Sorry for the long lapse since my last article but I’ve been on
multiple trips with only a few days at home in the last month. My travels included witnessing Turkey’s
internal conflict firsthand while my time at home included hearing secondhand
accounts about an internal parish conflict.
Both conflicts involved leaders with conflict resolution approaches of “I’m
the boss; I’m in charge; do what I say or else.”
This weekend’s gospel passage from Luke 9 also involves a
conflict. Due to a long-standing
conflict between Jews and Samaritans, Jesus is rejected by a Samaritan
village. Angered by the rejection, two
apostles, James and John, ask if they can call down fires from heaven to
destroy the village but Jesus rebukes them for the idea.
Though conflicts involve disagreements, conflicts are characterized by
broken communications and destructive patterns whereas simple disagreements
usually foster positive growth and change based upon healthy communications
between disagreeing parties. However, differences
are so strong in conflicts that often communication is seen as pointless and so
genuine understanding gets replaced by assumptions.
The conflict between the pastor and some parish school parents in my parish
is just one of many internal conflicts within the church. Currently the church
seems to abound with internal conflicts on global, national, diocesan, and
parish levels. These conflicts each began
as disagreements but somehow devolved into outright conflicts. Why are there so many unresolved internal church
conflicts?
Disagreements are simply different opinions based upon different contexts, interpretations, needs, and intentions. Because people
are different, intermittent disagreements are natural, expected and healthy.
If internal church disagreements fostered positive growth and change, one
would expect the church to be teeming with active participants rather than experiencing
atrophied Mass attendance. Why doesn’t
the church see disagreements as healthy growth catalysts but rather treats them
as destructive conflicts? Why is it so
difficult to resolve internal church conflicts?
A brief overview of conflict resolution styles is probably helpful. The most common conflict resolution styles are based upon a dual-concern model which balances concern for self against concern for others. As you read the different styles, think about which styles you see used by the hierarchy at various levels.
- Accommodating: Having higher concern for others than self, one party yields to another party that has higher concern for self than for others. This sometimes resolves minor conflicts but often worsens more significant conflicts because it spawns resentment.
- Avoiding: Having minimal concern for others’ interests, one party ignores the conflict hoping it will disappear. However, that party’s inaction and passiveness often escalates the conflict because the inhumanity of being ignored aggravates the other party.
- Collaborating: Balancing concern of self and others, the parties communicate and work towards a win-win resolution.
- Compromise: Having concern for self and others as well as a sense of fairness, both parties bargain in a give-and-take manner with each side yielding to the other for some things. This is a blend of accommodating and collaborating styles and is frequently used to reach interim solutions.
-
Confrontation: Having very strong self-interest, at least one party
tries to dominate the other by using power to intimidate or force compliance.
The objective is a win-lose scenario. If communications exist they
are hostile.
It’s also worth considering a few common psychological conditions that
instigate or fuel conflicts: codependency, Narcissistic Personality Disorder
and Hubris Syndrome. Again, as you review the symptom lists, think about which
ones you’ve seen in the hierarchy, in laypeople and yourself.
Codependency
- External reference – others are the source of happiness or pain
- Controlling others – since others are the source of happiness and pain
- Afraid of losing people
- An unbalanced desire for other’s approval
- Rigid defenses out of fear of being rejected
- Delusional beliefs and a willingness to lie or accept lies to retain others’ approval
- Loss of self
-
Martyr complex
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
- Sincerely believe they are “special”/better than others, and often disdain “inferiors”
- Fantasize about power or success
- Exaggerate talents or achievements and have unrealistic goals
- Expect constant praise
- Fail to acknowledge other's feelings and concerns, sometimes appearing as unemotional
- Expect others to follow their plans and thus take advantage of or manipulate others
- Are jealous of others and think others are jealous of them
- Have difficulty establishing and maintaining healthy relationships
-
Have fragile self-esteem and therefore are easily hurt or take offense
Hubris Syndrome
- Have a messianic zeal and believe they are only accountable to a higher court or God
- Have an unshakeable belief that they are right and place being "right" above cost, practicality or outcome
- Have contempt for those who disagree with them
- Equate themselves with the organization and use the royal we speaking as though representing universal opinions of the group
- Have excessive self confidence from unshakeable belief they are “right”
- Have incompetency in basic leadership skills
- Act to cast self in positive light and give highest priority to their image
- Lose contact with reality
- Act recklessly and impulsively
-
Find power is a way for self-glorification
First, why are there so many internal church conflicts? Due to manifestations within the clergy of Narcissistic
Personality Disorder and Hubris Syndrome symptoms, I think the hierarchy puts
numerous disagreements on a fast-path to conflict by refusing to communicate.
Instead of benefiting from disagreements, any disagreement is labeled as
“dissent” or “evil.” Most disagreements
immediately jump to conflict because communication and dialogue are not
permitted. This is the case with married clergy, female ordinations,
human sexuality, and women’s health topics. In
some cases the hierarchy even seems to pick fights.
Some pastors and bishops try to resolve conflicts they created by using
a combination of avoidance and confrontation styles sprinkled with Hubris
Syndrome and Narcissistic Personality Disorder behaviors. Inspired by their
unyielding sense of being “right”, they ignore others’ concerns and use their
position of power to intimidate and force others into compliance with their
will. While having a profoundly strong self-interest, they encourage
parishioners to have a profoundly strong other-interest wishing parishioners to
adopt an accommodating conflict resolution style.
Some codependent laypeople craving clergy approval comply. However, due to some people’s God-given attributes
or life circumstances being mutually exclusive of the hierarchy’s unyielding definition
of “right”, some people will never secure the clergy’s approval. Such people who are also codependents often
leave the church emotionally crushed by the impossibility of securing clergy
approval. Many non-codependent laypeople
do not comply and many of them just leave. Thus, this doesn’t seem to be an effective
resolution style unless the desired resolution is a church exclusively filled
with codependents fitting a narrow definition of “right.”
In the sexual abuse and bishop accountability conflicts, the predator
priests used children’s natural codependency to secure their prey. The lies, cover-ups, movements and
legislative ploys to permit predatory priests to continue or avoid criminal
prosecution rely upon centuries of cultivated codependency amongst the laity as
well as Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Hubris Syndrome within the clergy. This is all wrapped in a dominant avoidance
conflict resolution style with smatterings of confrontation.
However, access to information, secular culture efforts to address codependency,
global connectivity, elevated education levels, and egalitarianism associated
with democracy, as well as numerous other social factors not mentioned, profoundly
reduce people’s willingness to “go along to get along.” People more openly disapprove of clergy. This stands at odds with codependent clergy
craving laypeople’s approval and is exacerbated by clergy Narcissistic
Personality Disorder behaviors that become indignant in the absence of approval.
The situation is somewhat analogous to parents having children grow
up. Some parents foster their children’s
growth towards independence; others cultivate lifelong codependency. Some parents guide their children’s growth
past iconic hero-worship of parents; others try to preserve heroic illusions of
perfection. Some parents want their
children to become adults; some prefer they remain children. Some wish to be teachers; others wish to be
controllers.
However, in the case of actual parents, there is now some form of governance
structure holding parents accountable to their children whereas Canon Law expresses
no accountability or recourse when spiritual fathers abuse their children
spiritually, physically, sexually or emotionally.
In this week’s gospel, Jesus holds the apostles in check from abusing
laypeople. Since the people of God are
the church and the church is the Body of Christ, Jesus is still present to
rebuke the apostles through the laity.
But, with the combination of codependency, Narcissistic Personality
Disorder and Hubris Syndrome, will the apostles listen or continue with their
delusional promotion of self as equivalent to the totality of Christ?
Nicely done. As for the questions posed in the last paragraph, it seems to me that the hierarchy of the church is a Greek tragedy spinning toward its own ruin. I do not fear the end of hierarchy because the true Church of the faithful will survive and reincarnate in perhaps a far different model; but, survive it will.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid the biggest conflict the hierarchy has is the one not with other people but with transparency. That is why I'm afraid that only some sort of psychological bomb like king Salomo used to drop them can be of help. I am afraid that the pope is all the hope we have got.
ReplyDelete"You reap what you sow"....Absolutely, no one wants to hear that any body within the Church is destined for ruin, but, it is has been my observation that the Lord is not being humorous when he says...that His "winnowing fork is on the threshing floor preparing the chaff for the fire". It is also said, "The Lord reserves the right to build up and to tear down". As the Lord's spiritual family, "we must hear the Word of God and Keep it"., or "we must hear the Lord and follow him"....We simply cannot know the "plan of God" for His Church...but, we ought not to think, that it doesn't involve major revision...While Mother/Father God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are unconditional love and unconditionally loving, they are also just! Love means doing justice...and since it is only God who is rightfully Good...it is God who will create the Church according to His Good Justice...and that could mean accepting as I say, "some major revision". We know the Lord the told us that the enemy would come, that there would be "weeds" among the "wheat" but, that the Lord had to allow the weeds and the wheat to exist together. If he uprooted the weeds, the wheat might come with it...however, I do not believe, the Lord intended that the "weeds" choke out the wheat. Again, a Good and Just God will see to His Church. The Scripture says, that God watches over the path of the righteous or his beloved. The scripture says, "that the Lord delights in the welfare of his servant".
ReplyDeleteHow is the Lord watching over the Church as His beloved servant? I believe there are signs of this, but, many people would not accept that is what the Lord is doing. For example, many people see the shortage of priests as an issue of crisis and can only believe/assume that God simply wants more of the same kind of priest vocation, but, that is probably very arguable. More than likely, God is allowing for this so called "crisis" to create something new in terms of the "priesthood". We have our indicator with Vatican II and the emphasis on the Royal Priesthood of All Believers and the necessary empowerment of the laity, including, women. In conclusion, yes, things sometimes have to come to ruin in order for new growth. Nature teaches this lesson with natural forest fires which are spawned to manifest new growth. There is a powerful, divine dynamic in the process of death and rebirth...We know this...This is the teaching that accompanies the death and resurrection of Christ. Allow God to be God and to lead us down the path of salvation, even if that path looks like ruin before the "new" has arrived.
In the pure "politics" of the Church, it is the concerns/rights/demands of the LGBT will change the Church Institution definitively. Rome acting as supreme authority has managed to "push away" most of the reform movements, reform minded theologians, and even "radical feminists", but, I predict, they cannot continue to push away LBGT as their movement has enormous traction worldwide and their reality good or not so good impacts Catholic families and frontline pastoral workers everywhere. LGBT is the "wildcard" that changes the institutional game. Mark my words.
DeleteAfter that, any other change or reform will come with little struggle, but you will see a very revised agenda and reformed institution. If the Vatican wants to deal with this issue proactively, they are best to decentralize quickly by passing great authority to the local Catholic Conference of Bishops, the world over and by doing so, they have gone a long way to reforming the Curia and central power and have gone a long way to treating hot button pastoral issues that ought to be treated by local Churches predominantly. While waiting for change has been a wearying experience as Sister Joan Chittister has written, there is always hope for a major overhauling of the institution and so there is also a new excitement.
hi cuz
ReplyDeletefrom canada
Hey, thanks for stopping by the blog.
ReplyDelete