Requesting a private discussion with the pope...

Dear readers,

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

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

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

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

Dear Abp Christophe Pierre,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to the favor of a reply.

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Abp Christophe Pierre,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living a myth...

I vividly remember “the talk” with my mom.  You know, “the talk…”   My older sister, tired of defending my unwavering belief in Santa, bullied me into asking the big question, “Is Santa real?”  My mom’s gentle explanation combined with my fervent desire to believe initially produced the opposite effect my sister intended.  Words are weak instruments to describe her reaction when I returned from that little chat triumphantly proclaiming, “I knew it!  Santa is real!”  However, I do remember her reaction did include grabbing my hand and dragging me back to our mom protesting, “Mom!  What did you tell her?!  She still believes!” 

My mom had taken me to a mirror and said, “Yes, Santa is real but he is not a fat, jolly guy in a red suit.  He can look just like the girl in the mirror when she gives a gift at the giving tree.”  I so much wanted to believe in the entirety of the Santa myth that I filtered out all words except “Santa is real.”  I’m happy to report that we did achieve mutual clarity within the span of about 15 minutes.  I was 8 years old and it was time to live with a different understanding of the myth.   My sister felt for her and my own physical and mental well-being, it was well past time but that’s a debate for another day.

I find myself reflecting upon that fervent desire to believe in a myth after watching the movie “Spotlight.”  This movie chronicles the Boston Globe’s investigative journalism that led to its January 6, 2002 bombshell story about the Catholic Church knowingly leaving numerous pedophile priests in active ministry for decades.  Though individual sex abuse stories had been published throughout previous decades, this story altered the conversation because it demonstrated that a sick, systemic culture involving hierarchy and laypeople enabled and helped perpetuate widespread abuse.  It revealed a culture pretending each abuse case was simply an individual, isolated, “whoopsie there” incident so as to perpetuate the myth of a perfect church.  People turned their heads for a myriad of reasons all stemming from scandal avoidance desires: “priests are good guys”, “just doing my job”, “the church does such good work in other places”, “my fellow parishioners bully whistle-blowers”, “Cardinal/bishop so-and-so says it is the best thing for the church”, etc… 

Why did the church hierarchy obsess on avoiding scandal?  Because it feared scandal would shake people’s faith and possibly inspire them to leave the church.  Yet, Holy Mother Church’s fervent desire to avoid scandal became a monumental, self-destructive scandal in itself.  Instead of Holy Mother Church, it’s more like Our Lady of Macbeth - externally presenting the mythical image of perfect hostess while plotting and scheming to manipulate and neutralize people seen as interfering with this burning ambition…eventually resulting in the opposite effect from the ambition. 

The church so desperately wanted to perpetuate a scandal-free myth that it caused huge, unimaginable scandal.  The movie’s ending flashing four multi-columned pages naming over a hundred Catholic dioceses where major clergy abuse scandals  and their even more scandalous cover-ups have been exposed to-date punctuates the scandal-based damage that arises when an entire system prioritizes myth perpetuation over truth and people’s lives.  With over 100 dioceses, over 100,000 abuse victims, and about 75% of Catholics leaving the church, it is well past time for the church to live with a different understanding of the myth.  Our mental and physical well-being requires it.

I believe the exodus occurred because too many still want so desperately to believe in the myth that they only begrudgingly implement superficial changes to address the issue and bully those who wish to live with a more mature understanding of the myth that includes real systemic change.  For example, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in anticipation of the movie’s release, prepared dioceses with talking points aimed at portraying the topic as a thing of the past – as if it’s all different now.  Yet, even the reports about filming the movie illuminate that it’s not all different now.  The New York Yankees declined being filmed for a scene at Fenway Park because they felt it wasn’t a topic with which the team should be associated and believed that the Red Sox shouldn’t be either.  Why would a sports organization that profits from attracting fans, many of whom are children, think it inappropriate to be associated with a movie about protecting children?  Do we smell New York Roman Catholic Cardinal Dolan’s breath in that statement?  The same old pattern certainly is there.

Yes, some things have changed since the Globe story broke yet much remains the same.  Because thousands of priests raped children, I had to be finger-printed and watch movies about protecting children.  It is as Mitchell Garabedian says in the movie, “If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse them.”  Therefore, we must educate the village.  However, one constant is the existence of lay and ordained staunch defenders of the church who treat truthful criticism as an attack to which they must wage a counter-assault.  This attitude contributed to creating a penalty-free environment for abusive clergy and irresponsible bishops.  Until that fear-induced arrogant rejection of constructive criticism is replaced by humble sincere truth-seeking, there is no marked difference in the culture.   One need look no further than the sheep-like unquestioning obedience to Mass language changes to see that those in the pews largely still operate with a “Father knows best” deference to men wearing Roman collars.

Unfortunately, the staunch defenders actually have changed in that they have doubled-down on irrational defense of the church’s indefensible.  They have doubled-down on squeezing their eyes shut and stuffing their ears with earplugs to shut out reality.  They want the myth of a perfect church and will stop at nothing to retain living in their myth.  They are happy to chase away anyone who tries to bring them to a more mature understanding of the myth.

It is impossible for the vast majority of humans to consider the Catholic Church the penultimate “truth team” when its Canon Law and culture consider fact-based criticism to be “the enemy.”  Thus, it’s no surprise that active Catholics represent merely 4% of the world population.  (7 billion people, 1.2 billion Catholics, of whom only about 25% are active.)

If people truly love the church, they must welcome criticism of the organization.  Since sports form an informal pillar of the Catholic faith, I’ll try a sports analogy to describe the detrimental impact of ignoring institutional shortcomings.  It’s like a basketball team which commits many turnovers declaring this statistic as anti-them and refusing to work on turnovers.  It’s like the team and fans bullying anyone who mentions the statistic and asking them to leave the game and never come to another one.  It’s like a team with the highest turnover rate blaming the ball for its stubborn unwillingness to remain with the team.   

The turnover metaphor only speaks to the abuse scandal’s collateral damage - people's mass exodus from the church.  The most profound damage occurred to the 100,000s of people molested by priests.  I can only think of a parenting analogy for this.  It’s like a parent entrusting their children to a known pedophile as babysitter, and then when the child reports the abuse, recommending the pedophile babysitter to friends and neighbors.  Would you trust such a parent?  No, I wouldn’t either.  Not even after they said they were sorry or enacted a Dallas Charter creating great bureaucracy to guide them since they demonstrated a collective lack of common sense to do the decent thing.   Such a parent would be declared unfit.  The same is true for all bishops who shuffled abusive priests.

Is it time to behave like my unrelenting older sister, grasping hands of staunch believers in the myth and insisting they adopt a more mature understanding of the myth?  Don’t we owe the survivors at least this much?