Reverting to Type

Dear readers,

Long time, no transmit...so long it took me a while to remember how to post a blog.

I last wrote on October 14, 2018, an article about my pastor’s resignation due to committing, “sexual harassment.”  I speculated at that time that he must have harassed a man and probably a priest for such rapid decisive action.  Sorry for the delayed update, but I did talk to the parish administrator shortly after writing that article and he confirmed I was correct on both accounts: the pastor sexually harassed a priest and in the Roman Catholic tradition, that means he harassed a man.  I wish the church hierarchy was not so predictable when it comes to sexism.  But, there it is.

Since my last blog, I’ve had two kids get married, one parent decline into dementia and die, a traumatic brain injury and a few other things that occupied my time.  And now there is the matter of this pandemic.

There is a saying that during a crisis, people “revert to type.”  During more normal times a person might work to overcome certain characteristics but when the crisis happens, the mask comes off.  This raw character exposure is called “reverting to type.”

So what are we seeing amongst our hierarchy, our fellow believers and ourselves?  Are we living our stated value of protecting the vulnerable?

I think my local bishop is sincerely trying to do what is best, given that every day brings new insights about this virus.  Before government officials issued a stay-at-home order, he suspended liturgies.  Though religious organizations were granted an exemption during the stay-at-home order, he continued suspending Masses.  This Monday, weekday Masses will resume, permitting only 5% building capacity in attendance.  This will gradually increase over the coming months to higher percentage capacity attendance and more liturgies.  The diocesan staff has written extensive and well thought out guidelines aligned with the best medical guidance available, and update policies based upon new scientific findings.  At the same time, the diocese is focused on providing assistance to those suffering financially. When my bishop reverted to type during this crisis, he exposed the depth of his care for his flock.  Kudos on that. 

So, did I pull my laptop out of storage after about a year and a half hiatus just to praise my bishop?  No.  Though I support his pandemic-related actions, I am finding much fodder elsewhere for reflection as I observe behaviors. 

If you say you are “pro-life” yet don’t observe social distancing, don’t wear a mask to protect others, and rationalize that “old people die anyway so open up this economy,” please realize you are a fraud.  When you reverted to type, you demonstrated that you are all about caring for the vulnerable as long as the people expected to sacrifice to do so don’t include you.  Your first love is what is in your wallet.   When that appeared threatened, you caved and threw grandma and grandpa under the bus along with any other vulnerable person.  You scoff at women who cite financial distress as reason for seeking an abortion, labeling them as selfish monsters who are willing to sacrifice a vulnerable life for their financial security.  However, when it is your financial security that is threatened, you think it makes perfect sense to sacrifice the vulnerable with a callous, “they were gonna’ die anyway…”.  You’re a fraud.  Admit it and own it.  And expect to be challenged when next you try to assume moral high ground with your pretentious condemnations of others at the next elections.  You cashed in your credibility.

Similarly, if you call yourself pro-life and are supporting businesses and business owners that flaunt public health directives, you too are a fraud.  Though my bishop does not fall into this category, I do know of other Roman and Orthodox Catholic clergy who do.  They especially are frauds.  Why is it that you are at peace sacrificing the vulnerable when their protection interferes with your or your buddy’s freedom and autonomy to get a haircut or open a barber shop but you are completely intolerant of a woman saying she should have freedom and autonomy regarding her body?  Your philosophy,  is it that you think it is just the natural order of the world that some vulnerable people must die in order for the sanctified vanity of haircuts to continue but no vulnerable lives should ever die for trivial things like women’s health?  Yeah, you’re a fraud too.  Admit it and own it.  And pray do not try assuming any moral high ground come election time.  You cashed in your credibility for something like a haircut.

If you are suddenly super worried about the poor starving people in third world countries or even here in the US because you think stay-at-home orders which happen to inconvenience you are somehow putting these folks in greater vulnerability, please ask yourself: a) how much did you worry about the poor before these stay-at-home orders were issued, b) how aware are you of the impact your lifestyle and voting choices have in creating or sustaining poverty, c) what have you actually done to help address economic vulnerability amongst the poor pre-pandemic.  I know some folks sincerely not only worried about but acted to alleviate poverty before the pandemic.  However, if your concern for the poor suddenly emerged because you can use them as a poorly equipped phalanx to protect your financial self-interests, then you too are a fraud, especially if once the pandemic subsides, you resume your lifestyle and voting choices that disregard the poor’s needs.

 I might add that demographically, the working poor, often uninsured, are over-represented in occupying higher risk, lower protection, front-line jobs during this pandemic.  In the US, African Americans represent a much higher percentage of pandemic casualties due to co-morbidity factors often associated with poverty.  I do so hope that your concern for the poor includes addressing these issues versus feigning care for the poor whilst actually sacrificing their health for the health of your retirement account.  In that case, you would be reverting to type of using the poor and vulnerable for your own gain.

If anywhere in your possessions or social media bylines you have something that says, “What would Jesus do,” please be aware that Jesus was all about curing and healing not rationalizing death so he could gad about more freely and continue accruing wealth.  He said something like, “go sell everything, give it to the poor, and follow me,” not, “go sacrifice the poor so you can accumulate more shit and do whatever the hell pleases you.”  That latter message is more aligned with something one might hear on Fox News, which is an entirely different religion apart from and often conflicting with as well as perverting Christianity.

Amidst all this, a former religious education student of mine offered some of the wisest counsel.  He said, “We need to be empathetic.”  Yes, he is spot on.  We need to have empathy for the financially vulnerable, even the ones who were vulnerable before the pandemic and will continue to be after the pandemic.  We need to be empathetic towards the physically vulnerable, especially during the pandemic but afterwards too. 

An empathetic person dons a mask as a way of protecting another person versus deriding health experts for recommending their use, or deriding those who do don them.  If your medical credentials come from the University of Google, the University of Facebook or the University of Memes, please just stop trying to pass yourself off as an expert.

It is also lacking in empathy to deride people for listening to experts or the experts themselves by labeling them as fearful or fearmongers.  Those folks shouting for things to resume to pre-pandemic status must acknowledge that they fear too.  It is just that their fears fall into different categories.  Some fear financial impact.  Some fear loss of autonomy.  It is still fear.  It is ok and healthy to admit you fear the economic impact.   However, it is an unhealthy bullying practice to accuse others of fear without acknowledging yours.  Such tactics try to humiliate others into bowing to address your fears by diminishing their concerns all whilst saving face for your ego through presenting a false bravado.

This pandemic presents two problems: a global public health crisis and a global economic crisis.  We, as one Body in Christ must acknowledge the two crises and work together to address both.  That will involve sacrificing autonomy and financially in some instances.  Let us pull together, doing what Jesus would do, by being empathetic and caring for each other.  This pandemic crisis is exposing you as a Christian.  Are you reverting to type of graciously bowing to other’s needs in imitation of Christ or are you reverting to type of using Christianity as a front for your selfishness and hypocritically expecting others to sacrifice but not you.

Be safe and be well.  Hopefully I won't wait another 19 months to write again. 

Poverty pimping....

The Mass I attended this Sunday ended as it typically does, with applause…a resounding, “Yay for us!”  It’s a big reason I actively avoid this parish. The homily and the announcements echoed the same message, “Yay us” whilst metaphorically pounding each other with hearty congratulatory, “good job” pats on the back. 

Allow me to elaborate on the “Yay us” messages…parenthetical statements are my commentary. 

The deacon gave the homily and described how he, his brother deacons and their (dutiful) wives (bowing to the church hierarchy’s sexist clergy hegemonic praxis) spent a day last September at an economically challenged parish in Flint, Michigan…(the city of famed poisoned water due to short-term cost-cutting decisions made by public officials, many of whom were supported by the Michigan Catholic Conference of Bishops and their pay-pray-and-obey followers).  He explained how this group of “humble servants” ministered to people in that neighborhood, “helping transform their lives” (seemingly oblivious to any connection between voting and lifestyle patterns as causes of poverty which transformed lives in a negative way.)

Are you envisioning his uni-directional arrow of “goodness” flowing from his “us” of deacons and their wives to his “them” of the economically challenged yet?  In case not, please allow me to continue.

He also described that while members of his “us” group took turns piously praying before the exposed Blessed Sacrament, a few women from his “them” group who “by the way they were dressed you could guess that they were ladies of the night” knelt at the altar too.  This he celebrated as some dramatic transformational “turn away from sin” moment.  (He seemed oblivious to his arrogant sinful judgement about these women simply based upon their attire and, even if he guessed their profession accurately, isolated them in sin without mentioning the sins of their male clients…thus overlooking his own sin of sexism as well….but…”yay us.”)

The group distributed backpacks filled with school supplies to about 900 children (many if not most of whom are more economically vulnerable since September due to additional bishop-supported politicians failing to approve the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding renewal.)

Again, completely oblivious to the direct connection between the church hierarchy’s support for political candidates whose policies often worsen poverty, he seemed very proud of the “us” group for “helping” the “them” group and boasted how the “us” group’s work was helping the “them” group “turn away from sin” (which somehow he seemed to equate with poverty).

Mass concluded with extolling all the “great work” done by Catholic Charities and he even had board members who were present at Mass stand, be recognized and congratulated with applause…”Yay us…”

The cadence of “Yay us” messages made retaining my breakfast difficult because here’s what I heard.  “Look at all those sinful poor people and ‘yay us’ because we let God use us to help those poor sinful people on the margins.  Aren’t we the best Christians?  We even got some ‘bad girls’ to kneel in piety…aren’t we awesome?”  I cannot celebrate small gestures sprinkled upon poor people because I wish poverty did not exist.  I mourn the causes of poverty and examine my role in them.  I abhor people turning other’s misfortune into their feel-good-about-myself opportunities.

In my head I thought, “What profound arrogance!  The people most in need of transformation seem to be those congratulating and promoting themselves.”  But doesn’t this type of double exploitation of the poor reflect much of U.S. Catholicism right now?  First such Catholics support candidates, policies and practices that cause poverty or exploit those living in it, and then they undertake feel-good-about-myself “ministry,” the positive impact of which dwarfs in comparison to the damage their lifestyle inflicts upon the poor.

The recessional hymn was, “Be Not Afraid,” so I decided to confront the deacon who delivered the “Yay us” messages.  I expressed my concerns about sexism, arrogance, self-promotion and the exploitation of the poor in both contributing to their poverty and using ministry to the poor as a feel-good activity.  I told him doing the latter is what we call “poverty pimping” in that poor people become an instrument for other people to feel good about themselves. 

I am tired of hollow preaching pitying and denouncing others without climbing into their wounds to truly understand their situation.  I asked the deacon if he knew the major motivator for prostitutes to enter the business.  He acknowledged it was due to poverty, trying to feed themselves or their families.  I asked him if it is a sin to feed your family.  I asked him if the sin isn’t instead causing poverty that leaves prostitution as one of few options.  I asked him why he failed to mention the men who will pay women for sex but not to improve their economic situation so they don’t need to prostitute themselves.  He had no response other than that the church can’t solve politics.

I responded by paraphrasing a quote from the late Brazilian Archbishop Helder Camara, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.  When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.” 

The deacon responded that the church cannot worry about or address the political situations causing poverty.  Really?  That’s interesting.  I seem to recall we just prayed for a small army of parishioners who went to D.C. for the “March for Life.”  I thought the Michigan and US Conference of Catholic Bishops both spent a shit-ton of money towards electing and lobbying politicians based upon policies the bishops support.  I thought the Michigan bishops were working on a project to get more Catholics to engage in the civic arena.  I thought the hierarchy has been braying about the politics of “religious liberty.”  Or does the sexist Catholic hierarchy only try to influence politics that regulate women’s bodies?  Are the hierarchy just another set of poverty pimps using the poor as a way to feel good about themselves when they toss some crumbs in their direction?

I also asked the deacon how he can be so arrogant as to judge a person’s profession simply based upon their clothes.  He had no response.  I regret I did not share with him that my observation is people like politicians and priests who regularly prostitute themselves by suspending their morals to accept money from various interests tend to dress in suits and chasubles…  Was that what these women were wearing causing him to suspect they were prostitutes?

The deacon expressed an interest to further discuss my concerns but based upon his comments I suspect it is because he would like either to justify himself or “save” me.  I got no sense that he was learning from me. If I find some spare time, perhaps I will meet him and learn his motivation.   In the meantime, I will send him a link to this article and ask him to read it and a few others.  However, I do not wish to be used for yet another of his “yay me” moments.

Reflections on Mary's "yes"...

New Year’s Day brings us a Marian Feast Day, a day upon which many clergy will extol the virtues of Mary’s “yes.”  Calling Mary’s response a “yes” implies there was a question with the possibility of answering “no.”  But, did Mary really have a choice?  

In Luke’s gospel the angel Gabriel didn’t seem to ask Mary a question when he announced her impending pregnancy.  He didn’t say, “Mary, what do you think about becoming pregnant before you get married?”  Or, “Mary, would you be willing to have the Holy Spirit impregnate you even though this could totally screw up the partially transacted business deal of your marriage to Joseph and get you stoned to death?”  He just said it was going to happen and that she shouldn’t worry.  Gabriel’s statements were declarative not interrogative.    

In Matthew’s gospel, the announcement didn’t even come to Mary; it came to Joseph - who according to Mosaic Law did have options…quietly end the betrothal, accuse Mary of being damaged goods or complete the betrothal process and marry her, likely for a lower bride price.   Mary’s religious, social and legal status largely depended upon what Joseph said and did, not what she said or did.      

The non-canonical gospel of James offers some insight into Mary’s early life, telling us Mary’s parents, Anna and Joachim, donated her to be a temple virgin when she was about three years old.  If I had done similarly with any of my daughters, I would probably be in prison for child neglect or human trafficking.   However, the church sings the praises of Anna and Joachim, calling them saints.

What is the likelihood a child donated at and conditioned since three possesses sufficient critical thinking skills to realize, assess and exercise any of her options, limited and unpalatable as they may be?   

Some might dismiss this with a hand-wave, saying that those were different times - and they were.  Children and women were considered property with zero to few rights.  They had very little legal voice to oppose authority.   Would she have even thought “no” was a possible response?

According to Luke’s infancy narrative, Mary’s response to Gabriel’s announcement was that things should be done unto her according to Gabriel’s word.  That seems predictable based upon her childhood experiences…pretty ho-hum given the context, some might say.  Personally, I would be more amazed if she had said, “Gabe, Thanks, but no.”  Please note, I’ve not found saying “no thanks” to God to be a consistently reliable technique for God sparing me from things I do not want to endure.  So even if Mary said “Gabe…not gonna lie on this one…not loving your tidings…please tell the Lord to favor someone else” would that have prevented her pregnancy according to her wishes?

More interesting to me than Mary’s “yes” was her referring to herself as a “handmaiden of the Lord.”  In ancient Hebrew culture, a handmaiden’s married female owner could order the handmaiden to sleep with her husband to conceive a child on her behalf if the wife was unable to conceive.  Sarah ordering her handmaiden, Haggar, to sleep with Abraham to bear a child is such an example. 

The husband could not order the handmaiden to be sexual proxy for his wife; only the wife could do this.  Therefore, I wonder if Mary carried feminine rather than masculine imagery of God…in that her response was to consider herself conceiving a child as proxy for God…something culturally she would only do for her female owner?

We actually know almost no facts about Mary.  Over the years, myths evolved adding details based upon supposition and imagination rather than fact.  Eventually some of the details within those myths were declared infallible doctrine by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII - her being conceived immaculately/free from original sin, and her being assumed into heaven - sucked up by a Holy Hoover vacuum cleaner into heaven rather than taking the standard route by dying.  As an aside, her perpetual virginity has never been declared infallible doctrine, although it is doctrine.

Though we know little about Mary, we know a little more about Mosaic Law and the status of women at the time.  In some respects it offered women a degree of financial security not offered in other cultures at the time.  But if you read the various details regarding women’s virginity and legal implications for tampering with it, you see that women get a pretty raw deal.  They are property; they are objects upon which to be acted; their punishments are more severe, etc…  The list of marginalizing aspects is long.

Fast forward through history to today and we see that though some women have progressed in financial and physical security, discriminatory and marginalizing attitudes ingrained over thousands of years are difficult to shed.  Attitudes depicting women as dependent objects lead to practices that make them dependent objects.  For example, many girls around the globe prostitute themselves just to get a secondary or university education because their families believe formal education for girls is frivolous - females are to depend upon their fathers until they depend upon a husband.  Practices like this have led to a disproportionately large percentage of adults in poverty being women.  I have read statistics as high as 70% of impoverished adults are women. 

Pope Francis says he’s an advocate for both the poor and women.  A true advocate for the poor must be an advocate for women because they are to a large extent “the poor.”  A sincere advocate for the poor would also try to help alter the circumstances leading to poverty.  With women, this includes offering education and eradicating attitudes and practices defining women as dependent upon men.  This includes eradicating attitudes and practices that artificially limit women’s chances based upon gender. 

Unfortunately, I have not yet heard Pope Francis acknowledge the connection between poverty and the marginalization of women.  With his supporting institutionalized sexist practices in the church that emerge from its gender-based ideology while at the same time declaring feminists’ efforts at empowering women as “demonic gender-based ideology”, he seems primarily to reinforce regressive attitudes about women – attitudes that jeopardize their financial and physical security – attitudes that place more women in poverty.   Furthermore, Francis can’t seem to speak about women without sexist drivel and/or sexist jokes escaping from his mouth.  It makes his statements about valuing women ring hollow.  Meanwhile, his actions to support his words take a long time to occur and have been underwhelming when they finally do – to the point that they seem largely to be token gestures.

Even in a developed nation with great progress towards women’s empowerment, I am experiencing the downstream effect of the rock-star popular Francis repeatedly making sexist jokes.  For example, Christmas Eve Mass the priest told us the highest ministry a woman could have was to make cookies for a priest…har-dee-har-har.  If an executive made such a sexist comment at my secular job, the executive would be reprimanded or possibly fired depending upon severity.  But there are few people willing to go against the grain and call Francis out for his sexist statements.  This gives a sense of normalcy or invincibility to downstream clergy.  They can make similar sexist comments without fear of repercussions.  This also works against empowering women and ultimately increases their poverty.

Another area causing severe poverty ties to women’s reproductive health – an area where the church increasingly tries to eliminate women’s options, making “yes” the only “answer” regarding conceiving children.  Perhaps this explains or mirrors the clergy’s fixation with Mary’s non-optional “yes.”  Is giving women actual options truly something to fear to the point of restricting them?

Rather than prattle on about Mary and her “yes,” I ask Francis and the clergy to shed the scales from their eyes that blind them from seeing the role church hierarchy’s centuries of gender-based ideology plays in determining women’s economic options.  I ask them to stop the disparagement of feminism and feminist theology that empower women by helping them actually address the causes of poverty via developing self-confidence and independence.  Such theology is not afraid to be surprised by what the Holy Spirit asks women to do as it places no limitations around what the Holy Spirit can or will do.  When I see marked progress in these areas, then I will believe that the rock-star pope is a sincere advocate for women and consequently the vast majority of the poor.

I acknowledge Francis has done some heart-warming gestures in support of giving comfort to the poor.  But, when is he going to address the core issues causing so many women to live with their children in poverty?