I am sorry to post such a depressing news story during this holiday season, but there may be one or two points of interest - including, perhaps, clericalism playing a role in a woman's tragic death and another's serious injury.
Many are grieving the death of St. Michael's School teacher Margaret "Rone" Leja, who police say was hit and killed by the parish's former priest Paul Burak on Wednesday night. Another educator, Liz Kostek, was also injured in the hit-and-run near a parking lot at Orland Square Mall.
The 73-year-old Palos Heights man was attending the same Christmas party as his victims prior to the crash, according to police.
Investigators said Burak was driving drunk when he hit the women, then kept on driving.
According to prosecutors, the former priest admitted to police that he was "blacked out" and drunk after drinking a Manhattan cocktail and a glass of wine.
The news story's description of Burak as a "former priest" is not accurate; presumably the reporter meant to write that he is St. Michael's retired pastor. He is still a priest. The Christmas party mentioned in the story was the parish staff's Christmas get-together.
Burak is in his 70s and apparently suffers from Parkinson's Disease and glaucoma, and it is thought that the combination of alcohol, meds for his health conditions, and perhaps sight impairment from the glaucoma, contributed to the tragedy.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times story of the incident, attendees of the party were keeping at least half an eye on Burak:
A retired priest accused of a drunkenly running over a pair of parish teachers and driving off without providing help was asked if he was OK to drive shortly before leaving a staff holiday party earlier this week in Orland Park, Cook County prosecutors said at the Rev. Paul Burak’s bail hearing Saturday.
Burak, 73, who assured them he was fine to drive, now faces charges of aggravated driving under the influence and leaving the scene of the fatal crash.
This is the element of the story where I am supposing that clericalism may have played a role: I can easily imagine attendees of the party asking Burak if he was okay to drive, and then accepting him at his word when he said he was fine. The Sun-Times story has a lot of detail of Burak's erratic behavior before, during and after he struck the two women. It's difficult to believe that Burak was able to conceal his impairment from staff members who presumably had worked for him for a number of years and probably knew him as well as anyone. I'm suggesting that we Catholics are well-trained to defer to priests, and on this occasion, some Catholics deferred again when prudence might have dictated that they push back harder.
Orland Park is a suburb of Chicago on the other side of the metropolitan area from where I live - a 45 mile drive. It's doubtful that many of my parish's parishioners know anyone who belongs to St. Michael's. But our pastor knows Fr. Burak well - has known him for decades. This past Sunday morning, our pastor made an impassioned plea at the end of each mass. He stated that, until this incident, Fr. Burak had been, to the best of his knowledge, an exemplary priest. He called out to our parishioners the lesson that a single lapse in judgment can ruin several lives. He pleaded with us, during this season of holiday parties, to use good judgment about driving. Our pastor clearly was anguished that this happened, but he didn't excuse Fr. Burak. He hit the right notes. I also thought that his publicly acknowledging the incident and speaking openly about it was the right approach. We're lucky to have this guy as our pastor.
I've mentioned previously that I don't typically hang out with priests, but I have seen one or two of them inebriated in social situations over the years, in one instance seeing a pastor literally falling-down drunk. It's a bit distressing to see one's pastor impaired. We want to look up to these guys - we want them to model virtuous and even holy living. Perhaps we can empathize with them when they don't measure up to perfect ideals. But they can't be held to a different minimal social standard, either. My sense is that driving while inebriated used to be more socially acceptable than it is now. I see our increasing intolerance of drunken driving as a positive development. Priests (and deacons) shouldn't be exempt.
In the period 2003-2007 when Voice of the Faithful was active in the Cleveland Diocese we had a number of "priest sounding boards" which were "off the record" discussions among small groups, usually about five priests and ten laity.
ReplyDelete(By the way they were very helpful. We were not talking to our own pastors but priests from other parishes. It greatly increased my respect for priests since they spoke honestly without all the political correctness that we experience so much in parishes.)
One clear theme was the total lack of an accountability/support system for priests. There was nothing in place to be sure that priests who had health (mental and physical) problems got the help that they need and did not continue to attempt to function as if they had no problems.
A canon lawyer pointed out that the deanery system was set up to both help priests and keep them accountable but largely is not functional in this and I suspect most dioceses. There is a vicar for clergy but what can one person do when it is pretty obvious that there are a lot of problems and they are getting worse as priests age.
In the Toledo diocese in the eighties there were a number of priest support groups that were very useful. Bishop Hoffman had been in one before he became a bishop, and thought they were so valuable that he remained in his after he became a bishop.
At that time I was a voluntary member of a pastoral staff in a parish where most of the pastoral staff were volunteers. The priest, influenced by his experience in the priest support group, was very open with us, was very willing to say when he just did not know what he should be doing in some situations.
The whole design of the that voluntary pastoral staff brought a lot of lay expertise into the parish. For example we had a voluntary maintenance person who organized the men of the parish to deal with the parish physical plant (we had a school). They served as an emergency group when anything went wrong to diagnose the problem and give him options. There was a list of little problems (e.g. leaky faucets) that they took care of in their monthly meetings. They also did a systematic study of the physical plant, projecting out maintenance and future capital expenses. I suspect not even the most wealthy parishes in the country with paid maintenance staff had a system that relieved the pastor of so many of the burdens of the physical plant of the parish. (It also provided many men with masculine interests an outlet for serving the parish)
The accountability/supports systems that we need have to be both local and diocesan. We need procedures within a parish that do not leave it up to the pastor to develop (or not) this own system of accountability and support. For example after the sudden death of a neighboring pastor, our parish developed a plan for what happens when a pastor dies or becomes unable to function. Every parish needs these.
There needs to be a "visitation" system where a clergy-laity group from the diocese visits each parish, and interviews the pastor and staff about their accountability/support system
Jack - as you know, deaneries are just administrative units, and there is nothing inherently supportive about them. A pastor is appointed the dean, which means that he is given one more set of duties on top of everything else he's dealing with. Some pastors take their deanery duties more seriously than others. In my experience around here, deans host occasional deanery meetings for priests, and sometimes there are meetings or events for staff members. I've been a deacon for 15 years and I've never attended, nor to the best of my knowledge have ever even been invited to, a deanery event. Maybe deaneries in other dioceses are more active than they seem to around here.
DeleteAt least some of the priests around here have organized weekly priest prayer groups / spiritual sharing groups. The ones who attend regularly find them tremendously supportive and helpful. These represent an instance of a small faith sharing group that could be implemented much more widely, not only for clergy but for laity as well.
The more traditional model for priestly support in the US, at least during the 20th century, was the rectory. The old priest who was pastor when I joined our parish in the early 90s told us that, after his ordination in the 1950s, his first parish assignment was at a parish where he was the 7th associate pastor. In other words, there were eight guys living together in the rectory. That sort of an arrangement presents many options for communal spirituality, friendship and support (undoubtedly better realized in some places than others). Of course, there are not nearly enough priests anymore to be able to consistently replicate that model. And interestingly, my observation is that at least some priests don't really want to live communally; they prefer to live by themselves.
I support your suggestions for greater lay collaboration. Not much that is worthwhile gets done in our parish unless active parishioners are collaborating with the pastor and the staff.
DeleteI think our archdiocese has been pretty proactive in addressing any alcohol problems in the clergy. There have been some sent to rehab.
ReplyDeleteI think clericalism in a case like this may be overlapping a problem of convincing old people that it's time to stop driving. It sounds like this guy shouldn't be driving, even without anything to drink, with a Parkinson's diagnosis and multiple meds.
I'm just grateful that my dad doesn't drive off the farm anymore. And grateful to me brother and sister and families that they give him rides anywhere he wants to go.
But anyway the situation Jim posted on is tragic in so many ways.
Deacon Jim, I think you are right in your last graf about drunken driving being more socially acceptable once. Times were different, and I think an evolution can be seen in attitudes.
ReplyDeleteI grew up in Evanston when the Women's Christian Temperance Union was still near the height of its power. Translation: There was no booze available north of Howard Street (except at the Elks Club). But when I got to college in Milwaukee in the Fifties, there wasn't exactly a bar on every corner, but there was always a bar within easy walking distance. And those bars were neighborhood social centers because, for one thing, middle class living rooms were small and, for another, expensive to heat. Turn the thermostat down for the evening and head for the bar, where everybody knew your name. (By law, bars could not call themselves taverns in Milwaukee. Go figure.) Lou Salome, who was Cox Newspapers' man in London had a local like that during the Nineties. If you staggered a bit on the way home from a place like that, you weren't much of a danger to yourself or others.
Flash forward two decades, and the neighborhood bar was a dying thing of the past while suburban zoning laws placed bars beyond walking distance from home. Driving home slightly loaded could put yourself or others in danger, but the social mores didn't catch up with that change until MADD came along to point out that we no longer have our grandmother's social drinking. We probably gained overall from zoning laws, but they were another push toward bowling alone.
There are small towns here where they used to open up the bar after Mass on Sunday so people could down a quickie on the way home. Probably illegal even back then.
DeleteMy wife is from a small town in Wisconsin where, early in our courtship, we attended Mass on New Year's Day and then stopped off "making the rounds" at several of her relatives on the way home to breakfast. (Remember, we fasted since midnight.) The result of that trip home is the murky remembrance of several brandy Manhattans, one at each stop, on an empty stomach. If anything else happened that day I'll never know. That's how the do things in small towns, I guess.
Delete"That's how they do things in small towns..." Unless it was the small town that was my maternal grandparents' mailing address. Where the two churches in town were Baptist and Pilgrim Holiness, and they never got on board with the repeal of Prohibition.
DeleteGetting back to the post, a Manhattan and a glass of wine wouldn't render the average 72-year-old incapable if he had any history with liquor. Interaction with meds, or possibly extreme temperature change (I don't know what's going on indoors/outdoors up there these days) might have caused effects the priest never felt before.
ReplyDeleteI would be surprised if anyone here has NEVER been in a situation in which he/she was doubtful about letting someone, clergy or not, drive, but not doubtful enough to make a federal case out of it.
The problem in this case may have been diffusion of responsibility, everyone thinks things are o.k. because others are not raising questions.
DeleteAnd when you add in Parkinson's and glaucoma, any alcohol is probably a bad idea.
DeleteTom - I certainly can't cast the first stone about that (although maybe I did, in the post). I had never really thought about it before, but the one person who shouldn't be deciding whether or not his faculties are impaired is the person whose faculties may well be impaired. Maybe the lesson is, "Don't ask the drunk guy; tell him."
DeleteI like the diffusion of responsibility explanation. It's what I was getting at when I mentioned not making a federal case of it. If Manny, Moe, Jack, Thelma and Louise are OK with letting him go, who am I to overrule them?
DeleteThere is a whole chapter of Canon law on the Vicar Forane, which by and large is not observed. What the canon law priest was strongly hinting is that VOTF should get a canon lawyer and begin to force this to happen. My canon law commentary says that this person could be elected by the priests, could be a retired priest, could be a religious order priest
ReplyDeleteCan. 553 §1 The Vicar forane, known also as the dean or the archpriest or by some other title, is the priest who is placed in charge of a vicariate forane.
§2 Unless it is otherwise prescribed by particular law, the Vicar forane is appointed by the diocesan Bishop; if he has considered it prudent to do so, he will have consulted the priests who are exercising the ministry in the vicariate.
Can. 554 §1 For the office of Vicar forane, which is not tied to the office of parish priest of any given parish, the Bishop is to choose a priest whom, in view of the circumstances of place and time, he has judged to be suitable.
§2 The Vicar forane is to be appointed for a certain period of time, determined by particular law.
§3 For a just reason, the diocesan Bishop may in accordance with his prudent judgement freely remove the Vicar forane from office.
Can. 555 §1 Apart from the faculties lawfully given to him by particular law, the Vicar forane has the duty and the right:
1° to promote and coordinate common pastoral action in the vicariate;
2° to see that the clerics of his district lead a life befitting their state, and discharge their obligations carefully
3° to ensure that religious functions are celebrated according to the provisions of the sacred liturgy; that the elegance and neatness of the churches and sacred furnishings are properly maintained, particularly in regard to the celebration of the Eucharist and the custody of the blessed Sacrament; that the parish registers are correctly entered and duly safeguarded; that ecclesiastical goods are carefully administered; finally, that the parochial house is looked after with care.
§2 In the vicariate entrusted to him, the Vicar forane:
1° is to encourage the clergy, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to attend at the prescribed time lectures and theological meetings or conferences, in accordance with can. 272 §2[3 ] . 2° is to see to it that spiritual assistance is available to the priests of his district, and he is to show a particular solicitude for those who are in difficult circumstances or are troubled by problems.
§3 When he has come to know that parish priests of his district are seriously ill, the Vicar forane is to ensure that they do not lack spiritual and material help. When they die, he is to ensure that their funerals are worthily celebrated. Moreover, should any of them fall ill or die, he is to see to it that books, documents, sacred furnishings and other items belonging to the Church are not lost or removed.
§4 The Vicar forane is obliged to visit the parishes of his district in accordance with the arrangement made by the diocesan Bishop.
I don't see this as a case of clericalism, just a bunch of drunked up partiers letting someone drive because none of them we're thinking straight. "Oh, he'll be fine, he just lives around the corner." Heard that around the holidays as a kid more often than "Merry Christmas."
ReplyDelete