Marriage and the Hierarchy

How about we do a marriage assessment today?  Don’t worry single people; you can participate too because you won’t assess your marriage to someone with whom you exchanged rings and vows.  Rather, you will assess your marriage to the Roman Catholic clergy. 

In case you’re unaware that you’re married to the clergy, here’s a quick summary of the church’s teaching.  The clergy believe they wed the church because they think this is required for them to imitate Christ whom they believe married the church.  You might be wondering, “Isn’t it polygamy when multiple men marry the spouse of the person they’re imitating?”   However, the answer to that is either “it’s a mystery” or “twice the square root of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin simultaneously.”  I forget which.

You also might wonder, “Do they really believe they’re married to the church?”  I think the answer is, “yes” based upon doctrinal writings and hierarchical utterances.  For example, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said in his November, 2011 General Assembly address to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “I look out at 300 brothers each of whom has a ring on his finger, because we're spoken for, we're married.”  Tim definitely thinks he and his brother bishops are married; just look at their rings.

Since the church is the people of God, that means they are married to you and me.  When did this marriage take place?  Well, that is not clear but from the time you are baptized, you’re kind of “in” so let’s say you entered this marriage at your baptism. 

If you’re like me, baptized as a newborn, you probably pulled out your copy of Canon Law and started rattling off all the Canons that are broken by an infant entering this marriage.  However, just in case your life is too interesting to read Canon Law, let me share a few highlights with you here. 

• Canon 1063: both parties must understand the holy state of matrimony before entering it
• Canon 1065: both parties need to have been confirmed
• Canon 1083: minimum valid marrying age is 16 for a boy and 14 for a girl. 
• Canon 1095: marriage is invalid if either party in the marriage lacked reason, or consent
• Canon 1096: both parties must understand marriage’s permanency
• Canon 1103: marriage is invalid if either party is forced or coerced into marriage

Violation of any of these establishes grounds to annul a marriage. Yet, all of them are violated by pulling an infant into this mystical marriage with the clergy by baptizing them as members of the clergy’s spouse, the church.      

Even if the hierarchy thinks the faithful enter this mystical union at Confirmation, it violates several Canons.  Regardless, let’s not get caught up in Canon Law.  After all, we all know how forgiving the hierarchy is when it comes to rules that don’t suit their interests. 

Let’s just play along and say we are validly married to the clergy because if we don’t, how can we take this nifty quiz the USCCB has called “Grade Your Marriage.”  What fun!  We can grade the hierarchy as our spouse…using the hierarchy’s very own standards for good marriages!  I’m sure they’d love for us to do this because they are huge advocates for strengthening marriages.  Therefore, I’m confident they want to strengthen their marriage with you, the people of God so as to set a good example.

The quiz asks each spouse to rate their partner on a scale of 1 to 10 in 15 areas.  I’ll relax the rules and permit a 0 to 10 scale, but please, no negative numbers no matter how tempted you may be.  The specific assessment areas are listed below.  Remember, you are to rate the church hierarchy as your spouse.  Therefore, I added some contextual description associated with the clergy / church marriage. 

1. Shared Values: How well do your and the clergy’s values and priorities align?
2. Commitment: How committed are the clergy to you?
3. Communication: How well does the hierarchy communicate with you?
4. Conflict Resolution: How skilled are clergy members at resolving conflicts with you?
5. Intimacy/Sexuality: Let’s ignore the sexual dimension on this one.  How much interpersonal intimacy do you have with the clergy?
6. Spirituality/Faith: How well do the hierarchy’s faith and spirituality align with and support yours?
7. Money Management: How satisfied are you with the clergy’s management of money?
8. Appreciation/Affection: How well does the clergy express appreciation towards you?
9. Lifestyle: How compatible is the clergy’s lifestyle with supporting your lifestyle needs?
10. Recreation: How satisfied are you with the leisure time you spend with clergy?
11. Decision Making: How satisfied are you with the hierarchy’s decision making practices?
12. Parenthood: How satisfied are you with the clergy’s parenting skills and support for raising your children?
13. Household chores / gender differences: Remember, no matter your gender, in this marriage, you are the female church.  How satisfied are you with the gender roles and division of labor between you and the hierarchy?
14. Careers: Is there adequate support from the clergy for your career?
15. Balancing Time: How well do the clergy balance time when it comes to their relationship with you?

The instructions say any assessment area rated at 8 or above is in good shape while anything in the 4-7 range is considered to be in a danger zone.  The instructions then say to total scores for all 15 assessment areas and declare any total score higher than 100 as being an “A” for the marriage overall. 

I can’t help noticing that if you scored your spouse an average of 6.66 out of 10 (66.66% or a “D” on most grading scales) on every single question (solidly in the “danger zone” for every question), that results in a total of 100 and an “A” for your marriage overall on the hierarchy’s scale.  Evidently in “bishop math” fifteen “D”s = one “A", a phenomenon closely related to Jesus’ loaves and fishes gig.

I will not influence your assessment by providing mine here.  I do hope you take the survey and discuss it with your hierarchical leaders.  If people send me their responses, I can tally them and provide stats in a subsequent blog article or send them to the USCCB.  However, based upon listening to people, I think the results will indicate the hierarchy needs some serious marriage counseling with their spouse.

Survey aside, I have a few other thoughts regarding the clergy’s marriage to the people of God.  What’s up with excommunication?  The hierarchy should never set aside their spouse via excommunication.  The official viewpoint is that excommunication is “medicinal” versus a “divorce” but, how many of you stop feeding your spouse if they disagree with you?  “…You don’t want my mother visiting???? I think you can bloody well go without any food until you change your mind.”  And how many of you consider withholding nourishment as an acceptable form of “medicine?”  “…You’re sick, dear?  No food for you until you’re healthy…it’s for your own good, honey.”  

Canon 1135 says there’s equality between marriage partners, but that isn’t the case when it comes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is it?  In a healthy marriage, both parties make amends and forgive, recognizing they both err.  However, with the hierarchy, those of us constituting their wife are always the erring party, always the ones needing to confess, always the ones receiving penance, always the ones needing forgiveness…and from them.  “We’re equal, sweetie, it’s just that you’re always the one to screw up.  But don’t worry because I’m here to forgive you for all these screw ups.”  There are marriages like this where the husband is always right but they are typically categorized by one word, “abusive.”

Finally, what’s up with Canon Law calling me a “subject” if I’m married to the hierarchy?  Have you ever heard a wedding end with, “I now pronounce you man and subject?”  If Christ is king, then his bride is queen, not “subject.”  If the clergy fancy themselves princes, then we’re their princesses, not their “subjects.” 

Do you think the hierarchy is married to the people of God?  Do you think the marriage is healthy?  If not, do you think it can be saved?  What kind of marriage therapy might work?

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.