More realistic Christmas Carols

Merry Christmas!  I hope everyone is enjoying this joyous season.   

One aspect I love about the holiday season is the singing.  However, I have to admit that it bothers me how unrealistic Christmas carols are.  They paint some romanticized picture of Jesus’ birth wherein Mary does not break stride or even a sweat to deliver her baby.  They conjure images that are absent the various bodily fluids or physical sensations of human childbirth.  Yet, many Christmas homilies will emphasize the very important theological facet of Jesus being fully human.  Why then do we sing songs that omit the human realities of birth and go so far as to paint a false picture of what it was like for Jesus to be born a human child?

The lyrics to Silent Night were written by Josephus Mohr, an Austrian priest.  Let us pause for a moment to estimate how many priests throughout history have witnessed human childbirth from labor to delivery.  Let us also estimate how many current Catholic hierarchy members have ever seen the inside of a delivery room.  Were we counting on our fingers, we wouldn't need to use both hands, possibly not even all five fingers of one hand.  Suddenly, the propagation of unrealistic, romanticized, sanitized lyrics of Christmas carols becomes clear.

Let’s also pause a moment to offer some contextual information regarding childbirth since some folks reading this might also be unfamiliar with the realities of childbirth.

• Bloody bodily fluids flow abundantly … to the point that many a modern day father who attends their child’s delivery must sit lest they faint from the shocking sight.
• Contractions produce varying amounts of discomfort from mildly intense pain to what is called “back labor” where the child’s head is turned where its skull scrapes along the mother’s backbone with every contraction.
• When the mother begins pushing for the ultimate delivery of the child’s head, it is called “bearing down.”  This carries similar involuntary intensity as having an urgent yet constipated bowel movement only it lasts much longer.  It is of small wonder that during this process, some mothers have a bowel movement which covers the child as it is being delivered.
• Most women delivering their first child will experience vaginal tearing; their flesh will rip open, sometimes all the way to the anal wall.  In modern times and medical facilities, this can easily be repaired with numerous stitches that will make sitting and performing excretory functions extremely uncomfortable for several days but prevent the mother from bleeding to death.  However, in Jesus’ time, this along with other common complications are what made childbirth a leading killer of women.
• The baby emerges covered in blood and a waxy substance
• Nursing a child for the first time is very painful for most women.  Though the little darling you just delivered is toothless, he/she has very hard gums and chomps down on the mother’s nipples with gusto.  Many mothers will bruise on their nipples, something they likely never knew was possible.
• Though now some of the pains associated with childbirth can be dulled, Mary did not have the benefit of these pharmaceutical marvels.

Instead of portraying these realities of the mess, pain and danger of childbirth, Christmas carols draw imagery of Mary without her veil or possibly dress ever moving out of place.  They also fail to acknowledge the physical danger into which God placed Mary by impregnating her whilst being betrothed.  In her times, betrothals occurred often when girls were quite young followed by fully consummated marriage around age of 14 or so.  Betrothal was a strong commitment as sort of a non-consummated marriage and a woman found to be pregnant by someone other than her betrothed was considered guilty of committing adultery, an offense punishable by stoning. 

As an aside, I find myself contemplating possible connections between birth control and abortion, and fixations on the Annunciation story where an angel tells the Virgin Mary she’s going to be overshadowed by the Holy Spirit which will impregnate her.  The story is often preached as Mary saying “yes” but if you read the actual scriptural text, there is no question presented to Mary.  The angel says, “this is gonna happen.”  Mary agrees but that does not seem to matter.  Her body is going to be exploited for reproduction regardless of her consent.  Herein seems to lie a foundational element of theology objectifying women by viewing them primarily as passive receptive vessels for bearing children.

Pope Francis’ annual Vatican Curia Christmas excoriation this year included his wishes for increased respect for women.  That needs to include revisiting and correcting centuries old theology which objectifies women as mere tools of reproduction.  It also needs to include stopping the dehumanizing propagation of unrealistic understandings of women’s key experiences such as childbirth.  Therefore, I decided it was a timely moment to write more realistic lyrics for a few songs associated with Advent and Christmas.  I hope you enjoy them.

Immaculate Mary II (to the tune of “Immaculate Mary”) – a song sung during Advent, especially for the Feasts of Our Lady of Gaudalupe and the Immaculate Conception

Immaculate Mary, your praises we sing

But they want women docile so turned you into a wimpy thing

Ave, Ave, Ave Maria. Ave Ave Maria

You got impregnated while you were betrothed

Though you knew you’d be stone if ever exposed

Ave, Ave, Ave Maria. Ave, Ave Maria

But you’ve been reduced to a dainty little vessel

Despite being tough as a mortar and pestel

Ave, Ave, Ave Maria. Ave, Ave Maria

“Stressful Long Night” (to the tune of “Silent Night”)

Stressful long night, holy night

Push baby out with all of your might

Vaginal tearing to thy anal wall

Lots of pain with no Demerol

Pleas for this pain to cease; Pleas for this pain to cease

Stressful long night, holy night

Shepherds quake at the sight

Blood just streams as if hacked with an axe

Holy Infant covered in blood and wax

Christ the Savior is born; Christ the Savior is born.

Stressful long night, holy night

Son of God nurses with a bite

Radiant pain from chest to bottom

Shooting pains you previously did not fathom

Jesus Lord at thy birth; Jesus Lord at thy birth

“Away in a Stable” (to the tune of “Away in a Manger”)

Away in a stable, no hospital bed

Mary labors ‘mongst critters instead

The stars in the sky are the only light

By which to deliver her baby that night

The cattle are lowing and wafting their smells

But who really notices as Mary yells

She squats and bears down and out comes some dung

Along with the baby from her which is sprung

Be near her Lord Jesus, I ask you to stay

To re-humanize her and aptly portray

Your mom as a person of strong grittiness

And not a docile vessel who simply said “yes.”

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.

Reforming the Roman Curia

There’s lots of talk these days about Pope Francis reforming the Roman Curia.  O.K.  A quick show of hands – who can name all the Curia organizations?  Their leaders?  What they do?  Their impact on the average person?  Hmmm…. Not a lot of hands out there.  Then how can we know if anything gets reformed and whether it was an improvement or not?

When asked how many people work in the Curia, Blessed Pope John XXIII once retorted, “about half of them.”  The Curia’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) exemplified this with its glacial pace defrocking sexually abusive priests - to the point that one might even think “CDF” actually stands for “Congregation for the Denial of Felonies”.   

Given general global downsizing trends, Pope John’s insight and the Curia’s reputation, maybe reforming the Curia begins by cutting it at least in half.

Since there were so few hands raised to my opening round of questions, let me give a quick overview.  The Curia is the pope’s cabinet and includes over 60 organizations falling into the following categories: 

• Secretariat
• Congregations
• Tribunals
• Pontifical Councils
• Bishops’ Synod
• Offices
• Pontifical Commissions (not to be confused with Pontifical Councils)
• Swiss Guard
• Institutions Connected with the Holy See (such as the scandal-plagued Vatican Bank)
• Labor
• Pontifical Academies
• Pontifical Committees (not to be confused with Pontifical Councils or Pontifical Commissions)

Let’s look more closely at a few of the most influential groups in the Curia – the Secretariat and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

The Secretariat includes the Vatican Secretary of State, Papal Nunciatures (embassies) and Papal Nuncios (ambassadors).  The Secretary of State historically has been somewhat of a papal puppeteer, or the pope’s other self.  Nuncios provide the Vatican with bishop candidate names.  However, “nuncio” is Latin for “messenger” and therefore Nuncios primarily act as middlemen relaying messages between bishops and the Vatican. 

Before express overnight and electronic mail, having a cadre of Nuncios/messengers was important.  But are they now obsolete middlemen?  In the days when the Papal States occupied sizeable geographic areas, having a Secretary of State might have been important too.  But now the Vatican is just 109 acres, smaller than Microsoft’s Redmond, WA campus.  If Microsoft can thrive without a Secretary of State, can’t the Vatican do likewise?  Therefore, rather than reform this group, why not eliminate the entire Secretariat?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) was formerly called the Office of the Inquisition.  It was established to defend the church from heresy.  In the olden days the Inquisitors had secular power and could sentence heretics like Joan of Arc, who was burned at the stake for the heresy of wearing men’s clothing.  Clearly this office has already undergone some reform because it no longer can impose secular punishments in most countries and it seems to have narrowed focus to just a handful of topics.  Also, after using it to eliminate tens of thousands of "heretics", burning at the stake is no longer a permissible option for the CDF.

The computer scientist in me couldn’t help but use a flowchart to explain my understanding of the CDF’s current approach to dealing with heresy.  For those unfamiliar with reading flowcharts, the green oval is the starting point, diamonds are decision points, rectangles are actions, and the red ovals denote possible end points.

The CDF also handles laicizing (defrocking) sexually abusive priests.  Again, my inner computer scientist couldn’t resist the opportunity to create another flowchart depicting the CDF’s process for handling sexually abusive priests.

My point is this: no matter who leads the CDF, the processes and governance model seem sub-optimal.  If the processes are not going to change, then fire all the CDF employees and just write some programs with mobile app interfaces.  Bishops can send in information from their smartphones to cloud-based applications.  This can’t possibly be any more impersonal to abuse victims than the CDF is now.  Furthermore, it actually might be more responsive as I truly believe it would be impossible to be any less responsive.

Zealots wishing to report their fellow-Catholics as potential heretics could use the same interface as the bishops for heretic reporting.  This would just streamline the whole witch hunt process.  By Christmas, we could be down to just the self-acclaimed pious people deluded by their superior calls to holiness – and all this accomplished with substantially lower costs than paying the current CDF staff. 

Laypeople could be required to take an online quiz about the CDF's five favorite subjects at SurveyMonkey and be issued a QR code (photo below for those unsure what a QR code is) which clergy and Eucharistic ministers can scan to determine eligibility for communion.  Obviously clergy would need the authority to issue new QR codes in the confessional following repentance.  

“Absurd!” you might think.  If automating the current CDF processes seems absurd, then the processes themselves are absurd because automation only alters the pace not the decision criteria or outcome.  Maybe imagining automated versions of all current Curia processes is precisely what we need to do to identify what needs to be reformed.

What reforms are needed in the church and the Curia? What can you do to help inspire appropriate reform?