Crisis Management in the Irish Catholic Church

James and Wooten, in their article How to Display Competence in Times of Crisis, talk about two types of crises: sudden crises and smoldering crises. The crisis facing the institutional Catholic Church in Ireland is probably best described as a smoldering crisis that from time to time bursts into huge flames. The most recent, and perhaps most damaging, conflagration was the November 2009 publication of the Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.

This damning report, the second in one year concerning clerical child abuse, stemmed from a 2002 television documentary broadcast by RTE, the main public service station in Ireland. The documentary, Cardinal Secrets, reported on cases of child abuse by Catholic priests in Dublin being systemically ignored by Church officials who simply moved the offenders to other parishes where they continued to abuse. The resulting public outrage lead to the Irish government establishing a Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.

Initially, concerned about the financial implications of admitting any responsibility and the avoidance of scandal, the diocesan hierarchy denied everything, implicitly – and often explicitly – calling the victims liars, fought every allegation, apologized for nothing, provided only very limited cooperation to the Commission and hindered their work as much as possible. The former Archbishop of Dublin – now Cardinal of Ireland – under whose watch many of the cover-ups had occurred refused to allow the Commission any access to diocesan files on the advice of lawyers. Meanwhile dozens more abuse victims and their parents were coming out of the woodwork. In 2004, the newly installed Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, after a public showdown with the Cardinal, announced that the diocese would open its files to the Commission and cooperate fully with their investigation. He kept his word in full. In addition, without waiting for the Commission to conclude, he accepted responsibility for the Church's failings and apologized to victims, much to the dismay of many of his fellow bishops and priests who were, and are, still in denial.

The report pulled no punches and named names, producing findings that four former and two current Dublin Auxiliary Bishops were guilty to varying degrees of covering up child sexual abuse crimes. The report also found that a former Archbishop had effectively lied knowingly, and criticized the Papal Nuncio (Vatican Ambassador to Ireland) for failing to cooperate with the Commission by refusing to reply to correspondence about the extent to which the Vatican was aware of, or involved in, covering up child abuse crimes in Ireland. In his defense, the Archbishop relied on the obscure theological concept of mental reservation which enables one to employ deception with the intention to mislead without it being a lie. The Papal Nuncio responded somewhat glibly that the correct diplomatic protocol hadn't been followed. To say that people were angered and galled by these responses is an understatement.

Archbishop Martin acted decisively, calling on the six Dublin Auxiliary Bishops named in the report (four of whom are now Bishops of other Dioceses) to resign immediately. One did, accepting some responsibility for his actions. Over the following weeks, under enormous pressure from Archbishop Martin, four more begrudgingly resigned, without accepting responsibility for their actions. One has still not resigned.

Earlier this month, all thirty-two Irish Bishops (and the Cardinal) were summoned to Rome for a two day meeting with the Pope. The only official outcome of this meeting was a Vatican Press Release. It is assumed, but not confirmed, that the Pope accepted the resignations of the five bishops. He has not called on the remaining bishop to resign. He has also declined to meet any of the abuse victims. Irish media reaction to the meeting and press release has been almost universally negative. The Irish Times, calling it the Vatican's textbook case of how not to manage news, made the point that part of the problem was the way in which the Vatican failed to manage expectations. That said, as the only formal response, the press release was woefully inadequate. It contains no apology or admission of responsibility and speaks of the abuse in abstract terms. Two passages widely interpreted as diminishing the suffering of the victims and distancing the Church from the abuse have come in for particular criticism. Regarded as an own goal by many, the Vatican response has mainly added fuel to an already blazing fire.

From a crisis management perspective, the Church approach so far has been a disaster. The only Church figure to have shown any leadership or real awareness of the seriousness of the crisis is Archbishop Martin who is coming out of it quite well. The others seem to have their heads either down in the sand or up in the clouds. If, as Professor Brown in his guest lecture suggested, the three cardinal rules of crisis communication are 1) determine what happened, 2) find out who was to blame, and 3) explain why it won't happen again, the Church has failed miserably in all three. It took a multi-year government commission to determine what happened and to find out, incompletely, who was to blame. During that time the Church, until Archbishop Martin was installed, obstructed the work of the commission as best it could. The Vatican declined to cooperate at all, despite presumably being aware at the time of much that was going on, given its highly centralized reporting structures. We know it shouldn't happen again because mandatory reporting procedures have been put in place and detailed guidelines issued.

My take on this is that people believe Archbishop Martin is sincere in his commitment in this regard. However, there is also a perception, already commented on in the media, that his wings have been clipped since he has been noticeably more muted and circumspect in his remarks following returning from Rome. Moreover, it is clear from the report that the Irish legal obligation to report to the police certain categories of suspected criminal activity, including child abuse, were often ignored in the past, at the behest, it seems, of the Vatican which requires any priestly transgressions to be dealt with under canon law. Some critics are now suggesting that certain priests and Bishops and the Irish Catholic Church as an institution (which doesn't actually exist, with each diocese being more like a papal franchise) should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. There is widespread support, at least in theory, for this idea.

While it is easy to say that the Irish Bishops and Vatican failed miserably to manage the crisis they found themselves in, such a conclusion is to some extent based on an assumption of what they saw as the crisis and what they were trying to protect. For the Church it was both a crisis of reputation/trust, and a potential financial crisis. The public, on the other hand, saw it only as a crisis of trust and as such framed their expectations of the Church's response in a certain way. When the Church, regardless of how they saw it, reacted to it as a financial crisis this only exacerbated the crisis of reputation/trust. I suspect that this is partly because finances are something tangible that the institutional Church is used to managing while reputation/trust is something more intangible that they confuse with power/edifice and have over the years protected by denying and silencing anything that challenges that power/edifice. If one thing has come out of the crisis so far it is a picture of an institutional Church, blinded by a near all-consuming need to maintain its power/edifice, hopelessly out of touch with the modern world and hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Perspective also plays a part. It is easy to regard many of the pious utterances of the various bishops as vainglorious attempts at deflection but there is no doubting the sincerity of some of them. While a victim may value an apology more than anything else, a bishop may believe that offering them prayers is a more meaningful response.

For the Vatican this may not have been a real crisis at all. In the grand scheme of things, with less than three million, and shrinking, practicing members out of a worldwide congregation of well over a billion, the Irish Catholic Church is like a small, poorly performing department in a peripheral office of a large organization. Compared to more pressing issues such as reconciliation with other Christian faiths and closer relationships with Islam, the Irish Catholic Church's problems don't amount to a hill of beans. Moreover, if some religious commentator's are to be believed, the Vatican has already given up on Europe where numbers are rapidly declining and is turning its attention to the emerging religious markets in Latin America and Africa. Certainly, at times, the Vatican appears to be more concerned with the preservation of the Church than with the preservation of Christianity. Perhaps, it sees them both as one and the same. The Irish public, shocked and appalled by what their Church has become, very definitely do not. As an interested observer, who has followed the fortunes of the Irish Catholic Church all my life, I understand well the Irish public reaction and can even understand the Irish Bishops' reaction – at least they appear to be struggling and trying – but the Vatican reaction, “like the wisdom of God,” to quote John Donne, “surpasses all understanding.”

In my opinion, if the Irish Bishops want to deal effectively with this crisis they need to follow their hearts and their consciences. As a first step, therefore, I think they need to acknowledge to themselves and to the Irish public that at this stage the Vatican is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Already, a number of leading Irish theologians, possibly acting as proxies for Archbishop Martin, have as good as said this. By taking full ownership of the crisis for themselves, the Irish Bishops would be telling the Irish public that, in the sad absence of papal leadership, they are willing to step up to the plate and ensure that this will never happen again. Without this I don't think confidence can be restored or trust reestablished with the Irish public. To demonstrate their sincerity and commitment, I believe they then need to make a meaningful public gesture of humility, penitence and contrition, which has been sadly lacking in some quarters so far. If the Irish bishops do all this effectively, they should regain at least some of the moral authority – enough for the moment – that they need to guide the Irish Catholic Church forward. Without regaining that moral authority, whatever else they do is useless. Then, I believe they need to engage meaningfully in dialogue with their congregations and let their congregations – who after all are the Irish Catholic Church – lead the way. There is no quick fix. Media campaigns may play a part but it is the amount and quality of their engagement that will determine if the Bishops will be successful or not. It will be hard work and will probably take a generation. It will also involve a diminution of ecclesiastical power and probably battles with the Vatican in that regard.

The Bishops hopefully realize that, despite all that has happened, there is a huge desire on the part of Irish Catholics for the institutional Church to redeem itself and a huge willingness to participate and help in that redemption. But as Kenneth Burke would point out redemption is not possible without contrition. And for all the pious talk about the healing power of unconditional forgiveness, healing and forgiveness too are easier in the presence of contrition. The crisis has gone beyond the issue of child abuse and is now about the heart and soul of the Irish Catholic Church. If the Irish Bishops' talk of “renewal” is to mean anything they need to accept responsibility for the past and embrace a future where power is vested in the congregation and not the hierarchy.