Please don't blame your sexism on Jesus...

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!"

 

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?

Motherly advice for the bishops

1.  Very late on May 4^th police arrested Worcester’s Bishop Robert J. McManus because he failed 3 sobriety tests administered after he hit a car and left the scene.  May 6^th, McManus publicly apologized saying, “I made a terrible error in judgment by driving after having consumed alcohol with dinner.  There is no excuse for the mistake I made, only a commitment to make amends and accept the consequences of my action.”  Ahhhh, a bishop behaving like I expect my kids to behave – fantastic!

However, the very next day the bishop seemed to have changed his mind about accepting the consequences of his actions because he pled “not guilty” to charges of drunk driving and leaving the scene.  Reporters questioned the bishop about the shift but his attorney, a prominent trial lawyer and former legislator, said he had instructed the bishop to not comment.   

Eventually the bishop just said, “My comments made yesterday stand.”  If one is taking responsibility for one’s actions, why “lawyer up” not only at all but with one of the biggest trial lawyers in the state?  Why plead “not guilty?”      

2.  Last week reports surfaced that Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark, NJ permitted a priest to be alone with children despite being bound by a legal agreement to not be alone with children due to previously groping a 13-year-old boy.  This week the same Archbishop is accused of ignoring child sexual abuse allegations when he was the bishop of Peoria, IL.  In each case, the comment was “no comment” because the respective dioceses and bishop prefer to speak through their lawyers.

Are you seeing an interesting pattern here?  That’s right.  Both bishops have the middle initial of “J.” 

3.  Our cub-pope Frankie recently told his staff to take “decisive action” when it comes to clerical child sexual abuse situations because it was important to the church’s credibility.  Yet, Bishop Robert W. Finn of Kansas City, convicted in 2012 for failure to report to police that one of his priests was taking pornographic photos of little girls, remains a bishop as does Archbishop Myers.  Well, choosing to not hold bishops accountable is in fact a decision and therefore Frank was “decisive”.  He just didn’t happen to make the decision I would make nor one that protects children or holds bishops accountable. 

4.  Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, president of Germany’s Catholic bishop conference recently suggested opening the diaconate to women.  However, within days of that, Robert Eberle, the spin doctor, I mean spokesperson, for the German bishops’ conference explained that Bishop Bob actually meant some sort of non-ordained leadership role for women.  Evidently Bishop Bob, though an archbishop and official voice of the church, is not capable of speaking for himself. 

Are you seeing the same trend I’m seeing this time?  Yes, that’s right.  Men named “Robert” seem to be in the news lately.

But wait! There’s more:

5.  Last Sunday when meeting with the Superiors General from women’s religious orders, Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life said he was omitted from the process in which the U.S. nuns were investigated and sanctioned.  He said this pained him greatly.  However, a few days after that, someone from the Vatican, probably named “Robert”, said that Cardinal Joao was mistaken…that the good Cardinal was in fact fully involved in the process.  But, Cardinal Joao, evidently having the audacity to think he might know better what he experienced than some anonymous Vatican person, told reporters that he actually meant what he said.

6.  Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan who paid-off pedophile priests when he was bishop of Milwaukee recently said that homosexuals are welcome at the church’s table as long as they wash their hands, referring to cleansing themselves from what he considers sins associated with their sexual orientation.  In protest a small group of people dirtied their hands and tried to attend Mass at the Cardinal’s New York cathedral.  But, they were denied access and actually encountered the police whom church leaders had summoned to shoo them away. 

Evidently dirty hands are only permitted to consecrate the host not receive it.  And yes, I know you’re thinking like me…  “Where is Bob in all this?”

7.  This week Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley said he will not attend Boston College’s graduation on May 20th because he doesn’t agree with some of the invited commencement speaker’s political views.  Enda Kenny, Ireland’s Prime Minister who supports abortion in the case of saving a mother’s life is the speaker.  Following the “nay-nee-nay-nee-boo-boo” example of his hero Jesus, the Cardinal is opting to stay home rather than sit at table with those he considers sinners.  I’m sure there is a “Bob” behind this somewhere too.

The church’s hierarchy teaches that they best imitate Jesus, so much so that they claim to be ultimate guardians of truth and downright infallible at times.  However, aside from the whole “Bob” first name and “J” middle initial trends, there seem to be a few more disturbing trends in play. 

On one hand laypeople are labeled as too removed from Jesus (or possibly too ignorant) to know gospel truths without their bishops’ pastoral guidance.  But on the other hand many bishops’ behavior greatly deviates from gospel messages, sometimes to the point that bishops speak through lay attorneys who are helping them avoid accountability.  Instead of following gospel values when they deviate from the gospel, they deviate even further from it by trying to sidestep responsibility. Furthermore, bishops who do speak aligned with gospel messages increasingly seem to have laypeople trying to explain their words away.       

I know bishops claim they are parents though they have no children.  But, in honor of Mothers’ Day, I thought I’d offer some parenting tips being as I am actually a parent:

1.  Bob McManus, ditch the lawyer and revert to “Plan A”…tell the truth and take responsibility.  Short of that, you’re not an example.  A personal apology to the person whose car you hit might be a boon too.

2.  J.J. Myers, please resign.  Please also visit every person impacted by the priests and spend time learning about the pain inflicted by your decisions.

3.  Frankie, your actions speak louder than your words.  If bishops Bob and John don’t resign taking responsibility for their actions, a good father would insist that they do.  Thus, it’s time to fire them as bishops.  Short of that, Frank, you have no credibility about protecting kids.  Your admonitions about protecting kids in or out of the womb fall on deaf ears. 

4.  Bob Zollitsch, put on your big-boy pants and tell Bob-the-spin-doctor to stop speaking on your behalf.  Cardinal Joao did an admirable job of this.  Perhaps contact him to take lessons on speaking for one’s self.

5.  The anonymous spokesperson for the Vatican should take responsibility and identify his or herself.  Utterances from unnamed people just don’t carry credibility. 

6.  Tim, it’s time to re-read the gospels.  Jesus welcomed tax collectors and sinners without judgment and hung out with highly flawed people.  If you read the gospels, you will see that any forgiveness that Jesus administered to people was after he ministered amongst them and was not done in a domineering fashion…because – and again this will require you reading the gospels – Jesus told his apostles not to lord it over others.  Please write 1,000 times each, “I will not lord it over others” and “Judge not lest ye be judged” after you write a personal apology and hand-deliver it to each of the people you turned away from the cathedral.

7.  Sean, a real father wouldn’t miss his kids’ graduation for love nor money.  Furthermore, Enda Kenny isn’t speaking about abortion.  Even if he is, he’s not one of your sheep so it’s not your place to correct him.  If you truly think he’s a dangerous wolf visiting your sheepfold, a good shepherd will stand by his sheep to ensure their safety.  You are pulling a sorry childish stunt abandoning your sheep.  Get your carcass to Boston College for your kids’ graduation or don't think for one minute you are a father.  But first, please apologize to your children for your threatened negligence of them due to your judgmental pig-headedness towards Enda.  Then, apologize to Enda.  Finally, please see the guidance given to Cardinal Tim.   

This actual mother wishes all the men who think they are Holy Mother Church's voice, a very lovely Mothers' Day. 

Editorial Note: My bad - I originally wrote this article thinking that Boston College's graduation ceremonies took place this past Saturday.  However, they are not until Monday, May 20th so I've reworded the article.  There's still time, Sean - just like for Ebeneezer waking up on Christmas Day in "A Christmas Carol."