Bishops’ accountability

Just when Catholics thought the sex scandals in the Church had blown over, a new episode hit the headlines, this time in Austria.

The reported shenanigans in the Austrian diocese of Sankt Pelten make for uncomfortable reading at a time when the Church is hoping to repair the immense harm caused by the recent scandals. It may also revive the issue of episcopal accountability.

As we report this week, photos depicting seminarians, their rector and other priests in the diocese of Sankt Pelten in compromising poses have been published in an Austrian news journal. The rector and his deputy already have resigned over what seem to have been tasteless and imprudent, rather than pornographic, photographs.

The bishop of Sankt Pelten, Kurt Krenn, has downplayed the seriousness of the posed pictures.

It may be true that, as he claims, the pictures were inane, rather than objectively indecent. In light of the heightened public sensitivity in matters involving sex and the clergy, however, Bishop Krenn’s response is simply not good enough.

The lasting impression of this affair, however, should not be the scandal (provided it is being handled properly by the hierarchy). Even priests and seminarians have a capacity to behave foolishly, or even immorally and criminally. The storm will blow over, leaving behind a shaken Church in Austria which will have to deal with perceptions of hypocrisy.

The actual lesson of the scandal concerns the position of the bishop.

The spokesman for the Austrian bishops’ conference, Erich Leitenberger, put it starkly when he said: “The central problem is that episcopal appointments were made in the mid-1980s that were questionable”, referring specifically to the late Cardinal Hans-Hermann Groer, who resigned as archbishop of Vienna in 1995 following allegations of sex abuses. He also seemed to refer to Bishop Krenn, who reportedly polarised his priests and faithful to such an extent that in 1998 some of them appealed to the Vatican for his removal.

It is a serious charge indeed when a country’s bishops’ conference openly criticises episcopal appointments, even if applied in retrospect. The procedures involving the appointment of bishops may indeed require a review.

At present, these procedures exclude the laity and, on a formal level, the clergy of a diocese in the consultation process, and the final decision is made in secret in the Vatican. As the events in Austria show, these decisions do not always serve the best interests of the diocese.

Of course, the final decision must rest with the pope. Yet it is evident that the secret, unilateral process has not always produced the best selections. Rightly or wrongly, some decisions may be understood as having been influenced by the personal whims of Vatican officials, and not necessarily with regard for the good of the diocese. These are dangerous perceptions which the current procedure leaves indefensible.

A Church community cannot function when its bishop is perceived as divisive, if he alienates his clergy and laity, or if he cannot offer suitable guidance.

Surely the Church would be better served if a diocese’s clergy and laity are formally consulted before the appointment (or, indeed, the removal) of a bishop in an inclusive and accountable process.