What do I take with me after seven years as CEO of Southdown and five years as President of Saint Luke Institute? After one hundred and forty-four months of tasting, touching and seeing the peculiar sufferings of priests and religious and a wide array of responses to scandal from victims, superiors and local church, what have I learned? What will I remember?

Often during the embarrassing, painful shadow years when the clergy abuse of minors was nearly everyone's scandal, it seemed that pastoral instincts were dissolving into curt legal solutions. With only a hint of the glib and cynical, we began referring to our work as a ministry to the lepers. Then came the turning event - the accusation of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin and, more importantly, his response that changed the legal paradigm back to the pastoral. On the first anniversary of his accusation, he visited Saint Luke and spoke his experience to residents and staff. If credibility has flesh it stood before us that day. The environment changed - Church leaders do things like that; all it took was vulnerability.

I will continue remembering the number of Bishops and Provincials who confessed in the privacy of my office to their desire for  some time away for healing and recovery. Just suppose there was an effective ministry for Church Leaders. What would have been different about these past years of scandal? Imagine if our clergy had seen the modeling of Leaders breaking the barriers of secrecy and silence about their own lives.

Is it mere speculation that some of them might have come forward for help before being forced there by public pressure and scandal?

With rare exceptions have I ever met any priest or religious during these twelve years plagued with malicious intent. Most were men and women of generous spirit who had performed many ministerial tasks encumbered by denial. The spiritual and physical exhaustion of bearing dread secrets was palpable. For the most part these patterns of denial began during the first five years after ordination or final profession. My conviction after 12 years of informal observation is that prevention dollars should be focused on these five years. No matter what improvements seminaries institute (and many have done splendid work), we will never know the fiber of any candidate until they are in ministry.

I leave LUKENOTES readers three points to ponder:

• Working within residential programs has convinced me that breaking out of patterns of denial and secrecy is effected through modeling. Straight talk is generative. Direct discourse from the top would go a long way toward breaking the patterns of silence and stealth. Frequently, clergy gatherings promote evasion by negative modeling; the folks know they are not hearing the straight story and unhappily continue the pattern.
  

• The personnel problems that have plagued us in the past five years are largely the detritus from 20 to 30 years ago. As always, we are getting good at treating issues that probably will not occur with any frequency in the near future. It would be wise to sponsor conferences on current trends. Are we experiencing any concerns about the interests, habits and concerns about the recently ordained and/or professed? And what about the apparent increase in the number of priests and religious involved in anonymous sexual contacts?
  

• A significant number of residents express the wish that a confessor would have imposed more pressure to take steps toward treatment instead of wishing them peace after hasty absolution. Are we generally too swift to absolve and wish peace when a more challenging response might have proved more effective? In light of all that we have learned about the diseases of denial, it may be time to review some of our pastoral practices.