The Bureaucratic-Risk Management Complex

After his economic policy and role in destroying Russian Communism, Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is also well known for his witty and incisive remarks. Among his most popular sayings to this day is what he called the “Nine most terrifying words in the English language: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” This understanding of government and its limitations still has a lot of credibility nowadays, and while Reagan’s quip may have been humorous, it was also quite serious. Human government, or any sort of service which is provided out of the public treasury, has for centuries, with precious few exceptions, often been equated with ineptitude and inefficiency. Granted, human beings are fallible, and given to ignorance and weakness. This ought not surprise us at all. However, in much of human life, such faults are kept in check because they directly affect the person responsible. As societies become more complicated and as power tends to become more centralized, checks and balances, transparency and accountability are needed to re-introduce responsibility into the practice of governance. The more someone can effectively get away with bad or incompetent behavior, the more not only will the public suffer, but also the legitimacy of the government. Ironically, government always requires external criticism in order to secure its own authority. If it does not have this, it seems that two results take place: first, the government can seek to squelch external criticism by either direct suppression of information or by the willing cooperation of media to cover for its faults. Second, the government can seek to distract from its own ineptitude either by suasion or evasion. The first method is what inevitably ends in hard or soft authoritarianism. The second method is what leads to a “bread and circuses” sort of oligarchy or welfare state which seeks to anesthetize the moral, social and individual senses of responsibility in the populace at large. Catholic Social Teaching reminds us, in contrast, that a functioning and just society always needs to maintain a careful balance between the rights of the individual and the common good, and that the true heart of society is neither the individual nor the government, but the family. This is because the family is the first place human beings encounter both relationship and express their own personality. It is where children learn many of the virtues (and vices) which will form their character. In a good family, children learn how to love, sacrifice, forgive and seek to grow in relationship.

The Church likewise is a supernatural family, and provides an analogous role to the natural family. While the natural family is extremely important, there is always is the human tendency to divide according to race or tribe. Hence, the Church reminds that, in the words of St. Paul, there is no “Gentile or Jew”, strictly speaking, in the household of God. All are one in Christ Jesus by Baptism and Faith. No matter what our natural origins may be, all of us are united by becoming adopted children of God. The Church, as both a society with visible and invisible dimensions that transcends space and time, is God’s intention for the redemption and ‘recapitulation’ (that is, restoring all things under the headship of Christ) of the human race. The Church not only teaches and strengthens the natural virtues in men and women, but also goes even further by inculcating supernatural virtues, and sanctifying the human race by the Divine Mysteries, the Sacraments. Although here on earth our members are imperfect, the attractive power of grace continues to abound even in the midst of sin. For those of us who are troubled by the proliferation of sin in our world and in our Church, it is always important to be reattuned to the reality that Christ is present among us and still sanctifying his people. At the same time, our first priority should be to remove all obstacles to Christ’s sanctifying work within us. That means, above all, removing all that jeopardizes are ability to give God right praise. This effort is, etymologically and practically, at the heart of orthodoxy.

Sadly, the modern Church is replete with movements, which I believe are diabolical, to disorient the Church from her own rootedness in Christ Jesus. The stratagems of the devil are hydra-headed and expansive, just as Christ’s intentions for us are simple, because God in his nature is simple. I want to focus on one element of this which I believe is at the root of much else: as I alluded to years ago in my essay The Ecclesisatical Deep State (I should charge Viganò royalties, since I coined that term almost two years before he used it, haha), there is a huge bureaucratic apparatus within the Church that is accountable to no one but themselves, and exercise the Church equivalent of a tenured, union-protected job. The symptoms of bureaucratization include, but are not limited to: the game of ‘musical chairs’ which characterizes so much of Diocesan and Vatican appointments, massive financial waste and mismanagement, the proliferation of offices, de novo positions and shadow roles, often masked as ‘consultants’; the glut of programs and flagship initiatives, and of course, a general feeling of antinomianism, abetted by secrecy and non-accountability.

Lest I speak unfairly and unjustly, I do recognize that several things, especially in larger dioceses, require some degree of centralized direction. However, I think a case may be made that the current Code of Canon Law envisions for many dioceses and bishops an important role in direction and supervision, but not a role of direct control. Instead, the role of the parish and the pastor seem to me to be even more important, not only because of the quasi-financial independence which most parishes ought to enjoy, but also because of their crucial role as the primary place where the people go to receive the Sacraments and instruction in the faith. Also, depending on the community in question and the resources of the parish, the parish is usually the most competent to be a center for the corporal works of mercy, in all their forms. Subsidiarity in practice in the Church allows for growth in local leadership and responsibility for both priests and lay faithful.

What do we encounter when this model is subverted? I would argue that we encounter some of the same problems as that which manifest in an overweening, unaccountable secular government. A Church governance which does not actively develop leadership and responsibility is usually one more preoccupied with shuffling blame for past failures than developing strategies for future mission. I could give several examples of this, but two will have to suffice for now. First, there is the sad phenomenon of pastors who are completely hamstrung by their Diocesan chanceries, and feel themselves incapable of making any prudential decision where they can expect pushback. In these cases, I often hear these men tell people “Diocesan policy is…” or “The Bishop asks us…” and occasionally they may even lie about this in order to give cover to themselves if it backfires. I will never forget once hearing a rather vocal and well-educated parishioner ask a highly placed pastor and Dean who routinely spoke in that fashion, “Father, what will you ever do if the Bishop or the Diocese ever asks you to do something which you know is against the Church’s teaching or your own conscience?” The Priest did not answer. I, for one, hanged my head in shame at the disgrace of it.

A second example of this builds on the first: as people lose a sense of responsibility, they then tend to abandon a sense of their own agency. An unfortunate pastor who finds himself under the thumb of an overbearing diocese may begin by learning to shuffle blame, because he learned how to do so from the example and practice of his superiors. He will end by not doing anything whatsoever unless directed to do so by his superiors. I recently heard this approach from a new pastor in an economically depressed area. The parish cannot support itself and relies on the assistance of the diocese. Although I understand why this arrangement exists and the practicalities of it, the attitude of the pastor was that he was on “diocesan welfare” and so did not feel responsible if the Church was empty or full, or whether it survived at all. What began as a way to keep the Church open and present to people became a means to subsidize ‘underperforming’ Churches and ministers. Could perhaps diocesan assistance be scaled more like welfare reform in the 1990s, where those seeking welfare had to demonstrate that they were actively searching for work? Perhaps we could have a parish report on its outreach, catechetics, apologetics, and other aspects of evangelization? Keeping a parish afloat with money is necessary, but not sufficient, for bishops and dioceses to say that we are “present” in a disadvantaged area.

To borrow from and adapt Reagan’s quote, I would say that the nine most dangerous words in Church affairs are, “I’m from the Chancery and I’m here to help.” In almost every case, the interference of central administration in Church affairs mirrors the expansion of the administrative state, and its intrusions into daily life. In the interest of fairness, I understand the need to protect ourselves in a litigious society, but some of the mandates to which pastors and faithful are subjected are as unreasonable as they are unenforceable. For instance, is it really necessary to subject Lectors at Mass, who have no effective contact with children, to a criminal background check and fingerprinting, as the Dallas Charter is said to require? Must a pastor hire a contractor to screw in a light bulb for an office where something more than a three-foot stepladder is required (yes, this is real)? What is the purpose of fingerprinting Priests every few years, as if fingerprints change? The list goes on.

I think most Priests would agree with me that they are totally okay with a Diocesan apparatus that truly exists to support, and not substitute, what we should already be doing. Getting advice on capital projects, insurance, and legal questions are all very helpful, because no one pastor has experience in all those fields. But what about places where a Priest exercises true leadership in regard to faith, liturgy, and morals? The amount of times that clerics are disciplined for non-compliance with legitimate liturgical norms pales in comparison to those times that clerics are effectively ‘cancelled’ for for insisting on following those same norms.

As in most human affairs, a person’s truest intentions can be shown by what makes them happy, angry, fearful, and sad. People always make time for what they really and truly want to do. As such, a decision not to act is as much of a choice as deciding to act. I do not think the whole Church is in thrall to what I call the ‘Bureaucratic-Risk Management Complex’, but I think all of us would do well to carefully consider whether we are, as George Weigel recently wrote, a “Church in mission, or a Church in meetings”. One of the best ways to dismantle the Bureaucratic-Risk Management Complex is to awaken in lay people and priests a sense of their own responsibility and agency in the Church, and to stop the “top-down” mentality which is grounded in a deficient ecclesiology. This is not to be understood as some quasi-Alinskyite or Marxist “empowerment”, but rather a stance grounded in particular roles and identities of clerics and lay people. No program, think-tank or twitter account can substitute for relationship, friendship, and personal engagement with the culture and with individuals. The hard work of evangelization is in the trenches of humanity. A chancery or diocesan structure which aids in this work is truly mission-oriented. As much as Bishops want to legitimately form people in their identity as members of a local Church, rather than just a Parochial Church, they may want to start by ensuring that people are well-formed in the latter, before seeking the former. It’s hard work sometimes to reconcile the institutional and the charismatic, the prophetic and the managerial. However, it all boils down to one thing, once again, as simple as God is simple: our institutions exist for the salvation of souls. Our charisms are given by the Holy Spirit for the salvation of souls. The prophetic munus exists for the salvation of souls. And the work of administration exists, even when it doesn’t seem like it, for the salvation of souls. All else is secondary.