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.

Take this message to my brother...

It’s snowing today although it’s Spring so people are talking excitedly.  But in a few days, the typical warmth of Spring will return and people will forget about it.  This kind of reminds me of last week’s brief flurry around Pope Francis’ desire to form a commission to study women deacons in the early church.  However, instead of blowing snow on a Spring day, it seemed to be a chinook wind bringing warmth in the deep of winter.  It seemed a remarkably rapid thaw after about 1,200 years of winter.  But, within days, the Vatican weather vane twisted again and the climate resumed its typical frigidity..."no, no, that's not what we mean..."

I hope people are not too disappointed or disheartened.  The pope’s statement contained weasel wording a la a marketing pitch.  He merely said he wanted to study women deacons in the early church.  He didn’t say he wanted to ordain women.  People jumped to that conclusion, because it’s justified and logical…but justice and logic are not strong suits amongst many churchmen. 

My guess was Francis suggested the study either to relegate women to some non-ordained sub-deacon status (oh, we already have that….), declare women were never ordained (though neither were any men originally…) and so we must continue marginalizing women and ignoring the Spirit, or offer women deacons as a small, picked over bone to women in hopes people will stop talking about women priests. 

If the commission happens, rest assured, it likely wouldn’t contain any women with a vote anyway.  And after recently discussing female biology with a soon-to-be-ordained seminarian who thought all birth control pills aborted conceived children rather than prevented conception via preventing ovulation (as in there is no egg to fertilize), I don’t hold a lot of hope for a commission of ordained men coming to any reasonable conclusions about women in the church.  So, I’m not sure I care if they hold this commission or not and I’m quite sure I care even less about their conclusions. 

You see, my dear ordained brethren, "You don't know me but I'm your brother," as in your sibling, your equal.  Yes, I am your sibling yet, "you don't know my kind in your world." (Doobie Brothers, "Takin' it to the Streets"). Opting to operate in a world that isolates you from women makes you far from experts about women.  It makes you one of the most ignorant groups of humans on the topic, in fact.  And when the topic of spirit inspired female leadership arises, the collective lot slinks into the vestment closet, fondling your silky robes like children with their security blankets, sucking your thumbs and crying, "Go away! You can't come in my imaginary fort! You have cooties!"

It’s Pentecost but the clergy’s fancy robes seem to shield them from being touched by the Spirit.  Mary announced the gospel’s first good news proclaiming the resurrected Christ to the brothers but women cannot even read the gospel at Mass. “Apostle” means “one who was sent” and Mary definitely was sent by Jesus.  But John Paul II who even admitted she was seen as “an apostle to the apostles” started the adamant, increasingly angry and uncharitable derision and excommunication of women following the Spirit’s call to ordination.  It’s Pentecost but the hierarchy is afraid of the Spirit.

No worries, people are not waiting for the Vatican to acknowledge the Spirit they see in women.  At an accelerating pace, Catholic women are being ordained in defiance of feebly constructed bans against it.  They are simply "takin’ it to the streets" because they are tired of ordained men tellin’ them the things they’re gonna do for them (a)…that don’t connect with history or reality.  They ain’t blind and they don’t like what they think they see so they are sending a message to their brothers (a).

Let the Spirit blow where it may.  Walk without fear, and don't wear such heavy robes that the Spirit cannot touch you.

As a side note, I have no desire to be ordained.  However, the prohibition against ordaining women drilled into the core of my being as a youth because it opened my eyes to marginalization of women, in the church and in society.  It is degrading, demeaning and discriminatory, but most of all ill-founded.

(a)    Loosely based upon the Doobie Brothers’ song, “Takin’ it to the Streets.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholics in your parish/diocese (C):_____

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of suggestions implemented (S):_____

Number of clergy originated suggestions implemented (s):_____

Number of leadership positions (L):_____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saint by numbers...

Next week’s double pope canonization extravaganza is creating a lot of sainthood “buzz” in the air right now.  Therefore, I thought I’d offer some tips for sainthood. 

First, Catholic dogma says the Communion of Saints includes official canonized and beatified saints, anybody in heaven, and all believers on earth.  So, if you believe in Jesus, congratulations, you’re already a saint!  You can stop reading now and go do something more productive.

However, this common, garden-variety sainthood does not land people on religious trading cards and rarely results in statues being erected in your honor, or churches, schools, and ritzy vacation spots being named after you.  If you’re going for that high-profile, high-revenue type of sainthood, then keep reading.

I’ve been plowing through saint records and building a database to catalog demographic information for well over 10% of the canonized and beatified folks.  If my calculations are correct, the sampling I’ve done so far yields statistics with a 3.5% margin of error for projections across the full canonized / beatified population.  Good news, some of these statistics are so skewed, the 3.5% margin of error is kitten’s play.

My advice if you want to be an officially recognized saint: 

1.  Be male.  Based on my sample set, 84% of canonized and beatified people were male.  You might scratch your head in confusion since 80% of the church’s work is done by women, and women are over 50% of the world’s population.  This might seem backwards to you.  No, no…I beg of you; don’t let facts, equity and reality confuse you.  If you insist on logic and equity, you probably should stop reading now before you injure your brain or sense of righteousness.  That statistic simply reflects church hierarchical members’ value system and helps us quantify it.  They see men as being over five times more virtuous and holy than women…end of story.   

2. Be a priest, monk, or religious brother.  About 60% of all official saints were ordained or religious males.  If we look at only the male saints…that tiny 84% majority of all saints…the number jumps to around 70% who were ordained or religious.  So if you’re going to be male, be a priest too, to up your odds.

3.  Be a bishop. 37% of saints and 44% of male saints were bishops or abbots.  I know the cynics are probably starting to suspect that the beatification and canonization process is simply a ruse for apostles to pat themselves and their own kind on the back…sort of as a self-glorification thing.  Again, let’s not get all hung up on facts.    

4.  Be pope.  Despite many papacies being riddled with scandals including the criminal behaviors of soon-to-be-canonized John Paul II in aiding and abetting child rapists, about 1/3 of all popes throughout the entirety of history have become saints.  To put this in perspective, let’s look at the ratio of saints across the full sea of Catholics.  Since I can’t find a statistic for the number of Catholics throughout all time, we’ll use the number for today’s 1.2 billion Catholics, knowing this will yield disproportionately high ratios.   

Using the number of saints across all history and current number of Catholics, we see that less than one one-thousandth of a percent of Catholics are canonized or beatified and less than 1/3 of one one-thousandth of a percent of laypeople are canonized or beatified.  This is compared to over 1/3 of popes being canonized or beatified.  The decimal place simply shifts five positions to the right for popes…a small factor of 100,000.  If you thought the statistic for bishop-saints reflected a mutual-admiration society, then you now realize it is simply a gentle air-kiss compared to the emphatic bear-hug of self-admiration amongst the popes.  

5. Be Italian or French.  About 22% and 17% of saints were from the geographic regions now called Italy and France respectively.  Again, please don’t be confused by the fact that Italian and French Catholics each represent only about 5% of the Catholic population.  If God evenly distributed saints, Brazil with 16% of the Catholic population would have 16% of the saints instead of the 4 tenths of one percent of saints that it actually has. 

Canonization and beatification are expensive businesses and though Brazil is swimming in Catholics, the per capita income is about a third and a quarter of Italy’s and France’s per capita income levels respectively.  Brazilians seem to be spending their money on frivolities like food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare instead of canonization and beatification…and these skewed priorities really show in their saint numbers.   

The same is true in Mexico with almost 10% of all Catholics yet less than 1% of Catholic saints, as well as the Philippines with about 7.5% of Catholics yet less than one tenth of one percent of saints.  You guessed it: Mexico’s and the Philippines’ per capita incomes are lower than even Brazil’s. 

Let's face it; the popes seem to believe it's more difficult to imitate Christ whilst walking and living amongst poor people. No wonder we have so many bishop mansions...two in my diocese...one for the active and emeritus bishops each.  They are simply trying to increase their chances for sainthood by fleeing the impoverished.  

I know you might be thinking, "...but didn't Jesus walk amongst the poor...matter of fact...wasn't Jesus one of the poor?"  Yeah, yeah, yeah...but that guy could walk on water, too.  Let's give the bishops a fighting chance and let them live where people can better afford virtuous behavior or at least better afford to pay for creating images of virtuous behavior.

6. Be a Benedictine.  Saints from Benedictine religious orders are outpacing the next most prevalent order at a six to one ratio.

7.  If you insist on being female…which really craters your chances of sainthood…then for heaven’s sake, do not have sex, or if you do, be of royal birth. 70% of female saints were nuns or virgins and only a paltry 5% of saints were females who were neither nuns, virgins, or royalty.  This compares to 25% of saints that were males who were neither ordained, religious or royalty.  Again, we have laymen outpacing laywomen at a 5 to 1 ratio in the virtuous category. 

But you see, many of those virtuous, holy non-ordained men were soldiers who killed in the name of Jesus, the Prince of Peace.  Perhaps this is why we have St. Adrian as the patron saint of arms dealers…who knew we needed a patron saint of arms dealers….  But, I digress.  If you’re going to insist on being a sexually active female, your best chances for canonization might be to carry a weapon.  It worked for Joan of Arc but then she was burned at the stake as a heretic…and I think maybe she was a virgin too.  Oh, never mind…  Let's face it; sexually active women, are pretty much screwed when it comes to vying for sainthood.

Let me paint an even clearer picture as to the value the church hierarchy ascribes to women and their work via the canonization process.  The stats show us the popes believe:

• Men are 5 times more virtuous and holy than any woman
• Men are about 17 times more virtuous than sexually active women
• Popes are over 270,000 times more virtuous and holy than any woman
• Popes are over 860,000 times more virtuous and holy than sexually active women

Hence, we see John Paul II, a man whose criminal neglect enabled the rape of thousands of children, being canonized next week while Mother Teresa, who merely imitated Christ by caring for the poorest of the poor, still awaits canonization.  At least Mother Teresa was an avowed religious woman so her chances of making full sainthood are exponentially better than those of any mother who actually bore and raised children.

8.  If you can time your death, try to die on May 1^st.  There seem to be over 1.5 times more saints who died on May 1^st than who died on the next most common date for saints’ deaths.

So, I think the optimal saint profile is this: Italian male Benedictine pope (or bishop) who dies on May 1^st.  It also helps to either have a lot of wealth or hang-out with wealthy people who can fund your canonization process.  Oddly enough, aside from the date of death dimension, that bears striking resemblance to the people who canonize and beatify people…hmmm.  Interesting. 

Do you think the list of canonized saints accurately reflects the most holy and virtuous people in history?  Do you care?  Does the heavy skew towards canonizing hierarchy members expose a deep brokenness in them that they feel the need to memorialize their herd in this way?  Do we help fuel the canonization industry?  Should we?

Bonus question for the hierarchy: If you are concerned about the societal devaluation of motherhood, should you perhaps be first examining your behaviors towards women and mothers?  Do you treat them even as good as secular society does?

A little Easter levity for you.  Easter joy this day and always!

Reflections on Theology of the Body

My last blog highlighted some profoundly sexist and misogynist quotes from church doctors in the 4^th and 13^th centuries.  A few people dismissed my concerns as being ancient church history long since corrected.  So, for the edification of those who think sexism and misogyny are a thing of the past in the Church, please direct your attention to John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.”  This is a series of lectures JPII delivered between 1979 and 1984 during his weekly Wednesday pope pep-rallies, also called “papal audiences.” 

WARNING: this material may cause adverse side effects.   Tell your priest, bishop or pope if any of these symptoms are severe or do not go away after consuming this material: nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, heartburn or gas, consternation, decrease in appetite, dizziness, drowsiness, exhaustion, headache, confusion, anxiety, uncontrolled sudden body movements, shaking of a part of your body that you cannot control such as in laughter, frequent or urgent need to urinate especially when accompanied by uncontrolled laughter, or dry mouth.

Some side effects can be serious. If you experience any of the following symptoms, call the pope immediately: hallucinations, fainting, chest pain, shortness of breath, or difficulty swallowing this material.

People with exposure to Vatican II or suffering from severe critical thinking skills may have a greater risk of developing side effects than people without exposure to Vatican II, hyper-Vatican II resistance, or impaired critical thinking skills.  Some people reading this material and other similar materials have developed fibrotic changes (scarring or thickening) in their minds.  It is not yet known whether this problem is caused exclusively by “Theology of the Body”. Talk to God about the risk of consuming this material.

O.K., with that warning clearly labeled, let us proceed.  By JPII’s 5^th lecture in Theology of the Body we learn that God created women because men were in solitude, and in the 6^th lecture we read, “You can’t understand the creation of woman unless you understand man’s solitude.”  JPII does acknowledge that the word “adam” actually means a genderless “human being” not a “male” as is oft mistranslated in modern biblical texts.  And he even acknowledges that God created man and woman as equals.  It’s just that as you continue reading you realize he’s a bit Orwellian with “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

By lecture #8 JPII explains that woman is man’s helper and in the 9^th lecture that woman is made for man.  He then provides protracted explanations as to why God created female humans.  Male and female cats, dogs, elephants and dik-diks (African antelopes) all can just be accepted as givens, but not male and female humans, I guess.  Evidently that one is a tricky problem that JPII needs to help us understand almost as though he thinks creation of male humans is assumed but the creation of female humans is not. 

In lecture #10 we learn that “femininity finds itself in the presence of masculinity while masculinity is ‘confirmed’ through femininity” and that women are to submit their whole humanity to “the blessing of fertility.”  We also learn that a woman’s motherhood “has origin” in men though this defies human biology.  Evidently according to JPII, a woman can’t be a woman unless there is a man to define her as such and a man does this by impregnating her and making her a mother.  This in turn, makes him a man.  Wow, fascinating sexism based upon nothing other than JPII’s imaginative interpretation of a few verses in the book of Genesis. 

The next few chapters continue the sexist themes, sexist language and sexist assumptions of other lectures so I won’t bore you with details.  However, we soon arrive upon lecture #17 where JPII explains that woman is a “gift” to man therefore she is forever to be “received” by man and “discovers herself because she was accepted by man.”  “Man above all else receives the gift.”  “Woman is entrusted to his eyes, consciousness, to his sensitivity, to his heart.”  Well my, my…evidently I was just created to sit by the roadside like a pretty little rose waiting to be picked by some gent who will give my life meaning.   

It not only seems to escape JPII that he spouts degrading sexism, he seems to think that women should just be leaping around him sprinkling flowers at his feet thanking him for giving us this definition of ourselves.  Oddly and ironically, in other writings like Mulieris Dignitatem, JPII keeps referring to women as “a mystery.”  How is it that women like me are supposed to be defined by men like him who find women so mysterious?  By the way, being one, I don’t find women mysterious.  It seems fitting that I write this on “Columbus Day”, a U.S. holiday that commemorates a European man “discovering” a continent that existed with inhabitants for hundreds of years before this guy arrived. Similarly JPII seems to have "discovered" women kind of like Marlin Perkins on Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom."  "Here we observe the female in her natural habitat..."

The 21^st lecture is a veritable treasure trove of sexism.  JPII repeats, “The mystery of femininity is manifested and revealed completely by means of motherhood.”  I guess he thinks that women without children aren’t women.  This would come as a surprise to many fine women.  But fear not, in several later lectures he tells us that virgins are actually superior to women who have sex; I guess he thinks they are "superior" but just aren’t really women.  Again, “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal.”

Here are a few other charmers from the 21^st lecture.

“The one who knows is the man, and the one who is known is the woman-wife. It is as if the specific determination of the woman, through her own body and sex, hid what constitutes the depth of her femininity.”  There she goes hiding her femininity again until some man boinks her so she can know she’s a real woman.

I like to call this next quote, “JPII must have flunked biology.”  “The constitution of the woman is different, as compared with the man. We know today that it is different even in the deepest bio-physiological determinants. It is manifested externally only to a certain extent, in the construction and form of her body.”  According to JPII men and women have practically nothing in common from a bio-physiological standpoint but the woman just hides all these wild differences by having an outer shell that reveals this “only to a certain extent.”  By this I’m assuming he means enlarged mammary glands.  Regardless, according to my family and friends in the medical profession, that bio-physical assertion is a lot of bio-physical bull excrement.

JPII continues his lecture by adding, “Maternity manifests this constitution internally, as the particular potentiality of the female organism.  With creative peculiarity it serves for the conception and begetting of the human being, with the help of man.”  Best I can conclude from this lecture, JPII thinks that the existence of female reproductive parts is the dead give-away that the entire internal workings of a woman are very different from that of a man.  “Bones” from Star Trek used to say, “My God, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a <fill in the blank>!”  But I think in this case we would have to say, “My God, John Paul, you’re a priest not a doctor!”

But really, we should stop having so much fun with JPII because someone might rightfully say that his Theology of the Body lectures ended in 1984, almost 30 years ago.  We could have more fun reading Mulieris Dignitatem, “Dignity of Women” written by JPII in October, 1988 but that still is 25 years old.  So, let’s fast-forward to today’s papal darling of the press, Pope Francis.  On Saturday October 12, 2013, we have Pope Francis uttering these humdingers:

He ties the entire existence of women to maternity and women's entire identity to it. "Many things can change and have changed in cultural and social evolution, but there remains the fact that it is the woman who conceives, carries and gives birth to the sons and daughters of men.  And this is not simply a biological fact, but also gives rise to a wealth of implications both for the woman herself, for her way of being, and for her relationships, for the way in which she positions herself with regard to human life and life in general.  In calling the woman to the role of maternity, God has in an entirely special way entrusted the human being to her."

Francis explains that the church is a woman and I guess he believes this should make women feel just super and elevated.  He says, "And it pleases me to think that the Church is not ‘il Chiesa’ [‘the Church’, masculine]: it is ‘la Chiesa’ [feminine]. The Church is a woman! The Church is a mother! And that’s beautiful, eh?"  

Well, a fork is also called "la forcella" (feminine article) not "il forcella" (masculine article) in Italian.  Should I feel elevated or degraded by that?  How about a whore which in Italian is called "la puttana" (feminine article) not "il puttana" (masculine article)?

I find calling an institution "female" which bars female ordained leadership, which bars females as official voices, downright insulting.  It's like saying, "The Church is a woman and mother and I, a man, speak for the Church but love the Church; so you too should be content that I love you but I will do all the speaking for you while you are off birthing children like a good mommy."  With all male ordained leaders, with all male official voices, no matter what gender article one uses, the Church is masculine because it is a festoon of male hegemony.

He also said that the “type of emancipation” allowing women to enter traditionally male roles "mortifies" women and their vocations.  Women, "...in order to occupy the spaces subtracted from the male, abandons the female, along with her valuable characteristics."  Ah, I guess Frank thinks me being an engineer “done ruined me.”  Clearly, I will not fetch a good bride price.

But, the really comical statement is this, "And here I would like to emphasize that women have a particular sensibility for 'matters of God', especially in helping us to understand mercy, tenderness and the love that God has for us."  This is ridiculously sexist, painting women as fluffy clouds billowing around giving all the hugs, rainbows and smiley faces of the world.  But, it also makes one question if he thinks women are so gosh-darned superior at "matters of God", why aren't they priests?  Seems like they are the natural choice if you accept Francis' statement.

O.K., this is all a bunch of sexist claptrap and we can laugh about it or groan and roll our eyes.  However, Theology of the Body is what is being taught to an abundance of Catholic school children.  It is what is being taught to Catholic religious education students.  It is what is being taught to couples in marriage preparation.  It is the new Holy Grail housing the “updated” version of Catholic sex education. 

With 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, this is a concern not only to the church but to society because it is an organized effort to re-enslave women into subservient roles and sexist stereotypes.  What is the proper response to Theology of the Body?  What is the proper response to Francis’ perpetuation of the same sexist stereotypes and ignorance?  If you suffered any of the adverse side effects mentioned in the warning statement, what will you do?  Will you permit your sons and daughters to be fed this sexist ignorance and label it as truth?  Most importantly, what witness do you give in your treatment of women and men?  Are they "equal" or "equal with some being more equal than others?"

And Francis, my kids have a great expression that you might want to heed, “Quit while you’re not too far behind.”  If you can’t say anything about women except sexist platitudes, please just be quiet.  If you espouse these sexist stereotypes as “truth” please do women and society a favor and don’t develop that “deep theology of women” that you suggested.  We already have enough sexist statements from male clergy.  By the way Francis, I’m still waiting for a response to my letter.  Tick, tick, tick, I will be in Rome in less than a month.  I would be very happy to chat in person about women and sexism in the church. 

*****
I edited this article since original publication after seeing a more complete transcript of the pope's comments.