Irregularity

Last week Philadelphia’s Archbishop Chaput said remarried divorced Catholics shouldn’t receive Communion unless they abstain from sex…likewise for same sex couples.  Furthermore, he said those same people shouldn’t be allowed to serve on parish councils, instruct the faithful, serve as lectors or dispense Communion.  (I think they can still operate heavy machinery and definitely can contribute financially.)  He feels such people are in “irregular” relationships that offer “a serious counter-witness to Catholic belief, which can only produce moral confusion in the community.”  

Coincidentally, that same week, a priest confessed to me that he is sexually active.  This places him in the worldwide majority of priests, since according to psychologists who study priests’ sexuality, 50% of U.S. priests and a higher percentage of priests from other global regions are sexually active.   By the way, this priest felt his sexual activity was “sinful” but seemed prepared to suffer this sin repeatedly in the future. 

Regardless of one’s opinion about the sinfulness of priests’ sexual relationships, aside from converted married former Anglican priests, any sexual activity Roman Catholic priests have is categorically dishonest and unhealthy because it is secretive. 

This guy, like other sexually active priests, which means the majority of priests, not only receives communion, he consecrates the host.   I guess Chaput is ok with sexually active priests receiving and consecrating the host because it’s not “irregular.”  It’s become so regular that it is the majority of priests who have secret, dishonest, unhealthy sexual relationships. 

Not only do sexually active priests consecrate and dispense communion, they lead parish councils, instruct the faithful, read the gospel, and preach all while leading an inherently dishonest life.  Archbishop Chaput, pardon me, but THAT is what I find a counter-witness and morally confusing.  I’ll go so far as to say the deception and hypocrisy are morally repugnant. 

Many laity are hypnotized by glittering chasubles and shiny chalices into believing priests actually abstain from sex.  It is my understanding that all priests regardless of sexual activity tend to know which ones are sexually active with women, with other men, or with minors.  The unwritten code of conduct is to turn one’s head to not see other priests’ sexual activity lest that priest make your sexual activity known.  And thus, they band together to form a sick group illusion to the faithful of abstaining from sex though actually having sex, all while instructing the faithful about how “sinful” their relationships are, and marginalizing them based upon those relationships which are usually 1000 times healthier than any relationship most priests have ever known.

It is time for the faithful to say, “No more!”  (“Non amplius!” for Latin fans.) No more lies about priests’ sexuality.  No more hypocrisy about sexual morality from men with the unhealthiest of unhealthy sexual relationships.  No more cult-like, zombie-esque laity accepting the celibacy myth either. 

Here’s what I suggest.  Walk up to your local priest and ask about his sex life.  Priests instruct about ours all the time.  They also serve in public roles that carry explicit restrictions around their sex lives.  So it’s entirely appropriate that we start openly discussing their sex lives.  Clergy’s sex lives deserve at least as much and probably far more scrutiny than that of remarried divorced or homosexual algebra teachers, who rarely weave moral theology into discussing things like the quadratic equation.

Why not walk up to the priest before Mass and ask, “When was the last time you had sex?  Was it with a man or a woman?  Have you gone to confession since having sex or are you planning to celebrate Mass in a state of mortal sin?  How many times have you had sex, confessed and then had sex again?  True reconciliation requires a firm commitment to amend your behavior.  I just want to make sure you’re not doing anything that is morally confusing before I receive communion you consecrated.”   Try using a questionnaire if verbally asking these intimidates you.

Most likely even if the priest just zipped his pants 30 seconds before your discussion, he will deny being sexually active.  Don’t waiver because in addition to having the moral fiber to engage in secretive sex, priests also are capable of lying.  It is actually a requirement for their secret sex lives.  For example, the priest about whom I spoke, previously elaborately, explicitly and emphatically spoke about his total abstention from sex…which turned out to be an elaborate, explicit and emphatic total lie.    

If he blusters, calmly remind him that his clerical brotherhood fixates on sexual morality so you feel obligated inquiring about his sex life.  Good leaders lead by example so you just want to understand the example he sets. 

By the way, the code word often used in lieu of saying “sex” is “celibacy lapse.”  Help him understand that they are the same thing.  If he’s had a celibacy lapse, he’s had sex.  Point out that many remarried divorced people are probably just having celibacy lapses themselves.  Likewise for homosexual couples…just celibacy lapses. 

Mind you, I disagree with the clergy celibacy/chastity requirement.  But, it is the current requirement and is certainly no secret to any man entering the priesthood.  It’s a rather universally known fact amongst Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  And, spiritual credentials and privileges are often instantly granted based upon this sham of a “sacrifice.”  Thus, though I disagree with the requirement, I firmly believe a sexually active priest should leave the priesthood and enter a healthy, honest, committed relationship.  If all sexually active priests did this, we would be left with precious few priests, driving the crisis needed for change.  I applaud the 125,000 or so priests since the 1960s who have done this already.

As previously mentioned, I think secretive relationships are categorically unhealthy.  Furthermore, I worry about children conceived in these relationships who are either aborted or raised without knowing truthfully who their fathers are.  But, I find the hypocrisy and deceit the most difficult to swallow.  Sexually active priests, having only secret, dishonest, unhealthy sexual relationships revile the laity for their sexual practices, especially those in "irregular" situations who do so in an open, honest and healthy manner. 

I have more respect for my homosexual relatives and friends who publicly affirm their commitment through marriage than I have for any priest who skulks around in secret having sex while pretending he doesn’t, trying to hide his partner, deluding himself that his situation is special because he has a “holy calling” but still has this irresistible need to have sex.  Become an Anglican priest and answer your calling while engaging in an honest sexual relationship.  That’s assuming the priest wants to have a committed relationship versus being what the kids these days call “a player,” one who prefers sex in non-committed relationships, freely moving from partner to partner.  Sorry, but players’ values conflict with Christian leadership moral guidelines.  Please just leave the priesthood if you're a player..

Bottom line regarding Abp Chaput’s sex related guidelines: I say, “You first.”  You priests recuse yourselves from ministry based upon your sexual practices first and then worry about the laity after that’s all tidied up.  In the meantime, Cardinal Sarah’s new suggested guideline for celebrating Mass with priests’ backs to the congregation might be so priests shamefully hide from facing the people they regularly dupe.  Or, maybe he just thinks priests’ asses are so darn attractive that we’d rather see them than the host.   

Some "theology of women" from a woman

Today is my mom’s birthday and were she alive we’d be having some sort of combined St. Patrick’s Day / birthday celebration.  Since she has started the eternal chapter of her life, I’ll instead honor the day by offering some “theology of women” thoughts based upon witnessing her faith for over 40 years.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy seems to assert that Jesus’ sexual organs are his most important body parts.  Why do I say this?  The hierarchy asserts that a priest must “naturally” remind people of Jesus’ physical body and only other men can do this.   The most differentiating physical attributes between a male and a female are sexual organs.  So, it’s easy to surmise that the hierarchy believes Jesus’ most important physical attributes are his sexual organs if they are required to evoke recollection of the man. 

This is curious in its own right because the hierarchy further asserts that Jesus never used his sexual organs for their natural intended purpose so why are they so all-fired important…but I digress.  Regardless of the hierarchy’s generous willingness to tell me what my thoughts and feelings should be, I know what they are.   The person who most reminds me of Jesus’ physical person is my mom. 

No, I wasn’t raised by a “mom” who was really just a man dressing in drag.  I wasn’t raised by a woman who later had a sex change operation either.  I was raised by my natural mother who was female all her life.  Yet, she reminded me physically of Jesus more than any other person I’ve encountered.  You might ask, “Why?”

Even if you don’t ask, “why”, I will elaborate because that …and maybe a little jetlag following my return from Southeast Asia find me awake in the wee hours of her birthday.

Jesus fed his flock, not by knocking out 80 hour weeks and turning over his paycheck to his wife so she could buy groceries that she would later cook and serve as meals to the flock.  Rather, he fed the world by offering himself, his own body.  No man I know does this but mothers do it all the time. 

My mother fed me and my numerous siblings from her very body. She fed us when we were in utero, where a mother’s body sacrifices nutrients to her child even to the detriment of her own body.  After we were born, she continued to feed us from her body, nursing us each for several months post-partum.

Jesus also welcomes us to enter into his Body.  Thus, we become part of the Body of Christ.  I think maybe this is Jesus’ way of saying, “I love you so much that I will make myself vulnerable so you can enter my body…”  This is a profoundly deep expression of love.  Women as wives and mothers welcome others to enter their bodies also, through sexual intercourse or through pregnancy.  My mother welcomed me into her body via her pregnancy carrying me.  She made herself vulnerable to allow me to enter her body and be a part of her body, even when I was no longer a physical resident of her body.

Thus, I readily see Jesus, not only in my mother but in many mothers whose greatest joy comes from making themselves vulnerable to allow others to share their body so that they may have life.

People say Jesus is our “brother” but my brothers never permitted me nor did I ever want to enter their bodies.  There’s nothing that poured forth from my brothers’ bodies that I found suitable for consumption or nourishment.  There is no part of their flesh that fed me.  Yet, there was from my mom as there is from Jesus.

Since the hierarchy asserts that physical recollection of Jesus is required of the person leading a Eucharistic celebration of the Mass lest we sacrifice sacramental validity, then it would seem that hierarchy would need to also assert that this person must be a mother.  No other type of person has sacrificed their body to give life to others.  No one else intimately knows what is involved in feeding others from their own flesh.  How curious that only one man did what many women do, and how comical to say only ordained men understand and portray it.  Donning effeminate garb does not fool me into thinking a male priest has the slightest clue about sacrificing his body to feed me like my mother did or Jesus does.  It was not the superficiality of my mother’s clothes that fed me.  It was the fiber of her physical being.  When I became a mother myself, I better understood the profound life-giving, sacrificial, deep love my mother expressed.  It became my inspiration to try to imitate her and Christ as best I could.

The experience of feeding another from one’s own body is beyond the experience of every man in history except Jesus.  At best, other men can observe others literally feeding others from their own body, but they cannot do it themselves.  Maybe because men are incapable of this primary life-giving experience, they suppress or discredit the expressions of those who do.  Maybe this is why women’s voices are so often ignored in the church unless they echo the experiences of men. 

The bottom line is that I didn’t live in the time of Jesus so didn’t see his physical body and thus, I have never seen his sexual organs.  Believe it or not, even if I had met Jesus face-to-face in his time, I sincerely doubt his sexual organs would have been my focal point because it’s not my focal point when meeting men today.  I just don’t say, “There’s a guy; he sure reminds me of Jesus because they have the same standard sexual equipment package.” 

I can imagine that this fixation on a priest having the same sexual organs as Jesus might be especially offensive to survivors of clergy sexual abuse; it is to me and I was never sexually assaulted by a priest.  If Jesus’ sexual organs are so important to remind us of Jesus, how dare they be used for sexual violence?  How dare anyone tolerate that, enable that or minimize that?  Quite frankly, this is a no-brainer: people who use their flesh to violate others or who minimize another’s use of flesh to violate others do not remind me of Jesus.

Conversely, it’s just a no-brainer that my mom’s or any mom’s holy, joyous sacrifice feeding her flock from her own flesh physically reminds me of Jesus.  Active use of her body parts to feed others reminds me of Jesus far more than the male clergy's passive non-use of body parts.

Pope Francis, priests and monsters...

Stop the presses!  What is this I hear Pope Francis said?  Did he really say that some priests behave like “little monsters?”  Why, yes, yes he did say that and even more!  He said this monster-esque behavior emerges from “clericalism”, something he called “one of the worst evils” and something he attributes to poor seminary formation.  “We must form their hearts. Otherwise we are creating little monsters.  And then these little monsters mold the people of God. This really gives me goose bumps.”  - Pope Francis

Hey, those are pretty stiff accusations against clerics there, Mr. Chief Clerical Officer of the Roman Catholic Church.  Are they warranted or substantiated?

The definition of a monster is “a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems.”  Let’s also review the definition of “clericalism”: “a policy of supporting the influence and power of the clergy.” 

Well, let’s rummage through the mountain of church writings to see if we can find any evidence of clericalism and/or monster-making… Ah, yes, here we go.  Found something! 

An ancient writing dating from all the way back to 2009 – a report issued after a Vatican visitation of American seminaries - might help substantiate Francis’ assertion.  Here’s some contextual background on the report.  It resulted from a Vatican visitation (read that “investigation”) into the role seminaries might have played in the sex abuse scandal.  When the visitation occurred, the Vatican was still trying to portray sex abuse as an American-only phenomenon.  As an aside, since that visitation, sexual abuse scandals rivaling the U.S.’s magnitude or worse have erupted in over a dozen countries so I guess that whole “made in America” thing wasn’t accurate.  Anyway, the report was generally favorable towards U.S. seminaries but highlighted a few negative findings in need of correction that they thought contributed to the sexual abuse issue.  Here’s one:

“The students have an idea of priestly service, but teachings such as on the character impressed by the Sacrament of Orders, on the nature of sacra potestas (sacred powers), on the tria munera (three offices), etc., are not so well known.”   In other words, the Vatican felt it was problematic for seminaries to focus too much on priests doing service … you know that crazy stuff that Jesus did…and not enough on the “sacred powers” of the three-fold office, namely the teaching (munus docendi), sanctifying (munus sanctificandi) and ruling (munus regendi) offices.  One might simplify that message from the Vatican as telling priests to ease-up on helping people and focus more on controlling them.  Let’s see…”institutionalized clericalism with foundations in seminary?”  Check!  …as per Vatican directives.

Here’s another one from that same report:

“In a few seminaries, the clear distinction between the common priesthood and the ministerial, hierarchical priesthood needs to be emphasized more. “  This statement reveals Vatican officials believe the hierarchical superiority of clericalism needs to increase not decrease.  Again, I think we can safely place a checkmark in the “institutionalized clericalism” column for seminaries.

So there you have it. Along with blaming homosexuals, criticizing seminarians’ behavior outside of the seminary walls and faulting dioceses for not exalting seminarians and seminaries enough, the Vatican as of 2009 felt that the sex abuse scandal resulted from priests not being hierarchical enough, not exerting their “sacred powers” enough and offering too much service.  I will pause a moment for you to stop banging your head against a hard, flat surface and also to finish your primal scream therapy.

Done?  Ready to continue now?  O.K. back to our topic. 

I guess I must cede Francis his “clericalism” point about clergy power fascinations, but “monster?”  Isn’t that a bit severe?  I mean a monster is a powerful person that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems.  And yeah, the Vatican report on clergy formation said to focus more on clerical powers… but does that really create priests who “cannot be controlled?” 

Again I dive into the steaming mountain of church writings and dig all the way down to the 1983 section to find the latest revision of Canon Law.  Rather than quote lengthy sections from it, let me summarize its power governance laws using this analogy.  Think “dogs peeing on trees to mark territory.”  The church truly has evolved little further than that in some aspects of church governance.  The world is divided into geographical territories over which a bishop presides and the bishop subdivides his territory into parishes over which a pastor presides.  Only one alpha dog is permitted per marked territory.   

“But doesn’t the bishop reign over all the parish pastors?” you might ask.

Here the plot thickens a bit.  A parish pastor, once appointed by the bishop, can only be removed under a few very obtusely defined circumstances.  As long as the pastor avoids those issues, he can do whatever he darn well pleases and the bishop has no, zip, nada, the null-set, recourse. 

Even if the pastor violates one of the lawful reasons for removal, the complex legal processes under Canon Law tilt toward protecting him and often eventually require approval from the Vatican Curia - an organization reputed for corruption, inefficiency and sloth-paced movement in addition to siding with pastors over their bishops.  Therefore, most bishops only bother pursuing priest situations that involve “slam-dunk” transgressions in the eyes of the Vatican Curia – really treacherous things like pastors who want to talk about female ordinations.  And, no, a pastor raping a child is NOT a slam-dunk with the Vatican Curia.  Thus, many bishops avoid the confrontation, expense and hassle, and just let pastors do pretty much whatever they want.  Oooooh, so that whole “cannot be controlled” thing is for-real!

I’m sure Francis knows that clericalism is written into Canon Law and further enabled by bishops unwilling to navigate the legislative processes that most likely would conclude with the Vatican Curia affirming the “little monster” anyway.  Therefore, I don’t totally agree with Francis.  He asserts these clericalism-generated “little monsters” are the fault of poor seminary training.  I think that is only part of it.  Seminaries plant the seeds of clericalism but Canon Law feeds and waters it by bestowing minimally governed, nearly unchecked powers to pastors (and popes).  Furthermore, bishops and the Curia further cultivate clericalism every time they permissively turn their heads for those few powers that Canon Law does try to hold in check.

Let’s quickly review the power path.  Popes have the right to appoint every single Curia leadership position.  They also appoint every single bishop.  Bishops appoint every single seminary rector and together they determine seminary curriculum.  Bishops ordain every single priest and then appoint every single pastor.    

Once the pastor is appointed, if he is a monster or monster-in-the-making, it is too late.  Unfortunately with the reduced number of clergy, more and more bishops are appointing less and less experienced men as pastors and their immaturity and inexperience seem to be creating more “little monsters.” 

My dear brother Francis, let’s face it.  Much of the power to correct clericalism lies in your hands as pope via your Curia appointments, bishops you choose and indeed even the Canon Laws you do or do not enact. 

Keep in mind what’s required to alter Canon Law.  The pope can just decree something into Canon Law using something called a “motu propio” (literally means “own motion”).  And the beauty of the pope's absolute monarchy is that all of his motions carry.  Yes, current church governance has strayed so far from the laypeople-elected bishops of the early church that it has devolved into placing the power in the pope’s hand to just decree things…no lobbying required by the pope to gain mindshare from a single other elected official because there are none.

Francis has made some new Curia leadership appointments including in the Congregation for Clergy and the Congregation for Bishops.  However, he has left in place Pope Benedict’s head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith – a key office in the bureaucracy of governing priests.  Also, I am unaware of him issuing any motu proprios to adapt the bishop and pastor selection processes, their sweeping powers, or clergy governance processes. 

Things the pope controls could affect existing clergy immediately.  But, starting with seminary reform instead means effects will not be felt until the people wait for the bureaucracy of curriculum reform to occur (or not…), and then for the 4+ years of formation for seedling seminarians after the reforms take place, and then another 2 or so years before those priests become pastors. 

Though I appreciate Francis might be trying to minimize his own clericalism, the result is years if not decades more of suffering by the people.  And regardless, all the “formation of heart” in the world will not properly govern human priests acting like humans and especially human priests when they act inhuman.

How do we contribute to the “worst of evils” called “clericalism?”  What is our responsibility to eliminate this evil from our church?  Is it possible to eliminate clericalism ("the worst of evils") without eliminating the absolute monarchy of the pope? 

As background, here are Canon Law’s published reasons for removing a parish pastor:

• "A manner of acting which causes grave harm or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion"
• "Ineptitude or permanent illness of mind or body, which makes the parish priest unequal to the task of fulfilling his duties satisfactorily"
• "The loss of the parish priest’s good name among upright and serious-minded parishioners or aversion to him, when it can be foreseen that these factors will not quickly come to an end"
• "Grave neglect or violation of parochial duties which persists after a warning"
• "Bad administration of temporal good s with grave harm to the church when no other remedy can be found to eliminate this harm"

Here’s a quick summary of the removal process:

• Bishop must become aware of the inappropriate behavior
• Bishop must agree that the behavior is inappropriate.  These two steps alone can take years and many valid issues never even reach this point.  But if they do:
• The bishop conducts an investigation
• If concerns are founded, then the bishop discusses the matter with two other priests
• If they believe there is cause to proceed, then the bishop communicates the reasons to the priest and tries to persuade him to resign within 15 days
• If the pastor doesn’t reply within 15 days, the bishop renews his invitation to resign
• If the pastor doesn’t reply to the second notice then the bishop issues a decree
• If the priest opposes the case, the bishop invites him to review the case against him and provide his objections in writing
• This might need to be reviewed with the same two priests from the previous step
• If they decide the removal is still substantiated then there is another decree issued
• The priest can be removed from the parish at this point but the new pastor cannot be assigned until the matter is resolved with the Vatican Curia and in the meantime the priest must be provided financial support
• By this time, the bishop may have moved to his next job or died, the priest may have retired or died, but, most likely, more people will have left the church.