Luther Was Right, Says Bishops Point Man ( Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating )

National Catholic Register ^ | June 30-July 6, 2002 | WAYNE LAUGESEN

[narses]

 

‘Luther Was Right,’ Says Bishops’ Point Man

National Catholic Register
June 30-July 6, 2002

by WAYNE LAUGESEN
Register Correspondent

WASHINGTON — Bishops are facing unprecedented challenges to their authority in the wake of the sex-abuse scandals. Some of the heat is coming from their own lay commissioner.

At least seven grand juries across the country are focusing on allegations that some Catholic bishops covered up past sexual abuse by priests.

At the same time, Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating is promising to use his unprecedented new position with the U.S. bishops’ conference to help lay people remove bishops who might have looked the other way or transferred known priest-abusers.

Critics of this laity-driven approach warn that it is fundamentally at odds with the hierarchical nature of the Church and could leave the American bishops individually and collectively exposed to overreactions based on unbalanced public opinions.

In explaining to the Register his desire for more lay control over the Church, Keating endorsed the reasoning of Martin Luther, leader of the 16th century Protestant reformation. Keating, a Catholic and former prosecutor and FBI agent, heads a new national review board charged with overseeing the implementation of a national sexual-abuse charter adopted by American bishops.

“Remember, it was Martin Luther who suggested early in his efforts that the lay community get involved in reforming the Church so there would not be a collapse of faith by the faithful,” Keating said, answering critics who say laity boards should not seek removal of bishops.

“Unfortunately, in retrospective, Martin Luther was right,” he said. “Just think what positively could have occurred if lay people in the 16th and 15th centuries had been involved. None of us is a theologian, and every one of us [on the board] recognizes the authority of those who speak for the religious part of the Church. But the human part needs more lay involvement, to make sure these types of calamities don’t occur again.”

Keating’s comments came June 21 after he finished a two-day meeting with three other members appointed to the national review board. Keating was named chairman June 14 after bishops approved a policy charter that Mandates the reporting of all sexual abuse allegations to civil authorities and that will remove from public ministry all priests found to have sexually abused minors, even in the distant past.

Other review board members include Robert Bennett, a lawyer who represented President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones sex scandal; Justice Ann Burke of the Illinois Court of Appeals; and Michael Bland, a psychologist and former priest who was abused by a priest in his youth and helps the Archdiocese of Chicago counsel other abuse victims.

Keating said the committee of four has decided on seven other potential members and two alternates. They will recommend the appointments to Bishop Wilton Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“These people are geographically diverse. They are all practicing Catholics, and all are independent people not dependent upon the Church in any way for their livelihoods,” Keating said, explaining they would not have to fear financial retribution for their potential actions against bishops. “All are very successful lay people, and there would be no religious members.”

After approving the abuse charter June 14, the U.S. bishops approved norms to submit for approval by the Vatican. The norms establish some aspects of the charter as “particular law” — meaning exclusive to the United States — and would mandate that bishops appoint a laity review board for each American diocese.

“We have two charges,” Keating said. “One is to comprise a report analyzing what each diocese has done to punish and remove the people responsible for this conduct — and that would include prelates — and to examine how this occurred, which of course could include prelates as well. We hope, and what Bishop Gregory hopes, is that the local diocese review boards will consist of tough lay men and women who will examine the role of bishops and clergy, to make sure their mission is to pray, p-r-a-y, and not to prey, p-r-e-y.”

Keating said he was disappointed that the zero-tolerance policy enacted by bishops called only for the removal of “priests and deacons” from public ministry and not bishops.

“I wish the bishops had said all ‘clergymen’ instead of just priests and religious, but I think our charter is broad enough to cover the gamut and I think the independence and tough-mindedeness of laity will take this commission’s actions to the place it needs to go,” Keating said. “It may turn out no prelate was criminally or grossly negligent, but we don’t know yet.”

Pope’s Decision

After Keating spoke publicly about his desire to force culpable bishops to resign or get fired by Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia said he did not think that was the governor’s new charge.

“Whether a bishop resigns is an issue between that bishop and the Holy Father, not a review board,” Cardinal Bevilacqua told the Register.

As well, no provision exists in Church law for holding bishops accountable to any lay body for alleged failures in the execution of their episcopal duties. Regarding the discipline of bishops for violations of ecclesiastical law, the Code of Canon Law specifically states that no one other than the Pope or the Roman Rota, the Vatican’s court, can pass judgments. Canon 1405 states that the Pope serves as the sole judge of bishops “in penal cases,” while the Roman Rota serves as judge in less grave “contentious cases” involving bishops.

Prominent lay Catholics share Cardinal Bevilacqua’s concerns about Keating’s tough talk about bishops.

Robert Royal, leader of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., said Keating is feeding a misplaced, politically driven desire among a growing number of American Catholics to establish the Church as a democracy, in which popular opinion prevails. The Church is not a democracy, he explained, but a hierarchy that upholds moral standards that often stand in direct confrontation to the demands and desires of today’s secularized pop culture.

“Gov. Keating is suffering from ‘mission creep’ — I don’t see how the removal of bishops, or the targeting of bishops, can be the mandate of laity review boards,” said Royal, who is also a member of the group Catholics for Authentic Reform. (Register executive editor Tom Hoopes is also a member.) “The national bishops’ conference doesn’t have the authority to establish review boards with a mission like what Keating explains. A national conference of bishops cannot legislate for individual bishops. While bishops can agree to voluntarily adhere to national norms they establish for themselves, each bishop remains answerable only to Rome.”

Camille De Blasi, director of the Center for Life Principles in Redmond, Wash., and a member of Catholics for Authentic Reform, also criticized Keating’s comments.

“It’s irresponsible for laymen to go after bishops,” De Blasi said. “Bishops are our leaders. We as faithful have a responsibility to be obedient to them, to love them, to pray for them. That doesn’t mean we don’t point out where we think there have been mistakes and where there needs to be attention, and I hope Keating’s board will do that. However, it’s not the role of a layman to call for any bishop’s resignation. It’s God who calls bishops, not laymen.”

Royal called Keating a “great man” whom he’d like to see serve as vice president or attorney general for the United States. However, he said he’s shocked that Keating called on the wisdom of Martin Luther to justify efforts by the laity to seize more control over the Church.

“It’s not enlightening for a Catholic to cite a Protestant precedent,” Royal argued. “As we know from the history of the Reformation, what starts as reasonable reform, unless it’s kept in strict boundaries, can lead to chaos. I think at the end of the day what we want is not a plebiscite of bishops, not on this issue or other issues. With all due respect to the governor, there’s a ‘Protestantizing’ element in what he’s saying.”

Throughout history, Royal said, the will of the majority would have destroyed Christianity if religious leaders allowed it to prevail.

“When Moses comes down from Sinai and sees Jews worshipping the golden calf, he doesn’t turn around and say ‘Oh, I have to rethink my views on the Ten Commandments.’ And Jesus and Paul encountered all kinds of popular resistance,” Royal said. “There’s a counter-popular element that has to be preserved from whatever the majority is willing to say at any given moment. If we could just take a plebiscite from time to time and have a shifting opinion on what Christianity is, then we wouldn’t need Revelation.”

Death Penalty Dissenter

Other concerns about Keating’s appointment were raised by the group Catholics Against Capital Punishment, which cited 1999 comments by the Oklahoma governor that Pope John Paul II was “wrong” in his teachings against the death penalty. In response to those comments, Archbishop Eusebius Beltran of Oklahoma City issued a public letter of rebuke, saying that “by incorrectly stating the Church’s teaching on capital punishment, he [Keating] does a great disservice to all people.”

Catholics Against Capital Punishment also cited remarks Keating made Jan. 25 at a conference at the University of Chicago, where he commented about his continuing “battle” over capital punishment with Archbishop Beltran and Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa, Okla.
“I kind of hide under the bed when they start firing the big guns,” Keating said. “I’m waiting to go to Mass on Sunday and be denounced from the pulpit.”

Keating said he hopes concerns about his tough talk and prosecutorial zeal might be tempered by the fact that Clinton attorney Robert Bennett was among the first three appointments to the board. But Bennett’s appointment has itself raised eyebrows because he boldly defended Clinton in one of the former president’s most-notorious sex scandals.

Although Keating and Bennett haven’t worked together before, the governor said he is a close friend of Bennett’s brother, former Education Secretary William Bennett. Furthermore, Keating taught CCD to Robert Bennett’s daughter.

“One thing the appointment of Robert Bennett says is that we will be fact-driven, and we will not run a pogrom against priests or bishops who did nothing wrong other than, perhaps, exercise poor judgment,” Keating said. “And I think that’s important. Robert Bennett is a tough trial lawyer, a criminal defense attorney. If I had a problem, I’d hire Robert Bennett, too, because he’s very good.”

Keating knows his talk about bringing bishops to justice has stirred a controversy. Years down the road, he said, he hopes the national board will be viewed as a success story for the Catholic Church and other American institutions grappling with sexual abuse involving adults and minors.

“Although it hasn’t resulted in the same level of publicity, we know that other institutions have this problem and in many cases it’s probably worse,” Keating said. “Although most Catholic prelates are wonderful human beings, and most Catholic priests are wonderful and dedicated and conscientious human beings, we will soon have a protocol in place to remove any criminal predators among their ranks. We need to figure out how to do that, and then to the extent that we can be of help to other institutions, we want to do that.”

Wayne Laugesen is based in Boulder, Colorado.

---

Subscribe Now... Letters to the Editor...About the Register...Send Us News to Cover...Back to Homepage

Copyright © 2000-2001 Circle Media, Inc.    All rights reserved.
Last modified: Thursday September 20, 2001 .

 

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

We're hearing a lot of political rhetoric valorizing the laity and disparaging the clergy. Given the outrageous nature of the scandals, this is somewhat understandable. In principle and theory, there isn't a problem with laymen playing some role of involvement in the Church. Canonically, they can't dictate to the bishops which ones must resign. The problem always gets down to who precisely are the Catholic laymen who get involved, what level of knowledge and professional skills do they have, are they up to the job, etc. Keating has been a little wobbly so far. He probably didn't realize that his statements might sound somewhat un-Catholic to a lot of people.

We probably need a graduate and finishing school program in both Theology and PR for laymen who are going to be active in the Church. Any ideas for which bishop should be entrusted with oversight of the institution sponsoring such a program? [irony alert] Didn't...um...Keating go to Georgetown?

[Lady In Blue]

Not really,it's just that anything that has to do with religion in anyway(and this does)always seem to end up in the Religion section.To be on the safe said,I post all of my threads about the Church in the Religion section.And especially if it's from a Catholic paper like the Register.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

This may sound a little ironic, but what we probably need organizationally, at least in an "advisory" sense, is something sort of like the House of Lords in England which, traditionally, had the Lords temporal and Lords spiritual (i.e., bishops). An advisory committee, structured like a Senate or Congressional committee investigating corruption, problems, etc. Some of the better bishops in the USCCB could participate. Now, we already have unorganized and haphazard journalistic and academic discussions going on about problems in the Church. Crisis, First Things, The Wanderer, The National Catholic Register, EWTN, faculty at Steubenville, etc., all have writers and thinkers addressing these issues. Truthfully, the discussions on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Gould, Michael Novak, Richard Neuhaus, Dr. Fitzgibbons, et al., were more informative and "Catholic" in many ways than the USCCB meeting in Dallas itself.

[Dajjal]

Narses, I am having a completely different reaction to this piece that you have.

“Gov. Keating is suffering from ‘mission creep’ -- I don’t see how the removal of bishops, or the targeting of bishops, can be the mandate of laity review boards,” said Royal, who is also a member of the group Catholics for Authentic Reform. (Register executive editor Tom Hoopes is also a member.)

Okay, let's start with the bottom line: the reporter's, Wayne Laugesen's, boss belongs to a group that is trying to save the bishops' skins. So Laugesen writes a hit piece against Gov. Keating.

Leave the remark about Luther aside for a second. What we have is a news story that Keating wants to "help lay people remove bishops who might have looked the other way or transferred known priest-abusers" but that bishops and cardinals and their friends are opposing him.

Keating said he was disappointed that the zero-tolerance policy enacted by bishops called only for the removal of "priests and deacons" from public ministry and not bishops. "I wish the bishops had said all ‘clergymen’ instead of just priests and religious...."

My gut reaction is that the bishops appointed Keating to chair the review board, hoping that he would help with the whitewash, but that now he is not playing along with them and has announced that he will try to get the guilty bishops unseated.

The bishops, led by Card. Bevilaqua and the NCR editor, are lashing out, trying to discredit Keating.

As for the Luther comment:

1) I don't hear Keating saying that Luther is right about grace or scripture or the Eucharist -- just right about the need for reform in the late medieval Church. He's saying that if the prelates had listened to the people, we could have gone from late medieval corruption to the Counter-reformation in one fell swoop, without the splintering of Christendom and the breaking away of millions of souls.

2) Given that the reporter was intent on writing a hit piece, I would like to see the transcript to check on whether Keating came up with the rather poorly phrased comments on Luther on his own, or was he responding to a reporter's question -- perhaps Laugesen's own question.

3) The context may easily have been that the Scandal threatens to disrupt the Church like the so-called Reformation did, and a few bishops losing their jobs could avoid that. I would agree with such a statement.

As for Robert Bennet, I don't like him either. But the bishops refused to let his brother William be on the panel. Any guesses why? I have no opinion on the woman or psychologist.

Cardinal Bevilaqua says, "Whether a bishop resigns is an issue between that bishop and the Holy Father, not a review board." And Mr. Robert Royal, a friend of the editor, explains that "The Church is not a democracy, but a hierarchy that upholds moral standards that often stand in direct confrontation to the demands and desires of today’s secularized pop culture."

Right. That nasty secularized pop culture that thinks that homosexual pedophilia is wrong, and that bishops who allow it should be stripped of their office.

"It’s irresponsible for laymen to go after bishops," De Blasi said. "Bishops are our leaders. We as faithful have a responsibility to be obedient to them, to love them, to pray for them."

In other words, "Sit down and keep rowing!"

As well, no provision exists in Church law for holding bishops accountable to any lay body for alleged failures in the execution of their episcopal duties. Regarding the discipline of bishops for violations of ecclesiastical law, the Code of Canon Law specifically states that no one other than the Pope or the Roman Rota, the Vatican’s court, can pass judgments. Canon 1405 states that the Pope serves as the sole judge of bishops "in penal cases," while the Roman Rota serves as judge in less grave "contentious cases" involving bishops.

Canon Law makes no provision for what Keating is proposing. Canon Law does not allow mere laymen to redress their grievances if a bishop foists homosexual pedophiles upon their children. So Bevilaqua and Royal and the NCR editor are better and more law-abiding Catholics than Keating, who thinks pedophiles and pedophile coddlers are disgusting.

Well, if Canon Law makes no provision for removing pedophile-loving bishops, then Canon Law is a Canon Ass.

Whether Keating will actually do anything, or whether this is all talk, I do not know. But count me against Bevilaqua, Royal, De Blasi, and the NCR editor on this.

[streetpreacher]

Really? When a loved one dies and goes to Heaven, can they not hear you and see you? Are they not in a favored position to ask Our Lord to grant our prayers?

Of course they can see me. They're (meaning all saints, not just loved ones) cheering me on to follow after God with all of my heart. No, they're not in a "favored" position any more than I am. I have the righteousness of Christ NOW. I am seated with Christ in heavenly places NOW. Christ Himself is making intercession for me NOW. And I know that His prayers are ALWAYS according to God's will. How much more favor do I need than that?

BTW, As a Catholic, how do you know you're loved ones are in heaven? Where's your assurance (this is not an attack; I'm really curious how a Catholic answers this theologically)?

[narses]

In many cases we don't. There are times when we are reasonably sure though. I think of the now deceased wife of a friend who died a most heroic death, essentially a martyr so that her newborn child could live. She died with all of the sacraments of the Church and in a State of Grace. I ask her for her prayers on occasion as, unlike you, I am far less certain of my place with God and very sure of hers.

[Salvation]

Bump on he respect gone, pgkdan.

“Remember, it was Martin Luther who suggested early in his efforts that the lay community get involved in reforming the Church so there would not be a collapse of faith by the faithful,” Keating said, answering critics who say laity boards should not seek removal of bishops.

Where has Keating been? There are folks all over the church doing things like this and have been for the last ?????how many????? years.

Makes me wonder how long it has been since Keating has been to Mass.

[Servant of the Nine]

Luther had intergrity?!

Compared to anyone at all in Rome at the time he did.

SO9

[Salvation]

commentary on the "Lutherization" of the modern American Catholic Church.

Or is the Catholic evangelization of the Lutheran Church?

[narses]

Just a quick reminder.

[Arthur McGowan]

Also, Leon Panetta, who was:

Co-Sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have made Catholic hospitals illegal, by forcing all hospitals to kill babies;

Defender of Birth-Canal Brain Suctioning, while working as The Rapist's Chief of Staff.

This is the USCCB leadership's idea of a "Catholic."

Believe me, the priests of this country are disgusted by their own bishops' wriggling out of responsibility, and dumping on priests, as though priests alone were responsible.

The Catholic Church in the U.S. is going to shrink 50% in the next decade.

[narses]

The Church will survive. 50% is still survival. Sadly many souls may be lost because of the wolves in priests clothing.

[Torie]

Luther sounds like my kind of guy. I don't submit my ideas to pre-censorship either. Granted, the faith alone bit never appealed to me, but then I am agnostic bordering on atheist, so well, whatever. Some jerk who has been an ahole all his life, I don't want to get redemption by recanting on his deathbed. But then, if one doesn't believe in heaven or hell, I suppose that is moot, except that I don't think much better of the recanter for having done so - it is too little too late IMO.

[Torie]

How do you define shrinkage, since the Catholic Church counts adherents as for life based on baptism I think, even if many of those have exited to secularism, or Protestantism, or whatever. Quite how one gets a count escapes me.

[Arthur McGowan]

There is membership purely in the theological realm. In that sense, once baptized, always baptized. Once ordained a priest, always a priest.

But the practicing membership of the Church in the U.S. is going to plummet.