Follow-up Questions on Bishop Remi de Roo

[[Dear Sister, I have read what you said about Bishop de Roo in the past so I was familiar with the story. I liked the way you put some things this time around and thought they were especially helpful in understanding why the Church made a canonical form of eremitical life. Part of that had to do with the paradoxes involved in the life. . . . I don't know if this is also about paradox, but I have questions about Bishop De Roo. Did you know he had some financial problems in his diocese?  I don't think you are idealizing him, but were you aware of the problems he got the Diocese of Victoria into?]]

Hi good questions, and important. Yes, I was aware of the problems that occurred with Bp De Roo over a land deal. He wrote a book about this (I think it was his account I read, but it was a while ago) and there was at least one other book I read about it all by Patrick Jamieson. There were two sides to the story (at least and of course!). In the book I read by Jamieson, a Catholic journalist, there were five major claims about Bp De Roo being made regarding financial mismanagement, questionable investments, etc. Most of these focused on a land deal the bishop was involved in that would have made money for the Diocese of Victoria". The Church, after de Roo's retirement stopped making mortgage payments and the debt soared from penalties, etc. What was discovered by Jamison was that the really concerted attempts to vilify Bishop began in 2000, immediately after he had retired in 1999. 

With regard to the land deal mentioned above, seven years after de Roo retired, it was decided in court (in the US) that de Roo had made a solid investment in the land involved. There had been no mismanagement. The violation of the contract with a US businessman by the Church, was unjustified and the Church needed to work with the plaintiff to recoup his investment. The plaintiff desired to do this without hurting the Church if that was possible. The Church, however, appealed the decision and, as I recall the situation now, the decision was eventually sustained. In any case, it is clear that Bishop de Roo was not involved in much of this and his place as an administrator was vindicated. The situation was similar with the other four areas of dispute and allegations. Jamieson refers to these as "myths" in his book.

What Jamieson also noted was that the accusations of fiscal mismanagement always seemed to come from the same small group of people who resented de Roo's attempts to implement the conclusions of, or drawn from, Vatican II. Whether or not this was true or accurate, there is no doubt de Roo was a "reformist" or progressive Bishop and theologian, and a small traditionalist faction formed that attempted first to block changes and then, to vilify de Roo. The idea of discrediting progressive bishops was not novel, though it was unusual in the Canadian Church. Still, it was real, and it seems to me that Bp de Roo was pulled into this after he had retired with allegations of fiscal mismanagement during his tenure as Bishop of Victoria. 

In another area of concern, while I don't know details regarding the extent to which Remi de Roo was involved in the clergy abuse scandal, I do know the book he wrote about it and the quality of his response. The book is called Cries of Victims and Voice of God. There is no doubt Bp Remi dealt with this profound problem and scandal as has every bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, and better than many. What comes through in the book is de Roo's deep compassion and grief as a prominent Church leader who loves God, the People of God, and his own priestly vocation. The title of this book alone tells one what he valued primarily, and what guided whatever he did in this area. He wanted (the Church) to hear the victims, and he wanted the voice of God to be heard and acted on by all. From what I know of the man and Bishop, this reflected his character; this was who he was. 

As you say, I am not idealizing him. There is no need for that because I don't think I am naive in my assessments of what he did at Vatican II and in the Diocese of Victoria. Until now, I have written only about his role as the bishop-protector of a group of hermits in British Columbia. That is the context in which I met Bp de Roo, and the topic we very briefly conversed about. It is also the only topic that has been relevant to the questions raised and answered here. Even so, precisely because I esteem him (and am grateful to God for the roll he played in getting c 603 promulgated after Vatican II), I have read about problems he was at least purported to have caused or failed at. What I have discovered is that, generally speaking, in complex situations, he was often not actually culpable for or of the accusations made. What I have also discovered is that even when there was some entirely understandable and regrettable episcopal failure or inadequacy (we really do not expect bishops to be entirely successful in everything they attempt), it was de Roo's admirable character that still shone out. 

I have told this story before, but perhaps it is a good time to tell it again. Before a celebratory dinner on the day I met Bishop de Roo, we had a Mass. Bp John Cummins was there (another attendee of Vatican II and good friend of de Roo from the days of the Council), Bp de Roo, some other clergy, and religious who were participating in some way in the liturgy. I was to carry the book of the Gospels in the entrance procession. We did a brief practice to see who went where in the procession line, who bowed when, and who went where next. It was a quick, matter-of-fact, and quiet kind of strategic "scramble" before we settled in to truly pray the liturgy. As the presiders were talking about these logistics, Bishop de Roo turned to me and said, "You carry the book of the Gospels. You bow to no one!!" Was Bp de Roo throwing his weight around as a bishop here? Was this about pride or prestige? No, it was about priorities, and I believe Bishop de Roo's were revealed very clearly in that moment.