The Bad Shepherds

Just before the United States Catholic bishops' meeting 20 years ago, I was

part of a dinner with then-Bishop Roger Mahony of Stockton, Calif. In those

days, he stood out as one of a new breed of bishops. Achieving stature for his

support for Cesar Chavez's farm workers, he had also become a supporter of the

nuclear freeze, a movement that was rattling both the Reagan administration and

Cold War Democrats.

Early on in the dinner, a colleague asked the bishop what had led him to

adopt the stance and he replied: "One morning a year ago, I was shaving and heard

Alexander Haig [then the secretary of State] declare that the U.S. just might

have to lob a nuclear weapon at the Soviets to show them we were serious. I

realized that he meant it and that something had to be done." As a result,

Mahony had moved to the fore in an effort to make the U.S. government accountable

for the morality of its words and its actions.

What a difference 20 years makes. Now Cardinal Roger Mahony, having ascended

to one of the most visible Catholic seats of authority, has made his name and

his office synonymous with resistance to any real accountability on the part

of bishops, to their flock or to the public at large.

With his cross-country twin, Cardinal Edward Egan of New York, this prince of

the Roman church is engaged in a campaign to retain the centuries-old

prerogatives that shield the Catholic hierarchy from oversight. Mahony, Egan and

others have been accused of blocking efforts of the lay National Review Board to

watchdog the church's handling of its sex-abuse scandals ae" scandals that are

close to bankrupting some dioceses.

Their resistance led to the intemperate outburst and resignation of the

board's head, Frank Keating, a former Oklahoma governor. The incident is a classic

example of how bishops, who are supposed to answer to a higher authority, play

real-world hardball. They operate in a system innocent of the checks and

balances necessary to any just form of government. They keep it that way by

equating the welfare of the church's ruling class with the welfare of the church and

its people.

Not surprisingly, the way the bishops wield power doesn't always bear

scrutiny. They personally control the purse strings of their dioceses, which allows a

style of money management that freely fuels Rome's ordained old-boy network.

Well-selected patronage can bring with it power, including the power of

bishops to promote their own candidates as bishops to follow them.

Not all bishops trade in this coin ae" only the ones who crave control and

influence, masking it by crowing that "the church is not a democracy." The real

principle at work ae" "one hand washes the other" ae" operates easily in the closed

world of the hierarchy. It is a system that cannot reform itself.

As the U.S. bishops gather for another meeting this week in St. Louis, lay

Catholics must begin to face the legacy of being left out of any governing role

in the church ae" not as angrily as Keating, perhaps, but as directly. Their

spiritual heritage is in thrall to a ruling class of men who remain contemptuous

of giving an account of themselves and their stewardship.

Until the bishops' influence peddling is uncovered, this ruling class will

continue to block meaningful change in the way the Catholic Church governs

itself.

Twenty years ago, I admired a young bishop who was making a name for himself

by speaking truth to power. On this side of a sad divide caused by the

hierarchy's efforts at cover-up and at holding on to its power, I can only hope that

someone ae" or Someone ae" will call the system to account.

Share:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestEmail this to someonePrint this page