How to determine if clergy listen humbly and learn...

Soon to retire Cardinal George of Chicago said before last week’s US bishops’ annual fall meeting that he doesn’t get what Pope Francis wants him to do.  “He says wonderful things, but he doesn’t put them together all the time, so you’re left at times puzzling over what his intention is… What he says is clear enough, but what does he want us to do?"

I don’t know… Maybe follow the gospels?  Maybe imitate Jesus’ effusion of inclusion, love and mercy?   

It’s a bit ironic that a 77 year-old self-acclaimed career Jesus-expert suddenly becomes confused when asked to imitate that very guy.  Maybe thoughts like this are rattling through his and other clergy’s heads these days, “The last two popes were so much easier….  You just really couldn’t go wrong with mindless regurgitation of their words and ruthless expulsion of people who disagreed with them…perennial Vatican crowd pleasers…like serving cake at a wedding reception.  It certainly got me where I am today, anyway… ” 

It seems sumptuously dressed Cardinal Raymond Burke is also confused.  Before his recent removal as head of the powerful Apostolic Signatura, Burke said, “At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the church is like a ship without a rudder”.   

Ray, a ship heading in a direction you don’t like is not a rudderless ship.  It’s a ship going in a different direction than you want.  Getting a new job during a corporate reorganization is not the work of Satan.  Shifting power from you to another albeit most likely less stunningly dressed prelate is not grounds for a delicately worded public temper tantrum.  Calm down.  It’s still a bunch of guys in gowns who live in rarefied environments running the show.  I realize Francis’ focus on Christ-like simplicity might threaten your penchant for donning fancy threads and bejeweled mitres but as Jessie J sings and I think Francis is trying to say, it “ain’t about the ba-bling, ba-bling…”

During his November 12th general audience, Pope Francis said, “Bishops and priests must listen humbly and learn.”   To the average person, those words are very clear and unambiguous.  However, each of those words: listen, humbly and learn, pose a challenge to anyone unaccustomed to listening and with infallibility induced learning disabilities.

As a consultant, I often help clients set or improve their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).   The sayings in the business are, "what gets measured gets done" and "measurements drive behavior."  If Francis wants to change behavior, he needs to alter the church's current KPIs.  Things like Pew Counts (or what event coordinators informally call "buns in seats" numbers), to me, encourage clergy narcissism where revering clergy by showing up at Mass is equated with adequately imitating Christ and money accumulated via offertory collections are confused with Christian community vibrancy.

Desiring to apply my gifts to help my church, I decided to define new KPIs that Francis can use with the clergy.  Here’s an assessment I created to help clergy calculate their effectiveness in things like listening, humility and learning.

Please fill-in your numbers for the following statistics and then in the subsequent section, please follow the instructions to calculate your KPIs.  After having an independent non-clergy-rah-rah accounting firm certify the veracity of your numbers, please submit your scores to the Vatican and publish them for your flock to see.  Then host town meetings and roundtables to discuss next year's objectives and improvement plans for reaching those objectives.

Catholics in your parish/diocese (C):_____

People in the area served by your parish/diocese (P):_____

Ordained Catholics worldwide with whom you regularly interact (O):_____

Non-ordained Catholics in your parish/diocese with whom you regularly interact (c):_____

Non-ordained people in your parish/diocese with whom you regularly interact (p):_____

Ordained Catholics in your parish/diocese with whom you regularly interact (o):_____

Laity employed in church-related occupations with whom you regularly interact (e):_____

Number of suggestions implemented (S):_____

Number of clergy originated suggestions implemented (s):_____

Number of leadership positions (L):_____

Number of leadership positions held by clergy (l):_____
Money received for your parish/diocese annually (M):_____
Parish/diocese bank account and investment balances (B):_____
Money spent helping the poor (m):_____

Divide C by P to determine your Catholic Saturation Ratio (CSR).  For example if there are 60,000 Catholics in the geographic area of your diocese which has an overall population of 1,000,000 people, your CSR is 60,000/1,000,000 or .06.  6% of the population you should serve is Catholic. 

Divide (c+o) by p to determine your Inward Focus Rating (IFR).  A high IFR indicates you spend way more time with Catholics versus outwardly ministering amongst all God’s people.  Here’s an example.  If you typically talk to 50 priests, 100 Catholic laypeople and 200 people altogether, your IFR is (50+100)/200 or 0.75.  If you typically talk to 50 priests, 100 Catholic laypeople and 1,000 people total, your IFR is (50+100)/1,000 or 0.15.

Your IFR (Inward Focus Rating) must be viewed along with your CSR (Catholic Saturation Ratio).  Presumably if your area served is 90% Catholic, 90% of your time might be dedicated to interacting with Catholics so an IFR of 90% would be reasonable.  If you serve an area with 3% Catholics, you might expect a lower percentage of your time is spent interacting with Catholics and so might expect an IFR closer to 3%. 

Next, let’s calculate your Inward Navel Gazing Ratio (INGR).  A high INGR indicates you mostly talk to clergy or people employed by the church and thus are most interested in church bureaucracy rather than caring for people.  INGR is calculated by dividing (o+e) by p.  Here’s an example.  If you talk to 50 priests, 20 people employed by the church, and 100 regular folk total, your INGR is (50+20)/100 or 0.7.  70% of your interactions are associated with church bureaucracy.   If you talk to 50 priests, 20 people employed by the church and 1,000 regular folk total, your INGR is (50+20)/1,000 or 0.07.  In this example you spend only 7% of your interactions on church bureaucracy.

Your Clerical Preoccupation Factor (CPF) is determined by dividing O by p.  A higher number means you spend most of your time talking to clergy in or outside your diocese rather than regular folk.  For example if you typically interact with 75 clergy and 10 non-ordained people your CPF is 75/10 or 7.5 as compared with someone who interacts with 10 clergy and 75 non-ordained people whose CPF is 0.133.  The goal is for a CPF far below 1.

Your Hierarchy Infatuation Index (HII) indicates how much you value clergy versus regular folk.  Higher numbers indicate higher value placed upon clergy than laypeople.  It is calculated by multiplying two ratios, dividing s by S and dividing l by L.  For example if 10 of 10 ideas implemented are from clergy, and if 9 out of 10 leadership positions are held by clergy, your HII is (10/10)*(9/10) or 0.9.  This is a 90% Hierarchy Infatuation Index.  A contrasting example is if 1 of 10 ideas implemented are from clergy and 2 of 10 leadership positions are held by clergy, your HII is (1/10)*(2/10) or 0.02 or 2% infatuation with hierarchy.  The goal is to get this as close to zero as possible.

Finally, calculate your Rendered Unto God (RUG) number by dividing m by the sum of M+B.  This measures the amount of money used to help the poor versus hoarded in investments or used on inwardly focused things like decor, regalia, accessories, and institution perpetuating staff salaries.  Clarification: expenditures subsidizing people's Catholic school tuition only counts as money helping the poor if the family's income was well below the demographic median for the geographical area in question.  School tuition subsidies for the economically blessed do not count.  The goal is for this number to be as close to 1 as possible.

So an example of calculating RUG is as follows.  If you receive $500,000 in donations and have $2 million in investments, and give $10,000 per annum to the poor, your RUG would be 10,000/(2,000,000 + 500,000) or 0.004.  This equates to only 4 tenths of one percent of money collected being used to help the poor and clearly requires immediate attention.  Sadly, I think many if not most parishes and dioceses will have lower RUG numbers than my example because instead of apostles collecting material goods and redistributing to those in need as directed by Christ in the gospels, they have tremendous money hoarding and self-funding fixation issues.

Back to Francis' guidance...by asking clergy to listen, Pope Francis is asking you to align your IFR (Inward Focus Rating) with your CSR (Catholic Saturation Ratio) numbers to ensure you are listening to people inside and outside the church.  Similarly he wants you to decrease your INGR (Inward Navel Gazing Ratio) and CPF (Clergy Preoccupation Factor) numbers to ensure you listen to people outside your fraternity and fraternity cheerleader and enablement squads.  By asking for humble learning, he wants you to decrease your HII (Hierarchical Infatuation Index). 

Improving these five numbers along with your RUG (Rendered Unto God) number is kind of like lowering your bad cholesterol by altering your behavior and consumption patterns.  Unlike high cholesterol, there’s no pill to offset bad behavior.  But, like high cholesterol, they really destroy the body if not addressed.

Some thoughts on the upcoming Synod on the Family

I've been reading many different perspectives and speculations about the upcoming Synod on the Family.  Repeatedly from the camp of guys who don't actually live in or lead family units...that would be the hierarchical leaders...I hear variations on the, "We are right; we always were right; we will always be right; therefore the following people can't have communion" theme.  I have two observations / questions regarding this:

1.  Humility is the ability to say, "Maybe we were wrong."  Why do you collectively and individually lack the humility and quite frankly, the self-confidence, to ponder that question?  Did you not read in last Sunday's first reading, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways says the LORD.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts (Is 55:8-9)."  Why do you think that your interpretations are immovable and accurate?  Why can't you allow for the possibility that your thoughts and ways are not synonymous with God's thoughts and ways?  Have you idolized yourselves through idolatry of your roles to the point you find your thoughts and teachings equal to God's?  If so, is that acceptable?

2.  Even if your teachings are 200% correct, so what?  Why would that preclude sharing the body and blood of Christ with people who violate certain teachings?  The gospel notes time and again that Jesus shared himself, dined at table, with some of the most notorious sinners.  Can you be credible Vicars of Christ if you can't imitate that signature trait of his?  

Why are you only threatened by welcoming certain categories of sinners to the table?  You certainly are comfortable welcoming to the communion table members of the sinner category, "irresponsible bishops and sexually abusive priests."  Some of them you not only allow to receive communion, you permit them to consecrate the hosts!  This, evidently does not threaten you in the least.  But, women who disobey you by claiming to have more insight into their relationship with God than you do...well, gentleman, that seems to scare the holy excrement out of you.  Why? 

It is my understanding that many of you are gay and even regularly, actively engage in homosexual activities albeit clandestinely.  Those of you who do this, would be living a lie.  Yet, you welcome closet homosexual clergy living duplicitous lives at table and again, even permit them to consecrate the hosts.  However, homosexuals who honestly portray their sexual orientation, you do not welcome.  Why are you threatened welcoming to the table people who have the courage to present themselves authentically but are not threatened welcoming to the table people whose lives are a tangled web of lies and hypocrisy?

Why are you threatened by welcoming at table people whose lives were broken in a failed marriage but who have perhaps found a healthy, healing relationship in a new marriage?  You certainly welcome at table yourselves, many of whom who have "divorced" one diocesan spouse and "re-married" a new diocese as your second, third or even fourth spouse.

Why are you threatened sitting at table with couples who use birth control?  Or women who have had abortions?  Or politicians who vote differently than you wish?

Are you threatened welcoming "sinners" to table because they might interfere with some delusion of your own perfection?  

Guys, quick review here...Jesus came as a healing remedy for sinners not as a highfalutin reward for saints.  You seem to have manufactured these "who can have communion" concerns from your pretentious belief that you cannot be wrong mixed with your historical perversion of the Eucharistic sacrament as a doggy treat for the well-behaved.  

This just really isn't hard at all...except for the arrogant and snobbish.  But for humble followers of Christ, it's a no-brainer. Welcome everyone to the table... Done.  You guys can vote once, get this done in 15 minutes and all go out for nachos to celebrate and then head home saving your respective dioceses tons of hotel and restaurant expenses.

Even better, create a mobile app that pushes this question to every voting members' mobile phones, "Can we just welcome everyone at table?"  Everyone clicks "yes" and there's maybe a $0.05 data charge per member...no travel required. You could spend the extra time in your diocese talking to people or, perish the thought, helping them.  You could use the money to ...wait no...don't go there....NOT for another golden chalice...but for food, clothing, housing, utilities, healthcare, etc... for some economically challenged person.  And, no again, a bishop who declared bankruptcy to evade paying abuse settlements does not qualify as economically challenged.

Rather than think you all arrogant or snobbish, I'd prefer to think that some other systemic issue causes your collective blindness and confusion in the "who can have communion" realm.  I've pondered this a lot and might be on to something.  Are your cassocks and zucchettos (little skull caps) so tightly affixed to your persons that they restrict blood flow to your brains?  Loosen up guys. Ditch the dresses and beanies if they interfere with humbly embracing humanity exactly where it is and you are.

European and male hegemony in the church...

I recently read, "Pope Francis: Untying the Knots," a book by Paul Vallely.  The book indicates Pope Francis is not a fan of people from Europe and North America having over-riding influence on the Catholic Church.  He thinks most Europeans and North Americans don't have a clue about life in Africa and Latin America.  Therefore they aren't credible guides.

Furthermore, he sees the church thriving to the point of busting at the seams in these same developing areas while it atrophies amongst the European and North American/European-descent crowds.  Therefore he further questions the European folks as credible guides. It's sort of a "walk a mile in another person's shoes" kind of commentary in that Francis thinks the European and North American folks lack street creds to tell Africans and Latin Americans what to do.

He also disagrees with having a shrinking minority group within the church guide the growing majority.  Basically Francis describes why he's tired of Western / European hegemony within the church and why it's an invalid governance model.

Amen, Brother Francis! I am standing up applauding you, but I am also shouting, "Welcome to the world of women in the church, my friend!"  We are as thrilled with male hegemony in the church as you are with European hegemony..

I think Francis understands how hegemony blinds people because he's felt the stinging ill effects of it.  I can only hope that he is self-aware enough to see the parallel.  He is frustrated by a bunch of people with a different worldview trying to boss him around - i.e., "hegemony."  Francis, do you understand that male hegemony isn't any more fun or effective than European hegemony?

Unfortunately, a persistent issue when addressing hegemony is the hegemonic group's lack of self-awareness to acknowledge that they, in fact, are part of a hegemonic group.  This historically has been the case with Catholic hierarchy with regards to male hegemony, but I'm hoping Francis' primary experience being outside of one hegemonic group opens his eyes to realize he operates within another hegemonic group.

Francis, to see the parallel, in the description below, try substituting "Europeans" where you see "men," or "clergy."  Then substitute "Africans and Latin Americans" where you see "women."   I'll help by making the substitutions in parentheses.

Men (Europeans) in the church tell women (Africans and Latin Americans) what to do.  Yet men (Europeans) lack primary experiences to understand women (Africans and Latin Americans)  Plus, women (Africans and Latin Americans) are the increasing majority of the church while the clergy (Europeans) seem to be doing many things to shrink the church...and their own ranks.  Men (Europeans) who lack understanding and experiences of living as a woman (Latin American and African) make decisions that don't resonate with women (Africans and Latin Americans), don't apply to women (Africans and Latin Americans), or outright harm women (Africans and Latin Americans).

I hope that helped. However, not only are men in the church guiding women.  Unmarried men who have given birth to zero children are telling women how to conduct themselves regarding conception, pregnancy and birth.

I hesitate to call priests "childless" because, especially in the developing nations, more than a few priests father children clandestinely.  For example, in my recent trip to Africa, one of the Peace Corps workers told me a big cause for unwed mothers in her village was the local priest impregnating girls.  So, in some cases, men who don't publicly acknowledge children they father feel qualified to tell women how to raise their families.

Unfortunately, I don't think Francis has yet seen the similarities around the two forms of hegemony.  He recently announced the attendees for his upcoming Synod on the Family and all 26 voting members are unmarried, childless, ordained men.  Yet, they are going to make decisions about women...and families...and child-rearing.

Actually more than 71% of the 250 synod participants are unmarried, male clergy.  Even amongst the non-voting observers and experts, only a minority are women.  Pretty much all of those women are either avowed religious sisters...and no offense sisters, but you don't have much child-bearing and child-rearing experience either...or are employed by church organizations.  Somehow, I don't think a woman who runs a natural family planning organization represents the huge majority of Catholic women.

Francis, you say the church is a woman.  Where are the women's voices of this womanly church?

Francis, you chose participants that do not mirror the church.  Do you think the church will see herself in what they write or hear herself in what they say?  Why should she listen to a disconnected minority?

Marriage and the bishops

A friend of mine recently was ordained a bishop and I was honored to receive tickets to and to attend his ordination.  He seems like a good guy and I wish him and his new diocese well.  I hope he is open to the flow of the Spirit in his new office and does not confuse it with the flow of cash from financial backers for his episcopal trousseau nor with the flow of obsequious flattery from clerical groupies.

But, you must give the guy credit.  He's well-aware of my blog and even occasionally reads it - and he still sent me some tix to his hierarchical hootenanny.  (This may come as a shocker but I'm typically not on the "A", "B", "C", or possibly all the way down to the "Z" invitation list for hierarchical hootenannies.  I'm much more likely to top a bishop's shit-list or "people we will ignore and hope go away" list.)  Anyway, we have either found common ground for mutual respect or we find each other amusing diversions...or maybe his invitation and shit lists got mixed up.  I'd like to think it's the first scenario.

The bishop of my diocese delivered the ordination Mass homily and something he repeatedly said keeps ringing in my ears...so much so that it's painful.  He said that my friend's "new bride" was this new diocese and that my friend would cleave to this "bride" until death parted them.

New bride? NEW bride? NEW? What, pray tell, happened to the old one?

In January I had an enjoyable and meaningful discussion with said homily-delivering-bishop.  I told him I was really, really tired of the bishops yammering on about "defense of marriage" and blaming all sorts of factors for what they consider the disintegration of marriage when the bishops, themselves, provide such a piss-poor example of marriage. His words at this ordination, which occurred about seven months after that fine January discussion, offer just one example proving my point.

You see if my friend, in becoming a bishop now has a "new" wife in this new diocese, that means he abandoned his "old" wife, his previous diocese.  And I would bet my entire retirement savings that if the hotline from the Vatican rang asking him to be bishop over yet another diocese, he'd do it.  I think that's called seeking a "trophy wife."  Yep, yep...that's what it's called allright. 

Therefore, I found myself choking back laughter when this statement about lifelong commitment between bishop and diocese "bride" was made...that this commitment would remain until death parted the two.  Give me a freaking break.  The guy that delivered the homily, himself was ordained bishop in a different diocese than he serves now...we are at best his third wife.  If you consider all of his assignments, we are something like his 9th or 10th wife. Furthermore, if this same bishop were asked to take on a larger diocese or archdiocese or don a cardinal's red hat, he would drop his 10th wife for his 11th faster than you can say "Jesus, Mary and Joseph."

To put this in perspective, Liz Taylor only married 8 times.  So, please, let us start using the hierarchy as the gold standard for "lack of marital commitment" rather than her.

I don't know which is more absurd - the notion of a bishop's lifelong commitment to his diocese "bride" or the idea of the bishop's diocese being his bride at all.  I just keep hearing in my head the group "Honey Cone" singing, "Wanted...young man - single and free.  Experience in love preferred but we'll accept a young trainee."  If you guys are married to us, the church of your dioceses, then it would really help if you loved us personally...and if not, then we sure would like the opportunity to train you.

Ah, but new bishops are indeed trained - by the Vatican - at new bishop school.  I'm trying to imagine what that curriculum looks like but somehow, I'm doubting that it involves the bishops' "brides" administering any of the training.  This is so like marriage, you know.... Two young folks tie the knot and then rather than using a honeymoon to deepen their intimate understanding of each other, the husband flies away to a husband training camp which bars wives from attending.

But, hey, let's face it.  We didn't get a chance to select our bishop husbands.  They were forced upon us in arranged marriages made by a bunch of husbands who also don't spend much time with their wives.  Again...stellar example for marriage.   

Let us recall the wisdom expressed in the movie The Princess Bride, "Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam... And wuv, tru wuv, will fowow you foweva... So tweasure your wuv." 

Guys, we're just not feeling the "wuv, tru wuv" or feeling "tweasured" when you dump us for what you perceive as a better opportunity.  Therefore, can we please stop with this "mawage" charade and just use plain language?  The clergy and bishops move from assignment to assignment just like people in any other career.  It's about your career, not any marriage to us.  You didn't know us before you became our bishops and most of you continue ignorant of most of the people comprising your "wife."  That's because you are corporate executives who develop and maintain relationships with your clients and employees similarly to how other corporate executives do.  You have as much commitment to them.  You have similar or less vested physical and emotional stake in them as do corporate execs. 

There is another source of guidance for bishop qualifications, that we might consider using.  1 Timothy 3:1-5 tells us, "...whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.  Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.  He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?"

Ah, it would seem, according to Scripture that bishops, above all should be married with children...you know...real ones - not metaphorical ones.  The kind that require you to change a dirty diaper here and there, mop vomit, and genuinely, physically and emotionally care for specific people.  Because if you can't demonstrate your ability to care for specific people in your personal household, how will you do so for the church of God?  Just curious.  And, no, babysitting for younger siblings when you were on break from the rarefied seminary world does not count. 

Teaching credentials...

 Food for thought:

• Imagine your English teacher demonstrating mastery of the language by regularly uttering statements like this, “We seen them deer when we was up north!” 
• Imagine your mathematics teacher regularly adding numbers incorrectly. 
• Imagine your social studies teacher talking about visiting “Toledo, the capital of the U.S.” 
• Imagine your music teacher with an inability to count rhythms correctly or carry a tune.  

Now try to imagine yourself valuing these teachers’ lessons.  In each case, regardless of the theory expressed, actions belied their true subject-matter expertise to the point you probably justifiably questioned their credibility…a lot…  Their actions told you, “I am not qualified to teach about this.”

Now:

• Imagine your Catholic faith teacher, who professes to know more than you about truth, being exposed as a liar. 
• Imagine your faith teacher confusing the commandment about adultery with those about murder or stealing.
• Imagine your faith teacher enabling and covering up clergy’s sexual abuse of minors but writing the Church’s norms to protect children.

Such is the case with the Catholic hierarchy and sexual abuse.  The bishops declare themselves the ultimate teaching authorities on faith yet, on a weekly basis we read of bishops being caught telling lies or enabling abusers.  We live with the appalling reality that bishops equate raping children to an adulterous affair, though rape is about forcefully taking that which is not given and destroying the child’s physical, emotional and spiritual life in the process.  Perhaps lesser known, the primary authors of the US bishops’ charter to protect children, themselves harbored sexually abusive priests even after the charter was signed.  What is most puzzling of all is that a) the bishops think anyone should take them seriously as moral authorities and b) that anyone does.

Here are just a smattering of proof points:

1.  Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minneapolis said in an April, 2014 sworn legal deposition that he didn’t know until March, 2014 that Ken LaVan, a priest with multiple credible sexual abuse accusations, was still in active ministry.  However, this past week revealed that ole John was actually getting annual updates about Ken’s ministry activities. 

Psst….John, this is called “lying” and violates the 8^th Commandment: “Thou shall not bear false witness.”  John, I gotta tell ya, this really kills your street creds in the truth department.  Plus, when you lie under oath in this country, it is also called a “crime” further crumbling your “truthiness” credibility.  Much like Dr. Seuss’ book calling for another liar to depart public leadership, “Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!”, I think it’s beyond time we say, “John C. Nienstedt Will You Please Go Now!”

2.  Moving on to Canon Law, we see the hierarchy actually classifies priests’ sexual misconduct with minors under the 6^th Commandment, “Thou shall not commit adultery.”  Yes, appalling as that seems, the hierarchy officially equates trusted religious leaders’ sexual assault of innocent minors with extra-marital sexual activity between two consenting adults.  You read that right: the clergy categorize destroying children’s lives and souls against their will equally with two adults consensually caving to hormones in a tryst.  

Don’t believe me?  Canon 1395 states, “A cleric who in another way has committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.”  This is the one sentence in Canon Law that is meant to deter clergy sexual abuse.  Why are you not trembling in awe? 

As an aside, please notice that unlike ordination of women which incurs automatic excommunication, clergy raping children, according to Canon Law, is not grounds for excommunication.  It merely calls for possible removal from office…ya know, “if the case warrants” it.  It would seem that the Vatican should have inserted an emoticon of a face winking next to that statement…it is so fierce and followed.

Call me nutty but I think that when a priest sexually assaults a kid, they kill a soul, they steal…thus, they break the 5^th and 7^th commandments against killing and stealing…not the 6^th pertaining to marital fidelity.  This Canon Law classification reveals much about the hierarchy’s understanding or lack thereof with regards to the commandments, rape, children, marriage, sexuality, human life, etc…  In turn, it directly impacts the hierarchy’s credibility on all these topics.

3.  This brings us to the ace team of bishops who were principle authors of the US bishops’ “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” written in 2002: Archbishop Wilton Gregory, Archbishop Harry Flynn, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, and Cardinal Francis George.  With the exception of Wilton Gregory, all of them harbored sexually abusive priests … some even after the charter was written, signed and promulgated.  In the case of Cardinal George, it included harboring a known sexual predator in his very own episcopal mansion (2003).

Actually, Cardinal George’s rap sheet of enabling and covering up sexually abusive priests after the charter is so long I will just provide a link that enumerates some cases between 2003 and 2006 rather than turn this into a painfully long blog article.  Harry Flynn kept the Rev. Curtis Wehmeyer in ministry despite Wehmeyer's sexual addiction and sexual misconduct.  He also failed to report a priest in possession of child pornography.  All of this after the charter was in place. 

Of the group, Mahony seemed to be the one who at least tried to reform his diocese’s practices but there always seemed to be a struggle between loyalty honoring the brotherhood’s clerical institution versus honoring truth and justice.

These aren’t the only bishops failing to follow the charter.  For example, we do have our friend and convicted criminal for failure to report child abuse, Bishop Bob Finn, still at the helm of the Kansas City Diocese.  I just thought since they wrote the charter, that maybe they would have been role models for doing the right thing.  Silly me.

So, as I see it, the bishops seem to have authored the charter as a PR stunt rather than as a step towards profound institutional reform.  Furthermore, looking at the whole situation, I think the bishops collectively demonstrate that they:

a) Do not understand the 5^th, 6^th, or 7^th commandments, and

b) Do not obey the 8^th commandment

I wonder if they have enough self-awareness to realize that many of the faithful see them as also violating the 1^st commandment against having false gods based upon their willingness to forfeit several commandments in favor of protecting their brotherhood’s clerical institution.  When a team who believes they are the guardians of the commandments demonstrates poor mastery of half of them, what are they really guarding?