An alternate universe...

This past week the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) held their Spring General Assembly in Seattle.  Their behavior at and statements from that meeting confuse me greatly. 

The bishops voted (187-5) to tweak their 2002 chartered norms for “Protecting God’s Children” by adding child pornography and abuse of people who “habitually lack reason” to the norms’ list of abuses.  I’m glad they are in the norms now but wonder in bewilderment why adding them took 9 years.

I also stagger in confusion when I see that Bishop Blase Cupich, USCCB Protection of Children and Young People Committee chair, said at the meeting, “The charter has served the church well.”  He said, “The charter works,” and, “It is a helpful tool as we keep our pledge to protect children, promote healing and rebuild trust with our people.”

The bishops and I must live in two different worlds.  During this past year, actually just the past few months, inhabitants of my universe learned that Philadelphia’s Cardinal Rigali didn’t follow the norms, leaving dozens of accused priests in active ministry.  Two grand jury reports and the arrest of some diocesan clergy finally inspired him to follow the norms in February, 2011.  However that same month he initially asserted that no priests with credible allegations were still active in ministry.  Before actually complying with the norms, Cardinal Rigali falsely reported to USCCB auditors that the Philadelphia Archdiocese fully complied with norms.  In my universe, falsehoods erode rather than rebuild trust.   

Nonetheless, the USCCB’s April, 2011 annual compliance report counted the Philadelphia Archdiocese as “compliant” because the audit relies on self-reporting.  Even without Philadelphia correctly categorized as “non-compliant”, the report still indicated 55 of the U.S.’s 197 dioceses were non-compliant.  Saying “It’s working” when more than 25% of dioceses self-report non- compliance seems euphemistic at best.  Since dioceses with gross violations, like Philadelphia, can and do self-report as compliant, compliance levels remain a mystery.  These factors also impede rebuilding trust.

In May, 2011 the Gallup, N.M. “Independent” ran a five-part report discussing the Gallup diocese’s failure to comply with the USCCB’s norms.  The paper reported such violations as the bishop’s failure to meet with the mandated diocesan review board and failure to respond to abuse victims’ requests for meetings.  With numerous violations, why did the Gallup Diocese falsely report as compliant?  Does this engender trust?  Does ignoring victims promote healing?

Last month a Kansas City priest was arrested on child pornography charges.  He remained active in ministry more than a year after a Catholic grade school principal conveyed concerns to diocesan officials.  Why did the Kansas City Diocese falsely self-report as compliant? 

Compliance seems mythical only.  Perhaps extensive non-compliance explains why in 2011 bishop-funded Catholic lobbyist groups increasingly lobby against legislative reform on child abuse statute of limitations.  Rather than comply with their own rules so as to reduce causes of lawsuits, bishops try to reduce lawsuits by blocking abuse victims from filing valid ones.  These behaviors do not protect children or promote healing.

Archbishop Thomas Hursley’s statements this week were also confusing and scandalous.   He suggested the assembly set a goal of reinstating abusive priests to active ministry under the auspices of forgiveness.    At least Archbishop Hursley is aware my universe exists because he acknowledged his suggestion might infuriate its inhabitants.  He said, “This might stir up SNAP (a network for abuse survivors) – so what? The press might come after us. It’s time we confronted them. The time is now, not later on.”  In my universe, child abusers have proven incapable of abandoning predatory practices; returning them to ministry countermands protecting children.  In my universe, blatantly callous disregard for survivors’ feelings undermines their healing. 

Bishop Cupich declined Archbishop Hursley’s suggestion but did not rebuke him for his remarks.  Perhaps that is because Cupich and Hursley occupy the same alternate universe where non-compliance masquerades as compliance, where rampant non-compliance protects children, where lobbying against victim-sponsored legislation promotes healing, and where denial, deceit and lies build trust.  This is not the case in my universe.

How should inhabitants in my universe respond?

What priest shortage?

The U.S. currently has over 25,000 Catholic priests who were forced to an “inactive” status because they got married yet who are willing to serve, according to CORPUS an international married priest organization.  To put this number in perspective, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website, there are 27,284 diocesan priests in the U.S.  Thus, the U.S. has almost as many priests in a forced inactive status as it has diocesan priests.  Do we really have a priest shortage?

Between diocesan priests and the additional 12,000 or so religious order priests, the U.S. has around 40,000 Catholic priests who cover all U.S. parishes except the 3,000 – 4,000 parishes without assigned clergy.   Reactivating 25,000 married priests would easily fill that gap.  Do we really have a priest shortage?

Worldwide there are over 125,000 married inactive priests as compared to the 400,000 or so current active priests.  Between 50,000 and 60,000 parishes worldwide have no priest, a number easily erased by reactivating 125,000 married priests.   Do we really have a priest shortage?

For over 1,000 years, the church had married priests and popes. Even today the church has married priests such as Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism or priests in the Ukrainian Catholic Church.  The church law regarding priestly celibacy for the Roman rite is considered a discipline rather than doctrinal.  Thus, changing the rule about priestly celibacy just needs the pope to say it’s o.k.  Why does the pope prefer creating an artificial priest shortage rather than caring for the flock?  Why does he prefer closing parishes to allowing married clergy consistently in all Catholic rites? 

All I can say is, “What priest shortage?”

Who would fear a Catholic Bill of Rights?

In the late 1700s, grassroots founders of the United States wrote a “Bill of Rights”.  This document’s purpose was to limit what the government could or couldn’t do regarding individual liberties.  It is a cornerstone of American culture of freedom and has been a model for other governments on protecting people’s rights. 

Similarly inspired, the American Catholic Council (ACC), a grassroots organization, has drafted a Catholic Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.  They draw upon not only the American Bill of Rights as an example, but upon Catholic Doctrine regarding human rights and responsibilities.  They also held listening sessions to gain the people’s input.

The current draft of the Catholic Bill of Rights and Responsibilities is as follows:

 1. Primacy of Conscience. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to develop an informed conscience and to act in accord with it.
2. Community. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to participate in a Eucharistic community and the right to responsible pastoral care.
3. Universal Ministry. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to proclaim the Gospel and to respond to the community’s call to ministerial leadership.
4. Freedom of Expression. Every Catholic has the right to freedom of expression and the freedom to dissent.
5. Sacraments. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to participate in the fullness of the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church.
6. Reputation. Every Catholic has the right to a good name and to due process.
7. Governance. Every Catholic and every Catholic community has the right to a meaningful participation in decision making, including the selection of leaders.
8. Participation. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to share in the interpretation of the Gospel and Church tradition.
9. Councils. Every Catholic has the right to convene and speak in assemblies where diverse voices can be heard.
10. Social Justice. Every Catholic has the right and the responsibility to promote social justice in the world at large as well as within the structures of the Church.

This weekend in Detroit the ACC will present this Bill of Rights to a few thousand conference attendees in hopes of ratification.  This seems a positive thing for a church riddled by abuse scandal after abuse scandal.   Yet Detroit’s Archbishop Vigneron has issued multiple warnings for laypeople to avoid the conference and threatened to defrock priests who attend.  Though event organizers have repeatedly tried to work with him, he has not responded.  Instead he has drawn incorrect assumptions and told his flock to stay away based upon false accusations of the ACC.  Despite ignoring multiple efforts for communication initiated by ACC leaders, he is quoted in the news as saying the opposite – that he has tried to communicate with ACC leaders and been ignored.  In response to and in spite of the Archbishop’s violation of the 8^th Commandment “bearing false witness”, conference registration has soared.

Who would fear a Bill of Rights?  Why would an institution that focuses on God-given free will fear a document that guarantees protection of people’s free will?   Why would the church, comprised of the people of God, want to preserve unchecked power for ordained people and not guarantee any rights to laypeople?  Especially in light of abuse scandal after abuse scandal, why wouldn’t people insist that the church's governance model change?

Do we remember Mary Magdalene as Jesus instructed us to?

One story in which Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus just before his Passion appears in three gospels: MT 26, MK 14 and John 12.  Mary anointed Jesus’ head and/or feet depending upon the gospel version of the event.   Two gospels describe Mary as anointing his head.  Those same two renditions indicate Jesus told his disciples this regarding Mary, “Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of, in memory of her (MK 14:9, MT 26:13)."

What exactly did Mary Magdalene do that we should remember her wherever the gospel is proclaimed?  Since most people likely are unaware of this scriptural instruction, do we speak of her actions in memory of her at all much less “wherever” we proclaim the gospel?

Understanding what she did requires understanding what it meant to anoint someone in biblical times.  An anointing was significant due to what it symbolized and that significance was so great it justified even impoverished people using very expensive perfumes and oils for the occasion. 

People anointed the dead for burial.  They also anointed leaders’ heads to indicate that God chose them to lead.  Both the word “messiah” and “Christ” mean “anointed one”.  Thus, “Jesus Christ” means “Jesus the anointed one”.  Only women anointed Jesus and only Mary Magdalene anointed his head, a messianic anointing.  This is very significant.

Who usually anointed people in biblical times?  Another man did.  Since women had lower social status, leaders were usually men and women touching men to anoint them as leaders violated religious and social norms.  Anointers themselves also were considered important messengers of God such as Samuel who anointed Israel’s first kings.  This further reinforced the cultural practice of males anointing male leaders.  

A female anointing Jesus must have shocked people because of the marked deviation from norms.  Since Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ head was a messianic anointing, this too would have stunned people who otherwise assumed a man would anoint the Messiah.  Thus, Mary was a female messenger of God, breaking cultural and religious norms to visibly anoint Jesus so people could see God chose him to lead.  Is this how Mary Magdalene is remembered at all much less “wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world?”

Since the church finds Jesus’ interactions with particular genders especially significant and worthy of eternal perpetuation, why did this significant gender-specific interaction escape them?  Why isn’t it preserved and perpetuated?  Why isn’t it retold in memory of Mary?  Jesus never speaks of perpetually remembering his mother Mary’s actions.  Why does the church fixate on remembering her actions while almost ignoring the Mary Jesus said to always remember? 

Should the Creed include Mary Magdalene’s anointing of Jesus so that wherever we proclaim the gospel we remember her act anointing him as Messiah?  Should women be anointers in the church?

Do sheep flee from good shepherds?

This weekend we read in John 10 where Jesus excoriates the religious leaders of his day, the Pharisees, for being false shepherds who expel those whom Jesus calls.  Specifically the gospel passage refers to the Pharisees expelling from the synagogue the blind beggar whom Jesus personally touched and healed (John 9). 

Church leaders increasingly expel people for questioning traditions Jesus never explicitly established.   Meanwhile, these same actions violate Jesus’ explicit directive to the apostles, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt.  But it shall not be so among you (Mark 10:42-43 and MT 20:25-26).”  Sadly, it is increasingly “so” amongst today’s apostles.   

Why do church leaders foster an environment where they “lord it over” people who question traditions based on things Jesus never actually said whilst ignoring things Jesus explicitly instructed? 

They try to justify their actions by citing the Magisterium’s self-acclaimed role as superior discerners and defenders of truth.  Yet, the clergy continue to be exposed as taking great liberties with truth, particularly when it comes to due process and the sex abuse scandal or even simple things like fact-checking homily material as mentioned in my last blog article.  I appreciate all clergy are human and therefore capable of breaking any commandment.  However, habitual 8^th Commandment violators rightfully are not seen as credible, much less superior, guardians of truth. 

In this weekend’s gospel passage Jesus says, “…the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice. But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers (John 10:4-5).”  In 2010 alone, 180,000 of Pope Benedict’s fellow Germans left the church due to shepherds who abused children or enabled abusers.  Every day approximately 1,000 Mexicans leave the church resulting in over 1,000,000 Catholics leaving every three years.   Worldwide, millions leave the church due to the bishops’ behaviors and policies.   Is this exodus indicative of good shepherding?