Crisis Management in the Church

While I agree with his recommendations for the bishops, I think that there is a crucial dimension to the crisis that Gluck does not note. Individuals who do see the church as relevant to their lives are moving away from the center, but in different directions. In effect, the church in the United States is on the way to becoming a very fractured entity.

We are already seeing a very militant traditionalism, often identified with Opus Dei although other groups are involved, which is moving to develop a new core of conservative Catholics. We are also seeing a far less cohesive movement of reform-minded Catholics who are increasingly willing to function outside the establishment. The Vatican clearly supports the first and is definitely uncomfortable with the second.

The bishops could, of course, allow for a more pluralist structure that would accommodate both traditionalists and progressives by abandoning the traditional geographical parish. This, however, seems most improbable, and either there could be a real struggle for control of existing resources or one or both wings could in effect create a situation of de facto schism.

I’m afraid Fr. Villa, in his response to Frederick Gluck’s article, has joined the dance which began at the Vatican – one which characterized the child abuse scandal as a problem with society, then a problem with the media, then a problem with homosexuals. As a partner in this dance of obfuscation he has chosen those who blame the faithful as not being faithful enough. Where is the evidence that we are no longer believers? I think most Catholics believe in the Gospels and the mission of the Church as strongly as ever. But we’re past the ‘pray, pay, and obey’ stage to the point of questioning the monarchial governance model that has failed us so dramatically.

Frederick Gluck’s analysis is an interesting exercise, but to rely on the USCCB for a change in leadership ignores how comfortable the bishops have become in their role as branch managers of the Roman church. Archbishop Weakland (Commonweal, August 15, 2003) has suggested an American Patriarchate with authority in liturgy, discipline, selection of bishops, and empowering local synods. And from another hierarch also outside the pale, Archbishop Quinn, we have a clear picture of the need for Papal reform (The Reform of the Papacy, 1999). But it still all hinges on the man at the top and the small, dark circle of red hats around him – a papal cabinet which continues to centralize authority and emphasize the gap between clergy and laity.

Will there ever be reform from the top (where’s the motivation in that?) or is it more likely that movements like Voice of the Faithful and Call To Action will continue to grow until they completely overshadow what we now know as the American Church?

When the author says “There is no effective performance measurement system at any level,” he misses an opportunity sadly ignored by most clergy, one that goes as far back as the Council of Trent: the "status animarum." It is an annual report filled out by each parish that summarizes the participation of the laity in the main aspects of Catholic life: mass attendance, baptisms, participation in various religious education classes, confirmations, marriages etc. While many will say that you cannot measure holiness, someone should be worrying, for example, if a parish report shows that for the past five years post-Confirmation attendance at religious education classes is dropping by ten percent a year. Year-over-year comparisons are only a first cut at possible meaningful analysis; summaries by diocese could easily provide meaningful benchmarks of what is possible, and the identification of strategies that make for meaningful improvement.

"A culture of Vocations is necessary in the Catholic Church to solve the present crisis"

In the "Crisis Management in the Church" article (12/1), Frederick W. Gluck focuses on secular management techniques for solving the present crisisin the catholic church as described in the article. Hwever, the Church was created by Jesus and represents him until he returns and therefore I believe requires a "spiritual" answer to the crisis. Since the time of ancient Israel, the kingdom of God has flourished through "VOCATIONS" (e.g. Abraham, Moses, Peter, Paul, Francis, Ignatius, Mother Theresa). But, Man seems to have forgotten who he is and his Vocation of Love, a call to holiness as modeled by Jesus. All vocations whether ordained clerics or laity are rooted in BAPTISM and have five(5)characteristics.

1. A call from God, not an option 2. Faith in God's graces and gifts for doing the will of the father 3. Conversion and lifelong personal transformation 4. A Mission in spreading the Good News 5. A lifelong journey

With the Holy Spirit, a much greater participations of the laity in church governance would DEMAND an "Elite status and authority in the priesthood " and attract talented young men and women to religious life.

We belong to God. The Theology of Vocations must be understood, witnesed in daily living and emphasized in the teachings of the church. We should not underestimate the power of the devil, who even tried to tempt Jesus in the desert. The Caholic Church is the only one built on a ROCK

Frederick W. Gluck's corporate model approach to the current crisis in the US Church, I am sure, can be useful in certain areas but it is an approach about which Catholics should be leary. Isn't part of the current crisis the perception that the bishops largely have tried to be managers rather than pastors even if, as Mr. Gluck points out, they have failed at it? Indeed I believe the root crisis is that the ways of the world are too much with us and that simply to view the crisis as largely bad management style is a form of naturalism. The engine moving the crisis regarding vocations, the scandals, and so forth has been a profound crisis of faith. Bishops have tried to be managers while neglecting, in my view, their roles as teachers and pastors insisting on sound doctrine, morality, and practice. Their failure in this regard is one of the reasons we have lost control of our institutions. We must address the crisis of faith squarely and the solution, like all lasting church reforms, begins with grace.

It appears to me that the current management procedures of the Catholic Church are based on a late Middle Ages model. At that time the vast majority of well educated people were the priests and religious with the lay Catholics being mostly uneducated. Thus, it was natural and appropriate for the management of the Catholic Church to be in their hands.

However, today, with one priest for every 1400+ lay people (see Fewer and Fewer, Dec. 1, 2003), the vast majority of well educated Catholics in the USA are lay people. It is likely that these lay people outnumber the priests by a ratio greater than 500-to-1. In addition, these lay people have all of the specialized skills that are needed to properly manage the parishes and dioceses better than the priests.

Thus, it is now natural and appropriate that responsible and skilled lay people be involved as equal partners with priests in the management of the Catholic Church.

The mission (work) of the "Body of Christ" is to be carried out by all of the people working together not just the priests telling everybody else what to do.

Frederick W. Gluck in his article, Crisis Management in the Church, (America, December 1, 2003) raises issues, concerns and solutions that many of us priests have batted around for years. We have only a limited voice and no vote on bringing systemic change into our church and so the somewhat more powerful and professional voice of the laity is welcomed by many of us.

I'm sure this thought is not original with me but we should always keep in mind that while the church does business it is not a business. All the more reason then for us to listen to the critiques and suggestions of Gluck and others and learn how to manage better the business which the church does. At the same time we have to keep a wary eye and ear out for that Holy Spirit of God who sometimes disposes our lives much differently than even the smartest and best of us proposes. Rather difficult but, hey, that's what a divinely established human organization has to contend with.

This was a great article. I look forward to a continuing dialogue in response.

Some of the responses to the article of Frederick W. Gluck appeared in America 12/15 prompted me to write this. Organizations of every kind - religious, service, industrial, and business have many management functions and principles in common. All of them have principles and functions such as: vision, mission, hiring (recruiting) firing, training, assigning, promoting and transferring, rewarding etc. Some common patterns and sequences of cause and effect can be observed in the problem areas also. All the principles and functions are vital to both business and religious organizations. There are differences in the ultimate ends or goals of the secular organizations and religious organizations. In the religious and spiritual organizations most of the relations are accepted in the perspective of the Divine -'faith and obedience'. There are rules, regulations and conventions to control relations in the secular field. The principles of the secular science can help the working of the religious and spiritual organizations because they are not mutually exclusive. Nobody can deny the contribution of modern psychology to the religious and spiritual organizations and institutions. Management principles and the practices will have many things to contribute to the religious organizations to help utilize its resources for the attainment of its goals. Secular organizations are making strategic modifications and adaptations to cope with the crisis in the environment in which they are functioning. In addition to making new strategies, they may restructure their organization having the same mission and vision. These changes may finally result in a fundamental shift in the organization's culture.

I would like to elaborate just one area - Human resource management. The purpose of effective human resource management is to maximize the value employees add by ensuring that the organization is staffed with right persons doing the right things at the right time and place and under the right conditions. Getting the right (best) people into the firm is just a first step. Keeping the best people happy and productive is equally important. As Msgr. Frank Mouch has pointed out in his letter to the editor it is true in the church we don't have employees, the church members and the clergy are volunteers. Except the layman (ordinary faithful) most of these volunteers are paid. Maybe it is known in different names like salary, allowance, honorarium etc. And they pay taxes also. The service conditions are influenced by various factors inside the church, which in turn are shaped by state laws and local culture, global environment and alignments with various forces. Doing justice to the volunteers or employees is not a secular principle alone. It is a "Divine" commandment - the right for remuneration good enough for a decent living. The remuneration paid in the past to the so called voluntary workers is a problem today (E.g. the retired teachers and health workers) In the secular field organizations pursuing total quality rely heavily on employee empowerment. Empowering workers (volunteers) appears to be critical for the church getting workers committed and involved. Most workers want to be paid well and they want to be paid fairly. Workers in the industrial and business field are paid money in different forms. Monetary benefits are definitely an incentive to a certain extent for the workers in the business field. This is not the case with workers in the church who are not adequately paid. For the workers in the church rewards will be mostly intangible. The rewards that a worker in the church and its organization can get are: recognition from the society, appreciation and encouragement from colleagues, support from superiors. The feeling that one is taken into confidence and trust, the opportunities to develop their talents and skills, appreciation of the service the individual is rendering, promotion in the field they are working and being elected to h

Frederick W. Gluck, in “Crisis Management in the Church” (12/1), puts his finger on the heart of the church’s present crisis when he points to the gap that has developed between bishops and the faithful. Although the Second Vatican Council called for lay participation in church decision-making, most church managers, psychologically and intellectually captives of medieval paternalism, feel that God is giving them unchallengeable answers to problems.

Sociologists and management experts have demonstrated that groups subject to authoritarian supervisors resent not being allowed to contribute their expertise and capabilities; and they lose interest and drift away.

If ever there were an example of how the laity can help the Catholic Church deal with its long-term decline, in terms of relevance to the lives and spiritual well-being of its members, Frederick Gluck’s article is a boiler-plate model. It should be must reading for every member of the U.S. Catholic Conference, as a checklist of “things to do” for the next decade and beyond.

Public companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for turnaround strategies and programs similar to those that Mr. Gluck has provided the U.S.C.C.B. in these superb guidelines for change, and he has given them to all of us, at no expense, on three simple pages. I pray that our bishops will read the message and begin to energize a management structure that seems to have lost that bunny with the battery.

Frederick W. Gluck’s article, “Crisis Management in the Church” (12/1), is flawed by several statements that are not supported by the available data.

“The church’s traditional sources of revenues are drying up.” Some weeks ago I finished writing a report that analyzed contributions to Sunday collections and diocesan annual appeals in the years 2001 and 2002. I found that Catholic household giving in the Sunday collections increased from $5.573 billion in 2001 to $5.846 billion for 2002, an increase of $273 million or 4.9 percent. This increase happened in the midst of high unemployment, a recession and the painful and lengthy revelation of the sexual abuse tragedy.

Catholic giving to diocesan annual appeals declined from $650 million in 2001 to about $635 million for 2002. About half of that national drop happened in Boston. The decline in the other 175 geographic dioceses averaged a more modest 1.1 percent, not surprising in a troubled economy.

“The church’s ability to recruit has declined dramatically over the last 40 years.” I happened to be working on church staffing data recently and found that the number of professional parish ministers increased from 54,055 in 1995 to 63,065 for 2002.

In addition, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, at Georgetown University, has reported that there are approximately 35,000 students in graduate programs of religious studies and religious education.

I think that we need to find some negative numbers before we can rightly declare a staffing crisis.

A number of other statements in the article mystified me. Mr. Gluck stated, for example, that “the plant is rapidly becoming obsolete.” Perhaps so, but I would like to see the data supporting such a statement. I am familiar with the current rebuilding program in Chicago, where the archdiocese raised in excess of $200 million to repair its buildings.

While discussions of management issues in the church can be fascinating, we should be careful that we are discussing solutions for problems that do in fact exist.

I thought, when your last editor was shot down by the Vatican, that we would begin to see nothing but articles with the backbone of a wet noodle.

“A Blueprint for Change” by Thomas J. Healey (9/26) contradicted my thought. It was in the shadow and representative of Frederick Gluck’s fine essays, “Crisis Management in the Church” (12/1/03) and “Can the Church Learn From Wal-Mart?” (5/17/04).

Thank goodness the Vatican does not censor letters to the editor. Michael McGreevy’s reply in this section hit the matter on the head (10/10). The church is in trouble because the laity are left out. Bishops and clergy are involved in matters for which they are not trained, and they do not seem to be reading, listening or improving for the most part. Bishops, I believe, are afraid of lay involvement, although nearly every happening tells us that the laity should be involved.

Regarding the pedophile scandal: not one cardinal’s or bishop’s head has rolled, even though they knew of the actions of clergy they supervised. My suggestion: let a bishop serve in that capacity for only eight years maximum and then bring back his expertise to a parish, just as in many religious orders the provincial superior returns to another job that has less authority or reduced demands. This should bring them back to reality more humble and more dependent on the laity. At the same time, more clerics could share in a temporary leadership role as an eight-year bishop and develop accordingly.

We have, I believe, developed a Vatican-directed insider organization and have gotten away from Christ’s desire for his followers. All women and men of good will are insiders.

While I agree with his recommendations for the bishops, I think that there is a crucial dimension to the crisis that Gluck does not note. Individuals who do see the church as relevant to their lives are moving away from the center, but in different directions. In effect, the church in the United States is on the way to becoming a very fractured entity.

We are already seeing a very militant traditionalism, often identified with Opus Dei although other groups are involved, which is moving to develop a new core of conservative Catholics. We are also seeing a far less cohesive movement of reform-minded Catholics who are increasingly willing to function outside the establishment. The Vatican clearly supports the first and is definitely uncomfortable with the second.

The bishops could, of course, allow for a more pluralist structure that would accommodate both traditionalists and progressives by abandoning the traditional geographical parish. This, however, seems most improbable, and either there could be a real struggle for control of existing resources or one or both wings could in effect create a situation of de facto schism.

I’m afraid Fr. Villa, in his response to Frederick Gluck’s article, has joined the dance which began at the Vatican – one which characterized the child abuse scandal as a problem with society, then a problem with the media, then a problem with homosexuals. As a partner in this dance of obfuscation he has chosen those who blame the faithful as not being faithful enough. Where is the evidence that we are no longer believers? I think most Catholics believe in the Gospels and the mission of the Church as strongly as ever. But we’re past the ‘pray, pay, and obey’ stage to the point of questioning the monarchial governance model that has failed us so dramatically.

Frederick Gluck’s analysis is an interesting exercise, but to rely on the USCCB for a change in leadership ignores how comfortable the bishops have become in their role as branch managers of the Roman church. Archbishop Weakland (Commonweal, August 15, 2003) has suggested an American Patriarchate with authority in liturgy, discipline, selection of bishops, and empowering local synods. And from another hierarch also outside the pale, Archbishop Quinn, we have a clear picture of the need for Papal reform (The Reform of the Papacy, 1999). But it still all hinges on the man at the top and the small, dark circle of red hats around him – a papal cabinet which continues to centralize authority and emphasize the gap between clergy and laity.

Will there ever be reform from the top (where’s the motivation in that?) or is it more likely that movements like Voice of the Faithful and Call To Action will continue to grow until they completely overshadow what we now know as the American Church?

When the author says “There is no effective performance measurement system at any level,” he misses an opportunity sadly ignored by most clergy, one that goes as far back as the Council of Trent: the "status animarum." It is an annual report filled out by each parish that summarizes the participation of the laity in the main aspects of Catholic life: mass attendance, baptisms, participation in various religious education classes, confirmations, marriages etc. While many will say that you cannot measure holiness, someone should be worrying, for example, if a parish report shows that for the past five years post-Confirmation attendance at religious education classes is dropping by ten percent a year. Year-over-year comparisons are only a first cut at possible meaningful analysis; summaries by diocese could easily provide meaningful benchmarks of what is possible, and the identification of strategies that make for meaningful improvement.

"A culture of Vocations is necessary in the Catholic Church to solve the present crisis"

In the "Crisis Management in the Church" article (12/1), Frederick W. Gluck focuses on secular management techniques for solving the present crisisin the catholic church as described in the article. Hwever, the Church was created by Jesus and represents him until he returns and therefore I believe requires a "spiritual" answer to the crisis. Since the time of ancient Israel, the kingdom of God has flourished through "VOCATIONS" (e.g. Abraham, Moses, Peter, Paul, Francis, Ignatius, Mother Theresa). But, Man seems to have forgotten who he is and his Vocation of Love, a call to holiness as modeled by Jesus. All vocations whether ordained clerics or laity are rooted in BAPTISM and have five(5)characteristics.

1. A call from God, not an option 2. Faith in God's graces and gifts for doing the will of the father 3. Conversion and lifelong personal transformation 4. A Mission in spreading the Good News 5. A lifelong journey

With the Holy Spirit, a much greater participations of the laity in church governance would DEMAND an "Elite status and authority in the priesthood " and attract talented young men and women to religious life.

We belong to God. The Theology of Vocations must be understood, witnesed in daily living and emphasized in the teachings of the church. We should not underestimate the power of the devil, who even tried to tempt Jesus in the desert. The Caholic Church is the only one built on a ROCK

Frederick W. Gluck's corporate model approach to the current crisis in the US Church, I am sure, can be useful in certain areas but it is an approach about which Catholics should be leary. Isn't part of the current crisis the perception that the bishops largely have tried to be managers rather than pastors even if, as Mr. Gluck points out, they have failed at it? Indeed I believe the root crisis is that the ways of the world are too much with us and that simply to view the crisis as largely bad management style is a form of naturalism. The engine moving the crisis regarding vocations, the scandals, and so forth has been a profound crisis of faith. Bishops have tried to be managers while neglecting, in my view, their roles as teachers and pastors insisting on sound doctrine, morality, and practice. Their failure in this regard is one of the reasons we have lost control of our institutions. We must address the crisis of faith squarely and the solution, like all lasting church reforms, begins with grace.

It appears to me that the current management procedures of the Catholic Church are based on a late Middle Ages model. At that time the vast majority of well educated people were the priests and religious with the lay Catholics being mostly uneducated. Thus, it was natural and appropriate for the management of the Catholic Church to be in their hands.

However, today, with one priest for every 1400+ lay people (see Fewer and Fewer, Dec. 1, 2003), the vast majority of well educated Catholics in the USA are lay people. It is likely that these lay people outnumber the priests by a ratio greater than 500-to-1. In addition, these lay people have all of the specialized skills that are needed to properly manage the parishes and dioceses better than the priests.

Thus, it is now natural and appropriate that responsible and skilled lay people be involved as equal partners with priests in the management of the Catholic Church.

The mission (work) of the "Body of Christ" is to be carried out by all of the people working together not just the priests telling everybody else what to do.

Frederick W. Gluck in his article, Crisis Management in the Church, (America, December 1, 2003) raises issues, concerns and solutions that many of us priests have batted around for years. We have only a limited voice and no vote on bringing systemic change into our church and so the somewhat more powerful and professional voice of the laity is welcomed by many of us.

I'm sure this thought is not original with me but we should always keep in mind that while the church does business it is not a business. All the more reason then for us to listen to the critiques and suggestions of Gluck and others and learn how to manage better the business which the church does. At the same time we have to keep a wary eye and ear out for that Holy Spirit of God who sometimes disposes our lives much differently than even the smartest and best of us proposes. Rather difficult but, hey, that's what a divinely established human organization has to contend with.

This was a great article. I look forward to a continuing dialogue in response.

Some of the responses to the article of Frederick W. Gluck appeared in America 12/15 prompted me to write this. Organizations of every kind - religious, service, industrial, and business have many management functions and principles in common. All of them have principles and functions such as: vision, mission, hiring (recruiting) firing, training, assigning, promoting and transferring, rewarding etc. Some common patterns and sequences of cause and effect can be observed in the problem areas also. All the principles and functions are vital to both business and religious organizations. There are differences in the ultimate ends or goals of the secular organizations and religious organizations. In the religious and spiritual organizations most of the relations are accepted in the perspective of the Divine -'faith and obedience'. There are rules, regulations and conventions to control relations in the secular field. The principles of the secular science can help the working of the religious and spiritual organizations because they are not mutually exclusive. Nobody can deny the contribution of modern psychology to the religious and spiritual organizations and institutions. Management principles and the practices will have many things to contribute to the religious organizations to help utilize its resources for the attainment of its goals. Secular organizations are making strategic modifications and adaptations to cope with the crisis in the environment in which they are functioning. In addition to making new strategies, they may restructure their organization having the same mission and vision. These changes may finally result in a fundamental shift in the organization's culture.

I would like to elaborate just one area - Human resource management. The purpose of effective human resource management is to maximize the value employees add by ensuring that the organization is staffed with right persons doing the right things at the right time and place and under the right conditions. Getting the right (best) people into the firm is just a first step. Keeping the best people happy and productive is equally important. As Msgr. Frank Mouch has pointed out in his letter to the editor it is true in the church we don't have employees, the church members and the clergy are volunteers. Except the layman (ordinary faithful) most of these volunteers are paid. Maybe it is known in different names like salary, allowance, honorarium etc. And they pay taxes also. The service conditions are influenced by various factors inside the church, which in turn are shaped by state laws and local culture, global environment and alignments with various forces. Doing justice to the volunteers or employees is not a secular principle alone. It is a "Divine" commandment - the right for remuneration good enough for a decent living. The remuneration paid in the past to the so called voluntary workers is a problem today (E.g. the retired teachers and health workers) In the secular field organizations pursuing total quality rely heavily on employee empowerment. Empowering workers (volunteers) appears to be critical for the church getting workers committed and involved. Most workers want to be paid well and they want to be paid fairly. Workers in the industrial and business field are paid money in different forms. Monetary benefits are definitely an incentive to a certain extent for the workers in the business field. This is not the case with workers in the church who are not adequately paid. For the workers in the church rewards will be mostly intangible. The rewards that a worker in the church and its organization can get are: recognition from the society, appreciation and encouragement from colleagues, support from superiors. The feeling that one is taken into confidence and trust, the opportunities to develop their talents and skills, appreciation of the service the individual is rendering, promotion in the field they are working and being elected to h