Do church leaders expect to be held to a lesser standard than teenagers serving them coffee in a fast-food restaurant?

My last posting discussed putting the newspaper next to the Bible in order to live the gospel, serving people in their present condition.  Part of people’s present condition is their job environment.  What is the predominant business culture people experience and how does this culture influence people’s relationship with the church?

Statistics from the U.S.’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) indicate services contribute 63.4% of the world’s GDP as compared to 30.6% from industry and 6% from agriculture.  Consequently, most people work in jobs providing services.  For example, 84.6% of jobs in the U.S. are in the services sector. 

It is safe to assume most Catholics also work in service related jobs since countries with the ten largest Catholic populations mirror this trend:

• The U.S., Brazil, Italy, France, Spain and Poland have economies where services contribute higher percentages of their GDP than the world average
• Mexico and Argentina are just barely below the world average at 62.8% and 62%
• The Philippines and Colombia are significantly below the world average but still see services contributing more than 50% of their national GDP at 55% and 53.5%

Not only do people deliver services, they consume services.  Thus, the general population is becoming more service savvy.  Granted, secular services have room for substantial improvement.  Nonetheless, many people are learning key service concepts.  For example service workers understand that successful services depend upon teams of people, flexible processes, resources, and partnering with resource suppliers rather than on heroics of one saintly soul.

At work, many people are learning methodologies and frameworks for continually improving services.  They are learning about organizational dynamics required to support this.  Tenets of their occupation include:

·         Thou shall listen so as to understand needs of those you serve

·         Thou shall be open to process improvements to offer better service

·         Thou shall not blindly obey but shall think critically to identify broken processes

·         Thou shall hold no process as sacred hiding behind “tradition” lest it not serve optimally

·         Thou shall not presume you know but gather data and make decisions based on facts

·         Thou shall communicate openly and honestly

·         Thou shall be held accountable for your role in the process

·         Thou art a team member and shall value ideas from your teammates

·         Thou shall deliver and accept constructive criticism without becoming defensive

·         Thou shall seek people of diverse backgrounds so as to serve diverse people

However, at church people have practically no voice as either a service consumer or provider.  In many parishes, parish councils are supposed to represent people’s needs.  However, pastors tend to select their supporters to serve on those councils.  Therefore parish councils charged to be conduits for learning people’s needs, instead often become mutual admiration societies.  The result is that many people believe the church sub-optimally serves the community’s needs. 

If people raise concerns or offer improvement suggestions as is encouraged in their work culture, they often find themselves dismissed, patronized, pushed to the fringes of their parish, removed from teams or in extreme cases demonized by priests or priest-groupies.  Unlike in their job environment, blind obedience is preferred over critical thinking.  

If they act like a full member of the team, offer criticism, or hold leaders accountable, they are told they lack humility.  If they try to communicate openly, they are told they lack charity and understanding.  If they identify gender discrimination, they are told they just don’t understand God’s plan in the differences between men and women.  Instead of being co-creators in their church as Vatican II suggests, they become pawns, moved to the strategic advantage of church leaders.

Some parishes have tried to embark on process-based thinking but more often greatly lag secular service organizations in understanding process methodologies.  Frequently they also choke on the egalitarian nature of service improvement.  A friend of mine once was hired by a monarch to help his country become more democratic.  Upon realizing that being democratic required him to accept election results even when he didn't agree, he fired her.  In a similar vein, some pastors trying to embrace service concepts stop short when they learn their "pastoral discretion" must humbly yield to data, facts and insight from multiple knowledge workers. 

In their jobs, Catholics learn about service, service quality and service improvement.  They also drank the “Jesus Kool-Aid” about serving others and assume Christian service should far surpass what’s expected of them in their secular service work.  Instead, they see many church leaders who are internally rather than externally focused, emphasize serving them rather than others, ignore or neutralize rather than seek lay voices, marginalize rather than embrace diversity, presume rather than ask, work in secrecy rather than openness, rebuff rather than desire criticism, fear rather than seek continual improvement, and skirt rather than face accountability.    

As has happened throughout history, secular and sacred cultures again intersect with great dissonance.  Even teenagers flipping hamburgers in a fast-food restaurant sense the dichotomy.  However, this time, their secular jobs seem to understand service better than their church. Do church leaders expect to be held to a lesser standard than teenagers serving them coffee in a fast-food restaurant?

People working in secular service-industry jobs know that when their organization renders poor service, people leave.  Should the church expect any different reaction?

What newspapers are church leaders reading?

Jesus, “the Word made flesh” arrived amidst the geo-political and daily personal strife of ordinary people.  He was born into poverty in a nation enduring military occupation rather than into privilege or as the child of religious or political leaders. 

God sent Jesus to regular parents to dwell amongst ordinary folk for a reason.  God met God’s creation where they were, experienced what they experienced, and brought them love and mercy amidst their reality.  As Jesus dwelled amongst common folk he cured people, rendered dignity to outcasts, cared for the poor, chastised religious leaders for hypocrisy, and brought God’s love and mercy to people amidst persecutions imposed by their religious and political leaders.  For this reason, theologian Karl Barth used to suggest clergy preach with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. 

How do today’s religious leaders walk with and experience regular folks’ struggles and deliver them love and mercy?  The answer to that varies based upon individuals but I thought the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ published priorities might offer insight into the group’s general mindset and approach.

The USCCB’s website lists the following priorities for 2011 with supporting goals or focus areas:

1.  “Strengthening marriage” with goals to have Catholics see marriage as a “natural institution founded by God” and to work for laws and public policies that define marriage as one man and one woman.

2.  “Faith formation focused on sacramental practice” with goals focused on Sunday Eucharist and introducing the new English translation of the Roman Missal.

3.  “Priestly and religious vocations” with goals to get more people into these vocations and to get lay people to encourage people to enter these vocations.

4.  “Life and dignity of the human person” focused on mobilizing Catholics to influence elections and public policy regarding abortion.

5.  Recognition of cultural diversity with an emphasis on Hispanic ministry.

In lay person’s terms, I summarized their priorities as:

1.  Return to dated gender stereotypes and lobby for legislation that marginalizes homosexuals and their children.

2. Pray Mass using English more resembling that spoken during the 16^th century Council of Trent.

3.  Get more priests.

4.  Elect the bishops’ favored politicians using abortion as the litmus test for candidate suitability.

5.  Celebrate diversity as long as it doesn’t include gay people or women in certain roles.

Financial activities also tend to indicate priorities.  So, I looked at my diocese’s annual report.  It has $108Million in net assets, with the largest asset holdings in property ($17.7 Million), investments ($25.2 Million) and loans to parishes, typically for parish building projects ($58.8 Million). 

My diocese projects $14 Million in annual operating expenses, $6.7 Million of which will go towards “central services ministries”.  Of that, approximately $1.3 Million actually goes to Catholic Charities to work with the poor and marginalized.  The other central services ministries listed in the order of their funding allotments include:

$1.5 Million for Diocesan Financial and Administrative activities

$1.2 Million for Formation mostly focused on ordaining men

$1.1 Million for Education and Catechesis

$1.0 Million for the Chancery (the Bishop’s immediate office and staff)

$0.5 Million for Communications

$0.2 Million for Pastoral Planning

I then looked at the newspapers and saw what people face on a daily basis: poverty, foreclosures, joblessness caused by a weak economy, loss of jobless benefits, war, drugs, drug wars, and consumerism. Of its millions of dollars, my diocese will use just barely over $1 Million to help people in their actual daily struggles.  

Therefore, I’m struggling to see how fostering more June Cleavers, marginalizing homosexuals, praying the Mass using out-of-date English idioms, or electing pro-birth politicians who ignore the needs of the poor are going to help people feed their families, keep their homes and deal with the world’s violence.  If the USCCB’s priorities represent clergy’s understanding of the human condition, I also struggle to see how having more clergy will help.

Additionally, Catholics struggle with the pain of betrayal by religious leaders having been wounded by clergy abuse and bishops’ lack of accountability.  Yet the bishops do not list reconciliation, atonement, or reestablishing credibility with the people of God as a priority.

What newspapers are church leaders reading?

"...and upon this rock I will build my church..."

Church leaders base papal authority largely upon the statement in MT 16:18, “…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…”   The original Greek text of Matthew’s gospel actually uses two forms of the word “rock”, one masculine (petros) and one feminine (petra).  Re-inserting just the Greek words used for “rock”, the statement would read something like, “…you are Petros and upon this petra I will build my church…”

In Greek, the masculine and feminine forms of this word vary somewhat in meaning.  “Petros” means a rock as in a stone whereas “petra” means a rock that is a massive foundational formation.  Some biblical scholars debate over the shift in gender and meaning, mostly to question papal authority.  These scholars suggest that this verse means that Peter is a small fragment of the foundational rock or perhaps that the verse doesn’t refer directly to Peter at all.

Church leaders refute such arguments by explaining that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, not Greek.  The Aramaic word of "kephas" has no gender and is the same word for stone, rock or foundational slab.  So if we insert Aramaic for “rock”, it would be, “…you are Kephas, and upon this kephas I will build my church…” In Aramaic, the rock's magnitude is either irrelevant or inferred.  

Though the Aramaic word doesn't really distinguish magnitude, the author chose the Greek word referring to a massive foundational structure for the word's second appearance.  Church leaders explain that proper speech would not permit using a feminine noun as a man’s name in the first instance.  Thus, it would have been improper speech to say, “…you are Petra, and upon this petra I will build my church…”

Church leaders explain why the Greek author didn’t use the all feminine Petra/petra combination.  The mixed gender Petros/petra combination is one alternative and the one that was used.  However, why didn’t the author of Matthew write it as, “…you are Petros, and upon this petros I will build my church…”?  This would have preserved the general meaning and maintained consistent masculine gender usage, “….you are a male rock, and upon this male rock I will build my church…”

Instead the author chose to change genders, “…you are a male rock, and upon this female rock I will build my church…”  I just wonder if there is any significance to referring to Peter as a female rock upon which to build the church.  In my research, I’ve not found anyone who explores this question.  Since church leaders give tremendous attention to gender in other passages about apostles, I just wonder why it has not been explored here.  It would seem to me that if the preservation of an all-male leadership team were important to early church leaders, they would have preferred using the masculine petros/petros combination rather than what the gospel author chose, the mixed gender "petros/petra" combination.

Is the error of structural violence over the interpretation of scripture occurring again?

The Catholic Church teaches that people are not bound to any particular scripture interpretation.  God speaks to people individually through scripture.  This is expressed in documents such as Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943 Pius XII) and Dei Verbum (1965 Second Vatican Council).  Thus, Catholics are not required to interpret everything in the Bible literally.

However, Dei Verbum also asserts that, “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church”.  This teaching office of the church is called the Magisterium. 

These two somewhat divergent concepts coexist by the Magisterium reserving the right to definitively interpret parts of scripture but rarely doing so.  Even when sparsely applied, does this exclusive authority for scripture interpretation enable structural violence?  The church says, “No” because it believes it always interprets God’s intentions correctly.  However, what has history shown?

Galileo Galilei, through scientific study believed in heliocentrism, the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the Sun circling Earth.  Galileo was correct.

Despite being correct, Galileo was called before the Magisterium’s Inquisition twice.  Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 contain verbiage about the Earth being immovable or the Sun rising and setting about the Earth.  Literally interpreting those passages, the Magisterium felt Galileo contradicted scriptural truths.  Galileo felt he didn’t, citing 4^th century bishop St. Augustine’s theological writings pertaining to non-literal scripture interpretation.  However, the Magisterium’s power outranked Galileo, a layman.

Defending his thoughts, Galileo experienced both physical and emotional violence at the hands of the Catholic Church.  In 1616, the Inquisition cleared him of all charges but condemned his theory as “false and contrary to Scripture”.  He was told to stop promoting the idea.  He initially promised to do this, likely to avoid further physical violence.   Regardless, the emotional violence of asking him to turn off his God-given brain must have been extremely painful and likely inhibited achieving his potential.   

Compelled by pursuit of truth, he later wrote his most famous work, “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” (1632) that defended his theory.  In his second trial by the Inquisition, he was found, “vehemently suspect of heresy”, required to recant his theory and placed under house arrest the remainder of his life.  Thus, he endured physical violence of imprisonment in addition to emotional violence of invalidating his thoughts and opinions for the last six years of his life.

Because reading books written by a heretic or on heretical topics are grounds for excommunication, the church imposed structural violence upon all humanity threatening them with excommunication if they read Galileo’s works or works on heliocentrism.  In its attempt to control truth, the church violated truth.

The church lifted its ban on books discussing heliocentrism in 1835, almost 200 years after Galileo’s death.  In 1939 Pope Pius XII, who authored Divino Afflante Spiritu, called Galileo one of the "most audacious heroes of research ... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way…”  In 1992 the church finally admitted it erred in dealing with Galileo and his thoughts. 

Could Galileo and other intimidated scientists have contributed more to the world if they had not experienced structural violence?  We will never know the extent of damage caused by the church because of the impossibility measuring unrealized potential, hidden or buried by fear.

Could the Magisterium again be misinterpreting scripture?    The church insists upon a literal interpretation of Jesus selecting twelve men for the original apostles and infers Jesus’ intention that this dictates clergy gender for all eternity.  The Magisterium insists upon an interpretation that denies Jesus also sent Mary Magdalene as an apostle.  It threatens excommunication to anyone pursuing or enabling female ordinations. Is the error of structural violence over the interpretation of scripture occurring again?  Should we act with the same courage as Galileo in pursuing truth regardless of Magisterial threats?

Does the church need to remove the wooden beam of structural violence from its own eye?

Johan Galtung coined the term “structural violence” in his 1969 journal article on peace and violence.  This article became a cornerstone in modern peace and justice work.  The article describes structural versus personal violence and their correlation.  It also differentiates between physical and emotional violence.  Social justice is the work to eliminate structural and personal violence whether physical or emotional.

Previously I mentioned that structural violence occurs when the institution threatens a broad set of people to control behavior.  The threat can be for physical or emotional violence but the threat itself is emotionally violent.  Threats of excommunication’s eternal damnation might be an example of this.

Another characteristic of structural violence is power imbalance.  An elite ruling class holds institutional power and decides who gets to enter the power circle.  The ruling elite determine the distribution of resources and opportunities, or determine who determines their distribution.  Because the ruling elite benefit from maintaining the status quo and also control institutional policy, structurally violent systems are characterized by very high degrees of stability as well. 

The Catholic Church has a strong history supporting social justice.  Twenty papal encyclicals beginning with Rerum Novarum, written in 1891, outline many aspects of human rights.  Dozens of documents written by popes, councils and bishops dating from as long ago as 1226 supplement the encyclicals.  For the full anthology, click here.   Catholic social justice teachings include statements such as:

1.  “…the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person”. (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops)

2.  “a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected” (USCCB)

3.  “…if you want peace, work for justice.” (Pope Paul VI)

The church primarily focuses on social justice in secular institutions.  However, since Jesus tells religious leaders to first remove the wooden beam from their own eye before trying to remove a splinter from another’s eye (MT 7:5, LK 6:41), it is fitting to question if structural violence exists within the church.

Let’s look at the church’s governing model first.  The power circle in the church excludes laymen and all women.  Somewhere Jesus’ directive for the apostles to heal and preach morphed into them becoming an exclusive class of governors.  Only those in the power circle of ordained men choose who may enter the power circle as well as hierarchical appointments within the power circle.  Women daring to consider entering the power circle are threatened with the structural violence of ex-communication’s eternal damnation. 

The ruling elite attribute their choices selecting power circle members to the Holy Spirit but only as it works through them.  Church rulers dismiss and disregard the Spirit’s work within women and laymen on this matter.  Rulers say women and laymen should not feel this violates their human dignity despite many laity expressing they feel it does. Invalidating another person’s opinions or emotions, in itself, violates human dignity.

The ruling elite set their policy based upon interpreting scripture but they also decreed that they alone decide if they interpret correctly.  They disregard any working of the Holy Spirit through laymen or women on this matter as well.  Again, they tell women and laymen they should not feel dehumanized.

They believe so strongly in their correctness that they declare their practices as “sacred tradition” and their policies on certain matters as “infallible”.  Furthermore, they believe so strongly in their infallibility that they created a policy preventing the overturn of “infallible” policies.  These policies and “sacred traditions” create an excruciatingly stable governing structure that maintains an exclusive ruling class of ordained men while dehumanizing women and laymen.

Does the church need to remove the wooden beam of structural violence from its own eye?  In a large part, this was the effort undertaken by the Second Vatican Council.  Are recent attempts to reverse and redirect Vatican II efforts examples of the ruling elite shaping policy to maintain their power and power circle?