Update 2 9/12 5:20 pm: Jack Jenkins of Religion News Service reports (h/t Jim McCrea) that Cardinal Wuerl will meet with Pope Francis "soon" to determine whether he should remain in place. Jenkins notes that Wuerl is 77, so had already submitted his resignation to Francis when he turned 75; as frequently is the case, Francis decides whether and when to accept that submission. Jenkins also reports that Wuerl met with his priests over the Labor Day weekend and some of them urged him to step down.
Update 9/11/2018 12:15 am: I've added some additional material at the bottom of the post.
-----
A deacon in Washington DC sticks his neck out.
Of the current leaders in the US church who are under intense scrutiny and criticism as a result of the scandals roiling the institutional church, perhaps none is taking fire as withering as that directed at Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC. The current crisis is the confluence of two different sets of scandals: the revelation of the misdeeds of Wuerl's predecessor in Washington, now-former-Cardinal McCarrick; and the release of the Pennsylvania grand jury report on the mishandling of abusive priests by diocesan leaders in six dioceses. It is Wuerl's misfortune that both branches of the crisis have entangled him: the McCarrick affair because he is McCarrick's successor, and a number of commenters believe that it strains credulity that Wuerl wasn't aware of the allegations against his predecessor; and the Pennsylvania scandal because Wuerl formerly headed the Pittsburgh diocese, which is the largest of the six investigated by the grand jury, and his name appears many times in the report.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that one of the deacons of the Washington DC archdiocese has now called for Cardinal Wuerl to step aside (h/t Greg Kandra at The Deacon's Bench):
Deacon James Garcia, in his role as a master of ceremonies at St. Matthew’s Cathedral in the District, has assisted Wuerl during major liturgies.
But Garcia wrote in a letter to Wuerl, which the deacon published online Saturday, that he refuses to assist in any Mass led by Wuerl again. Since deacons vow obedience to their bishop, it is a bold gesture.
“The time for cowardice and self-preservation is long past. Victims cry out for justice and the faithful deserve shepherds who are not compromised. Apology and accompaniment are critical. But no amount of apology will suffice unless and until bishops and other complicit clergy are removed or resign,” Garcia wrote in his letter. And he addressed Wuerl directly: “I cannot, in good conscience, continue to assist you personally, whether as an assisting deacon or a master of ceremony…”I don't know if you appreciate how unusual it is for a deacon to publicly criticize his bishop as Garcia has here. Most deacons don't especially relish being in the spotlight, and most of us don't seek controversy.
What's more, in the institutional church, most of us deacons are comparative "nobodies". There are deacons who are doing outstanding ministry work in all sorts of settings, but in most cases they don't attract much public attention (and that's how most deacons prefer it). Until a year or two ago, I don't believe my auxiliary bishop, who in a sense is my "church boss", would have recognized me if I had passed him on the street. I'm sure Cardinal Cupich has no idea who I am or what I look like - and why should he? He has 500+ deacons in active ministry for whom he's ultimately responsible, and many other pressing things on his plate. Frankly, it's probably preferable for both of us if I don't come to his attention, because the deacons who are most likely to require the cardinal to take notice are the troublemakers.
So for any deacon to speak out publicly against his ordinary is surprising. It's especially surprising in Garcia's case because, as the institution would measure these things, he's not a "nobody", he's a "somebody". He's assigned to the cathedral and serves as the cardinal's master of ceremonies. That means that whenever they do one of those smells-and-bells liturgies with multiple bishops, ranks of priests and a platoon of altar servers marching around in the sanctuary, he's the guy up there directing traffic. It's a duty that necessitates working pretty closely with the cardinal. For him to be appointed as master of ceremonies is a sign of respect and trust. It's hard to imagine that Garcia and the cardinal wouldn't have a personal relationship. I'd expect that they vest together in the sacristy and chat frequently. To the extent that Cardinal Wuerl gives much thought to deacons, he probably figured that Garcia would be one who has his back. I don't note that to insinuate that Garcia is a backstabber, but rather to highlight how extraordinary it is for a deacon in Garcia's position to speak up publicly.
Folks may recall that one of the turning points, perhaps the key turning point, in the downfall of Cardinal Law in Boston is when dozens of priests of the Boston Archdiocese signed a letter calling on Law to step down. I'm not aware of other DC clergy speaking out publicly against Wuerl. It remains to be seen whether Garcia's public statement is a pebble that triggers an avalanche, or whether he is sticking out his neck over the proverbial chopping block.
Update 9/11/2015 12:15 am: Tom mentions in a comment below that he heard Deacon Garcia interviewed on NPR. The audio of the interview, and a written transcript, is here. In my view, Deacon Garcia comes across as articulate and authentic - and courageous. Here is a short passage from the interview:
MARTIN: If the cardinal does resign, what would that accomplish?
GARCIA: I think it would send a very strong signal to the faithful, particularly those who are victims of sexual abuse at the hands of clergy and other church personnel. Reparation is important. Apology is important. Accompaniment is important. But none of those things is sufficient, either singularly or together. Genuine healing, I believe, requires accountability. And it's in that spirit that I implored the cardinal to relinquish his position.Deacons Greg Kandra and Bill Ditewig (two superstars in the galaxy of deacons, to the extent that there are any superstar deacons) discuss Garcia's letter, in light of whether or not it was appropriate for Garcia to go public like this. Kandra characterizes Garcia's act as "audacious". Neither criticizes Garcia outright, but suggest that it may have been more in keeping with a scripture-informed way of life if Garcia had admonished Wuerl privately - something that, as a master of ceremonies at the cathedral, Garcia may have been well-positioned to do - before going public with his call for Wuerl's resignation.
Beyond that: the news account notes that a deacon makes a promise of obedience to the bishop on the day of ordination. That promise should be a reflection and a sign of an actual relationship bond between bishop and deacon. Ideally, it's a bond based on mutual trust and respect. It seems that as regards Wuerl and Garcia, that bond is at the least badly frayed - perhaps irreparably severed. If Wuerl doesn't resign, it's difficult to imagine that Garcia would wish to remain in service to him. He mentioned in his NPR interview that he considered another option: resigning from his ministry. But "resignation" is not really an operative word in the world of ordained ministry; one is given an assignment by the bishop, and one isn't exactly free to voluntarily walk away from it - or, if one does walk away from it, repercussions are expected. Ordained ministry is more like the military: if you don't like where the brass has put you, you can put in for a transfer, but you're not really free to just quit your assignment and go find another one on your own. "Resigning" in the world of ordained ministry means to resign completely from the diaconate and become a layperson again.
But there may be another option for Garcia that would be less extreme than laicization: to incardinate into another diocese. This happens relatively frequently. It's reported that Garcia resides in suburban Virginia which, if I'm not mistaken, is a different diocese. I'm sure becoming a deacon in his home diocese is among the options he'd be considering. But incardination requires the bishop of that diocese to accept the applicant. Speaking out so publicly against the old boss isn't exactly a letter of recommendation to the prospective new boss. That brings up another parallel with the military: if the brass doesn't like how you're doing your job, it can yank you from your old assignment but, rather than reassign you, simply discharge you. Garcia really is taking a risk
Wow, that is pretty unusual! I agree that deacons (most of them) are not out to attract attention. The nearest thing a bit similar to what this guy is doing that I can remember, happened a few years ago under a previous atchbishop. A deacon wrote a rather blunt letter to the editor of the regional daily paper in which he took umbrage at what he perceived as the archbishop telling Catholics how to vote. He and the archbishop had a back-and-forth in which the archbishop tried to clarify that he wasn't trying to tell anyone how to vote, just that there were moral principles which one needed to apply to the discernment process. They ended the discussion amicably. I don't think that's going to happen in this case. What do you think are the odds that Wuerl is going to resign? My guess is that the deacon broke the ice, and now there will be other clergy calling for resignation.
ReplyDeleteI heard Deacon Garcia on NPR yesterday. He was certainly low key and calm, considering he was talking about how he had called for his boss' resignation. The gravamen of his call was that things have reached the point that there needs to be humongous upset in business as usual.
ReplyDeleteIf I understood the introduction correctly, though, one of his jobs is MC when the bishop presides, which means he takes the bishop's crozier and sets it in the corner, puts the mitre away until the bishop needs it again, tells the altar servers where to get off, passes the bottle when the bishop gets dry and brushes away the bluetail fly. Which would make him familiar to Wuerl.
Tom, many thanks for that NPR reference. I've updated the post to include it.
DeleteThat promise of obedience is, as Stanley said on an earlier thread, "a problem." I wouldn't have had a problem promising obedience to your current boss, but what if he were succeeded by the second coming of Fabian Bruskewitz? The idea of Christians promising obedience to anyone but God seems problematical to me. A pledge of loyalty, yes, that is really to the office; but obedience, uh-unh.
ReplyDeleteThe German generals had more than a little trouble with their oath to Hitler when they realized who they were stuck with. In our form of government, the oath is to the Constitution, not to the president (regardless of what the uninstructed incumbent thinks). Istm that is a lot safer.
"The idea of Christians promising obedience to anyone but God seems problematical to me. " Tom, me too. In fact I think a misguided sense of obedience has played a part in this whole mess. People have compared the dysfunction to that of a corporation. I think a more apt comparison is the military, where "insubordination" is the ultimate sin. Jesus Christ was anything but a general; we need to regain a sense of the freedom of the people of God.
DeleteUnrelated, you mentioning Fabian Bruskewitz triggered a memory. There is an old photo of me standing beside him. I was Confirmation sponsor for a friend's daughter. Afterwards there were individual pictures taken of the confirmandi with the sponsors and the bishop. That was the only interaction I ever had with him.
Yeah. Bruskewitz. One nasty tyrant. Is Voice of the Faithful still excommunicated?
DeleteI don't know about Voice of the Faithful, but Bishop Conley has offered at least one other group, Call to Action, a "work around" to get back in the church. They can talk to him individually and tell him that they're not heretics, and they're reinstated. It's a little awkward with Conley's predecessor still living. Or they can attend in the neighboring dioceses where they aren't excommunicated. Lincoln is a long skinny diocese where you are never more than 30 miles from somewhere else. Be worth a little gas money. There were originally 12 groups whose members were excommunicated. I would imagine most of them can do the back door work-around now. But probably not the Hemlock Society and Planned Parenthood.
Deleteoh right. My mistake. It was Call to Action.
DeleteI'm pretty sure VOTF was one of the proscribed groups also. I'm hoping that one silver lining to this whole storm will be an end to the over-the-top culture warrior b.s. The bishops and clergy as a group have lost the moral authority to micromanage the way people vote and freedom of association.
DeleteDemanding obedience is an exercise in unbridled power. If you don't do X, then you can't have/be Y.
DeleteSome years ago, when Benedict was pope, I read a story about the new cardinals and the official ceremony where they took their oath of office. Obedience to the pope was first and foremost. In fact, most of the words related to the papacy. Jesus was mentioned only once, in passing. I was shocked when I read it. But it made many things fall into place.
DeleteToo many Catholics had replaced God with an institution. And until Francis, those same Catholics had replaced God with a pope as well as with an institution.
That's all changed now, of course. Their former mantra that absolute, unquestioning obedience is always due the pope has somehow been forgotten in their attempts to overthrow the current pope.
Perhaps it will be deacons - married deacons primarily - who will "save" the western church.
DeleteThe priests could "confecting" the eucharist (even though deacons should be able to do that also), hearing confessions etc, while the deacons serve as the true pastors of the people.
It would be an improvement probably, because most deacons will be married, or were once married, and they will have the input of smart and discerning women like Katherine and Theresa (Therese?), not to mention the input of daughters in many cases.
As all here know, young adult women are leaving the RCC in droves. Many are not coming back when they get married as their mothers did, nor are they baptizing their children in the Catholic church. CARA says that infant baptisms are the lowest they've recorded since they started keeping annual track of them. The "married in the church" rate is about half the overall marriage rate in most dioceses.
Most studies indicate that the official church teachings that women are to be subservient to men in their marriages and in the church is a big factor. These young women grew up believing they are equal to men. They see the harm done to the church (the people) by the stubborn clinging to ancient patriarchal understandings in the all-male clergy of the RCC. They also are refusing to raise their children in a church that teaches girls that their brothers are more important than they are. Their role is to "support" the males, as Katherine and Theresa do. Women like Katherine and Theresa should have access to the priesthood if they feel called. But they are denied, and the church suffers greatly.
Having married deacons become pastors would be a second-best solution, but better than the situation that exists now. Ideally, these full pastor deacons would be eligible for promotion to Bishop etc.
Wow! There are so many aspects to this!
ReplyDeleteThe witness of deacons, both individually and collectively, could become a strong force for change in Catholicism.
Unlike priests and lay employees, most deacons are not paid. Therefore they and their families are not losing their livelihood if they resign or are fired. A deacon once told me that, unlike his fellow pastoral staff members who could lose their jobs or their salary increase, he felt he was much more honest in giving advice to the pastor.
Most of the things that deacons do could be done by laity. So if a deacon loses his status as deacon, he could continue to do many of things that he has been doing as a layperson. So in speaking out a deacon does not have to worry as much as a priest about the laity being deprived of his ministry ( it simply becomes lay rather than ordained ministry).
Unlike paid lay employees who can easily be fired from their job (and perhaps blacklisted from future church jobs) deacons can be moved but not easily removed from the deaconate because they have protections in canon law. If you don’t give a deacon any ministry they could easily become a loose cannon doing ministry on their own in various settings outside the control of the bishop.
Because so many deacons function in parishes and other ministries far removed from the bishop, I don’t think most Catholics appreciate that the office of deacon while below the status of priest is actually related far more to the office of bishop. In the theology of the deaconate they are the eyes and ears of the bishop. So this is the eyes and the ears of a bishop telling him to resign!
What seems to disturb this deacon is his liturgical role to a bishop whom he thinks is unworthy. In the early church and today in the Eastern churches, the cry of greeting to the bishop is Axios! Worthy! a remnant of the time in which the people were actually involved in episcopal elections. So it appears to be partly a matter of conscience to the deaconate.
However even more deeply it is a matter of justice. Unfortunately we have been treating the sexual abuse crisis as mainly a matter of morality, of bad priests moved around by bad bishops. This ignores the justice aspect that not only the victims, but all Catholics, and indeed the public were done an injustice. As pope Francis says it was an abuse of power as well as sexual abuse. Justice demands that all this misuse of power be exposed and that those who abused their power be brought to justice. That is why this is all being played out, and will continue to be played out in the justice system for years to come.
The whole people of God must take up this cry for justice. It is insufficient for bishops to be repentant for their sins, they also must do justice and be brought to justice not only by the civil law but by the people of God.
Maybe the deacons of the church are called to be witnesses on behalf of justice! They might be in an unusual position to provide leadership.
Jack - thank you for that comment! It's actually quite inspiring.
DeleteYou're right on that deacons are risking less than those who rely on the church for their income. I confess I've never really thought about deacons that way - as those who are more free to speak up than full-time employees. At the same time, being a deacon is important to most deacons, and they wouldn't rush to do something that might jeopardize their good standing.
My experience of deacons is that they tend to live in ministry silos: they focus on their assignments (which almost always are at their home parishes), and they rarely venture outside of those boundaries. There are deacons at neighboring parishes whom I've never met. The only times I ever get together with deacons from other parishes are at archdiocesan events overseen by the archdiocesan diaconate office. It's difficult to imagine that the archdiocese's vicar of deacons would lead an effort to organize deacons to speak out against the bishop (not that Cardinal Cupich is implicated in the scandals, to the best of my knowledge).
By contrast, priests seem to have a good deal more social capital than deacons do. Chicago has an independent organization of priests, and it's pretty active. To the best of my knowledge, deacons don't have anything analogous - but maybe we should. For that matter, the Chicago priest association has invited deacons to join. I've never seriously thought of accepting the invitation, but your point of view has opened up new thoughts for me: maybe the priests are reaching out to us because they would like to leverage our numbers and influence.
I agree with you that if deacons could get organized, we could be a force to be reckoned with.
Think about starting a Commonweal local community for deacons. Good way to get them out of their silos but also enable them to bring their ministry experience to bear on the broader world.
DeleteWhen Voice of the Faithful was founded many though of the voice as being able to "manifest their views to their pastors on matters that concern the good of the Church" Canon 212 #3 but I pointed out what I thought was equally important in that canon "to manifest our views to one another" We need spaces in the church where we can feel free to speak to one another without chaperones. I think Commonweal Local Communities are a good place for that.
At Mass this evening, in the petitions, prayers were asked for those who may be falsely accused of wrongdoing. It is virtually certain that that has happened, or will happen. People should not be so carried away by a kind of Jacobin fury that the accepted norms of justice are bypassed.
ReplyDeleteNot speaking here of Wuerl, just in general.
DeleteAnd making an important point.
DeleteJim, I finally responded to you on the Two Takes on Clericalism thread.
ReplyDelete