesitancy of some victims to come forward.
The New York Times (12 January 2003) assembled a Catholic clergy abuse database by examining newspaper accounts and court records, along with church documents and statements. This information was checked against lists of priests assembled by victim advocacy groups and dioceses were called for further clarification. These data covered cases reported in the first year after The Boston Globe broke the sexual abuse story in January 2002. The numbers below have increased since January 2003, but they provide a snapshot of available data at that time. The New York Times database included “only ordained priests who faced specific accusations of abuse of a child.” Their figures excluded deacons, brothers, sisters, or lay persons working for the Catholic Church. Cases involving adult parishioners were also excluded.
The newspaper noted that most of the abuse cases had happened many years ago and did not involve pedophilia (adults interested in pre-pubescent children). Bishops have continually tried to clarify that the number of cases began to drop markedly by the 1990s because they did begin to address the problem. Seminary-training programs began more sophisticated psychological screening of candidates by this time and human sexuality instruction had been inserted into the seminary curriculum. These facts have often been ignored by media coverage.
The New York Times database, summarized in their 12 January 2003 edition, indicates:
1,205 U.S. priests had been accused
most of the cases did not involve pedophilia
4,268 victims had made public claims
most of the abuse occurred in the 1970s and 1980s
every region of the country was seriously affected
more than a dozen dioceses reported more than 20 cases each
John Jay College of Criminal Justice (of the City College of New York) was commissioned to do a definitive study to obtain more authoritative figures, but the researchers’ need for extensive data has alarmed many bishops. As late as 11 June 2003, Cardinal Egan of the New York Archdiocese refused to release priests’ names. He later modified his position when pressured by clergy and after minutes of a meeting were leaked to the press by several people who felt the information should be made public.4 There is reasonable skepticism about how open the church would be about its records unless it is pressured by criminal prosecution. During a meeting of U.S. bishops in St. Louis in June 2003, the bishops assessed various efforts and met with John Jay College officials to clarify goals and procedures. At this meeting was some discussion of a national plenary meeting of the U.S. Catholic Church to deal with its current crisis.
Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and a former priest, has counseled hundreds of clergy and victims of abuse and he expressed great respect for those who attempt to live out the celibacy charism. Sipe suggests the need for a special study of sexuality within the cult of clerical celibacy.5 He estimates that six per cent of all U.S. Catholic priests have committed youth sexual abuse. Sipe’s figures are not the result of a scientific survey and are questioned by many. However, The New York Times database shows that 6.2 per cent of priests ordained in the Archdiocese of Baltimore in the last half-century have been implicated in the abuse of minors.
In Manchester, New Hampshire the percentage is 7.7 and in Boston it is 5.3. It may be this percentage is somewhat representative of some other dioceses (although not all) if church leadership were more open and if other victims stepped forward. There may even be more victims from the decade of 1990, but many victims have not yet reached an age of maturity where they can find the courage to speak up. In an earlier study within the Archdiocese of Chicago, however, 2.6 percent of the priests were subject to complaints and 1.7 percent of the complaints were considered credible by a Review Board with solid credentials.
Media Coverage and Response to the Coverage
Although there has been media coverage in the past about several high-profile clergy sexual abuse cases, an investigative report about clergy sexual abuse and cover-up in the Archdiocese of Boston was released by The Boston Globe on 6 January 2002. From the very beginning of this media coverage there was shock and rage along with great relief on the part of many victims who felt their pain was finally being acknowledged. Now that most newspapers have a Web presence, it was easy to access all the information obtained by the investigative team, along with many other helpful resources and links, at the Globe Web site. Due to the sensationalism of the report and its easy access online, this story was immediately featured on major news outlets across the U.S. and throughout the world. With multiple channels of cable news in the United States, the story was literally trumpeted 24 hours a day.
In Boston there were two additional factors feeding the frenzy. In its follow up book Betrayal, the Globe staff note: “(Boston) is the only major archdiocese in the U.S. where Catholics account for more than half the population. In no other major American city are Catholics more represented in political precincts, in courtrooms, in boardrooms. Nowhere else has the impact of the scandal been more deeply felt. And nowhere else has the erosion of deference traditionally shown the Church been more dramatic” (p 7). Thus, the newspaper faced the prospect of great pressure to suppress the story and the possibility of backlash by readers when it was released. Instead, Catholics generally felt gratitude for this exposure and the rage turned against Church leadership. Many of the court officials who confronted the Church in the case were prominent Catholics.
The second unique aspect of the Boston situation was that Cardinal Bernard Law, the local Church head, became a lightning rod around which the storm raged. Long a power broker in the U.S. Catholic Church (and in Rome) Law’s defiance enraged people within the media, among Catholics, and in the population at large. For the first time devoted Catholics took to the street in protests, priests began to speak out against their pastoral leader, and an organization called Voice of the Faithful [www.votf.org] began to provide a systematic way to organize for change in the Church. Many people called for Cardinal Law’s resignation and eventually he did resign from his post.
Peter Steinfels, a noted Catholic layman and one-time Religion Editor for The New York Times, noted that “between 6 Jan and mid-April (100 days) the Boston newspaper published over 250 stories, many on page one, about the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests.”6
Along with the secular media coverage, it is of interest to reflect upon what Catholic media did with the story. There are three major biweekly Catholic organs. America, a Jesuit publication, is read regularly by many bishops and Catholic leaders, along with Commonweal, a respected journal published for many decades by laypersons. Both contained thoughtful and widely varied articles on the sexual abuse issue, on the ‘clerical club’ among Catholic clergy, on the issue of homosexuality within the Catholic priesthood, and on what the laity can do to provide more leadership within the Church. The biweekly newspaper National Catholic Reporter (NCR) also offered comprehensive coverage. NCR has been a leader in covering sexual issues within the Church. It exclusively broke the story of sexual abuse of some nuns in Africa by Catholic clergy there when the Church leadership in Rome continued to stall in acknowledging the problem. With correspondent John Allen Jr. on site in Rome, NCR provided Vatican commentary regularly in the newspaper and on its website.
Other more moderate or conservative Catholic newspapers include Our Sunday Visitor and The Wanderer. The latter contained an interview about anti-Catholic bias with Philip Jenkins, mentioned above, and argued that media coverage neglected a major part of the problem – the ‘sexualization’ of American culture. These publications have Web sites and their archives provide a rich, and easily accessible record of their coverage. An interesting aspect of newspaper coverage is the fact that almost every Catholic diocese in the country has its own Catholic newspaper and the local bishop is the publisher. These editors face challenges because they are both editor and public relations agent for the local bishop who usually supervises the papers content, sometimes at an arm’s length.
Before moving on to the role of the Internet in media coverage, we should review several specific critiques of the sexual abuse media coverage. One of the most effective commentaries was offered by Peter Steinfels, formerly of The New York Times. His (London) Tablet article cited above notes several problems:
coverage gave a skewed or imprecise understanding of the issue
coverage of the Catholic bishops was often distorted
the “blizzard” effect of the coverage included almost no thoughtful analysis
extracting patterns from all the data was almost impossible
“The Church” was covered as a monolith, rather than as 194 different dioceses
awareness and response to abuse in the culture grew slowly as well as in churches
Steinfels, a respected journalist, concluded: “… columnists settled numerous scores with the Catholic Church: from the way they were treated in parochial school to the Church’s opposition to abortion and refusal to ordain women.” He added there were virtually no counterbalancing commentary. Steinfels also noted when addressing Catholic media personnel in Los Angeles that easy access to the Globe Web site meant the Boston story was echoed continually throughout the country by local reporters, becoming a template, even though many diocesan situations were vastly different.
Another well-known Catholic, sociologist and novelist, the late Rev. Andrew Greeley, called the coverage of The New York Times “virulent anti-Catholicism” writing in the 20 February 2003 issue of America magazine. The National Catholic Reporter disagreed in a lengthy editorial entitled “Greeley aims at the wrong target” (21 February 2003).
If a reporter or a news organization was inclined toward sensationalism or anti-Catholic prejudice this story certainly provided the perfect opportunity to vent either or both. It is not unreasonable to assume this did sometimes happen. Most would agree, however, that the Catholic Church was clearly guilty of a self-inflicted wound and any attempt to control the news only made it look worse. And there was widespread recognition that the media had done a singular service to society and to the Church by providing extensive coverage of the problem. The Pulitzer Prize awarded to The Boston Globe for the sexual abuse coverage confirmed this.
The media did occasionally point out the steps taken by Church leadership to deal with the problem. These include development of:
A Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People
Essential Norms for Dioceses in Dealing with Allegations
An Office of Child and Youth Protection at the Bishops’ headquarters
An independent National Review Board
A national audit to confirm that diocesan policies are implemented
Documentation on these issues, along with other helpful items (statements, presentations, press releases, Vatican interaction, articles, and church policy background) are available at the Web site of the national office of Catholic bishops in Washington D.C. This is known as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The extensive resources available there indicate that the bishops’ national office understands the importance of having a Web presence that provides information and even helpful criticism.
The Impact of the Internet as Forum
It is clear to the serious researcher, as well as the public, that the Internet represents a whole new venue for data gathering, study, analysis and talk-back. In addition to other media mentioned above, the Internet engine drove this media story forward and continues to do so. The Internet is uniquely accessible and, through archived material, makes available with a mere ‘point and click’ the tracking of past media stories and an up-to-date monitoring of current coverage. There are several tools that facilitate the monitoring process. The New York Times offers a tracking service whereby articles from the newspaper on certain topics will be e-mailed to the subscriber automatically. Thus, all articles on the Catholic Church can be received on a regular basis.
Bill Mitchell, a Notre Dame University graduate, began another interesting tracking service. He searched the Internet twice a day for the latest coverage on clerical sexual abuse, copies the headlines, adds the name of the publication and some sentences and then links each article to a Web site he runs called the “Clergy Abuse Tracker”. The site was hosted by the Poynter Institute, an ethical watchdog and training site for journalists in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mitchell called this site “part media experiment, part service to journalists and part service to the church”. Almost 1,000 users visited this clergy abuse site daily; 700 signed up for daily e-mail updates. Most were probably journalists. One mentioned that she tried to monitor smaller newspapers this way to get a sense of the impact on small towns and parishes. Mitchell, a former news editor, claimed the scandal media coverage has been “aggressive” and “impressive.” He does not believe the media are “out to get the church” but, rather, have done the church a service.
If one examined The Boston Globe Web site you became aware of the extent of a virtual resource library. The site offered a complete archive of Globe coverage and various categories of information were organized for Web visitors. Categories included: the fall of Cardinal Law; the text of court depositions; the victims; the financial cost; the Church’s response; investigations and lawsuits. The site provided an extensive list of resources – direct links to media outlets, official Church sites, church reform groups, victims’ groups, the Catholic press, etc. Message boards were provided so individuals could post comments and an interactive map allowed anyone to see exactly where accused priests have been stationed. Video documentary material was provided.
This and other Web sites provided a new kind of nonlinear environment for individuals to move within. Such a site is available at any time so even months after the fact one can keep current on the issue. Another Internet phenomenon is the Web Log where individuals provide journal reflections and others can respond. One such “blogspot” is entitled “Catholic and Enjoying It!”. The Voice of the Faithful Web site [www.votf.org] provided a continuing forum for individuals who seek a supportive group for change in the Church. VOTF goals include: to support those who have been abused; to support priests of integrity; and to shape structural change with the Catholic Church. Its site provided a list of “15 Things Any Catholic Can Do.”
Another aspect of the Internet is the work being done by colleges and universities to renew the Catholic Church in the light of the scandal. Major Catholic institutions like the University of Notre Dame and Boston College are undertaking major research and development projects to tap into the expertise at their institutions. The Boston College project is called “The Church in the 21st Century: From Crisis to Renewal”. At its Web site [http://www.bc.edu/church21] one can connect with audio and video speeches, with seminar announcements, and occasional papers. Also included is an extensive research bibliography on topics such as: roles of lay men and women, priests and bishops; sexuality in the Catholic tradition and contemporary culture; handing on the faith to the next generation; and Web sites for research in religion and the social sciences.
The University of Southern California Annenberg School published an online journalism review that contained a commentary entitled “A Tangled Web: New Media and the Catholic Scandals” by Stephen O’Leary. He suggested “it is possible that the Internet has changed the power balance that formerly governed the reporting of religious news”. O’Leary commented that the hard-hitting and detailed reporting of this crisis reflects a change in the news judgment of reporters and “The Internet has fundamentally altered the balance that governed the relationship between media institutions and more traditional powers such as the Church. Journalists and bishops alike are now struggling with the new realities of covering religion in the wired world.”
O’Leary’s special research focus was religious communication, including a study of religion on the Internet. He noted the Web has made detailed information and formerly secret documents from sex abuse cases available to millions of readers. Another significant change is that the Web allows people to read news in cumulative batches, thus “contributing to the perception of the problem as systemic and international in scope”. He cites the fact that the Web site of a group of survivors of priests’ sexual abuse now averaged 1,000 visits per day – providing an online support group for such individuals. The Web offers many forums for both wounded and hopeful-for-change Catholics.
Conclusions and Recommendations
A few years ago, one of America’s leading Catholic figures, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, of Chicago, was accused of sexual abuse. The day this news became public the Cardinal was on his way to a bishops’ meeting in Washington DC. He made himself available to the press answering their questions candidly under an intense media spotlight and in the face of extreme humiliation. One reporter asked him if he lived a celibate life and he answered the question. I recall he told the media he had to catch his plane to Washington, but he would be willing to continue the press conference when he got off the plane there. I will always remember this as an example of a church leader who respected the public’s right to know and the role of the media in pursuit of the facts.
It turned out that the accusation was false and was later withdrawn. In fact, in a dramatic private meeting the accuser and the Cardinal spoke of reconciliation and forgiveness. Sometime later, Bernardin met with the media again to reveal that he was losing his battle with Cancer and had a short time to live. It was reported at this meeting some members of the press wept openly. In a cover story Time magazine noted that after his diagnosis Cardinal Bernardin’s work among Cancer patients was giving all of us a lesson in how to face death.
This story presents a stark contrast to the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal, the media frenzy that accompanied it, and the Church’s response to it. Why has this been so different? First, there is the surprising scope of the problem. Most Catholics, even people who work closely with church officials and its priests, had no idea of this problem or that it was so extensive within the culture of the Catholic Church. We simply did not expect it; the Church leadership had been effective in guarding the secret. And once the secret was out, many, many victims came forward to testify to the harm done to them. Incredible pain was present in almost every story of damaged lives. It seemed inconceivable that bishops could transfer priests around to many parishes thereby putting more and more youth in danger. The Church seemed more concerned with protecting its priests and its own reputation than in safeguarding young people.
Another major component was the resulting financial impact. It became clear the Catholic Church would have to pay many millions of dollars as lawyers represented groups of victims. Many people decided to withhold contributions to Catholic charities believing their donations would go into this huge settlement debt. Some felt the Church should sell off some of their extensive property holdings (especially large bishops’ residences) to pay the debt.
As the issue heated up (and for many years before the scandal broke) bishops were guided by their attorneys and insurance companies in responding to the problem. Sometimes victims who were abused by priests faced more pressure from church attorneys who tried to intimidate them or buy off their silence. Now victims were supported by the court system and the public and received even more strength from the victims’ own support groups.
This pressure for the Church to assume responsibility and to be accountable happened just as major U.S. corporate scandals were exposed, and government agencies and the stock market were facing similar scrutiny for negligence or misdeeds. Time magazine put three female whistleblowers on their persons-of-the-year cover. Americans were deeply concerned about an extensive leadership failure. In the Catholic Church this seemed to point to the need for a better process for the selection of bishops.
There is no doubt new kinds of media coverage contributed to the sense of crisis. Twenty-four- hour news outlets (cable news channels, radio and TV talk shows, the Internet) kept the story going. The drama unfolded: Cardinals were called to Rome to talk with the Pope, bishops prepared to gather in Dallas and debate a “zero tolerance” policy, and in many dioceses new cases came to light. The criminal court systems stepped up boldly to demand files from many bishops and to insist that some speak under oath about what had happened and how the church had handled cases. All this drama fed the media frenzy as testimony taken under oath by bishops appeared on the Internet.
In all this coverage there was not enough nuance or systematic analysis. Overlooked often was the fact that some cases involved actions from many years ago. The situation was labeled a pedophile crisis when very few of the cases involved young children (although some high-profile cases did). There was little analysis about the difference between legitimate confidentiality and a vast culture of secrecy. It was hard to sort out the need for forgiveness while at the same time holding abusers accountable.
As the news coverage piled up and remained online for continual reference, it became clear that there were systemic problems in the Church that needed to be confronted, analyzed, and reformed. Because of a culture of dissent within Catholicism (between liberals and conservatives), the sexual abuse issue became entangled in various agendas. Some said celibacy was the problem. Some urged the Church to update its sexual theology, but some said Catholics had already absorbed too much of the sexual liberation of U.S. culture (and media).
Laypersons in the church, both male and female, began to see they needed to accept responsibility for their Church, rather than submissively allowing ‘the clerical club’ to manage the institution’s structure. Many acknowledged that – apart from any specific church teaching or dogma – much needed to be changed in the Church’s management system, including financial transparency and its structure of leadership and decision making. In a thoughtful analysis in Commonweal magazine (20 June 2003), theologian Luke Timothy Johnson addressed changes within Catholic culture in recent decades in the United States. Johnson noted this is pertinent to how Catholics now view sex and sexual morality. He accused the Catholic Church of incoherence in its teaching, along with corruptive abuse of power, refusing to discern its sexual morality by listening to views of women and the laity at large.
I have monitored this matter primarily from a communication perspective. Apart from the question of who should be selected for priesthood and whether they should marry, the Church seemed to be a dysfunctional communication system with excessive secrecy, almost no transparency, and a somewhat arrogant lack of accountability. I have written before that interactive communication tools seem to be a metaphor for a more dialogic Church. It now seems clear it is not simply a matter of dialogue – of talking and listening more. Rather the Catholic Church (and other churches) must become more comfortable as a dialectical system. In the language of cybernetic theory, they must accept inputs and respond with appropriate outputs, to keep their systems in balance. (Again, we are not talking here primarily about doctrine, but about organizational communication structures.)
A first step will be truly listening. People continue to say about some of the bishops: “They simply don’t get it!” As bishops refused to allow Voice of the Faithful groups (and others) to meet on church property they demonstrated their unwillingness to listen to their own people. In their approach to the media, church officials have sometimes scolded media personnel as if they were naughty children. There are legitimate media concerns and criticism; these problems need to be addressed. Many leading U.S. media figures are caring Catholics. Why not invite them to share some of their ideas and suggestions about how the Church can be a better communicator? The bishops do have a Communication Committee, but the current situation calls for more widespread input and expertise. The problem is trust and credibility, not just public relations. The Catholic Church in the U.S. can benefit from the cleansing that will occur. Recognizing that the public is media-savvy, churches can utilize modern telecommunication tools to be communicative, rather than just controlling packaged messages.
The late Cardinal Bernardin inspired a project entitled the Catholic Common Ground Initiative. The goal was to have a dialogic forum within the Church. In a newsletter (3 December 2001) the group published an interview entitled “Theology and Dialogue in Today’s Church”. The speaker was Rev. Ladislas Örsy, a respected Jesuit canon law expert. He commented: “Dialogue is, and must be, part and parcel of the life of a Christian community because no one person has the privilege to possess the divine mysteries in their fullness and to have the final words about them. The mysteries were given to the whole community.”
My treasured priest-friend with Alzheimer’s suffered his own medical disorder and chaos. However, a seriously disordered world needs to hear prophetic voices. The challenge now is for other individual to take up this work.
1 All statistics are from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University and are 2002 figures.
2 Froehle, B. and Gautier, M. (2000), Catholicism USA: A Portrait of the Catholic Church in the United States, Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.
3 Jenkins, P., (2003), The New Anti-Catholicism, New York: Oxford University Press.
4 The New York Times, 11 June, 2003.
5 Sipe’s two volumes on the subject include: A Secret World: Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy and Sex, Priests, and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis, both published by Brunner/Mazel.
6 “Abused by the media,” The Tablet, 14 September 2002.