Does the infallibility doctrine drive people away from the church?

My previous posting discussed how the Vatican partially attributes the U.S. church’s pedophilia problem to priests not clearly understanding their hierarchical superiority over laity.  It also discussed the pope’s concern about people leaving the church and his belief that it ties to people not hearing enough of the church’s catechism.

I’ve continued reflecting on the concept of hierarchical superiority and I keep returning to the example Jesus set for the original twelve apostles.  Jesus said the greatest were the least (Lk 14:7-11, Mark 10:36-44).  He rode on a borrowed donkey not in a Mercedes Benz modified SUV Popemobile equipped with hydraulic lift. He promoted humble service and modeled the humility he expected of leaders.  Assuming the lowliest household slave’s position Jesus washed feet and instructed his followers to do likewise (John 13:4-17).  Outside of Holy Thursday’s ceremonial washing of feet, when’s the last time the pope washed dirty stinky feet, changed a dirty diaper, or mopped up someone’s vomit?

I scoured the Bible seeking examples of Jesus telling the apostles to think themselves superior to others and I didn’t find any.  I found passages where he rebuked apostles trying to be superior (Mk 10:36-44).  He did say whatever Peter held bound would be held bound but that seemed more related to desiring “mercy not sacrifice” (Mt 16:19, Mt 9:13, Luke 6:36)  or that “the measure with which you measure will be measured against you” (Luke 6:36-38) rather than superiority.  Also, just four verses later in Mt 16:23 Jesus called Peter, “Satan”, because he so completely misunderstood him.  So much for Peter’s infallibility…

This brings me to reflect upon the church’s infallibility doctrine.  When I err, I know I’m fallible and thus, can retract my words.  Fallibility carries a lot of freedom.  I always get a “do over”.  If I admit I am wrong or don’t know something, I have a profound opportunity to learn and grow towards becoming a better person. 

Conversely, belief in one’s infallibility hinders learning new things.  Here’s an analogous example.  Think of water in a pitcher as representing all knowledge.  Pour a few drops from the pitcher into a glass; that represents your knowledge.  When someone thinks they “already know” something it closes the mind like covering the glass with plastic wrap.  It’s pretty much impossible to intake any more.  When invoking infallibility doctrine, church leaders seem to cover their glass with plastic wrap, disallowing further learning opportunities.

What is the infallibility doctrine?  It says the church must accept certain papal teachings on matters concerning faith or morals.  Such teachings must emanate ex cathedra (from the chair of the pope), meaning from the pope’s office as the church’s chief shepherd.  Papal infallibility was promulgated formally during the First Vatican Council in 1870 though several pre-Vatican I documents discussed the concept too.  Papal infallibility rarely has been invoked, the last time being in 1950 by Pope Pius XII regarding the Assumption of Mary.  Ecumenical councils’ teachings can also be infallible. 

For a teaching to be infallible it must clearly state that it is definitive and binding.  Often a statement of “anathema” accompanies it saying that anyone who dissents is outside the church.  For example, these words accompanied the doctrine about the Assumption of Mary, “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

Infallible teachings can contradict previous church teachings.  However a previously stated infallible teaching cannot later be decreed as infallible.  The infallibility doctrine itself contains an anathema statement.  Thus according to the church’s current rules, it can’t decide it erred in creating the infallibility doctrine and negate or retract it. 

An interesting statistic is that only about 39% of Catholics believe in papal infallibility.  Perhaps they share prominent British historian and Roman Catholic, Lord Acton’s philosophy, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Regardless, in denying the infallibility doctrine’s infallibleness, evidently 61% of Catholics are ex-communicated implicitly and they either don’t know it or don’t care.   

I wouldn’t want the burden of having to be infallible on anything.  To me, once a person or group decides they are perfect in even one area, it seems very easy to blur boundaries between areas of perfection and imperfection.  It might become very tempting to adopt Mac Davis’ song, “Oh Lord it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way” as your theme song.

Are humility and infallible perfection mutually exclusive?  I attended a bishop’s installation a few years ago and his homily tried to express his “humble” perfection.  In referring to himself he said that we were to “…rightly thank God today.  Why?  Because our Almighty Father has loved us so much as to provide another, unworthy though he may be, as your bishop, a successor to the Apostles.”   This statement appalled many lay people in attendance.  To fallible lay people someone saying “you should thank God because I, humble as I am, have been appointed to rule over you” comes across as many things but humble is not one of them.

Fortunately mostly fellow semi-infallible clergy attended the installation so few laity heard the message.  I’ve not learned the bishop’s “humble” homily inspired anyone to leave the church.   

Unfortunately, when the church declared its infallibility doctrine, it caused lots of people to leave the church.  But, because church leaders decided they were right, they had to lay blame elsewhere for people’s departure.

Is this same concept coming into play now?  People flee the church now usually because of church leaders’ actions: hypocrisy, lack of accountability, abuse of children or power, or discriminatory policies.  Since church leaders believe they are perfect in some dimension, they rarely if ever consider their actions or non-infallible teachings as the root cause for people’s exodus. Instead they have to find another reason.  

Thus, the pope believes people leaving the church just haven’t heard enough of clergy’s infallibly perfect teachings.  Do people leave because they’ve heard too little of infallible teachings or because they feel they’ve heard enough?  Do they leave because they have heard church leaders teach the catechism but not seen them live the gospel message of humble service? 

What drives people from the church?

In June, 2010 Pope Benedict XVI established the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization.  He created this organization out of concern for what he considers the de-Christianization of historically Catholic countries, especially in Europe.

On October 12, 2010 the pope issued an apostolic letter pertaining to the same topic and outlined his hypotheses for factors contributing to the shift from Christianity.  He cited advances in science and technology, individual freedoms that give rise to various lifestyle choices, economic changes, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic dynamics and global societal interdependencies as contributors to the spiritual shift.

The pope believes de-Christianization stems from lack of familiarity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

I agree that many people are leaving the church.  I agree only partially with the pope’s speculation regarding the reasons.  Being an engineer and mathematician by training I look for root cause, beginning with facts.

According to German government reports, 472 Catholics left the Munich Diocese just in the one month of March, 2010.  The cause was not science, technology, globalization, personal freedoms or a lack of awareness of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  It was disgust with church leaders’ mishandling of clergy abuse cases in Germany.  Germans were familiar with church teachings and seemed disillusioned that church leaders preached what they did not practice. Germans were particularly disgusted with their fellow countrymen, the pope and his brother.

By the way, that statistic has a high degree of accuracy because German citizens must register and de-register their church affiliation.  

The Germans are not alone.  The Irish Commission this year released its investigative report on clergy abuse and cover-ups that occurred in Ireland.  Their investigation and analysis revealed church leaders’ priorities in the Dublin Archdiocese, “were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the church, and the preservation of its assets.  All other considerations including the welfare of the children and justice for victims were subordinated to these priorities.  The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the state.”  

Again, it seems the problem is church leaders not practicing what they preach versus laity’s ignorance of doctrine.

As Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, became more familiar with church leaders' practices skirting norms, he commented that attempts to reform the church to address pedophilia and cover-ups have been like, “trudging through what can best be described as a swamp of toxic waste.”

In the United States Rick Romly, district attorney in Phoenix opined that the church was “openly obstructive” of justice blocking his attempts to uncover the truth.  He said the church’s actions represented the worst obstruction of justice he’d experienced in his entire career.  Why are church leaders not prosecuted for obstruction of justice?  Why do they think they are above laws protecting children and social order?

In response to the many abuse claims, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) commissioned the John Jay School of criminal justice to research the problem.  In reading the full report dated 2004 I learned that the USCCB commissioned the report and dictated the questions that John Jay could ask.  Furthermore, the bishops supplied the information based upon complaints they received and offered only that information they chose to supply.  No victims or pedophile priests were contacted.  Thus, the exercise was akin to perpetrators launching an investigation into their crimes, telling the investigator what to ask them, supplying the answers to the questions and then judging and sentencing themselves. 

Should we then be shocked that the church reported merely 24% of alleged abuses to the police?  Should we be shocked that only 11% of alleged abusers either left or were removed from the priesthood?  Should we be shocked that only 2% of accused priests served prison time?

Also in response to the abuse claims, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith performed an Apostolic Visitation of U.S. Seminaries in 2008.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith is the office formerly known as the Office of the Inquisition.  Thus, a “visitation” is an inquisition versus something where one might expect to serve tea and crumpets and chat about this weekend’s cricket match.

The inquisition’s report indicated that U.S. seminaries, in forming priests, focused too much on priestly service and not enough on priests’ hierarchical superiority.  It also felt it was problematic that some seminaries offered theological education to laity and seminarians.  The report seems to imply, “How can the Star-bellied Sneetches feel superior if those without ‘stars upon thars’ are permitted to attend Star-bellied Sneetch ‘picnics or parties or marshmallow toasts’?”  The inquisition’s report implied that the problem with pedophile priests is priests don’t behave with enough superiority.  

Let’s see.  Pedophile priests molested children, weren’t reported to the police; those that were, the diocese obstructed justice.  All of the accusations are enshrouded in secrecy.  Bishops ignored their own norms.  Few accused priests left the priesthood, fewer are prosecuted, fewer yet served prison time, many are moved somewhere to harm other children.  Meanwhile throughout this process church leaders cry “persecution” that people want them held accountable and organizational reform; they tell the faithful that the matter is settled and people need to move past their transgressions.  Beyond “struggling”, many church leaders become downright frustrated or angry that people continue to cry for justice and reform.

The definition of “hubris” is extreme haughtiness or arrogance, often indicating being out of touch with reality and overestimating one's own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power.

Are Europeans leaving the church due to lack of familiarity with the catechism or do they flee in rejection of what they see as church leaders exhibiting a textbook case of hubris?  

Where is our focus?

Last week the parish where I usually attend Mass moved their tabernacle from the sanctuary’s side onto the altar directly behind the altar table.  This complied with the bishop’s directive regarding tabernacle placement.  My understanding is the bishop wants the tabernacle on the altar because it houses the Body of Christ and everyone should focus on the presence of Christ.  Perhaps he thinks visual focus begets mental focus begets spiritual focus.

This change caused me to observe and reflect upon the presence of Christ during Mass.  The church teaches that during Mass Christ is present in the Eucharist (consecrated bread and wine), the clergy, the Word and the people. 

Christ’s presence in the people seems to receive little visual focus if the altar defines that.  Only select lay people stand on the altar, mostly remaining to the sides until their role requires movement into the center.  People approach but do not go on the altar to receive the Body and Blood of Christ at Communion.  As people receive the Body of Christ, in addition to becoming living tabernacles, they become what they receive, the Body of Christ.  Most do this without ever being on the altar.

If visual focus begets mental focus begets spiritual focus, then as the faithful proceed from Mass, should they least remember Christ’s presence in themselves and their fellow human?  Borrowing from a 7-Up slogan referring to caffeine, does the limited visual focus during Mass engender an attitude about Christ’s presence in people of, “Never had it; never will.”?  If so, suddenly the parking lot road rally after Mass would make sense as would the gossip that some engage in before reaching the church’s exit.

Christ’s presence in the Word receives limited visual attention during Mass.  Parishes that display the Bible during the liturgy tend to do so near the pulpit, again on the altar’s side.  Many only visually display the Word immediately before and after the gospel reading.

However, the Word is proclaimed at least three or four times throughout Mass: during the first and second readings, the gospel and the responsorial psalm.  Many liturgical prayers also emanate from scripture.  Thus, though the Word doesn’t occupy visual prominence, it does maintain audible prominence.  Hopefully lack of visual focus on scripture doesn’t deter mental or spiritual focus on it.

Throughout Mass, the priest seems a persistent visual focal point.  Several times during Mass the priest blocks my view of the tabernacle now that it’s behind the altar table.  This occurs when the priest kisses the altar table, during the Presentation of the Gifts, Preparation of the Altar, Prayer over the Gifts, Eucharistic Prayer, and the Sanctus.  Indeed, until the bread and wine are consecrated, the priest blocks visibility of the tabernacle every time he stands behind the altar table.  In some churches, the priest blocks the tabernacle through most of Mass because his chair is in front of the tabernacle.  Since the priest stands before the tabernacle, does this imply that I should focus more on him than on the Eucharist?

If visual focus begets mental focus begets spiritual focus, am I supposed to emerge from Mass primarily focused on Christ’s presence in the priest?  If that’s the case, priest groupies who never question, challenge or expect accountability from clergy suddenly make sense as do some clergy who expect to be treated like a regal messiah. 

Keep in mind that The Messiah was questioned, scorned, persecuted and rejected versus treated like royalty, and he rebuked those who felt he should evade suffering.  Jesus himself received regal gifts from the three Magi, non-believers who saw more profundity in his simplicity than many believers did.  He received regal anointing only from an audacious woman, mocked and scorned by religious leaders who felt her sins were more offensive to God than theirs.  He only received regal ornamentation during his trial and that was as a mockery. 

The Eucharist itself is quite plain and simple, reminiscent of Jesus born into poverty wrapped in swaddling clothes, living in poverty, dying in poverty stripped of all garments.  The Eucharist itself is consecrated bread and wine.

The Eucharist itself is also rarely visible.  It is visible when elevated at the consecration and during communion.  Sometimes, when a parish uses glass ciboria and chalices, people can see the sacrament more. However, mostly the Eucharist is hidden from view stored in ornate tabernacles, ciboria and chalices made of precious metal.

The Eucharist is not the tabernacle, chalice or ciborium that holds it.  That would be like saying an oyster shell is the same as the pearl it contains.  I’ve never found myself thinking, “If I stare at this oyster shell I’ll appreciate the pearl inside a lot more; as a matter of fact I should make the oyster shell really ornate so I better appreciate the pearl.”.  I would think if an oyster shell got too fancy, a person actually might be inclined to lose sight of the precious gem inside.

If Jesus could give us the Eucharist stripped of every worldly adornment, why do we adorn Eucharistic vessels now?  If visual focus on the Eucharist is important, why don’t we get to see the actual Eucharist more versus receptacles containing it?  Why would the priest block people’s view of the tabernacle? Since people are living tabernacles, why are they a lesser focus than inanimate tabernacles that hold the Eucharist? 

How did apostles go from not carrying a spare tunic to fueling a fashion sub-industry?

Part of the Catholic Church’s justification for barring female ordinations comes from literally interpreting scripture where Jesus selects twelve guys as the original apostles.  Because a female is not mentioned explicitly in these passages church leaders say Jesus didn’t give them authority to ordain women.  As mentioned before, they ignore scripture where Jesus does select Mary Magdalene as an apostle but I won’t dwell on that now.  

Since the church literally interprets scripture to justify its ordination rule, it stands to reason that we literally interpret those same passages where Jesus tells these twelve male apostles what to do.  As we examine this topic, keep in mind church leaders say that unless Jesus explicitly said to do something, he didn’t authorize it.

Apostles are supposed to proclaim the kingdom and “Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons” (Mt 10:8).   The account in Mark’s gospel only mentions that Jesus sent apostles “forth to preach and to have authority to drive out demons” (Mark 3:14-15). 

He didn’t give apostles the authority to do things like be administrators, chair committees, attend meetings, build buildings, lead parishes, conduct fundraisers, be political lobbyists, provide counseling, prepare couples for marriage, or act as personnel managers.  Why do these unauthorized activities consume so much of clergy’s time? 

Present day clergy do anoint the sick.  However, I don’t know any who cure the sick though the original twelve seemed like whizzes at curing people’s infirmities.  I’m not aware of any priests raising people from the dead.  Some throughout history worked with lepers but I can’t think of any in my diocese who do that now.  Aside from the exorcism rite in baptismal anointing, I’ve only met one priest who performed an exorcism, driving out demons.   Why did the apostles’ role experience such severe scope shift over time?  

Jesus also instructs them, “Do not take gold or silver or copper for your belts; no sack for the journey, or a second tunic, or sandals, or walking stick” (Mt 10:9-10).  Evidently he didn’t think the apostles needed to focus on clothing or fashion because he instructed minimalism and didn’t give them authority to decorate their clothing at all, not even with a spiffy Roman collar.  This is not surprising from a guy born into poverty.  (As a side note, the Roman collar didn’t appear until the 15^th century when priests began following the fashion trend of the day (reference EWTN Q&A on Roman collars).)

The modern version of a priest’s “tunic” might be considered his black clerics.  Perhaps some consider it the alb, the white robe worn under other priestly vestments during Mass.  Regardless, every priest I know has multiple sets of clerics and albs.  Why do priests have multiple tunics when Jesus explicitly said they shouldn’t?

The original twelve apostles traveled to the people, often covering great distances.  In the Roman Empire travelers often wore a casula, a poncho-like outer garment.  Whether or not the apostles wore a casula is a mystery because scripture does not indicate Jesus authorized them to wear one.  Regardless, the modern version of a casula is the chasuble, the colorful outer garment worn during the celebration of Mass.

One might interpret Jesus’ tunic instruction as implying all clothing which would include an outer wrap.  However, if we allow implicit rather than explicit interpretations, wouldn’t we need to allow that Jesus implied all people not just males when he selected the twelve apostles?  Also, wouldn’t the “don’t have a second” thing apply implicitly to outer garments as well?

How many chasubles do priests, today’s apostles, actually own?  The exact number varies but they have at least one for every color associated with the liturgical calendar:

1. White for Easter, Christmas, weddings and funerals
2. Red for Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Pentecost Sunday, Apostles’ and Evangelists’ feasts, and celebrations of Martyr Saints
3. Green for Ordinary Time.
4. Violet or purple for Advent, Lent or optionally for funerals.

Many priests also have at least one of the following optional colors:

1. Gold or silver for more solemn occasions
2. Rose (pink) for Gaudete Sunday (Third Sunday of Advent) and Laetare Sunday (Fourth Sunday of Lent).
3. On more solemn days, they may use vestments “that are festive, that is, more precious, even if not of the color of the day” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal).
4. Black as an optional color for funerals.

Indeed, most priests have at least a dozen chasubles giving rise to a fashion sub-industry.  

The Church Supply Warehouse advertises no less than ten subcategories of chasubles.  Each subcategory contains dozens if not hundreds of styles with prices ranging from under $50 to around $5,000.  Though most are priced in the hundreds of dollars range, some are listed as “Price upon request”, loosely translated as “if you must ask, you can’t afford it”.  As of this writing, there are 816 varieties of chasubles offered for sale on eBay. 

The chasuble fashion industry accommodates taste variances from the very plain to the excessively ornate that could act as magpie bait.  Some are so ornate with glitter, gold and silver, if suspended from the ceiling and spun they might double as a disco ball. 

How did apostles who Jesus explicitly instructed to have only the clothing on their back wind up fueling an entire sub-industry of fashion?  How did apostles, who Jesus explicitly instructed to not carry gold, silver or copper in their belts wind up wearing them on their backs?  More importantly, why do apostles give more weight and emphasis to something Jesus didn’t state explicitly while ignoring things he did?  Why do apostles feel they have the authority to expand upon Jesus’ explicit instructions but not on what they infer are his implicit instructions regarding ordination?

Why is Paul accepted as an apostle but not Mary Magdalene?

An apostle (one who is sent) is different from a disciple (a follower). The Catholic Church considers ordained clergy to be apostles while laity and avowed religious nuns and brothers are disciples. 

According to church teaching, to be an apostle, one must be baptized and then receive "laying on of hands" from another apostle.  This is the foundation of the church's apostolic succession, tying apostles all the way back to the original twelve appointed by Jesus.   Also according to church teaching, people cannot just declare themselves apostles through the authority of their relationship with God.  They must become an apostle by the Holy Spirit working through another apostle who can be traced back to the original twelve.  Doing otherwise would break apostolic succession. 

Here's what puzzles me about Paul.  He was not one of the original twelve apostles.  He did not meet Jesus until after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension.  His meeting was a spiritual/mystical post-ascenscion encounter with Jesus.  Also, Paul received "laying on of hands" before he was baptized.  Furthermore, Ananias did the "laying on of hands" but Ananias was a disciple not an apostle.  The "laying on of hands" was done for healing purposes rather than as a commissioning (Acts 9:1-30). 

Paul declared himself an apostle based upon his direct interactions with Christ (Gal 1:1) rather than through the action of any human.  Lest someone think this is my own interpretation of scripture, please be aware that the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops' website indicates the following in the biblical commentary for this passage, "because of attacks on his authority in Galatia, Paul defends his apostleship. He is not an apostle commissioned by a congregation or even by prophets but through Jesus Christ and God the Father."  The official church acknowledges that Paul was not "ordained" by an apostle.  He represents a break in apostolic succession. Based upon Paul's writing and biblical commentary, we see that many people were concerned about Paul's authority because he did not follow apostolic succession.

I raise this question because Mary Magdelene was also directly sent by Jesus (the definition of "apostle") (Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:10).  She was sent to be the first bearer of the gospel's "good news" of Jesus' resurrection.  However, church leaders call her an "apostle to the apostles" (Mulieris Dignitatem) rather than accept her as a full fledged apostle because scripture doesn't indicate she received laying on of hands from an apostle.  Well, neither did Paul.

The eleven remaining apostles did not believe Mary, though she was sent as an apostle by Jesus. "When they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe." (Mark 16:11) Perhaps church leaders' continued refusal to acknowledge Mary as an apostle ties to the original eleven's disbelief.  However, Jesus chastised the eleven apostles for their reaction to Mary, "... later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised." (Mark 16:14)

Why is Paul's apostleship accepted as valid despite breaking all the "rules" while Mary Magdalene's apostleship is reduced to some non-descript junior grade apostleship of "apostle to the apostles"?  Is the pope's pronouncement about female ordinations just a perpetuation of the original eleven male apostles' disbelief and hardness of heart for which Jesus rebuked them?