Safeguarding Is Complex
I know nothing about the archbishop-elect nor any of the complainants or those involved in the cases [“Safeguarding Complaints Against Mullally Surface,” Dec. 11]. However, as a priest of 45 years who has served in several U.S. dioceses and congregations; worked in hospitals, including a psychiatric hospital; holds a D.Min. focused in pastoral psychology; and who helped found the safeguarding committee and first rules in the Diocese of Massachusetts back in the 1990s, I think articles about multiple allegations should include this:
Virtually every parish priest at some point serves not only people who have been sorely abused by the church and others, but also people with serious mental illnesses—such as borderline personality disorder—who have histories of bringing lawsuits and ungrounded complaints against others, sometimes particularly clergy. Sometimes such individuals are brought to the attention of bishops when they repeat their behaviors in several congregations and sow distress among members. (Many priests also minister to individuals who commit suicide because of various sorts of suffering.)
The best safeguarding practices cannot always prevent such complaints. While every complaint must be looked into with great care and discretion, and strict process is owed to genuinely aggrieved people, sometimes there is a need to alert involved clergy of a repeatedly highly disruptive churchgoer or false complainer—and this isn’t something one can report to law enforcement like, for instance, an embezzler of parish funds.
Those who are abused absolutely deserve redress. Reporting does well to remind readers how complex and slow complaints and investigations can be, how there must not be a presumption of guilt before processes are completed, and how painfully responsible many conscientious clergy feel for mis-assessing those in their care, both complainers and complained against.
The Rev. Dr. J.M. Phillips
Barnstable, Massachusetts
Faith Needs Rhythms
I found Marcia Hotchkiss’ reflection “Too Much Leaves Too Little—Busyness Keeps Us from Faith” [Covenant, Oct. 3], both timely and important. Timely, because in this season of celebration and festivities the demands of culture and work often leave us little time to catch our breath, let alone attend to our spiritual lives. Important because, as the author notes, our “culture of hurry” can rob us of the capacity to be still and simply be with God.
Implicit in her argument is a reminder that our faith is sustained not only by right belief, but also by recognizing and adopting the rhythms that keep our spiritual practices vibrant and rich. The Anglican tradition has long understood this, shaping our life of faith through common prayer and the shared rhythm of the liturgical calendar.
The challenge before us may be less about recovering doctrinal certainty than about rediscovering and practicing the conditions that make a robust faith possible. Thank you for publishing pieces that attend so thoughtfully to the pastoral needs of Christian life.
Michael L. Pinkerton
Sacramento, California
Veiling and the Will of God
I appreciated Dean Harding’s recollection [Covenant, “Mary’s Veil,” Nov. 5] of mantillas in his childhood parish serving as visible reminders of Mary’s holiness and the dignity of women. As a woman who veils during public worship, I want to answer his final paragraph with some additional reasons beyond nostalgia to revive this historic tradition.
My adoption of veiling is in response to an increasing personal awareness of the sacredness of life-bearing, the mystery of real presence in the Eucharist, and, most critically, the desire to wholly submit myself to God’s will. The physicality of Anglican worship drew me out of secular materialism and back to faith in Christ, and wearing the veil tangibly reminds me that, in a world struggling to recognize the Divine, there are still times, places, and lives set apart for the worship of God and the spread of his kingdom.
Harding is right to acknowledge both gains and losses in culture change, and there are good arguments against the Church compelling or pressuring women to adopt head coverings. However, it is my hope that others would not automatically dismiss veiling as retrograde, and, if they find themselves drawn with curiosity to this ancient practice, to prayerfully discern whether to freely take it up.
Tina Kemp
Chicago
