Of Priests, Football, and Idols

By Christopher Medeiros



Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno



The Penn State child sexual abuse scandal has been all over the news. Once again a pillar of the community, a person in power in a beloved American institution, was accused of abusing his authority and violating children. Once again the people in that institution allegedly did not only have safeguards to protect children. We are again looking at the structure of an institution (college football at Penn State) and how it may have developed in ways that may protected the abusers. Equally, or perhaps more disturbingly, Penn State college football fans expressed strong vocal support for those who allegedly knew about the abuse of children and never did anything about it.

Does any of this sound familiar? Am I talking about football or the church?

YES!

  

For me, someone from Fall River MA, one of the first places in the US to break the story of the widespread sexual abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests, this story is all too familiar.  In the middle of that scandal one of the parish priests I grew up with was arrested and sentenced on charges of child pornography. Also as that scandal grew the hierarchy of the church, and many faithful Catholics, believed that the abuse could be explained by looking at the horrible actions a few pedophiles, but not in looking in the ways the church itself operated as structured. It is the structure of the institution itself that allowed pedophiles to function and flourish.

Now the news is full of sensational details and questions about whether or not graduate assistant Mike McQueary reported the abuse to the police and why once head coach Joe Paterno was informed of the abuse he didn’t make sure Jerry Sandusky wasn’t fired and arrested. Penn State fired Paterno and Penn State president Graham Spanier on Nov. 9, four days after Sandusky was arrested. Athletic director Tim Curley and a vice president, Gary Schultz, are accused of perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse. Both have stepped down from their posts. In the midst of this, Penn State fans are rallying around Joe Paterno and the institution and see that the only fault is in the alleged abusers, not the system.

That questions of who knew about the abuse and who failed to report it are very important, but they are also a tantalizing distraction from looking at the ways this kind of thing can happen and can be prevented. It is clear in the “wink, wink, nod, nod” culture of college football numerous people might have known of or even witnessed Jerry Sandusky’s violation of young boys. Some people told some other people, but nobody pushed hard enough to report this to authorities and be sure it was followed through. Many people found many ways to ignore or minimize what was happening. As a result, not surprisingly, as the years passed, more and more children were violated.

Is it a coincidence that both college football and the Roman Catholic church are beloved powerful hierarchical organizations where white men have all the power and authority?  We as a society still have a tendency to create individuals and institutions that become idols which we shower with adoration and hand over inordinate amounts of power.

In today’s world the idolatry for us is not a golden calf in desert. Idolatry continues in the people and the institutions where we help foster a concentration of power in one or a few people. People we set apart and set above the rest of us. While those who abuse that power have individual responsibility when they abuse that power, we as a society have to look at the ways we create idols that are above accountability. We give people power and don’t look at how power has to be shared and kept in check in ongoing ways.

Yes, the abuser must be punished if found guilty. Yes those who didn’t report this must be held accountable, but if we are really interested in stopping this from happening again we must be wiling to look at the iconic hierarchical institutions we create.

What are things to look for?

• Look for institutions where the relationships between those at the top with the most power and the bottom with the least power are extreme.  

• In the Roman Catholic Church, the chasm between the laity and the people is enormous. There can be no “mass” without a priest. Individual churches have no say in what priests lead their congregations, they cannot dismiss a priest nor do they have any authority to hold their priest accountable for anything. Priests are closer to God; they have the power to act as the go-between for God and the people. Women cannot hold any position of ordained ecclesiastical power.  

• In college football, the overwhelmingly white male owners and coaches, have lots of power and money. Under them are student assistants, like Mike McQueary, then players. These players are often young economically disadvantaged students on athletic scholarships, at schools where their academic backgrounds are far below the students they are in class with and who are many of the fans of their games. While children aren’t necessarily a part of this hierarchy, the power and money are structured such that those at top have so much power and control they are able away to get away with many things no one could. They are above scrutiny.  

• In the business world at big corporations, is the janitor making minimum wage with no benefits while CEO and CFO make 30 million dollars?

• Look for rigidity of power. Is power something shared, invested in different people at different times, or does it always stick to one person or one tiny group of people for long periods of time? Are roles rigid in the institution? People have different functions, different responsibilities in organizations; are those functions rigid or can people move between them? For example, could the laity at a congregation have a say about the type of liturgy/worship they do or would that be seen as overstepping their boundaries? 

• Are there groups of people excluded from power, like women, people of color, LGBT people, etc? Are there many ‘kinds” of people holding power at different time, or does the same “kind” of people always seem to hold most of power?  

• Is there accountability? Are there set mechanisms that monitor power? What voice do  people, at all levels within an institution, have about how power is used or misused? Are people afraid to speak up?

Let’s make sure that Jerry Sandusky has his day in court and if found guilty is punished and never has ANY access to children ever again. Let’s look what kind of culture was created that might have lead people to not report the abuse of children.  The guilt of those who allow violation of children to continue must called to account. However, if we as a society are REALLY interested in stopping the abuse of the most vulnerable, the least powerful in our world, we have to look squarely and honestly at the people and institutions we help create and maintain. We have to be sure we don’t commit the sin of idolatry. We have to be sure that we don’t create people and institutions that are so powerful, that have so much control over others and so little accountable to anyone, that they are get away with horrible abuse.

* An earlier version appeared in Christopher Medeiros’s Spirit and Flesh blog at http://spiritandflesh.blogspot.com/ on November 20, 2011.

** Christopher Medeiros, MDiv ’99, is the Director of Admissions and Recruitment at the Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Be not afraid” – is our role business or faith?

By Elizabeth Magill

Jesus said to us “be not afraid” and yet we are afraid. We, in religious communities, are afraid that we will run out of money, run out of people, run out of energy. If our focus was on formation, not on maintaining the status quo, I believe we would be less afraid.

What would be different now if our vestries had led us in an exploration of the needs of the local community? What would we have learned if we had our time meeting, loving, welcoming, and addressing the needs of our neighbors?

Jesus said to us to take care of those who are hungry, thirsty, alone, without clothes, ill, or in prison. If our focus was on God’s mission, not on maintaining the status quo, I believe we would be known in our communities as places that show God’s love.

I mused afresh on all of this after reading an article by Tom Ehrich of Morning Walk Media , proposing that the time for "business as usual" in Episcopal parishes is over. Writing in The Vestry Papers, a web newsletter (www.ecfvp.org) produced by the Episcopal Church Foundation, Ehrich writes that historically vestries have failed to note the way that markets have changed, and, have failed to change with society.

Ehrich's marketing advice is sound but my response is radically different. He suggests that:

Many vestry members start out with three assumptions:

-Their job is to run the congregation

-Their goal is to keep longtime members happy

-From work and home, they already have the skills they need to do vestry work.

None of these assumptions is accurate. And our own history proves it.

Unlike Ehrich, I don’t think that marketing is our biggest mistake.

Imagine if, 40 years ago, or now, our vestries declared that the work of the church is to form Christians. Imagine if we were trying to learn how to reach out to those in need, to stand up for the oppressed, and to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ in the world. Imagine if we anticipated change, and vestries focused on helping us to prepare for that change?

What would be different now if our vestries had engaged in formation, and set up similar opportunities for the congregation? What would we have learned if we had spent years struggling to understand God's call to us each as individuals, and God's call to our congregation as a community?

Our individual churches are anxious about buildings, church attendance, and budgets. Our vestries are trying to run a business and think that our clients are the members of the church. Like Ehrich, I have a list of different jobs for the vestry.

-Vestries need to stop running churches, and begin listening for, and helping to implement, God's mission in the world.

-Vestries need to take risks and make a radical commitment to change steeped in what they learn about God through the work of formation, and in what they learn about communities in the work of outreach.

-Vestries need to discern their spiritual gifts, and to help members find theirs, and engage in training to use those gifts. The vestry should ensure that the whole community is engaged in ministry, learning to listen for God, and learning to follow God's path.

I don't actually know if following God's path would mean that the Episcopal Church, or any other denomination, would be larger in numbers than we are today. But I believe we'd be deeper in faith.

I believe that we would see the few fishes and loaves of bread in front of us as opportunities for mission instead of as a shortage of supplies. The work of the vestry isn’t keeping the Church going, but rather keeping the people of God heading toward God's reign.

We cannot do that by ignoring a changing world, or by keeping existing members happy. There is nothing wrong with good business practice, but the real work of the church is not business, but faith. We need to look inward, at who we are as a Christian community, and by looking outward, attend to the needs of those at the edges of society.

* The Reverend Elizabeth M Magill, Episcopal Divinity School staff, manages EDSConnect, the continuing education program for Episcopal Divinity School. Liz teaches Theology of Ministry in Small Churches, Evangelism for Liberation, and Developing Spiritual Communities. She is the author of Seeing God in Diversity: Exodus and Acts with Dr Angela Bauer-Levesque.