www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Sacred Silence

One of the teachers at my school, Fr. Donald Cozzens, wrote a new book entitled, "Sacred Silence: Denial and the Crisis in the Church."

In regards to the current scandals in the church, Fr. Cozzens mentions that these "current troubles go well beyond the priest abuse debacle" and that his thesis is that the "first challenge is to break through the wall of denial and silence guarding the present ecclesial order."

He begins his arguments with three themes that are central to today's current "malaise" and the maintenance of silence, and they are: (1) Loyalty, (2) Responsibility, and (3) Tranquility.

Loyalty.
Since the Church has many enemies, any question of needed reform (such as eliminating mandated celibacy and allowing married priests) is looked upon as being "disloyal." Such issues raise the discomfort level too much - even though Cozzens mentions that the Dogmatic Constitution on Church affirms "conpetent adults" to be obliged to speak their concerns to church leaders. Those who wish to break the ice are considered dangerous or disloyal and the response is usually "defensive listening." The same goes for the issues regarding scandals as witnessed in the parishes of many a laity.

Responsibility.
Many critical issues face today's church leaders. Today's church is facing many new developments and our laity are getting more educated and need answers to church pronouncements. Cozzen goes on to discuss how some bishops perceive such open discussions as a challenge to their authority or power. Instead of listening wihtout prejudgments, some may resort to "I am the bishop" strategies to silence any inquirer. Yet, the bishop as teacher may get lost; so does the responsibility to instruct and respond. The laity, who wish to hear from their bishops on various issues don't get any responses from the teacher's chair.

Tranquility.
The third theme Cozzens mentions is tranquility. No one wants the boat rocked or waves stirred on their shift. Yet, what may seem tranquil at the surface is actually hiding treacherous under-currents below. The "desire for comfort and calm matter too much" and the troubles continue to brew until it is too late. The recent scandals only reflect a situation where too little is done too late. We forget that an ounce of prevention ...

The rest of the book goes on to cover the various forms of denial (chapter 2) and then seven more chapters on the "faces" of denial. It is an interesting book, a second in a series after his book "The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A Reflections on the Priest's Crisis of Soul."

Is "sacred silence" the basis of today's current scandals? or is Fr. Cozzens missing the point?

Dear Cantor Joseph,

What a fascinating book!

One problem I see is that whenever there is a discussion around the issue of "Crisis in Authority" in the Church, what is invariably implied is a crisis of laity not listening to their bishops.

The top-down hieratic mode of church government is something that grips the psychology of many of our bishops, Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic.

This matter creates personal tension in me between my need to be loyal to my bishop and a responsibility to be critical of church government.

And I don't know where the fine line is drawn. Certainly, our Administrator is quick to draw it when we are perceived to be criticizing our bishops.

My bishop is also quick to draw it and it sometimes seems that he doesn't let me finish my sentence before he "gives it to me."

What I think has to be done before laity can effectively critique church authority and generate change is to develop, if at all possible, a common set of "rules of converse" between laity and bishops.

In the UGCC, especially in the hey-day of the Patriarchal movement, whenever a bishop showed disloyalty to Patriarch Joseph, he would be punished by the laity in a variety of ways.

I remember one bishop who refused to have his papal episcopal nomination ratified by the Patriarch - and so openly gave notice of his disloyalty to Joseph - was received during his consecration by laity carrying a coffin and by singing "Anaxios!"

Normally, however, it is the cheque-book that is used by our laity to punish bishops and priests who take unpopular and even offensive stands.

I think it is therefore in the bishops' best interests to want to develop, with laity, ways and means of effective communication etc.

Alex

"Normally, however, it is the cheque-book that is used by our laity to punish bishops and priests who take unpopular and even offensive stands.

I think it is therefore in the bishops' best interests to want to develop, with laity, ways and means of effective communication etc."

Alex,

Because of money?

Dear Cantor Joe,

"Because of money?"

You've obviously never been a bishop before!

Seriously though, my point had more to do with what I think we can all agree are inappropriate responses to bishops by the laity because there are no legitimate avenues of recourse to bishops that are acknowledged as such by them.

Why should laity feel the only way they can get a bishop's attention or express their disapproval or criticism is through the pocket-book or through actual street demonstrations with pickets? (We've had them!).

The bishop's chancellor was asked to comment on a demonstration and said, "This matter will be decided by the Church, not by the streets."

In other words, the laity have no voice because they are the "streets."

That can't be healthy for the Church.

Is it?

Alex

Alex,

Do you think Fr. Cozzens is correct with his thematic triad of loyalty-responsibility-tranquility?

Fr. Cozzens was directly involved with vocations, seminarians, seminaries, and bishops over the years. What can account for his lack of concentrated effort in addressing laity who don't listen to their bishop? Is this the problem you think he should have addressed in his newest book instead of the other side of the communications equation?

Dear Cantor Joe,

I guess I'm responding to that side of the equation here that I'm most familiar with.

I'm a person who, if anything, will go overboard, or so they tell me, in terms of loyalty toward my bishop.

Whether we like it or not, the Church's power base is hieratic.

There are laity who don't listen to their bishops and respond in either passive or active ways to policies of the Church.

I'm only saying that since the bishops are the ones with the real power in the Church (while paying lip service to "lay participation"), it is incumbent on them to create legitimate and formal avenues within the Church where real lay-episcopal dialogue may occur.

And those avenues must have some real "teeth" in terms of the impact that laity can have.

Otherwise lay participation in them will not only be ineffective - it will become nonexistent.

Ultimately, I don't see how a priest with the background of Fr. Cozzens could speak meaningfully to this issue to begin with.

To even try to do so from his vantage point and at this time, could get him into trouble.

What are your thoughts?

Alex

"Ultimately, I don't see how a priest with the background of Fr. Cozzens could speak meaningfully to this issue to begin with."

Why not?

"To even try to do so from his vantage point and at this time, could get him into trouble."

Actually, his bishop recently granted him permission to return to teaching at my school. He no longer is involved in vocations or the seminary. I don't think wise bishops would send troublesome priests back to teach in a public forum, do you?

Your remarks about the laity resorting to pocket-book and picketing communication techniques bespeaks of a breakdown in communication that should not have occured. Many other places have resorted to voting with their feet.

Cozzens comments on how some scholars wanted to address the psychological, sociological and developmental causes for the scandals back in the 90s. The story goes how the study was blocked by some Cardinals because it would focus too much attention on the problems of clergy abuse. "Bad faith" (read: denial) resulted, to say the least. Unfortunately, some of those Cardinals were the problem as we came to learn. None dare call it a coverup.

Oh, the terrible webs bath faith weaves!

Now, I gotta get things ready here for the Halloween kiddies. I hate this chore, but I look forward to seeing the little ones all dressed up. I also made sure I bought a few extra candies for me. Thank you for your comments.

Dear Cantor Joe,

Thank you for letting me off easy . . .

You are too much of a formidable force for me - thank you for tolerating this Ukrainian fool.

I'm dressing up as an Orthodox monk to greet the children tonight.

I've even carved a three Bar Cross into one pumpkin!

God bless,

Alex

Alex, I remember you saying that the "Laos" had no power!! (re: the Council of Florence)

The collective community of the baptized is what constitutes the "Church". That includes not only us lay-folk, but also the ordained.

While there are some who invest the ordained with some magical power of authority, the fact remains, as St. Paul says: the priest is a man chosen by God from among the people to SERVE the people in the things that pertain to God. That is: the PRIEST/BISHOP receives special graces to provide leadership to the whole community, but does not imbue the priest or bishop with some sort of infallibility in guiding the church. He is PART of the ekklesia. Neither above it nor outside it. And the true "pastor" is an integral part of the Church. Not a Prince or "Lord", but rather (as the Papal title surmises): servant of the servants of God.

To remain "silent" as a member of the Church is NOT to be loyal to the leadership, but rather to abdicate one's legitimate role as a member of the ekklesia of the baptized faithful.

This doesn't mean to be a rebel, but rather to be a member of the "loyal opposition" that strives to make sure that the Church is fulfilling its responsiblity to the Gospel. And if the bishop is not apparently following the mandates of the Gospel, then the role of the laity is to provide a challenge to the leadership that must be answered.

Blessings!!!

Dr. John,

Excellent points!

Dear Dr. John,

Yes, excellent.

But there are no formal avenues available to the laity to speak with bishops in an effective manner - whether we like it or not.

My only point is that it is in the best interest of bishops and of everyone to have such avenues in place with the rules of discourse up front to avoid the kind of inappropriate responses from laity as I, for one, have seen.

If you in the Ruthenian Church have not had any like that, good for you.

We in the UGCC have not been that fortunate.

You are looking at this from a theologians rather idealized perspective.

What you have said are fairly obvious things and should be a "given."

We need to move beyond theological reflection into organizational issues on how to implement this.

The tragedy of the modern Church is, in my view, too many committees and reports and not enough implementation strategies.

Alex

I agree with you, Alex, as usual. I think that the appropriate response (non-theoretical) is to grab the pastor and let him know what concerns you have. They have "presbyteral days" when they all get together to interact, and I'm sure that the issues get discussed and then are also brought forward to the bishop.

Barring this, I think it is more than appropriate to write a letter to the bishop, or, if you have time, make an appointment and chat face to face. When we had the discussion about funding for married priestly candidates, I wrote to the Metropolitan, Judson, of happy and blessed memory to let him know that many of our posters on this forum were ready to establish a burse for their support. Although he declined to accept the offer (I'm sure there were a goodly number of political issues), he at least was made aware that there is a group of dedicated layfolk out there who are willing to support this move towards reintroducing married clergy. He didn't have to guess if he would find any support. Cause we told him so!!

Perhaps it's age, or perhaps the number of years in a religious community, but I just don't see bishops or other hierarchs as ecclesiastical Klingons from another universe. (Perhaps this is an influence of the latter day Medieval Western understanding of bishops as "Lords" or other secular authorities akin to royalty? Yuk.)

As with our relationship with the Latin Church, where we have got to act like we are a Church and not an appendage to the Roman community, so too must we reclaim our relationship with our bishops as our Shepherds and not as the Lord High Poobah. My suspicions are that our bishops would really appreciate being reclaimed by our peoples as beloved members of our communities. Get 'em a kielbasa from the grill and a cold beer and find them a seat with the men's club to watch a football game. They're family, for heaven's sake.

Blessings!

PS: And to ANY bishops who are in the metro DC area, feel free to give me an e-mail. I'll make a great meal (hey, I'm Greek -- we COOK!) and get some good wine and enjoy a conversation. And this applies to both Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Orientals. Family, you know.

Well Dr. John, I always shied away from the Priesthood, but since an invitation to Greek cooking is now part of the package I guess I will see how fast I can attain the status of Bishop so I can quickly accept that invitation (Lord knows I want to)

In Christ,

A.S.

One of the teachers at my school, Fr. Donald Cozzens, wrote a new book entitled, "Sacred Silence: Denial and the Crisis in the Church."

Joe, I thought Fr. Cozzens was "banished" to the "deserts" of Minnesota for such statements as this new book.

Anyway, I think his thesis misses the mark completely.

The answer to the problem is not "loyalty-responsibility-tranquility." It is celibacy.

Perhaps this is the Eastern perspective, but celibacy is the universal Christian calling given to us via our baptism, not Holy Orders.

As Christians we are called to live a new life, a new life characterized by being able to seeing Christ in every thing and especially in every one.

Celibacy is not refusal of the sexual urge for the sake of the kingdom, but rather, refusal to use another person or thing for the sake of one's gratification.

Celibacy is the reclamation of the proper order of things. This is especially the responsibility and the charism of the bishop. His episcopacy is not his throne. It is Christ's. His teaching is not his own but that of Christ. He has authority not because of who he is but who Christ is, the One who acts through him.

The bishops and the presbyters of our day are in trouble because they are not living this radical kind of celibacy. They are living a tentative celibacy where one "hedges his bets" just in case he is wrong. The laity is held down, "just in case" they may not image Christ. Since the laity may not image Christ, genital sex can be practiced. The sexual practice of priests and bishops is then hidden because it does not image Christ.

True celibacy requires a true recognition of the equality of all men and women. This is what the laity know but the priests and bishops have forgotten. And the laity will teach them, this I have no doubt.

(Fr. Dcn.) John