Matt Abbott, a Catholic Internet columnist, wrote a recent letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal in response to a book review exploring the impact of the 1960's Vatican II on U.S. Catholicism. Matt quoted a number of relevant statistics from Kenneth Jones' Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: the number of priests has declined by nearly 25% since 1965, the number of Catholic nuns/sisters by over 50%, and the number of marriages by 33%, while the number of annulments (the Catholic variation of divorce) has exploded exponentially from hundreds to over 50,000 per year. Abbott attributes the decline to the zeitgeist (i.e., the American experience including a sexual permissive culture, tolerance of abortion on demand, and changes to the traditional definition of marriage) and corrupt leadership within the Church hierarchy, particularly with respect to the sex abuse scandal exposed over the past decade: the unconscionable reassignment of sexual predator priests to unsuspecting parishes.
The Sexual Misconduct Scandal
Matt Abbott and I share a revulsion to how key Catholic prelates responded to the abuse scandals, which undoubtedly diminished much of the moral authority of the American Church and confidence in its leadership among most Catholics. Certainly the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI and his personal ministry to past abuse victims was a significant step forward. I don't know how to explain the motives of those bishops whom reassigned priests with sexual allegations against them: Was it a naive belief that the predators were cured, based on input from psychologists or the word of the accused priests themselves? Was it a lack of opportunities for the accused priests to serve elsewhere without potential victims (e.g., jail ministries)? Did the bishops fail to ensure proper supervision and follow up with relevant priests whom had undergone therapy or other treatment and were subsequently redeployed?
I don't think that the prelates intentionally reassigned predator priests knowing a high risk of recidivism. But clearly shuffling a problem priest from parish to parish as complaints began to surface locally was a suboptimal short-term fix that didn't address the long-term consequences and deferred hard decisions (i.e., to defrock) regarding the accused priests themselves. I do not know the motivations, e.g., due process of accused priests or concerns about scandal to the Church upon full disclosure. But, at the very least, certain American prelates were incompetent administrators and de facto enablers of criminal sexual behavior. American Catholics have a zero-tolerance policy on sexual misconduct from priests.
Somewhere along the way the prelates lost sight of Jesus' pastoral mandate of protecting and healing the least of our brethren, the children, the victims of abusive behavior. Priests in particular are held to a higher standard of behavior; we respect and trust them as a surrogate for Christ Himself.
I think one unfortunate consequence of American prelate incompetence is the shadow it casts over the profession of the priesthood as a whole: Can I trust my pastor around my own children? This year my maternal Uncle Roger will celebrate the golden anniversary of his ordination. There were sacrifices he had made along the way to his ordination: my Mom, his only sibling, got married; my grandmother died of colon cancer. Uncle Roger is a true priest of God, one of the finest, if not the finest, men I've ever met.
My principal issue with Matt Abbott with respect to his listing the failure in American prelate leadership to confront this scandal early and decisively and to minister first and foremost to the related victims of sexual abuse is that I'm not sure to what extent we can partial out what can be attributed to the scandal itself in terms of Kenneth Jones' statistics. There is no doubt that the scandal has had a financial impact, e.g., Tuscon, Spokane and Portland dioceses filing for bankruptcy, settlement negotiations in the Dioceses of Orange (Los Angeles) and Boston. Parishioner contributions (and no doubt weekly attendance) took a significant hit in the aftermath.
There is no doubt that some in a sexually liberal society will argue that vows of celibacy are part of the problem and suggest that repressing one's sexuality results in dysfunctional behavior. Others also suggest that the celibate lifestyle of a priest or nun provides a socially acceptable cover for individuals with idiosyncratic sexual preferences. I do not believe that these suggestions are credible. The Church does screen applicants. No doubt screenings are fallible, but that holds true across a number of professions as well (e.g., school teachers, whom have more direct and substantive contact with at-risk children). I do think that priest supervisors need to be cognizant of relevant warning signs, e.g., unusual interest or involvement with youth activities, parents should make sure that children understand that no one is above the law, and the Church must make it clear its first priority is ministry to victims and how they can address relevant complaints, ensure that complaints are given due, prompt consideration, and that the source criminal activity is stopped and reported to appropriate authorities.
How Do We Interpret the Adverse Trends in the American Catholic I Church Since Vatican II?
I think that American Catholics have been largely influenced by what Abbott calls the zeitgeist, the confluence of American culture, politics, etc. This past election, for instance, we saw the majority of Catholic voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama, a politician whom not only stonewalled the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which ensured that babies born alive during induced abortion are given medical care and not simply left to die, but has said that his first priority as President is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would abolish any and all restrictions (on any level of government) on abortions, including partial-birth bans, parental notification, waiting periods, etc.
In fact, one Democratic blog post (The Next Hurrah, Myths about Catholic Voters, 4/21/05) comments, with respect to a dubious poll commissioned by the "Catholics for Choice", that that "poll's data is consistent with just about every poll I've ever seen that breaks out data for Catholics. In general, Catholics track almost perfectly with the general electorate on almost every social issue." Catholics for Choice claims that the abortion rate among Catholic women is the same as for the American population as a whole. The poll in question reported that 53% consider themselves pro-abortion choice and clear majorities approve of embryonic stem cell research, the death penalty, and physician-assisted suicide. Furthermore, they aren't interested in pastoral guidance on political issues and oppose Church sanctions on denying communion to pro-abortion choice Catholic politicians, such as John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, and Kathleen Sebelius. American Catholics may be the ultimate swing voters, voting for the winner in each Presidential election since 1960 except for year 2000.
In fact, some polls suggest that 8 in 10 Catholics are okay with artificial birth control and the average family size of 2.6 children is roughly comparable to the national average. (However, many do follow the rhythm method. I learned this when catching a ride with others while attending OLLU. I unintentionally came across the car owner's body temperature chart while clearing a seat. A little too much information.)
I suspect that in part we are dealing with the demands of tolerance in living in a pluralistic society. Hence, many pro-abortion choice Catholics attempt to justify their position by claiming disingenuously that "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't wish to impose my religious views on others." You could make the same argument about any ethical principle implemented within the English legal tradition.
However, this does not explain the shift from vocations and other statistics increasing, in the same pluralistic society, before 1965 and the drop since.
My Hypothesis: Societal Trends and a Vacuum in Strong Catholic Leadership
I'm sure that there are studies that have sought to establish relevant factors explaining negative trends for American Catholics and other Christian denominations (Pew and university-based, including the Jones study). I think Matt Abbott is tapping into something when he points out that the sexual misconduct scandal has had a devastating effect in the American Church. But I think a lot of it has to do with a vacuum in leadership.
Servant of God and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was a prolific author, a masterful radio host from the 1930's and became the first religious service broadcaster in the new medium of television 20 years later, competing and holding his own against Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra. There never has been a comparable successor among American prelates to the new media, although my Mom and others tune into the Eternal Word Television Network on cable and certainly figures like Mother Angelica have had an impact.
I personally haven't seen a proactive initiative in American Catholic leadership to rebuke an indulgent, materialistic culture, to articulate a Catholic vs. American secular political vision, to distinguish an authentic Christian from a secular humanistic perspective, to challenge a self-centered, relativistic, permissive existence to seek a God-centered life, to renew a prayerful, repentent commitment to spiritual growth, and to present a firm, principled Catholic point of view on the right to life, traditional family-based values, and individual, business, social, and government responsibility. The Church leadership should also not let the liberal mass media portray the lives of unborn children and other public policy issues to be typecast as Catholic (vs. human rights) issues, and it's important to choose one's battles. For example, threats to withhold communion can make nominal Catholic politicians like John Kerry appear as sympathetic figures. On the other hand, there is something to be said for publicly calling on Catholic politicians to repent or to private meetings with bishops and (when necessary) to excommunicate.
The sexual misconduct scandal implicitly called in question the moral authority of the American Church. How could the Church allow itself to be put in the position of putting the due process rights of the accused over ministry to the victims? Why weren't priests whom violated their vows defrocked under a zero-tolerance policy?
I don't think that Catholics would lose their faith simply because some prelates did not react in a proactive and decisive manner when confronted with the scandal. After all, even Simon Peter denied knowing the Lord three times during the Passion. Prelates are fallible human beings. Similarly, we Americans did not lose our faith in our government's principles when Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton put themselves above the law. But I do think some nominal Catholics are using the crisis to rationalize relying on their own judgment over the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals.
The real story, however, is the culture. I think we can pick up some hints from polls and election results over the past year. We saw an extraordinary responsiveness of young adults to Barack Obama's nebulous, "turn-the-page", nonpartisan rhetoric, including his campaign's masterful use of the Internet to organize, fund raise, announce his VP selection, and provide Youtube addresses in lieu of traditional radio addresses. Similarly, the young voters are more accepting of nontraditional forms of marriage. There's also some anecdotal evidence that younger workers are more questioning of authority, more focused on short-term rewards and more likely to change jobs to achieve professional success or higher pay.
I'm not going to argue the Church should try to emulate an Obamaian approach to its message. But if Obama can use the media to sell an inexperienced leader with no policy expertise, decades-old liberal agenda policies irrelevant in a global competitive economy, and little more than inclusive motivational rhetoric, the Church should be able to present effectively the substantive, timeless teachings of Jesus Christ, which is what young people really want and need, not vacuous political verbiage.
I do think that the Church can sharpen its focus and avoid mixed messages like Catholic colleges and universities holding rallies for pro-abortion choice politicians or hiring antiauthoritarian theologians running their own agenda. Young people are being constantly bombarded by messages (songs, television, movies, politically correct education) promoting self-indulgent sexuality, nontraditional and extramarital relatonships, and victimization (vs. personal responsibility). Celibacy is seen more as being out of touch with one's sexuality than an ultimate sacrifice in a life of service to God's people. In short, I think the decline we've seen on a variety of metrics can be reversed by firm but respectful Church leadership steady as the rock on which Jesus built His Church against the world's troubled waters.
