The recent Pew Research Center study on religious affiliation brings disquieting news: the number of American Catholics who have stopped practicing their faith has increased, especially among the millennial generation, since the last Pew study in 2007. The Catholic Church is losing members faster than ever, and faster than any other Christian church.
But this begs the question: how can we stop, or even reverse, this trend? I suspect there is no single answer, but last week’s events in two other countries suggest that one answer is: we need the right kind of leadership.
These countries are Ireland and El Salvador, and their contrasting experience shows the difference between two kinds of leadership: the right kind and the wrong kind.
This contrast may surprise us, since on the surface these two countries, though distant, are similar in several respects. Both are small countries with small populations (Ireland 4.6 million, El Salvador 6.3 million). Both have overwhelmingly Catholic populations. Both countries’ church hierarchies have had powerful cultural and political influence. Both share a history of oppression at the hands of a foreign colonizer. And both have seen grinding poverty.
Yet last week we saw sharply contrasting events. In Ireland, the vast majority of Catholics, refusing to follow the Irish hierarchy’s opposition to same sex marriage, approved a constitutional revision legalizing civil marriage between gays. That same week, thousands of Salvadorans attended (and millions celebrated) the beatification of Archbishop Oscar Romero, soon to be Saint Oscar Romero.
Common sense tells us that leaders cannot lead if no one follows. This raises a new question: why did Romero inspire such following, while the Irish hierarchy inspired rejection? As we Americans witness so many (especially young) Catholics rejecting their Church, the question is both practical and urgent. So the cases of Ireland and El Salvador are not just relevant, but also instructive.
One can argue that both the Irish and the Salvadoran church leaders have bad track records. Once Ireland gained independence from Britain, the country’s clergy were among its most powerful figures (some have called Ireland at that time a Vatican colony!). Before becoming Dublin’s archbishop, John Charles McQuaid was a major architect of the Irish constitution, constructed on the principle that Irish law should reflect Catholic doctrine. The constitution specifically notes the "special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church" in national life. As Scholar Timothy White wrote:
By the time [Irish leader Eamon] De Valera wrote and Ireland enacted a new constitution in 1937, the Catholic religion was guaranteed a special role in society and the entire document adapted principles of corporatism that were popular in Church thinking at that time….De Valera’s constitution provided an effective and formal merger between the Catholic Church and the Irish nationalist elites.
Ireland was, as the New York Times wrote, “a theocracy in all but the name.” Many public institutions (like the schools) were in fact run by the Church. Several generations were thus raised by a domineering and harsh hierarchy who taught a version of Catholicism obsessed with rules and sex and guilt. The result was not only a morally repressive culture but an appalling array of oppressive Catholic institutions (from parishes to schools to hospitals to convents to orphanages to homes for single mothers) that achieved the psychological and even physical enslavement of many Irish Catholics.
In my first parish job, in 1972, I asked the pastor and his assistant priest, both Irish nationals, why they had come to America to work. Without hesitation or reflection, both give the same answer: “I came to escape the Irish clergy.” Since then, revelations of widespread clergy sex abuse and exploitation of girls has reinforced popular disgust with the hierarchy.
In El Salvador, the story was slightly different. Independence from Spain left in place a moneyed elite that owned most of the country’s land and dominated its institutions, including the Church itself. The Salvadoran clergy, as part of the country’s small educated elite, came mostly from the wealthy landowner families. This was especially true of many Salvadoran bishops.
Thus El Salvador’s Catholic leadership maintained a longtime partnership with the ruling elite (including the military) that maintained its status by perpetuating the gap between rich and poor. By preaching that their suffering was God’s will, the hierarchy helped keep the poor in their place.
But by Romero’s time, the hierarchy was shifting its mission, as Vatican II (1962-1965) inspired change in the Church in Latin America. At the historic Medellín (Colombia) conference in 1968, the region’s bishops decided to abandon their traditional role as defender of the status quo and to support the poor struggling for social justice.
Romero was known as a conservative, skeptical of both Vatican II and Medellín. Yet on his appointment as Archbishop of San Salvador in 1977, Romero became almost immediately outspoken in opposing injustice and defending the poor. He had witnessed the suffering poor and government violence even against priests in his previous role as bishop in Santiago de María, which made him distrust authorities and fear for his people.
Oscar Romero had the courage to break with bad leadership and lead another way. He took the side of the poor, decried their oppression, and became a prophetic voice for all the marginalized and destitute of El Salvador. But this break made him not only a threat to the elites but even a traitor to his class, and his punishment was assassination during Mass at the hands of a government-sponsored death squad.
 |
| The 1980 Funeral of Oscar Romero |
Thus Romero became a blessed martyr because he championed the suffering poor against their powerful oppressors. In this he communicated the truth of the Gospel.
For me, the lessons from El Salvador and Ireland are obvious and important. First, leadership that distorts Catholic tradition to serve some other agenda (especially the preservation power) is bad leadership, so finally people refuse to follow. Second, defending systematic inequality as God’s will is one such distortion of our faith. Third, rule by sexual repression is another such a distortion of faith. Fourth, only by breaking away from such distortions and preaching the authentic Gospel message can Catholic leaders restore people’s confidence in their own leaders. Only then will people follow the leader.
For American Catholics, these lessons invite reflection. If we are losing members, especially young members, is our leadership somehow responsible? Has our hierarchy championed the Gospel message? Has it been, like Jesus, committed to “preach good news to the poor”? Has it, like Jesus, chosen “to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed”?
Or has our hierarchy too often complacently accepted the growing gap between the 1% in the 99%? Has it too often been sidetracked by its “culture wars” obsession with all things sexual? Has it lost the trust of millions of millennials by its horrific failure to protect children and discipline their priestly molesters?
In short, is the hemorrhage of U.S. Catholics best understood not as a crisis of faith among the young, but rather as a crisis of credibility of among our leaders?
Blessed Oscar Romero inspires millions of Catholics (in America as well as El Salvador) as a model of holy, courageous, and effective leadership. Does he also inspire our bishops? Can they become credible leaders like him? If yes, perhaps more of us will be inspired to follow them.
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015
