IN A move that is apparently unprecedented, the Vatican has advanced steps in trying to address the issues and allegations of sexual abuse mostly done by the clergy. Two days ago, Pope Francis gathered the presidents of episcopal conferences from all over the world and the major superiors of religious congregations. They convened for a summit that would discuss an issue that has eroded the credibility of the Church.
In his message to the delegates of the summit, the Holy Father boldly said that, "In the face of this scourge of sexual abuse perpetrated by men of the church to the detriment of minors, I thought I would summon you . . . so that all together we may lend an ear and listen to the Holy Spirit ... and to the cry of the small ones who are asking for justice."
Obviously, many sectors in society especially the victims themselves are not yet done and contented despite all the apologies made by the pope and the bishops. This is understandable given the number of victims and the varying degrees or intensities of the abuses. Not even a Vatican summit is a guarantee that all of these will come to an end. No admission or pastoral discourse from a pope would be sufficient to address the matter.
The problem, I believe, is due to the bureaucracy of the Church itself. Through the years and despite a rapidly changing social landscape, it has not set up a system that would push bishops and superiors to handle the matter with less subjectivity and clarity. Church leaders have been mainly oriented to a top-down approach in terms of its directives. Reinforcing this is what has been believed and taught about the nature of a bishops’ power: absolute and only answerable to Rome.
For a long time, bishops have been running their jurisdictions like a household. Everything within the household of the bishop is private and protected. Some bishops are yet to embrace the fact that we no longer live in the medieval world. In our current context, even the personal is political. State power has been expanded and secular principles have been flexed to already include or cover domains of religious life that lie at the intersection of public interest.
Thus it is high time that the Church would do something other than just admitting her faults. The summit is an important step, however it cannot and will not put an end to the abuses. Systemic and structural changes must be implemented. Dioceses should double their effort in coming up with clearer guidelines and protocols on how to handle issues. This is specifically true in the Philippine context where many bishops manage their priests devoid of sound management principles and approaches. Abuse is an issue of power. Where the latitude of power is very broad and unchecked, then abuse would very likely happen. So who would check bishops for example especially in terms of their accountability?
That the clergy possess a privileged position in the Church’s hierarchical structure — is something beyond dispute. The upper hand of the ordained remains evident in various Church affairs despite the reforms since Vatican II. Especially among countries with a population that is vastly Catholic, the lay are generally mere subscribers of the services offered by their pastors. Apparently absent in the Church’s organizational culture is a kind of reciprocity that would nurture an ethos of dialogue, fairness, and communion between the hierarchy and the laity.
Also lacking therefore, as of yet, in the efforts to address sexual abuse is the greater participation of the laity in the decision making process in certain dimensions of the Church. It is therefore not just a mere propaganda against the Church – to say that the problem of sexual abuse is intertwined with the problem of clericalism.
If after the summit the ecclesial structure and the clerical culture would remain the same, then there is not much to expect from the whole process.