Requesting a private discussion with the pope...

Dear readers,

About a month ago I wrote regarding needed changes to Canon Law that would help eliminate the Church’s globally systemic sexual abuse coverup scandal.  I received a lot of encouragement to share my ideas with hierarchy officials.  Thus, I sent it to my bishop.  He thanked me for offering my ideas. However, I do not know what other actions it will inspire beyond sending me a nicely worded email message.

As luck would have it, I have a business trip scheduled to Rome later this month.  Therefore, I replied to my bishop that I would like his help requesting a private discussion with Pope Francis regarding my ideas.  He kindly responded, “I don’t have the foggiest idea how such can be arranged,” but wished me luck.  I’m not sure I believe that a bishop doesn’t know how to request a discussion with the pope but, maybe he meant he doesn’t know how to request one for a mere lay woman.  Regardless, that’s a tragedy because either he truly doesn’t know how to ask for a discussion with his own boss or he doesn’t want to and is comfortable prevaricating about it.

Rather than be discouraged, I donned my imaginary thinking cap, in this case a pointy bishop’s mitre, to ponder what I would do if I were a bishop desiring a discussion with the pope.  I decided to write Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the papal nuncio in Washington, D.C., since he is the pope’s emissary in the U.S. 

Here is the text of my email, sent September 15, 2018 to the papal nuncio:

Dear Abp Christophe Pierre,

I will be in Rome speaking at a business conference.  I arrive October 19 and leave October 26.  I request a private discussion with the Holy Father so as to discuss inherent issues in Canon Law that make addressing the global systemic abuse crisis near impossible without changing them.  I asked my local bishop, Earl Boyea, how I might make such a request.  Since he was uncertain, I thought I would next try you as the Papal Nuncio.

There is an inherent governance problem in that Canon Law entrusts writing, interpreting and enforcing the law to the same demographic group.  This is a classic structure that enables abuse.  Canon 223 is just one example of making clerics all-powerful in governing the church.

The Canons which place clerics above lay people (207, 223, 247, etc...) possibly impede addressing the abuse issue but ones such as 212 which insist lay people obey their pastor (who might be molesting them or their child) are extremely problematic.

The 12 Canons pertaining to secrecy also must be examined and possibly revised.

Furthermore, Canon Law ties itself in knots making it near impossible to correct Canon Law.  But, we need to examine and alter Canon Law to have effective checks and balances instead of hoping and wishing that clerics are spun of superior moral fabric and able to self-police.  With over 200 dioceses globally having abuses reported to date, we can be confident that this is an inaccurate belief leading to a failed governance model on this topic.

In addition to my professional position as an executive level consultant who advises on business governance, I hold a master degree in theology from Loyola University.  I think that we have spent too many years having primarily clerics who lack objectivity trying unsuccessfully to self-police their own.  We can see the globally systemic problem and easily conclude that they are unable to address the problem themselves.  I offer my perspective as an educated, accomplished professional, mother and lay person in addition to someone with a fair amount of theological training.  I hope that you give my request serious consideration. 

I look forward to the favor of a reply.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.  Know of my prayers for you.

On September 27, 2018 I received an email from the Apostolic Nunciature with an attached letter from Abp. Pierre.  As an interesting yet ironic aside, he marked the letter “personal and confidential.”  This means he wished his response to my concerns about secrecy to remain … secret!  I will pause a moment for you to stop banging your head upon a hard surface.

Due to being marked confidential, rather than share the full document, I will summarize and quote excerpts.  He said that arranging a private discussion between me and the pope “would not be opportune.”  He went on to explain that the group that is “the proper body” to recommend Canon Law changes to the pope is the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.  Furthermore, he said that aside from interpreting Canon Law, this body also carries the responsibility “to present legislative proposals to the Holy Father.”  Did I not explain in my original email that part of the problem is the same people who write the laws also interpret them?  Thanks for proving my point, Abp. Pierre.  I only wish you would have gotten the point too.

The archbishop suggested that, rather than present my ideas directly to the Pontifical Council on Legislative Texts, I take this circuitous route:  First share my ideas with my bishop, which I’ve already done.  Then, hope that he will decide to present them to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Canonical Affairs Committee, or perhaps give it a go to try to contact this committee myself.  So, rather than go straight to the guy in power, he recommends that I navigate an administrative maze of bishops, to share my ideas about how to hold these very bishops and their brother bishops more accountable, a matter they have a vested interest in preventing.  Thanks for proving my point again, Abp. Pierre.

Here is my email response sent to Abp. Pierre September 30, 2018.  I will let you know if I receive a reply.

Dear Abp Christophe Pierre,

Thank you for your response.  However, moved by the Holy Spirit instilled in me at my baptism and strengthened in me during my confirmation, I must conclude that your response is unsatisfactory.  Please accept my deep apologies for not expressing myself more clearly.  I wish to discuss with Pope Francis the globally systemic clergy abuse crisis, the foundations for historically ineffective approaches addressing it, and possible ways to address it effectively, some of which involve Canon Law modifications. 

Your response said my request to meet with Pope Francis "would not be opportune."  Your word selection of "opportune" means you believe the timing of my request is not convenient.  Please inform me at what time will it be convenient for the pope to have a serious discussion with a layperson about making effective changes to rid the Church of the clergy sex abuse scourge? 

I note your deflection of my request to a series of bureaucratic bodies, all staffed by the very bishops who need to be held accountable. Please help me understand how asking those who have demonstrated profound ineffectiveness in addressing clergy abuse and often contributed to mishandling abuse cases should now be the very people through whom we channel all suggestions?  Their combined ineffectiveness, complicity, and choke-hold on recommending change suggest another route must be pursued. 

As an example, Cardinal DiNardo, current president of the USCCB, is both being criticized by abuse survivors as mishandling abuse cases (ref: Des Moines Register article dated September 27, 2018 entitled, "Cardinal DiNardo, at center of clergy abuse crisis, accused of mishandling cases in Iowa and Texas") and the person who recently led a delegation to meet with Pope Francis about the abuse crisis.  In U.S. culture, we call this, "the fox guarding the hen house." 

It also confuses me as to why you believe I must communicate with the pope exclusively through a body that did not exist before 1984.  Surely today's Vicar of Christ would want to imitate Christ in being accessible to all people rather than enshrouding himself in high ranking clergy and bureaucratic process.  Otherwise, he damages his credibility as Christ's representative, does he not?  I know my bishop readily meets with me as part of his imitation of Christ.  Why would the pope not want to do likewise?

Furthermore, in U.S. culture we have a children's game called "telephone operator" in which children sit in a circle and one child whispers their message into the ear of the next child.  That child does the same and the activity continues until the last child in the circle whispers the message in the originator's ear.  That message whispered into the originator's ear is always quite distorted from the originator's original message.  Your recommendation to go through several communication levels seems destined to distort my Spirit instilled messages.  (I believe you suggest I talk to my bishop who talks to the USCCB Canonical Affairs Committee which talks to the Legislative Law Pontifical Council which talks to the Pope.)  In addition to distorting the message, this circuitous route displays a shockingly dehumanizing lack of urgency.  It also deprives us of my authentic female voice by forcing my communications through a series of men's heads and voices.  That too is shockingly dehumanizing and confusing, especially since Pope Francis repeatedly says he wishes to increase the volume of female voices in the Church.  Why would we forego an opportunity to demonstrate Pope Francis' commitments to both addressing systemic clergy abuse and increasing the role of women's voices in the Church?

Therefore, my dear brother in Christ, I ask you to reflect further on Mark 3:28-29, "Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them.  But whoever denies the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.”  The Spirit guides me to speak to the Pope just as the Spirit guided Ste. Therese de Lisieux to speak to Pope Leo XIII in 1884 and St. Catherine of Siena to communicate with Popes Gregory XI and Urban VI in the 1370s.

I wish you all the best and please be assured of my prayers for you.

In whatever ways fit your personal context and in which you are called to do so, I encourage everyone to engage with the hierarchy, respectfully and insistently.  If you anticipate their likely polite dismissiveness, you won’t feel rejected and also won’t be deterred.  Also, I approach the clergy as an equal.  Though many respond as though I am subordinate, I know better and just don’t fall for it.

How to fix the Church's problem with criminal sexual activity

Dear readers,

It’s been a very long time.  The demands of caring for an aging parent combined with those of traveling extensively for work provide precious few moments to write.  However, recent hubbub compels me to sacrifice a few moments of sleep to write.

At Mass last weekend, the priest spoke of the clergy abuse revelations in Pennsylvania and described it as, “the scandal in Pennsylvania.”  With 200+ dioceses and growing having abuse scandals worldwide, we are safe to call it “globally systemic” rather than confine it to any geographic area as if it were a surprising anomaly.  Let’s stop being shocked that the abuse is uncovered in yet another group of dioceses.  Let’s work to shine the light to expose it everywhere and fix it.

The pastor discussed the PA abuse scandal while defending the Lansing diocese’s decision to continue holding its “Made for Happiness” Diocesan Assembly in a few weeks despite this latest sex abuse scandal news.  Tragically ironic, the diocesan shindig will be held at Michigan State University’s Breslin Center, the basketball arena for a university recently publicly criticized for institutional enablement of a serial child molester, Dr. Larry Nassar.  Side note: Prior to prison, Nassar was a devout Catholic in the Lansing diocese.  The diocese could only be more tone-deafly insensitive if it asked Larry Nassar to speak at the assembly.

All this pissed me off but did not compel me to write.  No, no…it took former papal nuncio to the U.S., Archbishop Vigano’s recently published lengthy letter calling for Pope Francis’ resignation to do that.

Vigano, whilst self-righteously adjusting his imaginary halo, wrote that Francis knew about Cardinal McCarrick’s serial sexually abusive misdeeds and tsk, tsked at him for doing nothing.  Just a little aside here: Francis, Benedict, John Paul II, Paul VI, etc… all knew about and participated in abuse cover-ups too.  Why is Vigano ok canonizing JPII as a saint but wants Francis fired?  Regardless, let’s pause a moment to understand how news about sexually abusive priests gets from the US to dear old popes.  IT’S THROUGH THE PAPAL NUNCIO!  Vigano would have had knowledge not just about McCarrick but about EVERY SINGLE SEXUALLY ABUSIVE PRIEST reported to any Catholic official in the US. 

So, dear Mr. Vigano, you knew about McCarrick too and did not report him to civil authorities.  Nor did you report to civil authorities any of the sexual crimes priests committed against children during your tenure.  Therefore, please dispense with your political posturing for papal power until you first return your pointy hat, signet ring and blinged-out crosier to the “Shamed Bishops” department and tender your own resignation.  Thank you, ever so much.

I also cannot overlook noting that Vigano’s come-lately concern about sexual abuse was about …wait for it…not any of the thousands of kids molested by priests, even those suffering during his tenure…no, it’s only about sexual harassment endured by that precious subclass of humans which clerics believe sit above the rest of humanity, seminarians and fellow priests.  That speaks volumes.

As occurs following each scandalous revelation, there’s a flurry of advice on how to fix the church…female priests, ditch celibacy, laity takeover the church…whatever.  Please indulge me in offering my advice to the dialogue…oh, sorry, was dreaming for a minute there – that the hierarchy actually sought sincere dialogue about how to fix its systemic criminal activities.  Nonetheless, here are my thoughts.

It’s all about governance.  According to Canon Law, those who write the laws are the same who interpret the laws and are the same who enforce the laws.  That is a system destined for abuse and corruption – two longstanding trademarks of the hierarchy.

To add to their death-grip on all ecclesiastic power (Canon 223 and others), Canon Law includes several Canons that make it near impossible to overturn existing laws.  This is a trap that results from belief in their own perfection.  If you believe you are perfect, then how could you write imperfect laws?  And since you don’t write imperfect laws, why would they need to be overturned. 

Canon law divides humanity into lay people and clerics (Canon 207), setting clerics above laity (Canon 223, 247 and others) and actually demanding that lay people revere and obey their pastor because pastors are the best representation of Christ for lay people (Canon 212).  As a side note, Canon Law decrees clerical institutions such as seminaries to be ecclesiastical juridical people (Canon 238).  Yes, yes, seminaries are people too according to Canon Law.  As ecclesiastical people, they not only are people but more powerful people than ones of non-clergy flesh and blood variety.

This is all problematic in itself but then, the hierarchy do two additional insidious things: 1) They say you must receive Jesus via Holy Communion and 2) incarcerate Jesus in the tabernacle and declare only they can summon Jesus to dwell amongst us in the form of the Blessed Sacrament.  In simpler terms they in essence say, “you need what I got, or you die and I’m the only provider.”  A drug cartel could not wish for a better setup.

But wait, it gets more insidious.  Canon Law includes 12 Canons which codify obligations to maintain secrecy (Canons 127, 269, 471, 645, 983, 1131, 1132, 1455, 1457, 1546, 1548 and 1602).  Canon Law reflects the hierarchy’s normalization of its stunningly unhealthy culture of secrecy and court intrigue.  Transfer a priest from diocese to diocese in secrecy?  Canon Law says that’s ok.  Hold in secret things that the brotherhood doesn’t want to divulge?  Canon Law approves of that too. 

As Canon Law stands today a priest molests a child but the child is taught that this guy is the closest thing to Jesus the child is going to encounter on Earth and he’s the guy who will give the child the Eucharist, without which the child will be damned forever.  If the priest is reported, the hierarchy can deal with him and his trial in secrecy and transfer him in secrecy.  Meanwhile, the parents and kid have to worry if they report the guy, will they be shunned or excommunicated, cutting themselves off from what they are taught is their only chance at eternal life. 

Canon Law lacks checks and balances on power and depends instead upon a belief that men of superior moral ilk occupy positions of ecclesiastical power.  I think 2000+ years of history prove that assumption breathtakingly wrong.

Short of a major overhaul of Canon Law, instilling a viable set of power checks by offering ecclesiastical power to lay people in equal levels to clerics while also ridding it of codes of secrecy, obedience to pastors, a sense of clerical superiority over lay people, and hand-binding laws against fixing the laws, the church will not seriously or successfully address its issues of systemic abuse.

I hold little hope that the same men who write into law what gives them absolute power will voluntarily change those laws.  Withholding money and subjecting them to legal recourse have some effect.  However, I think that people just need to both openly challenge the hierarchy and make the hierarchy irrelevant in their lives.  This is easier said than done in some countries, but I believe it is essential to force change and protect children.

Side note: The Lansing Diocesan Assembly offers free admission, but you must pre-register.  Here’s a link in case you’d like to acquire tickets to use or dispose of as you see fit.  Their website indicates they offer free child care, and we all know what a great reputation the church has for taking care of kids.

US bishops staying the course...

What a curious week.  On one hand I read that the US bishops voted in their annual spring meeting to “stay the course.”  My initial reaction?  Oh goody!  We can look forward to yet another year of bishops trying to expand their theocracy’s marginalization of women and homosexuals further into secular government.  And, we’ll be treated to an encore performance hearing them intermittently and indignantly ejaculate “Religious liberty!” while they do it despite them trouncing on others’ religious liberties in the process. …Something about “self-awareness” keeps popping into my head.    

Wait a minute…I’m also getting a reading from my psychic barometer.  It predicts these ejaculations will increase in frequency and volume the closer we get to the US’s mid-term elections.  Yippee!  Can’t wait.

On the other hand, this week I also listened to one of my friends describe how his kids’ Catholic school enrollment has been cut almost in half after experiencing a raging alcoholic pastor followed by one who is a Protestant convert still enveloped in Protestant charismatic preaching styles.  Now, this is a new trend it seems…the iconic mega-church fundamentalist Protestant preacher in Catholic priest’s clothing.  Don’t say the old dogs can’t learn new tricks sometimes.  But, since this trend began before the bishops decided to “stay the course,” I think that means this new tactic is part of the course they will keep.  I can only guess that the objective is to cut Catholic school enrollments in half again. 

On yet another hand, this week I also read the deposition of Robert Carlson, a man some people call “archbishop” but for whom I cannot choke out that word since “bishop” means “overseer” and when I read his deposition he exhibits no behaviors associated with tending his flock like a caretaker.  His favorite three words in the deposition were “I don’t remember.”  It is so prevalent that I wonder if the man can remember what color pants he wears, though presumably it is standard clerical black … every … single … day. 

Here’s a selection of his responses from just the first ten substantive questions in the deposition.

1. “I do not.” (In reference to if he recalled something.)
2. “I don’t remember, but I really can’t say.”
3. “I really can’t remember with any accuracy.”
4. “I don’t remember.”
5. “I don’t remember with any accuracy…”
6. “I don’t remember…”
7. “As I remember, no information came to me about him that I could say with any accuracy.”

Yes, 7 of Bob’s responses to the first 10 questions were variations on “Bob Can’t Remember A Darn Thing.”  I haven’t tallied the responses for the deposition’s full 156 pages, but having read the entire document, I’d guess that the 70% forgetfulness rate is a pretty close estimate if not conservatively low.

I found myself puzzling over this.  If Bob struggles to remember things, how can he remember the teachings of the faith?  Bishops are entrusted with teaching the faith.  How can he teach what he doesn’t remember? 

How can he remember the subtleties associated with tenets of faith when he can’t remember major traumatic events like a priest sexually assaulting kids…repeatedly?  Wasn’t it important enough to carve out a storage location in his brain? Most compassionate people would have a seared permanent image from it, I suspect.  Maybe Bob once stored that info but has subsequently overwritten it with fascinating notions about “religious liberty.”  I don’t know.

Is Bob an incompetent bishop due to his memory issues?  Call me a skeptic, but I think Bob is not being 100% truthful.  I think he’s having selective court-induced memory problems (SCIMP).  If that’s the case, then he is even less competent to be a bishop than if he were suffering early-stage dementia symptoms because selective memory failure falls into the category of “bearing false witness,” one of those pesky Ten Commandments.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m a big fan of letting humans be human, including bishop humans.  But, since bishops declare themselves to be THE penultimate guardians of truth, they force us into holding them to a zero-tolerance standard for their deviating from it.  Ergo, if Bob was playing selective memory-loss games with a severe case of SCIMP, he is truly not competent to serve as bishop.

But wait! There’s more!  In addition to forgetting just about everything except his name, Bob expressed during his recent deposition that some years back when handling abuse cases, he didn’t know that sexual assault of a minor was a crime!

Attorney Jeff Anderson: “Archbishop, you knew it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a kid?”

Bob Carlson (St. Louis’ current sitting archbishop): “I’m not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not.”

Attorney Jeff Anderson: “In 1984, you are a Bishop in the – an Auxiliary Bishop in the Archdiocese of St. Paul / Minneapolis.  You knew it was a crime then, right?”

Bob Carlson: “I’m not sure if I did or didn’t.”

 (Pages 109 - 110 of the Deposition dated May, 2014)

Good news!  Bob did admit he now knows that raping kids is a crime.  He just doesn’t know when he came to this understanding.  I don’t know what device we have to thank for Bob’s enlightenment either but let’s give three cheers for him grasping this concept sometime before his upcoming 70^th birthday. 

However, despite his eventual enlightenment, this exposes a certain appalling and unacceptable callousness that might justify finding him supremely unqualified to be a bishop.   Please do not suspend your activities awaiting his resignation or apology, though.  No, he is already implementing the brotherhood’s “Stay the course” strategy and issued a statement defending himself instead.  He joins the ranks of so many other bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes in taking this evasive approach regarding sexual abuse, I’m sure he feels it’s a winning strategy.

As an aside, according to Bob’s statement, it seems he, who possesses the intellectual capacity to earn multiple advanced degrees, just didn’t understand the question despite one of those degrees being in … wait for it…. CANON LAW!  I guess Canon Law must be a lot easier to understand than secular law, at least maybe when one is imbued in the culture that produced it.  You saw how confusing the questions were…very tricky in that special, direct, straight-forward manner.  Maybe he’s so used to clerical obfuscations that clarity is just downright unclear for him.  We feel your pain, Bob.  You guys are making less and less sense to most of us faithful, too.  Right back at ya, buddy.

Tying all these strange things together, I realized that the Holy Spirit is working in her mysterious way.  The bishops “stay the course” not only on culture war matters but on accountability and truth-telling too, thus continuing to endanger children in their care.  Coincidentally, they forsake many Catholic traditions, theological teachings, and gospel messages in favor of attracting and ordaining mega-church iconic personalities.  This in turn inspires parents to protect their kids by yanking them from Catholic schools.  Perhaps eventually, the clergy’s sexual assault of children and its cover-up will end when there are no more children in their system?  Can't we please get rid of the incompetent bishops instead? 

Marriage and the Hierarchy

How about we do a marriage assessment today?  Don’t worry single people; you can participate too because you won’t assess your marriage to someone with whom you exchanged rings and vows.  Rather, you will assess your marriage to the Roman Catholic clergy. 

In case you’re unaware that you’re married to the clergy, here’s a quick summary of the church’s teaching.  The clergy believe they wed the church because they think this is required for them to imitate Christ whom they believe married the church.  You might be wondering, “Isn’t it polygamy when multiple men marry the spouse of the person they’re imitating?”   However, the answer to that is either “it’s a mystery” or “twice the square root of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin simultaneously.”  I forget which.

You also might wonder, “Do they really believe they’re married to the church?”  I think the answer is, “yes” based upon doctrinal writings and hierarchical utterances.  For example, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said in his November, 2011 General Assembly address to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “I look out at 300 brothers each of whom has a ring on his finger, because we're spoken for, we're married.”  Tim definitely thinks he and his brother bishops are married; just look at their rings.

Since the church is the people of God, that means they are married to you and me.  When did this marriage take place?  Well, that is not clear but from the time you are baptized, you’re kind of “in” so let’s say you entered this marriage at your baptism. 

If you’re like me, baptized as a newborn, you probably pulled out your copy of Canon Law and started rattling off all the Canons that are broken by an infant entering this marriage.  However, just in case your life is too interesting to read Canon Law, let me share a few highlights with you here. 

• Canon 1063: both parties must understand the holy state of matrimony before entering it
• Canon 1065: both parties need to have been confirmed
• Canon 1083: minimum valid marrying age is 16 for a boy and 14 for a girl. 
• Canon 1095: marriage is invalid if either party in the marriage lacked reason, or consent
• Canon 1096: both parties must understand marriage’s permanency
• Canon 1103: marriage is invalid if either party is forced or coerced into marriage

Violation of any of these establishes grounds to annul a marriage. Yet, all of them are violated by pulling an infant into this mystical marriage with the clergy by baptizing them as members of the clergy’s spouse, the church.      

Even if the hierarchy thinks the faithful enter this mystical union at Confirmation, it violates several Canons.  Regardless, let’s not get caught up in Canon Law.  After all, we all know how forgiving the hierarchy is when it comes to rules that don’t suit their interests. 

Let’s just play along and say we are validly married to the clergy because if we don’t, how can we take this nifty quiz the USCCB has called “Grade Your Marriage.”  What fun!  We can grade the hierarchy as our spouse…using the hierarchy’s very own standards for good marriages!  I’m sure they’d love for us to do this because they are huge advocates for strengthening marriages.  Therefore, I’m confident they want to strengthen their marriage with you, the people of God so as to set a good example.

The quiz asks each spouse to rate their partner on a scale of 1 to 10 in 15 areas.  I’ll relax the rules and permit a 0 to 10 scale, but please, no negative numbers no matter how tempted you may be.  The specific assessment areas are listed below.  Remember, you are to rate the church hierarchy as your spouse.  Therefore, I added some contextual description associated with the clergy / church marriage. 

1. Shared Values: How well do your and the clergy’s values and priorities align?
2. Commitment: How committed are the clergy to you?
3. Communication: How well does the hierarchy communicate with you?
4. Conflict Resolution: How skilled are clergy members at resolving conflicts with you?
5. Intimacy/Sexuality: Let’s ignore the sexual dimension on this one.  How much interpersonal intimacy do you have with the clergy?
6. Spirituality/Faith: How well do the hierarchy’s faith and spirituality align with and support yours?
7. Money Management: How satisfied are you with the clergy’s management of money?
8. Appreciation/Affection: How well does the clergy express appreciation towards you?
9. Lifestyle: How compatible is the clergy’s lifestyle with supporting your lifestyle needs?
10. Recreation: How satisfied are you with the leisure time you spend with clergy?
11. Decision Making: How satisfied are you with the hierarchy’s decision making practices?
12. Parenthood: How satisfied are you with the clergy’s parenting skills and support for raising your children?
13. Household chores / gender differences: Remember, no matter your gender, in this marriage, you are the female church.  How satisfied are you with the gender roles and division of labor between you and the hierarchy?
14. Careers: Is there adequate support from the clergy for your career?
15. Balancing Time: How well do the clergy balance time when it comes to their relationship with you?

The instructions say any assessment area rated at 8 or above is in good shape while anything in the 4-7 range is considered to be in a danger zone.  The instructions then say to total scores for all 15 assessment areas and declare any total score higher than 100 as being an “A” for the marriage overall. 

I can’t help noticing that if you scored your spouse an average of 6.66 out of 10 (66.66% or a “D” on most grading scales) on every single question (solidly in the “danger zone” for every question), that results in a total of 100 and an “A” for your marriage overall on the hierarchy’s scale.  Evidently in “bishop math” fifteen “D”s = one “A", a phenomenon closely related to Jesus’ loaves and fishes gig.

I will not influence your assessment by providing mine here.  I do hope you take the survey and discuss it with your hierarchical leaders.  If people send me their responses, I can tally them and provide stats in a subsequent blog article or send them to the USCCB.  However, based upon listening to people, I think the results will indicate the hierarchy needs some serious marriage counseling with their spouse.

Survey aside, I have a few other thoughts regarding the clergy’s marriage to the people of God.  What’s up with excommunication?  The hierarchy should never set aside their spouse via excommunication.  The official viewpoint is that excommunication is “medicinal” versus a “divorce” but, how many of you stop feeding your spouse if they disagree with you?  “…You don’t want my mother visiting???? I think you can bloody well go without any food until you change your mind.”  And how many of you consider withholding nourishment as an acceptable form of “medicine?”  “…You’re sick, dear?  No food for you until you’re healthy…it’s for your own good, honey.”  

Canon 1135 says there’s equality between marriage partners, but that isn’t the case when it comes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is it?  In a healthy marriage, both parties make amends and forgive, recognizing they both err.  However, with the hierarchy, those of us constituting their wife are always the erring party, always the ones needing to confess, always the ones receiving penance, always the ones needing forgiveness…and from them.  “We’re equal, sweetie, it’s just that you’re always the one to screw up.  But don’t worry because I’m here to forgive you for all these screw ups.”  There are marriages like this where the husband is always right but they are typically categorized by one word, “abusive.”

Finally, what’s up with Canon Law calling me a “subject” if I’m married to the hierarchy?  Have you ever heard a wedding end with, “I now pronounce you man and subject?”  If Christ is king, then his bride is queen, not “subject.”  If the clergy fancy themselves princes, then we’re their princesses, not their “subjects.” 

Do you think the hierarchy is married to the people of God?  Do you think the marriage is healthy?  If not, do you think it can be saved?  What kind of marriage therapy might work?

Pope Francis, priests and monsters...

Stop the presses!  What is this I hear Pope Francis said?  Did he really say that some priests behave like “little monsters?”  Why, yes, yes he did say that and even more!  He said this monster-esque behavior emerges from “clericalism”, something he called “one of the worst evils” and something he attributes to poor seminary formation.  “We must form their hearts. Otherwise we are creating little monsters.  And then these little monsters mold the people of God. This really gives me goose bumps.”  - Pope Francis

Hey, those are pretty stiff accusations against clerics there, Mr. Chief Clerical Officer of the Roman Catholic Church.  Are they warranted or substantiated?

The definition of a monster is “a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems.”  Let’s also review the definition of “clericalism”: “a policy of supporting the influence and power of the clergy.” 

Well, let’s rummage through the mountain of church writings to see if we can find any evidence of clericalism and/or monster-making… Ah, yes, here we go.  Found something! 

An ancient writing dating from all the way back to 2009 – a report issued after a Vatican visitation of American seminaries - might help substantiate Francis’ assertion.  Here’s some contextual background on the report.  It resulted from a Vatican visitation (read that “investigation”) into the role seminaries might have played in the sex abuse scandal.  When the visitation occurred, the Vatican was still trying to portray sex abuse as an American-only phenomenon.  As an aside, since that visitation, sexual abuse scandals rivaling the U.S.’s magnitude or worse have erupted in over a dozen countries so I guess that whole “made in America” thing wasn’t accurate.  Anyway, the report was generally favorable towards U.S. seminaries but highlighted a few negative findings in need of correction that they thought contributed to the sexual abuse issue.  Here’s one:

“The students have an idea of priestly service, but teachings such as on the character impressed by the Sacrament of Orders, on the nature of sacra potestas (sacred powers), on the tria munera (three offices), etc., are not so well known.”   In other words, the Vatican felt it was problematic for seminaries to focus too much on priests doing service … you know that crazy stuff that Jesus did…and not enough on the “sacred powers” of the three-fold office, namely the teaching (munus docendi), sanctifying (munus sanctificandi) and ruling (munus regendi) offices.  One might simplify that message from the Vatican as telling priests to ease-up on helping people and focus more on controlling them.  Let’s see…”institutionalized clericalism with foundations in seminary?”  Check!  …as per Vatican directives.

Here’s another one from that same report:

“In a few seminaries, the clear distinction between the common priesthood and the ministerial, hierarchical priesthood needs to be emphasized more. “  This statement reveals Vatican officials believe the hierarchical superiority of clericalism needs to increase not decrease.  Again, I think we can safely place a checkmark in the “institutionalized clericalism” column for seminaries.

So there you have it. Along with blaming homosexuals, criticizing seminarians’ behavior outside of the seminary walls and faulting dioceses for not exalting seminarians and seminaries enough, the Vatican as of 2009 felt that the sex abuse scandal resulted from priests not being hierarchical enough, not exerting their “sacred powers” enough and offering too much service.  I will pause a moment for you to stop banging your head against a hard, flat surface and also to finish your primal scream therapy.

Done?  Ready to continue now?  O.K. back to our topic. 

I guess I must cede Francis his “clericalism” point about clergy power fascinations, but “monster?”  Isn’t that a bit severe?  I mean a monster is a powerful person that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems.  And yeah, the Vatican report on clergy formation said to focus more on clerical powers… but does that really create priests who “cannot be controlled?” 

Again I dive into the steaming mountain of church writings and dig all the way down to the 1983 section to find the latest revision of Canon Law.  Rather than quote lengthy sections from it, let me summarize its power governance laws using this analogy.  Think “dogs peeing on trees to mark territory.”  The church truly has evolved little further than that in some aspects of church governance.  The world is divided into geographical territories over which a bishop presides and the bishop subdivides his territory into parishes over which a pastor presides.  Only one alpha dog is permitted per marked territory.   

“But doesn’t the bishop reign over all the parish pastors?” you might ask.

Here the plot thickens a bit.  A parish pastor, once appointed by the bishop, can only be removed under a few very obtusely defined circumstances.  As long as the pastor avoids those issues, he can do whatever he darn well pleases and the bishop has no, zip, nada, the null-set, recourse. 

Even if the pastor violates one of the lawful reasons for removal, the complex legal processes under Canon Law tilt toward protecting him and often eventually require approval from the Vatican Curia - an organization reputed for corruption, inefficiency and sloth-paced movement in addition to siding with pastors over their bishops.  Therefore, most bishops only bother pursuing priest situations that involve “slam-dunk” transgressions in the eyes of the Vatican Curia – really treacherous things like pastors who want to talk about female ordinations.  And, no, a pastor raping a child is NOT a slam-dunk with the Vatican Curia.  Thus, many bishops avoid the confrontation, expense and hassle, and just let pastors do pretty much whatever they want.  Oooooh, so that whole “cannot be controlled” thing is for-real!

I’m sure Francis knows that clericalism is written into Canon Law and further enabled by bishops unwilling to navigate the legislative processes that most likely would conclude with the Vatican Curia affirming the “little monster” anyway.  Therefore, I don’t totally agree with Francis.  He asserts these clericalism-generated “little monsters” are the fault of poor seminary training.  I think that is only part of it.  Seminaries plant the seeds of clericalism but Canon Law feeds and waters it by bestowing minimally governed, nearly unchecked powers to pastors (and popes).  Furthermore, bishops and the Curia further cultivate clericalism every time they permissively turn their heads for those few powers that Canon Law does try to hold in check.

Let’s quickly review the power path.  Popes have the right to appoint every single Curia leadership position.  They also appoint every single bishop.  Bishops appoint every single seminary rector and together they determine seminary curriculum.  Bishops ordain every single priest and then appoint every single pastor.    

Once the pastor is appointed, if he is a monster or monster-in-the-making, it is too late.  Unfortunately with the reduced number of clergy, more and more bishops are appointing less and less experienced men as pastors and their immaturity and inexperience seem to be creating more “little monsters.” 

My dear brother Francis, let’s face it.  Much of the power to correct clericalism lies in your hands as pope via your Curia appointments, bishops you choose and indeed even the Canon Laws you do or do not enact. 

Keep in mind what’s required to alter Canon Law.  The pope can just decree something into Canon Law using something called a “motu propio” (literally means “own motion”).  And the beauty of the pope's absolute monarchy is that all of his motions carry.  Yes, current church governance has strayed so far from the laypeople-elected bishops of the early church that it has devolved into placing the power in the pope’s hand to just decree things…no lobbying required by the pope to gain mindshare from a single other elected official because there are none.

Francis has made some new Curia leadership appointments including in the Congregation for Clergy and the Congregation for Bishops.  However, he has left in place Pope Benedict’s head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith – a key office in the bureaucracy of governing priests.  Also, I am unaware of him issuing any motu proprios to adapt the bishop and pastor selection processes, their sweeping powers, or clergy governance processes. 

Things the pope controls could affect existing clergy immediately.  But, starting with seminary reform instead means effects will not be felt until the people wait for the bureaucracy of curriculum reform to occur (or not…), and then for the 4+ years of formation for seedling seminarians after the reforms take place, and then another 2 or so years before those priests become pastors. 

Though I appreciate Francis might be trying to minimize his own clericalism, the result is years if not decades more of suffering by the people.  And regardless, all the “formation of heart” in the world will not properly govern human priests acting like humans and especially human priests when they act inhuman.

How do we contribute to the “worst of evils” called “clericalism?”  What is our responsibility to eliminate this evil from our church?  Is it possible to eliminate clericalism ("the worst of evils") without eliminating the absolute monarchy of the pope? 

As background, here are Canon Law’s published reasons for removing a parish pastor:

• "A manner of acting which causes grave harm or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion"
• "Ineptitude or permanent illness of mind or body, which makes the parish priest unequal to the task of fulfilling his duties satisfactorily"
• "The loss of the parish priest’s good name among upright and serious-minded parishioners or aversion to him, when it can be foreseen that these factors will not quickly come to an end"
• "Grave neglect or violation of parochial duties which persists after a warning"
• "Bad administration of temporal good s with grave harm to the church when no other remedy can be found to eliminate this harm"

Here’s a quick summary of the removal process:

• Bishop must become aware of the inappropriate behavior
• Bishop must agree that the behavior is inappropriate.  These two steps alone can take years and many valid issues never even reach this point.  But if they do:
• The bishop conducts an investigation
• If concerns are founded, then the bishop discusses the matter with two other priests
• If they believe there is cause to proceed, then the bishop communicates the reasons to the priest and tries to persuade him to resign within 15 days
• If the pastor doesn’t reply within 15 days, the bishop renews his invitation to resign
• If the pastor doesn’t reply to the second notice then the bishop issues a decree
• If the priest opposes the case, the bishop invites him to review the case against him and provide his objections in writing
• This might need to be reviewed with the same two priests from the previous step
• If they decide the removal is still substantiated then there is another decree issued
• The priest can be removed from the parish at this point but the new pastor cannot be assigned until the matter is resolved with the Vatican Curia and in the meantime the priest must be provided financial support
• By this time, the bishop may have moved to his next job or died, the priest may have retired or died, but, most likely, more people will have left the church.