Archbishop Hunthausen: ‘Total Absence of Dialogue’

Here are excerpts from Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen’s written presentation to Roman Catholic bishops made public Wednesday:

I want to tell you right at the outset that I am personally very distressed by all the turmoil that has come about in our church because of what has transpired in Seattle. I wish it would all go away. How I wish that! And I want to tell you all that I am particularly distressed about any anguish or even division that may have come about among you, my brother bishops. If I could have done anything in good conscience to spare you this moment I would have.

One underlying hope is that you come to understand that the apostolic visitation (investigation) of the Church of Seattle and its aftermath is not simply my own personal struggle, nor is it, as some have suggested, some sort of battle of wits between a maverick archbishop and the Holy See. . . . It is my hope that you will see the apostolic visitation of the Church of Seattle as an ecclesiastical matter with serious theological implications which touch very directly and profoundly on our individual role as bishops and on our corporate responsibilities as members of the College of Bishops.

I would hope that, in the future, if the weighty decision is made to undertake an apostolic visitation for the good of the church, at least two lessons will have been drawn from this aspect of the Seattle experience: (1) that secrecy does not work in matters of this sort, and (2) that secrecy should not work.

And secrecy in situations like this has further inimical effects: Secrecy is responsible for the fact that there was a total absence of dialogue with me as to whether a visitation was needed in the first place and, if so, why and according to what specific ground rules. I was simply informed of the fact and given no opportunity whatever to object or even to respond. In other words, I was presented with a fait accompli.

My brothers, I hope I have reported enough to make it clear why I feel that the visitation was so badly flawed from the very start, not, as I have said, due to bad faith on anyone’s part but due to a process that seems extraordinarily inadequate given the kind of open church we have become since the Second Vatican Council.

First of all, we are not dealing with a matter of dissent in the church. The news media have sounded this theme and I suppose I can understand why, given other currents presently flowing in the church. But I am not a dissenter from the church’s teaching.

Another important point about what this matter most surely is not: It is not a case of personal obduracy or obstinacy on my part. I suppose I am a strong-willed person (my priests would probably bear me out on that!), but I have always striven to be a loyal son of the church and a faithful member of the College of Bishops. From the very start, I have always made it clear to the Holy Father and to everyone I have dealt with in the Roman Curia that I would happily resign if my doing so would help this situation and that I would sooner resign than bring dishonor to our church in any way.

Perhaps I also need to acknowledge the extremely widespread publicity which has surrounded this entire case, to the point of causing confusion and serious scandal for many of our people. I am grieved by this, and I think it could have been otherwise. I have already told you that, and why. Our people have ‘come of age’ and they deserve to be treated as adults. They are capable of dealing maturely with problems where they exist and they take seriously the ‘ownership’ of the church that is their birthright as baptized members of the Body of Christ.

. . . I honestly believe that the current waves of adverse publicity could have been avoided had the decision regarding the visitation, the process followed in the visitation, and all that has ensued since been dealt with more openly and forthrightly. Had this happened, I know that the people in our archdiocese who have been so badly hurt, scandalized, and even outraged by these events, would have found themselves in a different place.

But very real practical questions remain, and those better equipped than I am need to address them. The most obvious way of putting the question, to my way of thinking at least, is simply: How does a diocesan bishop, who is himself the Vicar of Christ in his particular church, carry out his role with the degree of independence which this role implies while at the same time doing so in full union with and under the rightful authority of the Supreme Pontiff?

I need some help, some direction in coming to understand just how we in Seattle--bishops, priests and people working together--are to address the issues identified by the apostolic visitation, and to satisfy the concerns of the Holy See, in a situation and according to a methodology that I, quite frankly, have to acknowledge as being all but impossible, even to the point of being unworkable. I honestly do not know the answer to that question, but I must state it. And I must go even further, especially in this setting, and say that all due respect for the provisions of church law, I believe that the very concept of special faculties--at least of the sort and extent we are dealing with here--is already on somewhat shaky ground from a theological point of view. Given the present situation in Seattle, however, the theological problem seems an academic luxury in the face of the pressing practical problems that are involved.

First, there is the question of my ministry, my stewardship over the church entrusted to me. I have been found wanting in some ways. Seriously wanting, it appears. And even though I object to the methods that were used to arrive at this conclusion, I have to take to heart the need I have to be evaluated, and I accept the fact that I must work very hard with my priests and my people, and as conscientiously as possible, in order to address and correct any areas in which I have been found wanting.

The second set of issues has to do with what surely seems to be an unworkable situation as far as Bishop Wuerl’s special faculties are concerned. And the problem here has nothing to do with Bishop Wuerl personally. He is my brother and my friend and my heart aches for him when I consider the ordeal he has had to suffer during this past year. But in view of the situation in which we find ourselves, I would hope that this conference would be willing to afford some positive assistance in helping Bishop Wuerl and me to address this issue with the Holy See. For the good of the Church in Seattle and beyond, I am absolutely convinced that the matter of the governance of the Church of Seattle needs to be returned to normal as soon as humanly possible. I would even say at once.