The ‘State of the Archdiocese’, The Catholic Telegraph [Cincinnati OH], January 6, 2006

The ‘State of the Archdiocese’

The Catholic Telegraph [Cincinnati OH]
January 6, 2006

http://www.catholiccincinnati.org/tct/jan0606/010606state.html

Last summer, in a survey conducted by The Catholic Telegraph, a number of readers suggested that Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk offer area Catholics an annual update on both the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Accordingly, he sat down recently with editor Tricia Hempel to discuss such matters.

Some readers have suggested that the archbishop offer a "state of the union" report. It seemed as though January is the usual time for such things. So if you were to deliver a state of the union address today, what would you tell the people of the archdiocese?

I would say that we have learned that people’s faith is very important to them, and that, of course, is a central reality I’m very grateful for – we learned that from the survey done by the communications office last year.

Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk

We’re still hurting from the sex abuse, in terms of money and esprit de corps. We will continue to offer whatever psychological help is needed by victims. I continue to be dreadfully sorry and ashamed of all that happened to the victims; I wish I could undo it all.

The financial problems we are facing are not terminal problems; they can be dealt with, and we are taking steps to deal with them. For example, we are making new efforts to collect $28 million in unpaid debts from our parishes.

We’ve hired a consulting firm to help us get a handle on what more we can do.

We’ve been hurt by fact that the Archbishop’s Annual Fund Drive was off by 20 percent. I found that very discouraging.

One of the great encouragements, though, has been FIT (the Futures Project). The priests, after consultation with their people and focus groups, and after discussion with me, have come up with a plan that enables us to look at a future that could be seen as catastrophic, but look at it in a way that is mature and balanced and thoughtful. We have decided we’re not going to wait and see what terrible things will happen and deal with them then. We are looking at the possible catastrophes ahead of time

We’re also evaluating our lay ministers and our parish priests. I don’t know of any other diocese that has a formal, workable plan for the evaluation of their pastors and priests. I find the fact that the priests have indicated a need for this, the fact they’ve helped me put together a plan of how to do it, a plan almost everybody has agreed with – I find that to be a source of immense consolation. That says to me we have a pretty mature presbyterate, and I’m grateful for that

We in the archdiocese have a lot to be grateful for. Yes, we have problems, but I believe we are conscientiously trying to face our problems, and for that I’m very grateful.

Another thing I’m happy about is that the number of ordinations is gradually increasing. There was a time not too long ago when we had one ordination a year three years in a row. Now we have 4, 5, 6 on the immediate horizon, and that’s a source of great encouragement to me. We have a good seminary, and a good training program for lay pastoral ministers.

You touched briefly on finances. How is the archdiocese doing financially in this era when some dioceses are facing bankruptcy?

We have our problems, which arise from fact that we’ve had to incur significant expenses that we didn’t have in the past. The big settlement of $3 million was not something we put in the budget ahead of time! There are also the salaries that I’m obligated to pay to priests who are on administrative leave and attorneys’ fees.

We’re trying to deal with all these. There are lots of things going on, such as our efforts to collect the outstanding debts of the parishes — they have $28 million in unpaid debts, and just getting that in would be a big step forward.

How do you think local priests are doing in light of the sex abuse crisis so prominent in the headlines in the past three years? Do they talk to you about their feelings?

I have been having a series of personal interviews with priests, and that is one of the questions I put to them: Has the crisis affected your ministry? The answer has been spotty: Not everyone is saying it hasn’t and not everyone is saying it has. It depends on the parish circumstances and the personal circumstances of each priest; if one of your best friends is on leave, it takes on a different color.

I believe the priests are every bit as sorry as I am for the behavior of some of their peers. But I do not perceive that this episode, as painful as it is, has dealt a body blow to the presbyterate

I know that in some dioceses there is a sense of the priests being sold down the river; I do not perceive that this is the sense here.

Senate Bill 17, currently in front of the judiciary committee in the Ohio House, would increase the statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a minor from two years to 20. It would also allow for a one-year "look-back" period allowing complaints to be filed for allegations up to 35 years old, such as was done in California. The bishops of Ohio, yourself included, support all but the look-back period in the bill.

Many of the cases that have come to light in this archdiocese have been dismissed because they were quite old. What effect would you foresee SB 17 having on the financial state of the archdiocese, as well as on the morale of the clergy and the people?

Well, it’s hard to say, but if the bill were passed as it stands, it would be an invitation for suits against the archdiocese.

Of course, the fact that someone may bring a suit does not mean that every lawsuit is going to be won. The longer the period of time has been, the harder it is for someone to remember all of the facts and details.

As to the impact on the clergy, the people at large and the archdiocese on the whole? We thought we were working our way out of this, we did the best we could, and now we’re starting over again. I’ve said on occasion that every time I see the light through the trees, it seems someone plants more trees.

With regard to the Vatican document on not ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood: Do you have any sense of how those men with homosexual orientations who have already been ordained feel about such a pronouncement?

No, I think because of the nature of the thing, it’s impossible to get a general grip on that sort of issue. It seems to me that the there are three points in the document: You shouldn’t enter the seminary if you are engaged in homosexual activity or in the homosexual lifestyle or subculture or if there is a deep-seated orientation. But what specifically does that mean, and how does one determine it? It seems to me clear that if someone’s homosexual orientation is so deep-seated and virulent — even if they manage to stay celibate — that it determines all the decisions they make in their lives, you should not be a priest. If you are homosexually inclined and that’s the main thing in your life, priesthood is not going to work for you.

The local seminary visit that is part of the upcoming assessment of U.S. seminaries is scheduled for January. Who will be part of the assessment team and what will they be looking at?

I think we know the team, but I don’t know if we’re allowed to make it public yet.

They will be looking at the general quality of the seminary, whether it is carrying out the expectations of the church, the law of the church regarding seminaries. The big question on everyone’s mind is, is this a homosexual witch hunt? No. I’ve seen the series of questions they’re supposed to explore, and of the 200 or so questions, only one of them is related to homosexuality — it asks if there is any evidence of homosexual activity in the seminary.

I expect we’ll do well in the assessment. I believe we have a good seminary; we are consciously trying to be the kind of seminary the church wants us to be

The archdiocese recently surveyed a number of parishes in the archdiocese to check the "mood in the pews," so to speak. You read the full report, which listed a good amount of quotes, some highly critical of your leadership. Were you surprised by what you read? What did you take away from that report?

I guess I wasn’t really surprised about the criticism. I know there are always people who disagree with decisions I make and with policies of the archdiocese – that’s just life.

I was not particularly gratified at some of the things that were said. To be quite honest, it was pretty painful to read all that stuff. It was one of those situations where you know there are always people out here who don’t like what you do, but you’re always taken aback when they say it so "loudly."

This was a chance for people to say whatever they wanted to and remain anonymous, and they did not have to take responsibility for what they said.

I hadn’t really known what to expect. That survey didn’t really tell me the overall level of anger. How many people are angry at the archbishop out of 500,000?

One of the things I have experienced in this office is that people will write things to me that I’ m sure they would never say face to face.

You’ve been a priest for 46 years, a bishop for 31 years, and Archbishop of Cincinnati for 23 years. How has the archdiocese changed in that time?

I think that like the rest of the country, the archdiocese is probably more secularized than it was when I became archbishop in 1982, partially because of some of the church experiences we’ve had and also because of the media conditioning we all experience, partially because of the rise of computers and internet. It gives people access to worlds they would never have known about, cared about or dared to enter (e.g. on-line pornography). Likewise, in movies – I don’t go to a lot of movies, but I read a lot of reviews. Movies present not only pictures and philosophies, but whole lifestyles in a way that was not appropriate in 1982.

We’ve been through some economic ups and downs – difficult economic times are often difficult for the church. There has been a decreasing sense of consensus in the church, e.g. the John Kerry situation last year during the election.

I think lay people (many of them, at least) seem to see themselves as more sophisticated in their general life than they used to, including their faith. I am not sure they really are. Many people have a very strong sense that "It’s my right to determine what I’m going to believe, say what I’m going to say," but do they know what they’re talking about? It’s very hard to come by a thoughtful, serious, educated, friendly discussion-cum-disagreement.

Our society, the U.S., and western Europe in general, puts a very high value in thinking for yourself, speaking one’s mind, the right to disagree, but it does not put a corresponding obligation on people to provide oneself with the equipment needed in order to do that.

You are three years and seven months from retirement. What would you like to accomplish in these next few years?

I would like to bring to conclusion some of the problems and difficulties we are burdened with – financial and sex abuse certainly. I would like to continue to prepare our clergy and people for a certainly somewhat different church. I would like to be able to look my successor in the eye and say, "I’m handing over a really great diocese – don’t mess it up!"

What will be some of the challenges your successor will face?

Every leader brings along his own tonality; whoever comes after me will not be Daniel E. Pilarczyk. He’ll be so and so, and is going to have a different way of doing things. He may find that some of his ways look funny to the people. If there are some tensions, it just means that it’s real.

I would like to be able to say at the end, "I tried to treat you all like adults." I’m not sure everyone would agree that I have done that, but I think that’s been my conscious leadership style, and there are pluses and minuses to it.

What do you think the biggest misperception is that people have about the office of the archbishop in general and you personally?

I think it’s the perception that if the archbishop wanted to do such and such a thing, he would. He can do just about anything he wants. In some sense that’s true; I’m the ultimate teacher, the ultimate leader, the ultimate liturgist for the archdiocese, and I can do a lot things. But doing a lot of things is a very expensive proposition. Not just in financial terms, but in terms of time, in relationships and in credibility.

There’s the powerlessness of power: If I want to read every page of The Catholic Telegraph before it goes to print, I can do it – I have the right. But that’s expensive – it means I have to stay up till 3 a.m. every day reading.

Likewise, after all these years I’m fascinated by the image some people have of the lifestyle of the archbishop. For example, I make it a point to drive to the places I go for ceremonies, and my master of ceremonies drives back. It’s not at all unusual to drive someplace, and when I get out of the car, someone says, "You drive? You drive yourself?"

"Do you live in a mansion somewhere?" people ask. No, I live on the 5th floor of St. Louis Church.

The other day someone asked me where I went on vacation last summer. I went to Gatlinburg. "Do you go incognito?" she asked. Well, I certainly don’t wear my black suit and Roman collar. It surprised me; she thought suits all the time, even on vacation. Black jammies, too.

I think some people see me as cold and distant, because it’s hard to relate to 500,000 people in a warm and personable fashion. I don’t believe I am. Part of my personality is that I have an inherent unwillingness to seem to offer a more close friendship than I can deliver.

I would resist to the death any attempt to "market" a friendly folksy side of our archbishop. I’ll take care of that the best way I can, and I’ll live with the results. It doesn’t really hurt to be yourself – what hurts is when you try to be someone you’re not.

Bishop Moeddel’s sickness and Father Malcolm Grad’s death last year were very difficult times for me. Especially Bishop Moeddel, who is essentially my chief co-worker. Every single day, I thought, "This item goes to Bishop Moeddel," and he wasn’t here. It was a long 6-8 months. And Father Grad’s death was hard. He and I worked closely together.

My health is good – I take 13 pills a day, 10 kinds. I go to the doctor three or four times a year, to the cardiologist twice a year.

As for retirement, when I retire I want to live somewhere where I can say daily Mass, and preach and hear confessions and read Homer!

We’ve spoken a lot about problems in this talk. Does it seem as though your life is an unending series of burdens?

Sometimes it’s really hard. But most of the time I am able to take comfort in the realization that God it in it somewhere, and that the basic Christian virtue is gratitude. I’m glad to be able to be grateful.

Ultimately, what’s the good news about the Archdiocese of Cincinnati?

As I said at the beginning, we have a local church filled with faith-filled people, and I’m particularly grateful for that.