Be inspired or object

When a mighty tree falls, it falls heavily.  The news report of the abuse carried out by Jean Vanier, the founder of the L'Arche, has truly hurt very many who looked up to him as a modern saint. 

On the one hand, there is the importance and value we attach the person rather than the work one does.  In that sense, Vanier's personality and credibility was one of the chief reasons for substantiating the work carried out through the L'Arche movement.  On the other hand, there is the undeniable motivational impulse and ripple effect carried on through the works of L'Arche and its members.  Can these two be disengaged from one another?  Perhaps not! 

So what's the option left:  Reject and disassociate with everything related to Vanier? Or continue as before, discounting what Vanier actually did besides the good he initiated?  Extol public virtues vs condemn private vices? (The roots of the latter lie in the ancient Greek philosophers who spoke of the unity of virtues - if a person has one, he'd have it all!).

I personally have read some of Vanier's writings and honestly recommended the same to others some formators in our Salesian houses.  So I choose to look at the goodness, beauty and the truth of what is before me, rather than blot out everything out of anger and hatred for one, based purely on what he did to 6 people, in comparison to the thousands who did and continue to do amazing work, taking inspiration from the same source. 

I choose to be inspired by the good and beautiful, rather than resist doing anything at all, out of anger and hatred.  So what of Jean Vanier?  I think his name descends from the list of inspirers and saints to being an anonymous footnote to the great works carried out in his name.  

Wolf as the shepherd

The other day Fr Pavol was mentioning of a particular diocese somewhere in central Europe which had its new bishop.  His surname was 'Wolf'.  The initial humour around  the diocese was the question: "Can Wolf be the shepherd?"

Amusing when it is only the play of words and names.  However, as I had a good laugh at this whole narration, it took me a while to also remember that perhaps not all places there is a real shepherd leading the flock.  The name may not be 'wolf' but much of everything else certainly is! In such circumstances the harm done not just to the people directly involved, but to whole community and that too for the lengthy duration - not only of the tenure of the bishopric or pastoral service but in the years to follow too.  How difficult it would be for the next person, however good and noble he may be, to recover lost confidence and trust - leave alone work for the advancement of the diocese or parish. 

Great is the harm done by people who appear and promise to do good, but with ulterior motives; much more than those who appear and openly threaten to harm.  In the case of the latter, one is at least aware that they are there to harm.  

Bishops and authenticity

In the first reading of the day Paul admonishes the Corinthians to be squabbling with one another and then approaching an 'outsider' to arbitrate justice, forgetting that within the believing community there are individuals who are capable of amicably resolving the issue with greater depth and insight.  But this lack of trust of the one (or some) within is also an indicator that either there isn't one at all or that people have divided up life into faith-related and other-related so neatly that one does not have a bearing on the other.

The first imagery that came to my mind as I read this passage was the scandal of sexual abuse and the Church, all over the world, especially involving Bishops who either were involved directly in the abuse or covered up cases for the sake of 'preserving' the image of the Church.  From that perspective, I found myself reading Paul admonishing the Bishops rather than the people.  I should say, my experience of the Bishops in my lifetime has not been a very happy one.  Only on rare occasions have I met or interacted with Bishops whom I've come across as genuinely human.  Most don't even deserve to be called Christians, leave alone be ordained!

However, Pope Francis' homily this morning about the same reading, sheds a slightly different light which perhaps I've not looked into.  Speaking almost on behalf of and to the Bishops he

invited them to remember three things in these troubled times: their strength lies in being men of prayer; they should have the humility to remember they were chosen by God; and they need to remain close to the people. 

The Bishops Pope Francis has in mind and is speaking about are those who truly feel the burden of being human, not the ones who've decided and live as though they are above everything. (More quotes from the sermon). 

Owning up... being the Church

The revelations about the abuse of minors by priests and religious has driven a knife into the heart of the Church.  There is no going back on this.  What has been done cannot be undone.  The church will have to live through this.  It cannot deny or escape this guilt. 

The direct consequence of this uncovering has significantly contributed to the departure of many a faithful from the church.  People no more feel safe in the church and prefer to stay away.  Vocations to priesthood and religious life had drastically fallen.  Many even prefer to be categorized as 'irreligious', if not atheists. 

Yet, it is interesting to note that the priests and religious are not the only sex-offenders to be exposed.  Football coaches, Hollywood bigwigs, famous politicians, too have been charged, and found guilty.  Yet parents have not stopped enrolling their sons for football training camps;  young women still try their hand at modelling and in the movie industry;  youngsters still aim and strive for a political career... there hasn't been a reduction of these (at least not significantly or recorded).  Why then is the whole church singled out for this treatment, unlike football, or movies or politics?

The basic difference is a matter of trust.  The Church was considered the moral conscience of the society and priests and religious the models of virtue.  This was something the Church leaders aimed for, took pride in and the lay faithful joyfully and sincerely endorsed.  However some took advantage of this trust and let their human tendencies prey on innocent believers.  Others instead of confronting it, covered it up.

So it is not the media coverage and the ensuing outrage that has wounded the church but the very act itself.  The church is betrayed by the ones most trusted.  Again, not the whole church but individuals. Yet the church will have to take the blame, if it still wishes to be true to its name.  The victim and the abuser, both are the church!