Faraway, so close

Among engaged Catholics of both orthodox and progressive varieties, there is and has been enormous disdain for the bishops, for the way they handled the sex-abuse scandal. A priest I know cracks wise about the uselessness of bishops. He obviously believes in the episcopal office, but in a lifetime of serving as a parish priest, says that bishops in practice are more harmful to the mission of the Church than helpful. Come to think of it, I don't think I know a single Catholic priest (and all the priests I know, except one, are orthodox) who would disagree with that. One good priest of my acquaintance, a man of deep charity and pastoral self-sacrifice, told me that his former bishop was forever calling him down to the chancery to participate in this or that seminar or meeting, which left him that much less time to hear confessions, visit the sick, instruct catechumens, and the like. It was his opinion that his bishop thought the Church existed for the sake of perpetuating its own bureaucratic existence, instead of as a hospital for sinners.

Over on the OCA News blog, which critically follows the financial scandal in the leadership of the Orthodox Church in America (my church), Father John Hopko writes about the spiritual and moral effects of the bureaucratization of church leadership (go here, and scroll down a bit). Interestingly, Father Hopko, who says he saw personal friends ground down by corruption in high places, profusely apologizes for what must have been one hell of an outburst:

Every since this matter came to light in the fall of 2005, I myself have made a mess of trying to address it publicly, usually because I have found myself speaking from a place of unholy rage, rather than from a place of appropriately measured zeal. I must and do acknowledge my failings in this regard.

Boy, do I know that feeling (speaking from "unholy rage" rather than "appropriately measured zeal"). Mea culpa.

Anyway, Fr. Hopko writes about his view of an episcopate that has come to see itself as existing to be served rather than to serve. He quotes this 1982 diary entry from his grandfather, the great Father Alexander Schmemann, who was an OCA priest:

Yesterday I received from the Chancery a thick package containing reports to the Synod of Bishops from the various departments, committees, treasurer and others. So we have apparently achieved what we were dreaming of. We have achieved the reduction of the Church to successful bureaucracy, administration, to a paper waterfall, all of it rather dull. Bureaucracy is costly (meetings, traveling expenses, secretarial expenses). So the pathos of this bureaucracy is mainly directed to its financial aspect. But financial techniques demand people, specialists in appeals and fundraising. Hence, one needs more money. A vicious circle—“bureaucratization of charisma.”

What a powerful phrase -- "bureaucratization of charisma." Anyway, Fr. Hopko talks about how different life looks to him now as a parish priest, versus when he was working in the Metropolitan's chancery, and then comments:

Our bishops are isolated from the faithful, even and, perhaps, especially when they come to visit the parish, for that is when the isolation is felt most poignantly. And I am not sure that many of the bishops are at all disturbed about being “set apart” in this way. Some may even feel that the office of bishop requires such distance. This is tragic.

There's a lot in his post having to do with particular details of administrative life on the OCA, which general readers won't have much interest in. And should say that my own archbishop, +Dmitri, in whose parish I worship and who has become a figure of great controversy in this scandal, is in my experience a strong exception to the aloof and inaccessible bishops of whom Father Hopko speaks. Whatever else might be said of him, he is there right among his people, all the time -- in fact, that's one of the things that first struck me about my current parish, versus my experience of Catholic bishops. Then again, a fellow parishioner, a Russian emigre, told me at the time that you would not find a bishop like him in all of Russia, so don't expect that +Dmitri is normative.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts about how leading a church (or synagogue, or mosque, or whatever) can be alienating to the true mission of the church, and how that can be overcome. Pope John Paul II was a true pastor, and wanted to be heavily engaged in pastoral work. The rap on him, even by those sympathetic to him, was that he was a lousy administrator, which is why so many administrative tasks went undone, or were done badly. That was also the rap on New York's Cardinal John O'Connor. His successor, Cardinal Edward Egan, is widely disliked for his pastoral insensitivity ... but he has been an able administrator, cleaning up a lot of messes that the pastorally acute O'Connor left behind.

Beyond the level of the episcopate, what's it like as the leader of a parish church? I ran into a friend the other day who told me that she's been unable to get in to see her pastor about a pressing spiritual need. The wait to see him is 10 days. She thought that was a big problem, and I agreed. But I also pointed out that there are 4,000 families registered in that parish, and only one or two clergy on staff. Managing the budget of that parish alone is like running a small business. I pity the priests and pastors who got into the ministry wanting to serve God and God's people, but who ended up as bureaucrats. Still, that doesn't help the lady who is in spiritual trouble and who needs to see her pastor, which is not, or should not be, an extraordinary request.

Is this sort of thing necessary? How can it be avoided? How can the laity help? How do the laity hurt? What should clergy of whatever religion do to avoid losing touch with their people? Discuss.

(P.S. Please don't let's go down the road of "your bishops are worse than my bishops." Cuz I'm going to delete comments that contribute to intra-ecclesial rancor. IJS.)