Dear Pope Francis, regarding mercy and forgiveness...

Dear Pope Francis,

First, I have to rescind rescinding my offer for you to visit my home while in the U.S.  Turns out I’ll be here in the U.S. that Saturday and Sunday after all!   I can take you to a very special U.S. “religious” event – an American university football match on Saturday.  I have 2 extra tickets for that day’s game at my alma mater so you can even bring a friend.  Saturday doesn’t work?  How about Sunday dinner?  I’ll try my hand at making empanadas.  Travel an issue?  No place to park the “Shepherd One” aircraft or your pope-mobile in my humble town?  Say the word and I’ll fly to see you in Philly and even try practicing my Spanish so we don’t exclusively communicate in English.  I’m very sincere in all my offers.

Anyway, with that expression of hospitality done, allow me to comment on something.  Francis, forgiveness, true forgiveness, does not emerge from believing you are the “better” person but from realizing that you are “no better” person - likewise for extending true mercy.  To “forgive” or show “mercy” based upon a presumed position of superiority reflects condescension more than forgiveness or mercy.  Such “forgiveness” and “mercy” devolves even further when that sense of superiority invents the shortcomings being “forgiven” and the process for obtaining "forgiveness." 

Maybe this hypothetical example helps illustrate my point.  Let’s say I declare people must eat at my home or they suffer eternal damnation.  Let’s say I also declare that switching football team allegiances constitutes a grave sin, accuse you of committing this sin, and then forbid you from eating at my home because of it.  However, in my “benevolence and concern” I declare you are still welcome to visit my home but just not eat because starvation might inspire you to realize how wrong you are.  Small side note: Hypothetically let’s also say I myself have vowed to never become a fan of any football team.  I don’t even like the game of football.  Instead, I’m a cricket fan, am actually team captain…and have changed cricket teams numerous times.

Though I switch cricket teams more frequently than most people change smoke detector batteries, to receive my forgiveness for switching football team allegiances, I create rules that you must first submit a 13-page application for my forgiveness explaining why you were so misguided as to do this.  You must also pay me a $200 - $1,000 application processing fee, have four sworn witnesses submit corroborating justification for your limited mental faculties resulting in this behavior, and be interviewed by a panel of my friends who mostly also have vowed to never become football fans and are sworn cricket captains who have changed teams several times.  As a matter of fact, most members on my panel of judges have never participated in a football match in their entire lives and, like me, know almost nothing of the game. 

Once I receive all this paperwork, I will notify your former football team that you are filing for forgiveness and ask them to respond.  If they don’t respond, then … maybe we can proceed with your forgiveness application…it just depends….  If they respond and don’t support you seeking this forgiveness, then…well…it sucks to be you…because this could drag out for years and I might never forgive you.  If they respond and do support your application for forgiveness, then depending upon the ruling of my panel of mostly football ignorant judges, you might receive preliminary approval for forgiveness in 12-18 months.  Final approval depends upon a second panel of equally unqualified judges reviewing your entire application.  That could also take months.  Please be patient though. We are all praying for you!!

Now imagine that someone announces he is simplifying this process, making it more merciful.  Yet, all of the above must still occur with these noted exceptions:  Your application fee is reduced to cover only true processing costs, your forgiveness verdict does not need a second panel of judicial review, and final judgment for forgiveness comes from one judge who must have vowed to never be a football fan.  Are you feeling the mercy and seeing the simplicity yet?  Me neither…

Yet, what I just described greatly parallels your motu propio modifying the marriage annulment process.  Currently in the U.S., to receive an annulment the petitioner must complete a 13-page form, pay $200 - $1,000 depending on the diocese, secure witnesses and have them submit forms, be interviewed by church personnel, have their former spouse be contacted for response, and all this paperwork submitted to a tribunal of mostly clergy judges (men who have vowed never to marry yet who consider their vocation as a “marriage” with their parish…and subsequently change parishes several times in their career without needing to seek an annulment from previous parishes) who will provide the initial ruling regarding the nullity of the marriage.  That ruling is required to undergo review by a second tribunal of mostly clergy (more men who have vowed never to marry yet who have changed parishes to which they are “married” several times). 

Your edict removes the requirement for the second review and suggests lowering the fee to cover only true administrative costs.   However, it also states that judgment must now come from a single tribunal judge and this person must be a cleric, unless I misunderstand this statement: “The constitution of a single judge in the first instance, who shall always be a cleric, is placed under the responsibility of the Bishop, who, in the pastoral exercise of his own proper judicial power shall guarantee ...”   

That last change has been overlooked by most people perhaps because they assume all tribunal judges are already priests.  Yet, currently females can serve as tribunal judges. Why do you say you want more important roles for women but your actions here do the exact opposite?

I thought you despised clericalism and felt too many powers lie exclusively in the clergy’s hands already. Why add to the list?  Why insist that avowed unmarried people are the only qualified people to rule on marriages?  Here’s just one example giving cause to my concerns about placing all annulment powers in clergy hands.  Just two weeks ago, I sat through a homily by a clueless priest laughing, yes laughing, as he said he counseled people suffering in abusive marriages that they should consider the abuse a blessing because God was teaching them patience and charity.  How many women continue to suffer physical, sexual and emotional abuse because clueless priests like the one I just described make them feel too guilty to leave abusive marriages?  Issuing that misplaced guilt is beyond shameful; it is sinful.  Chastise the abuser not the abused seeking refuge, if you must chastise someone.  You seem to take a merciful stance with Syrian refugees who are being abused… 

I went through the annulment process almost two decades ago, receiving my annulment in what I’m told was record time (about 7 months).  Frankly, I’m underwhelmed by your changes.  I assume since I resemble your target market on this, you’d appreciate my feedback.  Therefore, here are some things that I would have found truly merciful simplifications. 

1. Stop using communion as a treat for people you consider well-behaved…for any reason.
2. Require divorced and remarried people to undergo the same process that priests require when they divorce one parish and remarry another…. Oh, that’s nothing?  O.K.  Sounds simple, merciful and equitable, to me.
3. If you retain an annulment process, how about requiring married people to act as judges?  Better yet, how about requiring that the judges be people who have received an annulment themselves?
4. Permit clergy to marry and then only married clergy can be marriage tribunal judges. (By the way, with women's increasing earning power, this might save the church a bundle.  Wife makes more than priest spouse...they are devout...priest doesn't take a salary from the church...doesn't need healthcare benefits...they can pay their own housing and food bills...priest car allowance not needed...auto insurance paid by wife's income, etc....  The exact opposite situation for going to strict unmarried clergy now exists.  Originally the move occurred to protect church property from being divided amongst priests' heirs.  Now, women can actually relieve the church's material requirements for supporting priests.)
5. How about shortening the application form to one page?  I’d even be happy with a reduction to 5 pages. How about putting the form online and allowing it to be submitted electronically with automated workflow and cognitive analytics that provide the recommended ruling?  Thus the judge only needs to review the recommended ruling and justification – tremendously expediting the process and introducing a high degree of ruling consistency.
6. Fees?  Eliminate them completely, even the “administrative” ones.

Anyway, in the meantime while you consider my suggestions, please stop calling minor alterations to an invented process for an invented infraction penalty “merciful” or “simple.”  And please stop calling anything “merciful” when you act from a position of superiority versus equality.

Hope to hear from you while you’re in my country but if not, I wish you safe travels, an unvarnished view of my country, and the wisdom and courage to do and say what God desires.

Yours in Christ,

The “ewe”

As an aside to my blog readers: sorry for the long lapse in writing.  I've had an abnormally intense global travel schedule in the past few months.  

Of Miracles and Messes...

Dear Pope Francis,

I have written you a few letters but never received the favor of a reply.  Nonetheless, I continue writing in hopes that someday we discuss pressing issues in the church. 

I am inspired to write again now after listening to this weekend’s reading from Jeremiah, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture, says the LORD (Jer 23:1).”  With U.S. Catholics’ mere 25% Mass participation rate that’s dropping as I type, I am starting to wonder if it’s possible for the shepherds to destroy and scatter the flock much more than they’ve already done.  Have we not suffered enough from their poor shepherding skills?  Is it not time to stop doubling-down on the sheep-scattering tactics and exchange them for exemplary shepherding skills?

Maybe you too feel dismayed at your brotherhood's individual and collective flock-scattering penchant and prowess.  Is that why during your recent Latin America trip you expressed hopes in the upcoming Synod on the Family to produce scandalous miracles?  Is that why you again exhorted the church’s youth to “make a mess?”  Do you believe the church is already such a mess from inept leadership that it would be difficult to distinguish any further destruction at this point?

I write because I’m confused.  To quote Ghandi, “If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.”

Frank, simply put, what are you waiting for?  Be the miracle you hope to see!  Make the mess you hope gets made!

I offer ten suggestions of miracles and messes you could do today, by mere virtue of the white pointy hats you own and the fabulous chair you sit upon in St. John Lateran’s Basilica.

1.  Re-institute married clergy.  Nothing needed to do this but the stroke of a pen…specifically your pen.  Please take it out, remove the cap, dip it in the papal ink well and scribble away…

2.  Re-institute ordaining women as deacons.  Again, there’s no obstruction to doing this.  Benedict paved the way by declaring that deacons no longer act in persona Christi.  While your pen is out please handle this one too.

3.  Change Canon Law to remove ordaining women as a grave delict and instead add bishops who mishandle sexual abuse cases.  Then please address the numerous bishops guilty of this grave delict.

4.  Tell the truth.  Dispense with clinging to false biological, medical and psychological teachings as foundations to establishing “truths” about human sexuality.   You can’t say you’re the penultimate guardian of truth if you don’t tell it.

5.  Change canon law to prevent Catholic employers from denying their employees access to medical care just because they fear it.  The medications used to treat many female health issues can also be used for birth control.  However, the medication itself is merely a tool.  Indeed it is a tool often used to help conceive life.  It is one particular usage of that tool to which you object, yet the tool is outright banned.  Consistent application of this rule would see the rope cincture around your waist barred since many people have been hanged using ropes.  Furthermore having episcopal review boards rather than medical ones determining whether or not women can have certain life-saving procedures performed at Catholic hospitals is just derelict.  Stop this practice at once.  Scribble that into canon law and make the U.S. bishops fix their medical ethics document to reflect the change.

6.  Lift the excommunications hanging over all people.  Grant general amnesty since, “Who are you to judge?”

7.  Cancel any meetings in Philadelphia that lack women – laywomen – not cheerleaders for church status quo and not only religious women, but regular women who are mothers.  They can teach you much about what it means to be a holy mother as you try to lead “Holy Mother Church.”

8.  Cancel any meetings in Philly that are exclusively with clergy and all meetings with Archbishop Chaput unless he accompanies you to meet with groups such as Fortunate Families being barred from attending his World Meeting of Families.

9.  Take time when you are in Philadelphia to meet with women with such a strong sense of calling that they are willing to endure scorn, rejection and excommunication… Yes, that’s right; meet with Catholic women priests.  Understand why they do what they do after you listen to understand what they do.  Then make them dinner and serve it to them.  This can be done in person and thus save on those expensive charges for overseas cellphone calls you must be racking up with your spontaneous, surprise pope-calls.

10.  Update the papal wardrobe to align with the poor – perhaps a nice pair of second hand jeans and a t-shirt from the St. Vincent de Paul store would be in order.  These are practical work clothes and require far less bleach and fuss to clean than the flowing white gowns you currently wear…  Maybe you can have a big garage sale at the Vatican and sell your white vestments to a traveling band of dentists in dire need of white fabric.  It’s just a suggestion.

I think if you did any one of these ten suggestions, you would definitely cause a mess and be seen by some as creating scandal while to most of the scattered flock seem like you just worked a miracle.  Isn’t that what you’re going for here?  Or are your words just supposed to make good press?

Sincerely,

A ewe…still in the flock despite being metaphorically beaten with multiple shepherds’ staffs as they try to run me out of the flock…  “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture…”

P.S.  Sorry to rescind my offer of hospitality but it looks like I’ll be out of the country when you come to the U.S.  Enjoy your visit and be sure to have a Philly cheesesteak, visit the Liberty Bell and tour the Philadelphia Mint.

Priorities?

Our dear bishops in the U.S. concluded their semi-annual meeting two days ago and I'm sure we're all elated that they had the courage to tackle some really challenging topics during that meeting. 

Their first vote addressed that vexing problem plaguing so many American Catholics...what to do about the canticles used in the Liturgy of the Hours.  Well, friends, sleep peacefully tonight.  They voted to use a new English translation of those canticles - "in a style similar to the Revised Grail Psalms, with emphasis on sprung rhythms and faithful translation."  Whew!  Glad they got that sorted out!  It's easy to see why they voted on this first, and quite frankly, a bit surprising that they didn't handle this pressing issue at an earlier date by calling a special meeting or something.

Their second vote pertained to priest formation / seminary training.    If you love the "bells and smells," non-pastoral, uber-orthodoxy with a heaping helping of spiritual and emotional immaturity emerging from seminaries of late, you are in luck because they decided to continue existing priest formation norms without any changes whatsoever for the next five years.  As Mass participation plummets and young folks flee the church, at a vote of 179 "yes", 1 "no" and 1 abstention, they overwhelmingly decided to pat themselves on the back and continue current course and speed.  Can we conclude that further reduced Mass participation is their desired outcome since they voted to continue a formation program that seems to contribute significantly to laypeople's disgust with and departure from the Church? 

Their third and final vote approved the working draft of their strategic priorities for 2017 - 2020.  Those priorities are:

1. Family and marriage - a topic where they have minimal to no expertise and instead rely upon sexist stereotypes and unrealistic fairytale-caliber romanticized notions which reinforce sexist stereotypes
2. Evangelization - their euphemism for spreading the "good news" of how infallibly right they are
3. Religious freedom - their program for obstructing the religious freedom of others, controlling women, promoting sexism, and discriminating against gays
4. Human life and dignity - which lately has had a focus confined almost exclusively to in utero life
5. Vocations and ongoing formation - which by their previous vote seems to be a strategic priority to do nothing for the next five years

In my company, domestic trips average about $1,500 per person but we have very frugal travel expense policies.  We might surmise that a group of guys who live in mansions do not so let's round up their average to $2,000 per person.  With 181 bishops in attendance, an assumed one lackey per bishop, and adding in venue costs that likely comes out to about $750,000 - $1,000,000 invested (squandered?) on gathering in person to make these decisions.  They will again meet in November and again incur this magnitude of expense.  Might I suggest using Skype and Survey Monkey in the future?  The expenses then might better align with the value of their discussions and decisions.

I've read several articles bemoaning that these priorities do not reflect those of Pope Francis.  How much do they reflect Jesus' priorities? 

Have we become comfortably numb?

I arrived at Dublin airport only a few hours ago but in time to attend Sunday Mass at a nearby neighborhood church.  Mass began with the deacon reading Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin’s pastoral reflections about Ireland’s upcoming constitutional referendum on marriage equality.  Spoiler alert: he’s against it.

For those unfamiliar with this Friday’s referendum in Ireland, the proposed constitutional amendment would insert the following text in a new subsection to Article 41 of the Irish Constitution.  “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

Anyway, I was the first person to arrive for Mass – the very first - though I arrived about 10 minutes prior to Mass.  The parking lot had but one vehicle as well so I began to question the accuracy of the Mass time posted on the internet.  No worries, a priest greeted me at the door and reassured me that a Mass actually would start in a few minutes; I was just early, said he.  Despite his reassurances, as I opened the door to the empty sanctuary the lyrics from Pink Floyd’s “Comfortably Numb” popped into my head…“Hello, hello, hello, is there anybody in there?”

I thought, “O.K., the stampeding herds here must slide into their pews just before Mass…kind of like Ty Cobb sliding into home base on a steal.”  I sat awaiting the rush. 

Well, if the teeming masses came to this Mass, they were invisible because what I saw was barely more people in the pews than on the altar. We had two priests, a deacon, a lector, an altar server and an old guy whose role never became clear to me – all to attend to just a few dozen mass goers.  The PPP (priest per person) ratio was pretty high today, enough so to cause me to doubt lamentations about priest shortages.

As the deacon read the Archbishop’s statement, I found myself musing about what must be going through his mind as he reads this pastoral reflection practically to himself.  I again heard Pink Floyd playing in my head, ”just nod if you can hear me…is there anyone at home?”

The Archbishop’s reflections included advising people to reflect carefully upon same sex marriage’s implications for the family and parenthood.  He also admitted, “…the severity with which the Irish Church treated gay and lesbian people in the past – and in some cases still today – makes it difficult for some to understand the Church’s position…” on homosexuality and same sex marriage.

Yes, witnessing the mistreatment of homosexuals does make it difficult for many Irish to understand the Church’s teachings on homosexuality.  Adding to their confusion, in this part of the world many people recall Scotland’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s resignation on March 3, 2013, in which he said "I ... admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal." 

His sexual conduct that had “fallen below the standards” expected of him?  He repeatedly made homosexual advances towards seminarians and young priests.  You see, like many clergy, Cardinal O’Brien is gay…yet he preached about the perils of homosexuality all while living a closet homosexual’s life.  Unlike many gay clergy, Cardinal O’Brien’s sexual orientation is no longer hidden in the closet.  But his expression of truth meant he couldn’t hang with the homosexual clergy deniers club any longer.  I can only imagine what kind of self-loathing occurs when a person preaches as indisputable truth that one’s very self is “intrinsically disordered.”

Since gays are people’s beloved children, relatives, friends, co-workers and neighbors, I can also imagine people – were they in attendance – responding to the Archbishop’s reflections by borrowing from Pink Floyd, “You are receding - a distant ship smoke on the horizon…”  My dear bishops… your relevance and credibility seem to be fading like the distant ship smoke on the horizon.  This sentiment echoed in today’s cavernous empty church.

I’m uncertain which statements by the Archbishop most inspired my mouth to hang agape – the “We’ve historically treated homosexuals like crap but, trust us; we’re the experts on what’s best for them...” or the ones about family and parenting.  I thought it took a special kind of gall for the dear Archbishop in a country more severely and recently damaged from the Church’s vast clergy sexual child molestation and cover-up scandal than the U.S. to think people might actually care what the Church had to say about children’s well-being.  Granted, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin personally has been more of an advocate for victims than most bishops, but he still represents an institution that has repeatedly botched handling sexually abusive clergy and shown deplorable insensitivity towards sexual abuse survivors. 

I wonder how many people view the hierarchy’s advice about marriage, family and parenting as being akin to Pink Floyd's lyric, “Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying…”

I spent a lot of time meditating upon the church’s vast emptiness today.  I think the majority of laypeople feel the bishops have become comfortably numb – to their concerns and contributions.  And still the bishops preach…to increasingly empty pews...assuming the laity are who have become comfortably numb.  

Have you become comfortably numb? Is numbness to an organization that has become comfortably numb to children, homosexuals and women a bad thing?

“Hello, hello, hello….is there anybody in there?  Just nod if you can hear me… Is there anyone at home?” 

Side note to my Irish followers.  I am in Dublin for about a week.