The abbey where I live faces east, like many older churches. In the winter this detail goes unnoticed but, as spring comes and the sun rises earlier, its light shines brilliantly through the sanctuary windows. This would make adoration and Mass blinding experiences, but years ago someone came up with a solution. High in the sanctuary, the rose window is made of clear glass; lower down, the three lancet windows directly behind the altar, are instead made of semi-opaque alabaster. This permits some light to come through, but blocks the rays that would impede liturgical functions.
The purpose of transparency
It seems that whoever arranged the windows knew that in itself transparency is an indifferent quality; it is neither good all the time, nor bad all the time. There are times and places when it is useful, even necessary, and moments and settings when it is useless, even harmful. It’s a fact that all of us recognize, at least implicitly.
For instance, trash cans are often opaque, because no one likes to see rotting fruit, used bandages, and half-gnawed chicken bones. Likewise, the purpose of frosted glass and shower curtains is precisely to prevent transparency!
At the outset, let me be clear that I am not saying that cover-ups are ok, that sin is acceptable, that people who suffer or have suffered should remain silent, or that criminals should not be prosecuted. Let me also be clear, though, about what I am saying: the word transparency has gained a great deal of traction as of late, both within the Church and without.
Many parties clamor for transparency, and I assume all do so with the best of intentions. Yet, to my knowledge, no one has stopped to consider what exactly transparency is. Dictionary definitions usually ramble on that transparency means having no secrets, but is that really what we want? To know everything about everyone at all times?
Both a church and cultural problem
It’s difficult to determine what transparency is, and I do not claim to have a solution for it. Again, it is not just a “Catholic” issue: it is a problem in the culture.
We saw this issue come to the surface, for instance, in the Senate hearings for Brett Kavanaugh last year. My point is not whether or not the questions were appropriate or if the accusations were true; my point is, simply to ask whether or not there are any limits to transparency.
What do we have a right to know, especially in terms of the Church? Or, better: there are so many things that can be known, so what things should we expect to know, what things must we know, and what things can be left for the Second Coming?
This problem is exacerbated even further by the culture we live in, namely, a culture that rejects Christian values such as forgiveness, prudence, and charity. We live in a “reality TV” world that wants to know everything and wants to know it now, in this very instant. It’s as though we want to be able to Google answers or call up a Wikipedia entry with all the facts and data for life’s difficult questions. But are there no limits?
The meaning of words
A writer and apologist whom I appreciate recently wrote an article about not fighting over words. His point, as I see it, was that we shouldn’t worry too much about what words we use, or how they are used, as long as the substance or doctrine behind them is the same. I think the point is valid in theory, but, in reality, things are far different.
In fact, I think they stand in exactly the opposite order: oftentimes the Church and the culture use the same words but at the same time refer to very different realities. For example, we all use the terms “freedom”, “discrimination”, and “rights”, but what a Catholic means by them and what the world means by them are very different things. It would be an error for people of faith at times not to correct the misunderstandings of our culture. Such is the case with the word “transparency”.
Again, the issue of transparency is not one for which I have a solution. However, there are a number of areas in which the issue comes to a head in the Church, and I offer the following to indicate when transparency seems to be loosely defined and practiced.
The New York Times scandal sheet
Not long ago, the New York Times published an article entitled: “Vatican’s Secret Rules for Catholic Priests Who Have Children.” I assume that such articles are written with the best of intentions (although it is hard not to see in it a push to abolish priestly celibacy).
Many Catholic websites picked up on the article, and even labeled it (as it appears in the article) “the next big scandal.” However, the article’s name suggests that the Times was annoyed by the existence of a “secret” document, a manual of sorts, that told bishops what to do in these cases: a clear lack of transparency!
A friend of mine emailed to comment, and was horrified and saddened. Such a reaction is understandable, I assured her, but I shared my own two guiding principles. First, the New York Times and I have a mutual, unspoken, indifference towards each other. The Times doesn’t ask for (or care about) my opinions regarding New York (which I have), and, conversely, I don’t ask for (or care about) their opinions regarding the Church. Hence, and secondly, I wouldn’t get worked up about anything the Times labels as a scandal: their business, it seems, is to create scandals, not solve them.
But what about those “secret rules”, the confidential manual? Again, I’m not justifying sin or criminal activity, but let’s consider: when things go wrong, it’s best to have a manual on hand. This rule applies for planes, cars, and espresso machines (personal experience); although it is far preferable to have no problems, if problems occur, it’s best to have a manual.
Indeed, the most logical thing to do is to produce a manual to handle challenging situations. Furthermore, you may recall that in the wake of the 2002 clerical sex abuse scandal, one critique leveled at the Church was that there was no guide or procedure for dealing with accused priests. Here, we have a guide, and yet that is precisely what the Times finds scandalous. What sort of transparency, exactly, is wanting here?
Scandal at the seminary
More recently, a news outlet came across another “scandal”, this time involving a priest working at a seminary who allegedly had pornography on his computer. A seminarian saw it, was scandalized, complained, and, in a series of events that remains unclear, at least to me, the archbishop was accused of covering up the affair.
The reporters made it known, however, that what was on the computer was “nothing illegal.” If true, it was sinful, of course, and no one argues that. However, my thoughts revolve around this: what was the archbishop to do in this case? Publicize an otherwise private sin or deal with it confidentially to protect reputations? One can demand transparency, and even have good reasons for doing so, but, what, exactly, is this transparency that is being sought?
Defining scandal
Related to this matter, two thoughts come to mind: first, what, exactly, is “scandal”? In the Summa Theologica (II-II, q. 43), Thomas Aquinas says that scandal is “something less rightly done or said, that occasions another’s spiritual downfall.” It seems like an odd definition, but Aquinas explains that not only sin, but even the appearance of sin or of doing something less than perfect can lead others astray. That sets the bar for behavior, not just of bishops and priests, but for everyone, very high, and makes scandal very likely!
But Aquinas is also deliberate in using the verb “to occasion”. The sufficient cause of being scandalized is important to note. No matter how terrible another person’s actions are, they can’t cause me to lose my faith or to sin; that loss comes from my own free choice. The other person’s deeds may be an occasion for my fall, but not the cause of it. The only thing that can cause me to lose my faith or to sin is . . . me.
In the same question, Aquinas asks whether even the saints are scandalized, and he replies no. To be scandalized, he writes, is to be moved or shaken in faith. The saints, however, are so firmly rooted in the Unmovable God that nothing, no matter how serious or terrible, can shake their confidence.
The point is not to make anyone feel like a bad person because they were scandalized at the news of the moral failings of members of the Church. Rather, does publishing a “private” sin help people grow in holiness? It seems that, while the media might claim to reveal it in the interest of transparency, isn’t “transparency” actually just a mask for taking a sin, broadly proclaiming it, and thus providing an occasion of scandal for thousands who otherwise wouldn’t have had it?
The bishops
It is easy to point the finger at the bishops. Again, this is not to say that bishops are perfect; after all, they are only human. Yet, this is precisely what we forget: they are only human. Recently, I was speaking with a priest from Eastern Europe. His country had also weathered a storm of scandal, but, when asked how the priests had done, he simply shrugged and said, “Most people know their priests personally. Even if some are bad, people know their parish priest and the local priests, and so the image of the priest escaped mostly unscathed.”
However, the most recent scandals in the US hit out at the bishops. By their office, bishops are more distant; they come maybe once a year for Confirmations, if that, and make their annual appeal. That makes it easier to dislike them, complain about them, and even hate them.
Yet, in his book Arise from Darkness, Benedict Groeschel remarked that “Bishops, as you may not know, are a very battered and beat-up group. When I give a retreat to the bishops, I have to be quite gentle because they know better than anybody else how miserable things really are. Years ago, bishops never heard the truth. Now they never hear anything good or even nice.” This was in 1995!
This much is certain: too much light can keep us from seeing what is genuinely important – like the monstrance on the altar. What is transparency? It’s a difficult question, and I don’t have an answer for it. But at least I’m transparent about my understanding of transparency.
8 thoughts on “Being Transparent about Transparency”
There’s a false dichotomy presented here… that, either: Everything about the Catholic Churches operations must be made transparent or that transparency itself is too difficult to wrap our heads around practically/spiritually such that it’s a hurdle toward further disclosures of the Church’s behaviour.
With regard to the sex abuse scandal. The Catholic Church Hierarchy attempted to preserve its image by suppressing info about about abusing priests and NOT handing them over to the proper legal authorities. Doing so decades back would have sent a clear statement to the public that the Catholic Church does not condone that behaviour and values its reputation enough to be transparent about those who undermine the Church’s mission.
It’s ironic for me we hear in scripture words to the effect of “Those who try to hold on to their life will lose it, and those willing to lose their life for my sake will gain eternal life”.
Yet this definition of scandal given above seems to play right into that folly of trying to save face at the expense of silencing/downplaying victims.
My main point in all this: The Church never needed a debate about transparency to take protective actions it should have to prevent further victimization of minors.
The hierarchy placed a greater value on secrecy which is partially a source of power over its congregation. In the last few years, I’ve seen unsettling examples of opqueness in my former parish around fundraising.
A campaign “One Heart, One Soul’ had formed to raise money supposedly for the ‘future’ / ‘youth’ of the parishes in the diocese. 75% of the donations raised were kept by the parish and 25% forwarded to the diocese. This came at a time when no real need was presented for fundraising. Essentially it became a ‘spend this $$ as you see fit’, ‘we’re sure you can find something i.e. parish hall upgrades etc.’
In the background, fuelling this campaign were letters sent to the parishoners requesting an ‘interview’ with them. Very little details given. I didn’t personally attend though extended family had in their own parish. I heard it amounted to representatives from the diocese pressuring the parishoners for large financial contributions, sometimes annual amounts agreed several years into the future.
I found this quite unsettling. Made me think of what the $$ was really going toward on the diocesan end … paying out the abuse victims from parishoner pockets?? Next to ZERO transparency through the whole letter sending/interview request process until my Uncle sat through one and was very turned off by the whole thing.
10+ years ago, fundraising also began to renovate a large Cathedral in a nearby city. As part of the young adults group at the time we were asked to hold fundraising events and bring awareness to this project. Some of it seemed legit as the building was quite old and needed restoration.
However, the priest in charge at the time was quite enthusiastic about spending $$ on decorative/ornamental things like it was going out of style … a hole cut into the altar to visit the crypt downstairs, $250,000 marble ambo/lectern, $500,000 new altar. The existing ones weren’t in disrepair …. so so so many things he gleefully said needed to be replaced. Honestly I found it sickening and materialistic.
Now, I’m all for churches looking nice and being inspiring to be in, but this to me seemed obscene…
Some months later, same priest gave a practical talk on the use on money. He extolled the virtue of labelling his credit card with the words “Can I afford this purchase, and … do I really need this…”
After the talk, I approached him about those words in comparison to the lavish plans for the cathedral restoration. …. I received a trite response about how the city REQUIRED the church to restore the cathedral and they were essentially being FORCED to spend $$ this way …. what a bunch of bull$hit … I came away thinking and quite disappointed.
My intuition wasn’t wrong some years later when restorations completed and they gleefully announced it all cost $136 Million (With an M) Dollars. They were still looking for money. Cards in the pews suggesting you can call yourself a ‘Cathedral Builder’ for a donation of $100 … I found it sickening. They could have made necessary repairs plus added some nice touches for far far less.
Funny enough, they were transparent enough to publish the prices of many new items (organs, stained glass, roof, etc .. hence my numbers above). in the pamphlets. So there you go I guess ….
Anyway … I’ve developed a very jaded view of the Catholic Church around the secrecy/transpareny issue. Generally we get told over and over …. yes some people do bad things … but look over here …. disregard the bad things … don’t think about them so much … see the good in everything etc. ….
I couldn’t in good faith contribute to that cathedral nor would I have given any $$ in that ‘Interview’ process.
There’s an air the Church has cultivated through secrecy that is quite sinister. I don’t like that and thus I don’t want to be near it.
Granted every organization has its issues. However its total B.S. to not see how the Church has magnified a lot of its own problems by denying they exist in the first place.
It’s truly horrible that churches are burned down in retaliation for resedential schools. At the same time, all of the pent up anger around secrecy and misuse/misbehaviour doesn’t just magically disappear with time.
I say if the Church truly wants to rebuild itself, it must do away with TRYING to appear perfect / the incarnation of God on Earth. So long as it can’t admit it is run by humans alone and not divinely guided etc we’ll continue to have these problems.
I understand that presents a problem doctrinally for the believers. However consider this … all we can do as humans is to try and APPROXIMATE the path toward God / Goodness/ Our True Calling … It’s when we think we must somehow present a perfect / untouchable image to the world that we’re already trapped.
In the case of the Church, it made that error decades ago. All of the scandals coming out are it having run out of road to kick the can down. It’s caught up .
This has turned into a rant I suppose but not meant to be insulting. I care deeply about spirituality but can’t do it in an environment/institution that thinks its the worlds moral compass whilst $hitting on and hiding the most vulnerable.
I’ve believed for most of my life that Religion is Made, but Faith is not.
We can only TRY to approximate/steer ourselves to a good place by interpreting scripture, following made-made traditions etc.
Faith is in our hearts. We know its there because it forms through trial and struggle and ultimately deliverance.
If we were all truly transparent about religion/faith/spirituality we’d admit we don’t know even 1% of Gods greatness or what he ‘Truly’ thinks. We only THINK we do in this life.
Religion is mans ability to convince another man he’s got more about God figured out than the rest of the herd.
There’s no comparison to having experienced spiritual things on your own and have such a private/intimate reveltations into the very beginnings of understanding what’s beyond this world.
I don’t claim to be an expert … however I think we get too caught up with the middlemen in this life vs going straight to the Source….
Hi, and thanks for the comments; you’ve clearly thought a lot about this! You’ve written a lot, but something I think is key is when you talk about the need to turn to God and grow in our relationship with Him. In any organization where there are human elements at play, there’s bound to be failings and problems. As Christians, we really do need to make sure that we’re not an impediment to people growing closer to God; on the contrary, we need to make sure that we are that “light on a hill” that brings people to Him. You’ve given some deep insights, and I’ll continue to ponder them. Thanks!
I think cutting out the middleman can be an important step for some people. Listening to God directly in ones life vs the thinking that organized religion is always the ultimate answer.
There’s no doubt there were good things in my organized religion upbringing. Though for me it clearly isn’t the whole picture on spirituality / life matters.
Thanks for the response, Fr. Dreyer. And thank you for writing the article. It is great to start these discussions because I agree with you that the church is in for a difficult period of time in the next decade or more as it attempts to reform itself. I fear that without meaningful reform (of which I’ve seen almost no talk in the US church), the current trends of significant decline are guaranteed to continue. I keep hearing the argument that the church will become smaller but purer. I personally believe that this is a fallacy. Without reforms, the church will decline into a small sect (with many similarities to a cult given the obvious corruption adherents would be required to overlook). At that point, virtually everyone outside the sect will look at the church as a hopelessly corrupt institution – any many people already do. Recruiting and growing from that core would be near impossible. I pray that we start leaving this path soon. And thank you again for starting the conversation! I believe it is vitally important!
Thanks for your comments, Kyle; I couldn’t have said it better! Neither am I convinced by the argument that we’ll have a smaller, purer Church. It seems like we’re missing the point if that’s the goal we’re aiming for or at least settling for. “Meaningful reforms”: that’s the key. Let’s hope the conversation continues, and leads to action!
There clearly need to be limits on transparency, but the problem is that the church has operated in the dark to protect itself over and over again. And they’ve done this at the expense of others. Things cannot be kept private when that privacy puts other in danger, and this is what the church did OVER and OVER and OVER again. And given this breach of trust, they need to be far more transparent than they otherwise would have been. When trust is broken, an extra dose of transparency is needed to rebuild that trust.
The Catholic definition of scandal also needs to be rewritten. Catholics seem to think scandal is allowing the evil things done to become public (which is reasonable given the definition from the article). The scandal is having done the evil things. The church needs to be honest about what it is and what happens. For example, if a priest leaves the priesthood, that should be public information. That priest shouldn’t disappear overnight and have his name stricken from all history (this has happened in my diocese repeatedly for both priests that decided to leave and those that were forced to leave for child abuse). Additionally, if a priest is put on leave, there needs to be a generic description given of what he’s being investigated for. This would be part of due diligence to make sure others who may have had a similar experience are encouraged to come forward. Again, this is something that doesn’t happen in my diocese. And finally, accurate and complete financial statements are paramount. With about a million different entities in my diocese, there is no way to track the money. Tracking the money is a great way to help keep behavior honest – and that’s impossible with almost all Catholic organizations. Some make an attempt at transparency, but I haven’t seen any that are transparent regarding all of the assets controlled by a diocese (including those outside the official diocesan entity). This should be a simple and obvious step.
The church needs a massive increase in transparency, but unfortunately no one in the church seems to have a clue what transparency is. Transparency is not revealing the sins of every member of the clergy. Transparency is allowing a light to be shown on everyday church operations so that the temptation to do and hide evil is mitigated. This won’t stop evil from happening, but structural reforms to promote operating in the light will reduce the amount of evil done and help those evil actions to be caught and remedied much more quickly. The church cannot just say “trust us” anymore because they have shown that they cannot and should not be trusted in the current structure/culture.
Hi Kyle,
Thanks for reading and commenting. You’ve raised many good points, and, it’s true: there’s a lot of evil out there, and when it’s done in the dark, it’s much easier to keep it going. How and where exactly to shed that light, and when to do so, is a hard question: I think it’s really going to be the challenge for the Church, particularly in the US, for the next ten or fifteen years at least.
God bless,
Fr. Nate
Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit