Irregularity

Last week Philadelphia’s Archbishop Chaput said remarried divorced Catholics shouldn’t receive Communion unless they abstain from sex…likewise for same sex couples.  Furthermore, he said those same people shouldn’t be allowed to serve on parish councils, instruct the faithful, serve as lectors or dispense Communion.  (I think they can still operate heavy machinery and definitely can contribute financially.)  He feels such people are in “irregular” relationships that offer “a serious counter-witness to Catholic belief, which can only produce moral confusion in the community.”  

Coincidentally, that same week, a priest confessed to me that he is sexually active.  This places him in the worldwide majority of priests, since according to psychologists who study priests’ sexuality, 50% of U.S. priests and a higher percentage of priests from other global regions are sexually active.   By the way, this priest felt his sexual activity was “sinful” but seemed prepared to suffer this sin repeatedly in the future. 

Regardless of one’s opinion about the sinfulness of priests’ sexual relationships, aside from converted married former Anglican priests, any sexual activity Roman Catholic priests have is categorically dishonest and unhealthy because it is secretive. 

This guy, like other sexually active priests, which means the majority of priests, not only receives communion, he consecrates the host.   I guess Chaput is ok with sexually active priests receiving and consecrating the host because it’s not “irregular.”  It’s become so regular that it is the majority of priests who have secret, dishonest, unhealthy sexual relationships. 

Not only do sexually active priests consecrate and dispense communion, they lead parish councils, instruct the faithful, read the gospel, and preach all while leading an inherently dishonest life.  Archbishop Chaput, pardon me, but THAT is what I find a counter-witness and morally confusing.  I’ll go so far as to say the deception and hypocrisy are morally repugnant. 

Many laity are hypnotized by glittering chasubles and shiny chalices into believing priests actually abstain from sex.  It is my understanding that all priests regardless of sexual activity tend to know which ones are sexually active with women, with other men, or with minors.  The unwritten code of conduct is to turn one’s head to not see other priests’ sexual activity lest that priest make your sexual activity known.  And thus, they band together to form a sick group illusion to the faithful of abstaining from sex though actually having sex, all while instructing the faithful about how “sinful” their relationships are, and marginalizing them based upon those relationships which are usually 1000 times healthier than any relationship most priests have ever known.

It is time for the faithful to say, “No more!”  (“Non amplius!” for Latin fans.) No more lies about priests’ sexuality.  No more hypocrisy about sexual morality from men with the unhealthiest of unhealthy sexual relationships.  No more cult-like, zombie-esque laity accepting the celibacy myth either. 

Here’s what I suggest.  Walk up to your local priest and ask about his sex life.  Priests instruct about ours all the time.  They also serve in public roles that carry explicit restrictions around their sex lives.  So it’s entirely appropriate that we start openly discussing their sex lives.  Clergy’s sex lives deserve at least as much and probably far more scrutiny than that of remarried divorced or homosexual algebra teachers, who rarely weave moral theology into discussing things like the quadratic equation.

Why not walk up to the priest before Mass and ask, “When was the last time you had sex?  Was it with a man or a woman?  Have you gone to confession since having sex or are you planning to celebrate Mass in a state of mortal sin?  How many times have you had sex, confessed and then had sex again?  True reconciliation requires a firm commitment to amend your behavior.  I just want to make sure you’re not doing anything that is morally confusing before I receive communion you consecrated.”   Try using a questionnaire if verbally asking these intimidates you.

Most likely even if the priest just zipped his pants 30 seconds before your discussion, he will deny being sexually active.  Don’t waiver because in addition to having the moral fiber to engage in secretive sex, priests also are capable of lying.  It is actually a requirement for their secret sex lives.  For example, the priest about whom I spoke, previously elaborately, explicitly and emphatically spoke about his total abstention from sex…which turned out to be an elaborate, explicit and emphatic total lie.    

If he blusters, calmly remind him that his clerical brotherhood fixates on sexual morality so you feel obligated inquiring about his sex life.  Good leaders lead by example so you just want to understand the example he sets. 

By the way, the code word often used in lieu of saying “sex” is “celibacy lapse.”  Help him understand that they are the same thing.  If he’s had a celibacy lapse, he’s had sex.  Point out that many remarried divorced people are probably just having celibacy lapses themselves.  Likewise for homosexual couples…just celibacy lapses. 

Mind you, I disagree with the clergy celibacy/chastity requirement.  But, it is the current requirement and is certainly no secret to any man entering the priesthood.  It’s a rather universally known fact amongst Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  And, spiritual credentials and privileges are often instantly granted based upon this sham of a “sacrifice.”  Thus, though I disagree with the requirement, I firmly believe a sexually active priest should leave the priesthood and enter a healthy, honest, committed relationship.  If all sexually active priests did this, we would be left with precious few priests, driving the crisis needed for change.  I applaud the 125,000 or so priests since the 1960s who have done this already.

As previously mentioned, I think secretive relationships are categorically unhealthy.  Furthermore, I worry about children conceived in these relationships who are either aborted or raised without knowing truthfully who their fathers are.  But, I find the hypocrisy and deceit the most difficult to swallow.  Sexually active priests, having only secret, dishonest, unhealthy sexual relationships revile the laity for their sexual practices, especially those in "irregular" situations who do so in an open, honest and healthy manner. 

I have more respect for my homosexual relatives and friends who publicly affirm their commitment through marriage than I have for any priest who skulks around in secret having sex while pretending he doesn’t, trying to hide his partner, deluding himself that his situation is special because he has a “holy calling” but still has this irresistible need to have sex.  Become an Anglican priest and answer your calling while engaging in an honest sexual relationship.  That’s assuming the priest wants to have a committed relationship versus being what the kids these days call “a player,” one who prefers sex in non-committed relationships, freely moving from partner to partner.  Sorry, but players’ values conflict with Christian leadership moral guidelines.  Please just leave the priesthood if you're a player..

Bottom line regarding Abp Chaput’s sex related guidelines: I say, “You first.”  You priests recuse yourselves from ministry based upon your sexual practices first and then worry about the laity after that’s all tidied up.  In the meantime, Cardinal Sarah’s new suggested guideline for celebrating Mass with priests’ backs to the congregation might be so priests shamefully hide from facing the people they regularly dupe.  Or, maybe he just thinks priests’ asses are so darn attractive that we’d rather see them than the host.   

Which lives are you "pro?"

Truly, when I publish a blog article, I think it is my last one...until...something in the church cries out for commentary that does not seem to be getting expressed.

First, my last blog article about sexually active priests quickly catapulted to one of my most read articles.  I am always humbled that people invest their time reading my blog.  

But, I neglected to highlight one extremely important point in that article so I will do so now before delving into some recent comments Pope Francis made.  The one African priest discussing priests' sexual activity with me blurted out, almost as a defense for priests not honoring the implied chastity of their celibacy, that such sexually active priests do so in "secret."  What he saw as insignificantly dismissible, making priests' sexual activity permissible, to me exposes significant moral disconnect and systemic foundational rot in the church.

Over 125,000 priests have fallen in love and done the honorable and healthy thing for themselves, their lovers and their relationships...they married.  And as a reward for their honest, healthy relationships, these men were expelled from the priesthood.  

Instead, we are left with the cowardly, selfish priests who engage in sexual relationships that they hide as though their lovers are some sort of embarrassing sin whom they publicly pretend do not exist so that they may continue in their prestigious role, deluding themselves that they serve some higher purpose as a priest, and therefore it's ok to stuff their lovers in closets...for the greater good of humanity.  These insidious men, who number 50% of the priesthood, are the ones we are stuck with...playing some perverted charade that they, who are fundamentally dishonest about their relationships and sexuality, provide the most astute moral guidance to lay people about human relationships and sexuality.  Is my mind the only one numbed by the painful realities this demonstrates about the clergy's moral fiber and the resulting systemic societal impact of revering categorically dishonest men as ultimate guardians of truth?

Continuing in the category of mind numbing moral pain inflicted by clergy, let us turn our attention to Pope Francis' recent statements about condom usage to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.  A reporter posed this moral question to him and the pope replied that he did not need to consider that question until African food and water security issues were solved.  He rather dismissed HIV/AIDS as some obscure insignificant threat to life.  Yet, if we read reports from the World Health Organization, we see this disease as a front-runner astride malaria as a leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa.  

Francis, what gives?  Truly, that ranks among the most callous statements dismissing human lives that you've ever said.

Even if it were true to portray sub-Saharan Africa's 60% hold on all HIV/AIDS cases worldwide as insignificant...and it is not true...to say we should not concern ourselves with easily, I repeat, EASILY saving those lives until other concerns are addressed is like saying we should not treat prostate cancer to prevent the annual 27,540 deaths attributable to it until we first eliminate lung, breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer because they all account for WAY more deaths.  "Sorry guys with prostate cancer, but we can't be morally concerned about preventing your deaths until we eliminate the cool kids' types of cancer?"

I find myself wondering how often the pope listens to what he says or reflects upon what he said and thinks, "Yowsers!  Jet lag struck again!  Senior moment!  Stupid, callous thing to say!"  But, words are a little like toothpaste squeezed out of the tube...difficult and messy to undo.

But both topics leave me wondering, "which lives are you 'pro'?"  Evidently not lives whose acknowledgement would require humble honesty about clergy sexuality and relationships, nor ones which saving would require humble reclassification of a tool as "good" that they have invested years demonizing due to their twisted understanding about what it means to have healthy sexual relationships open to life.  

Maybe it is time to right the barque of Peter and resume allowing clergy to have honest sexual relationships...reinstating the honest clergy who married their partners, re-permitting clergy to marry, and at the same time, ridding church leadership of the 50% of clergy with dishonest sexual relationships.  

Pope Francis, you could do much for the church's and your personal credibility if you did two things: 1) re-instate a married clergy and 2) publicly correct your callous statement dismissing the lives of 36.1 million people with HIV/AIDS.  Really, truly, those 36.1 million lives matter and it is immoral to not prevent the preventable to save them. Absolutely, infallibly, immoral.

Why do Catholics leave the church?

Ever since my daughter’s copy of “The Rolling Stone” magazine arrived with Pope Francis’ smiling face on the cover, Dr. Hook’s 1970s song, “Cover of the Rolling Stone”, has been playing in my head.  I keep wondering if Francis “bought five copies for his mother.” 

According to the song’s lyrics, making the cover of “The Rolling Stone” epitomizes success, beyond any amount of money or other material goods.  Therefore, in today’s world of spirtu-tainment approaches to faith, I wondered if church attendance was sky-rocketing with a Francis “bump.” 

As luck would have it, that same week the local parish bulletin published the diocese’s October, 2013 Mass count numbers.   In 2013 6 of the 10 diocesan counties experienced their all-time lowest Mass attendance since the history of Mass-counting began.  Overall diocesan Mass attendance was down year to year in 2013.  These reflect similar findings of a Pew Research study which indicated 2013 U.S. Mass attendance dropped.  Furthermore, between 2000 and 2013 my diocese’s overall geographic population grew 3% yet diocesan Mass participation dropped 28%.  At my parish we rattle around like B-Bs in a shoebox.

Evidently Francis alone cannot reverse the multi-year downward participation spiral.  Why not? 

Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) conducted a survey about Mass attendance.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t tell an accurate story because CARA limited respondents’ choices for reasons they miss Mass to the following:

Busy schedule or lack of time

Family responsibilities

Health problems or a disability

I don’t believe missing Mass is a sin

Conflict with work

Inconvenient Mass schedule

I’m not a very religious person

There are glaring omissions from that list.  CARA’s survey provided more insight as to their sincerity for understanding the issue than on the issue itself.

The Pew Forum conducted a more insightful study entitled, “Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S.” which inquired why people changed religions and to what religion they migrated.  This 2009 study indicated that former Catholics number as one of the largest religious demographic groups with an almost even split between ex-Catholics becoming unaffiliated versus joining another denomination.   Here’s a summary of the most common reasons for leaving the Catholic Church.

 

Responses from a 2013 Vatican survey about marriage, family and sexuality are also trickling into the public domain.  Regardless of country, common themes repeatedly appear that strongly align with the Pew Forum study’s top reasons for leaving the church.  Therefore, it would seem many remaining Catholics are “at risk” for departure since their frustrations mirror those of already departed Catholics.  It would also seem urgent to address these issues.

It’s been 5 years since the insightful Pew Forum study.  How are the departure reasons being addressed?

To slow or reverse the exodus, church leaders embarked on a “New Evangelization” campaign.  This seems to consist of telling people with whom they disagree that they are wrong and/or damned but delivering the message with a perky smile, modern lingo and perhaps a “friendly” handshake or over an adult beverage.  I suspect that just more regularly and stridently, or even more “kindly” and colloquially deriding people will only lose not regain members.  The statistics seem to support my assertion.

“New Evangelization” tactics seem based on incorrect assumptions that lapsed Catholics don’t know church dogma or scripture and just need these screamed or sung at them in bars, Jesus pep rallies, and other spiritu-tainment venues until the person wakes up and says, “Hallelujah, I’m going back to church.”  However, study after study reveals Catholics do know dogma and just disagree with, if not outright reject facets of it.  Church doctrine espouses this practice as a way of fostering the organization’s continual maturation but many church leaders reject it.  Furthermore, many Catholics left the church because of familiarity with gospel teachings and belief that the hierarchy strayed too far from those teachings.  Floating amongst all this is a lot of “us vs them” mentality.

Strongly fueling the “us vs them” mindset is the hierarchy’s belief that it has cornered the markets on truth and correctly interpreting scripture.  Insistence on supreme “listening-to-God” qualities creates an impasse perhaps beyond resolution.  It is impossible to be just “us” - one integrated Body of Christ - as long as any individuals or factions believe they serve a superior versus a different function within the body.   The Spirit is violated and faith in the Holy Trinity is replaced by worship of the organization itself via making adherence to “tradition” more sacred than truth or love.

If church leaders sincerely want lapsed Catholics back, it’s time to quit before getting farther behind in the infallibility game.  It already has pinned the institutional church into what the hierarchy perceives is an inescapable and what others perceive is an intolerant extremist corner on homosexuality, birth control, treatment of women, divorce and remarriage as well as abortion – the top reasons people leave the church.  In the past 5 years there have been increased political lobbying expenditures and activities, excommunications, threats of excommunications and job terminations pertaining to all those topics.  I suspect if the Pew Forum survey were taken now, the top departure reasons would be even more pronounced.    

Continuing down the list of departure reasons, we hit the sex abuse tragedy.  The institutional church refuses to address the clergy abuse scandal in an effective way that holds bishops accountable and works towards institutional reconciliation.  Instead it continually tries to downplay the scandal’s impact and existence despite scandal after scandal unfolding and the recent publication of a scathing U.N. report.   

Right after sex abuse we hit clergy celibacy.  A simple stroke of Francis’ pen reinstates the practice of married clergy because no theological reason prevents it.  Why hasn’t this happened? 

We finally arrive at topics associated with clergy’s personal charm and Mass quality.  The cardinals did select a personally charming pope, charming enough to make the cover of The Rolling Stone.  Aside from that, there’s a reversion to the Council – not the Second Vatican Council but the 1500s Council of Trent.  Seminarians seem dipped in heavy impenetrable wax coatings of Tridentine philosophy which features weak biblical scholarship, fears the God-created world, promotes misinformation about human biology, sexuality and psychology and further fosters an “us vs them” relationship with the laity.  Significant investments were made to re-translate the Mass but this was done to adopt more Tridentine-esque language and aura despite about 90% of former Catholics saying the church’s departure from old traditions had absolutely nothing to do with their departure from the church.

Help me understand how re-entrenching on things that caused people’s departures while “fixing” things that didn’t is going to bring people back?  Is there an ounce of sincerity in lamentations about missing those who’ve left if even the simplest reforms are not made?

Please note that Francis’ laudable favorite topic of poverty is pretty far down the list of reasons people leave the church.  Perhaps laypeople and religious sisters living Catholic Social Doctrine already defined the Catholic experience enough on this topic that finally having a pope aligned with it just doesn’t move the attendance needle.

Piecing this together makes sense.  Addressing Catholics’ lesser concerns by electing a more personable, poverty-minded pope does not negate ill effects from neglecting people’s most impacting concerns. 

Where do we go from here?  How do we work as “us” when groups continue to foster “us vs them” mentalities?  Is the Body of Christ – the church - really dismembered or just in diaspora?