I understand some hearts are aflutter after Cardinal Sean O'Malley's recent interview on the US television show "60 Minutes." During the interview Sean hinted that he felt convicted-criminal-for-failure-to-report-child-abuse-and-active-Opus-Dei-bishop-of-Kansas-City, Robert Finn, maybe shouldn't be an active bishop anymore. Rather than rejoicing, I find myself disillusioned that a) O'Malley is the first of the more than 5,000 worldwide bishops to open his mouth on this...over TWO YEARS AFTER Finn's conviction and b) this STILL has not been addressed by the pope. Talk about a "no-brainer" action to take...
In Roman Catholic Clergy time, perhaps two years is the equivalent of breaking the sound barrier for speed, but to me, it seems slow and underwhelming. After all, I repeat: Finn is still the active bishop of an entire diocese despite Sean's groundbreaking public criticism. If Finn had ordained a woman, he would have been relieved of his duties before the sun set on the next day. It doesn't speak well to papal priorities that the welfare of children is something to ponder for years before acting.
Sean also said the Vatican's handling of the US nun's visitation was a "disaster." Thanks, Sean...Glad you caught on to that one too, albeit a little slower than the Finn situation.
But what really caught my attention were Sean's statements about women and Jesus. Here's a synopsis:
Reporter Norah O’Donnell asked if excluding women from the hierarchy was “immoral.” O'Malley replied, “Christ would never ask us to do
something immoral. It’s a matter of vocation and what God has given to
us."
He went on to say, "Not everyone needs to be ordained to have an important role in the
life of the Church...Women run Catholic charities, Catholic
schools …. They have other very important roles. A priest can’t be a
mother. The tradition in the Church is that we ordain men." (Note the touch of "Venus envy" in that statement..."guys can't have babies so we need to prevent women from doing something men can to even the score" kind of mentality.)
Then in true "Happy Projection and Passive Aggressive Day" form, O’Malley smiled and uttered this humdinger, “If I were founding a
church, I’d love to have women priests. But Christ founded it, and what
he has given us is something different.”
You see, Sean tells us it's not him and the rest of the clergy who are sexist; evidently it's Jesus who is. Sean really, really, really and I mean a million times really wishes he could ordain a woman but gosh darn it, even though Jesus said Peter could hold whatever he wanted loosed or bound....there was a disclaimer written in invisible ink only discernible by clergy eyes that says something like this, "except when it comes to ordaining women, approving of homosexuals or using birth control...there I draw the line guys...and I mean the 'guys' part literally..."
Sean, Christ didn't ordain anyone and didn't ask anybody to ordain anybody in Scripture. So, what you said on national television...Prime Time at that, was a falsehood. Ya broke the 8th Commandment on that one, my friend.
Scripture does record Jesus naming some "apostles", a word that simply means "one who is sent." And scripture also does record Jesus deliberately sending a woman...Mary the Magdalene...so she was by definition an apostle. She was sent to announce the original "gospel" / "good news" of Jesus' resurrection. And, Sean, in Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul II acknowledged that she was an apostle. So, it seems you've got at least two strikes against you in the truth department.
Furthermore, Sean, riddle me this....how come the first proclaimer of the gospel/good news of Jesus' resurrection was a woman but you and your band of brothers don't let women proclaim the gospel during Mass...at all...ever? What happened to all that "we can't deviate from scripture" malarcky that you chaps like to repeat until it clangs against my ears like a noisy gong when it comes to excluding women? You seem to forget that rule when it comes to including women.
But, I think the most offensive thing that you said, which I know you're just parroting what other sexist clerics have said before you, is the bit about blaming your and the clergy's sexism on Jesus. I must insist you all stop doing that. Please own your sexism and stop using Jesus as your scapegoat. Christ didn't give us an all-male priesthood. The men and their male hegemonic culture gave us an all-male priesthood. Truly, for heaven's sake, own your discrimination; own your sexism.
Sean also prattled on about the abundant leadership roles women have. Since my last blog article which introduced the idea of clergy key performance indicators (KPIs) was such a hit, I thought I'd define a few more clergy KPIs to measure equality.
Here's what I'd like Sean and all the other clergy to disclose so that the statistics can demonstrate just exactly how "important" they find women:
Number of priests who report to male leaders (R):_____
Number of priests who report to women leaders (r):_____ (I think that number is 0 but please humor me and fill it in.)
Number of men leading Curia offices (C):_____
Number of women leading Curia offices (c):_____ (Pretty sure this one is 0 too...)
Number of doctors of the church (DOCS):__35___
Number of female doctors of the church (docs):__4___
Number of saints (S):_____
Number of female saints (s):_____
Number of people who get to vote on bishops and popes (V):_____
Number of women who get to vote on bishops and popes (v):_____ (I know that number is 0 but again, please fill it in to take ownership of your responses.)
Number of doctrinal documents (D):_____
Number of doctrinal documents written by women (d):_____
Number of doctrinal documents actually referenced (REF):_____
Number of doctrinal documents written by women actually referenced (ref):_____
Number of people you talk to on a typical day (P):_____
Number of women you talk to on a typical day (p):_____
Number of people who advise you (A):_____
Number of women who advise you (a):_____
Frequency of receiving advice from people (F):_____
Frequency of receiving advice from women (f):_____
The Stained Glass Ceiling Indicator (SGCI) is calculated by dividing "r" by "R" and adding that to the result of dividing "c" by "C". The closer that number is to zero, the lower the leadership roles for women. I believe currently the SGCI is precisely 0. That would be a ceiling that rests firmly on the floor with exactly zero millimeters of height. Sean, your story is crashing to the ground and rests upon all those women leaders you tout.
Doctors of the church and saints aren't named until after death so we will handle them in a different category of posthumous indicators. The At Least We Value Dead Women Indicator (ALWVDWI) is calculated by adding "docs" and "s" and dividing that by the sum of adding "DOCS" and "S". The closer that is to 0.5, the more equitable value of women in the church. We know the number of doctors and female doctors of the church and in a previous blog article I reported that about 16 out of 100 saints are female. So, we can actually calculate this one ourselves. (4+16)/(35+100) = 0.148 Hmmm, 0.148 seems a lot smaller than 0.5....Sean, your story that crashed to the ground is now digging its grave.
The Feminine Voice of the Female Church Indicator (FVFCI) is calculated by adding v and d and dividing it by V+D. This number should be 0.5 or higher if the female church actually has a feminine voice because voting and dogmatic writings are two of the official voices in the church. A number of 0.5 or higher means the church's voice consists of at least as much female-originated content as male-originated. However, this number is actually very, very low...approaching zero. Thus, our female church's voice has a breathtakingly masculine sound.
The Deaf to Women Indicator (DWI) is a little bit more complex to calculate, so I'll break it into steps. Multiply f by a and add the product to the sum of p+"ref". This will be divided by the result of multiplying F by A and adding the product to the sum of P+"REF". For the math geeks out there the formula is: ((f*a)+p+"ref")/((F*A)+P+"REF").
An example might help. If a bishop typically talks to 50 people in a day and 5 of them are women and 1 of his 20 advisers are women and he receives advice from the woman 1 time per day while receiving advice 30 times per day overall and he typically references zero doctrinal documents written by women but 10 written by men per day, the result would be ((1*1)+5+0)/((30*20)+50+10) or 6/660 or 0.009. If women and men are consulted equally then the DWI is 0.5. The closer the number is to zero, the more deafness towards women. "Aaaaaaaay, what did you say?..... I can't H-E-A-R you....."
Sean, I really wish you and some of the guys would complete this assessment and send it to me. And, then, if the numbers do not support your claims about women leadership and importance in the church, I'd like you to go back on "60 Minutes" and say, "I'm sorry; I was very badly mistaken about that women leaders / women are important thing. Jesus, I'm sorry I blamed my sexism and male hegemonic blindness on you." Please let me know when this will air as I will not want to miss it.
In the meantime, until your Stained Glass Ceiling Indicator (SGCI) approaches 2, your At Least We Value Dead Women (ALWVDWI) and Deaf to Women (DWI) Indicators approach 0.5, and your Feminine Voice of the Female Church Indicator (FVFCI) exceeds 0.5, please stop spouting this fairy tale about women in leadership filling important roles. Otherwise, you will leave me with no other option than to call "bullshit!"
"Test everything; retain what is good.” (1 Thes 5:21) A laywoman expresses concerns about issues in the Roman Catholic Church to foster positive dialogue by posing and exploring questions. Please remember that Canon Law says it is not only a right but a duty to question the church. Also, Canon Law provides an over-riding power to the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful). By this, Canon Law says that if the sensus fidelium (collective of the faithful) reject a law, it is not valid.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Saturday, November 15, 2014
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.
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):_____
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.
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.
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.