We belong together...

I write this on a plane flying from Madrid to Chicago, returning from a business trip.  Many Catholics returning from World Youth Day (WYD) are also on this flight.  I’m sitting behind kids from the Sioux City, Iowa diocese in the United States.  Some of them are wearing t-shirts that advertise their diocese and commemorate their WYD trip.  Their shirt backs sport a quote from St. Paul about building the faith.  The following words appear below that quote: “creed”, “prayer”, “sacraments and liturgy”, and “moral life”, suggesting that these are foundational elements to building the Roman Catholic faith. 

I had started to write wondering why they chose those words to represent the Catholic faith versus words like “service”, “care”, “forgiveness”, “hope”, or “love” - things that I find more foundational to the faith than the ones they chose.  I pondered who had a more correct understanding of Catholic faith or whether our different approaches mattered. 

Thoughts led to thoughts and I became fixated upon increasing divisions in the church, particularly between conservative, orthodox and progressive camps.  Each side tends to stand in judgment of the other based upon a belief that they have a superior grasp of truth.  Instead of building the Body of Christ, the Body is tearing itself apart based upon ideology.  Thus, “division caused by those who believe they build” was becoming my theme for this article.

However, I am listening to my iPod in random shuffle mode while I write and the Pat Benatar song, “We Belong”, just played.  I had understood that song to be about two individuals suffering interpersonal brokenness and a plea to retain a covenant-like commitment simply because they belong together.  That might even be the artist’s intended meaning; I don’t know.  But the intersection of hearing the words while I wrote about church division prompted a new interpretation that, in turn, altered my theme.  If you’re not familiar with the song, the lyrics are at the bottom of this article.

Opposing sides of church divisions think they express their concerns; “Many times they try to tell” the other side what’s wrong.  Each side professes to weep over the brokenness and blame the other side for their hurt and pain; they believe they more accurately understand God.  Some believe the pain would vanish if only those who disagree with them would either agree with them or leave. 

Many people do leave the church due to pain.  Others teeter on the brink.  They feel enough pain that they contemplate leaving but they remain because they think they’ve “invested too much” to abandon it.  Many remain in the church simply because being Catholic has “become a habit”, a recurrent unconscious pattern, repeating ritualistic practices detached from their conscious thoughts or actions.

Accusations fly as to who is worthy to bear the moniker “Catholic”, based upon various “doubts that complicate” people’s minds.  Some doubt infallibility doctrine, some doubt Jesus gave a damn about priests’ gender, some doubt Jesus would label any of God’s creation as intrinsically evil.  Others doubt Jesus really meant we should not judge, have detachment from worldly goods, care for the poor, ill, vulnerable and stranger in our midst, tell the truth, or passionately and unrelentingly forgive each other.  Some doubt clergy should be given special privileges and almost unbridled power.  Some doubt those who doubt have a right to doubt.

People build arguments to “prove” their version of “truth” is God’s version of truth.  But, do they “distort the facts”, sacrificing truth for being correct so as to resist growth and change, and thereby justify remaining in their comfort zones? 

Comfort zones seem appealing so people surround themselves with other like-minded individuals.  They can then delude themselves into thinking they promote unified harmony.  But harmony does not arise from singing in unison.  Harmony comes from taking different tones and assembling them together.  Harmony and unity require stepping out of the insulated comfort zone of a monotone society and embracing those singing different tunes.

As we approach the 10^th anniversary of the September 11^th tragedy, I recall times when people temporarily overcame division because everyone was ripped from their comfort zones.   With everyone forced to abandon comfort zones people seemed more capable to remember that at the heart of everything, “we can’t begin to know it; how much we really care” for and about each other. And for a short while, there was unity.

Whether we stay or leave the church, and though we might profess to shake the dust of the opposition from our feet, we are haunted by their faces and voices. That is because, as One Body, we do “belong together”, “for worse or for better”, “whatever we deny or embrace”, be that “creed”, “prayer”, “sacraments and liturgy”, and “moral life”, or “service”, “care”, “forgiveness”, “hope” and “love”.  Because we belong together, we cannot shake their dust from our feet.  Their dust is our dust.  Our feet are their feet. 

“Belonging together” is a key gospel message and a key way to build the faith.  Why then is unity so scarce?  Why is uniformity preferred over unity?  Why must it take massive destabilizing tragedies to realize unity is actually not that hard to achieve?  Is it any wonder people flee organized religions when they see such poor examples for togetherness practiced by those in organized religions?  No wonder Jesus preferred the company of outcasts to that of the religious leaders and pillars. 

“We Belong” – Pat Benatar

Verse One:

Many times I’ve tried to tell you

Many times I cried alone

Always I’m surprised how well you cut my feelings to the bone.

Don’t want to leave you really

I’ve invested too much time

To give you up that easy

To the doubts that complicate your mind

Refrain:

We belong to the light

We belong to the thunder

We belong to the sound of the words we’ve both fallen under

Whatever we deny or embrace

For worse or for better

We belong, we belong

We belong together

Verse Two:

Maybe it’s a sign of weakness

When I don’t know what to say

Maybe I just wouldn’t know

What to do with my strength anyway

Have we become a habit

Do we distort the facts

Now there’s no looking forward

Now there’s no turning back

When you say

(Refrain)

Verse Three:
Close your eyes and try to sleep now

Close your eyes and try to dream

Clear your mind and do your best

To try to wash the palette clean

We can’t begin to know it

How much we really care

I hear your voice inside me

I see your face everywhere

Still you say:

(Refrain)

Codependency and the church...

Codependency interweaves with abuse.  It is a form of addiction revolving around approval, usually from another addict, rather than around a substance or behavior.  Some codependents enable addicts.  Some codependents have other addictions as well.

Addictive and codependent behaviors conflict with and undermine gospel principles.  Yet according to Philip St. Romain, church leadership has a much higher than average number of addicts and codependents in ministry (Freedom from Codependency, 1991 Liguori Publications).   Therefore it’s important to understand codependency and its impact in the church.

First, what is it?  Codependency is a set of behaviors learned by people in abusive situations as a survival mechanism to deal with the instability and insanity of living with an addict.  Because children in addictive households universalize their early family experiences as “normal”, they are particularly vulnerable for becoming codependents.  They desperately seek the approval of their parents who cannot offer healthy love because their first love is to the addiction source.  “Love” is offered or refused as a controlling mechanism.  However the child does not know they are being manipulated or that this is unhealthy because this is their first and possibly only model of “love” in their formative years.

Children of addicts learn many codependent behaviors seeking parental approval and keeping familial peace.  They think they are responsible for things beyond their control.  As a result they learn to live in a constant “crisis mode” while caring for their addictive and/or codependent parents.  They are dependent upon their parents despite inability to provide a healthy nurturing environment so they are very threatened by external criticisms of their parents. 

Codependents learn to lie, compensate and cover for the person whose approval they seek rather than hold them accountable.  Loyalty is the highest virtue.

Codependents are hypersensitive.  They interpret many things as “rejection”.  They are defensive about discussing issues.  They try to deny or minimize problems rather than deal with them.  They attack people who try to discuss them.  They blame others for their failures or unhappiness.

They tend to develop alternate realities formed from delusional beliefs.  They are selfless to the point of losing themselves.  They often view themselves as victims or martyrs since these boost their self-esteem.  They like to hear things like, “I don’t know how you deal with so-and-so; you must be a saint.”

Codependents operate with numerous covert rules. Expectations are communicated indirectly if at all yet penalties for violating the rules are strictly enforced and usually severe.  Some of these rules include:

• No discussing problems - say “nice” things
• No discussing certain topics – there are many secrets
• No expression of feelings  - feelings should be “private”
• Use indirect communication such as a go-between to deliver messages or gather information
• Be “strong”, “correct”, “good” and “perfect” (with nebulous shifting definitions of what each of those mean)
• Don’t embarrass me – and just about everything embarrasses me
• Be giving and anything that doesn’t give in to me is “selfish”
• Do as I say and not as I do
• Don’t be playful – life is serious
• Don’t rock the boat but just be obedient

Above all, the codependent wants to project an image of perfection and harmony to the outside world.

What is the impact of prevalent codependency in church leadership?  Let’s start with the last statement first.  The human condition includes imperfection; this is expressed in church doctrine.  The church is human; it is the people of God.  This is also church doctrine.  Yet, codependent church leaders want to project an image of church perfection.  Doesn’t this violate the commandment about bearing false witness?  The church falsely presents itself as perfect in places where it is imperfect.  Institutional imperfections caused by human imperfections within the church cannot be fixed because codependent leaders refuse to acknowledge and address what is broken.

St. Romain also explains that the demands of priesthood share many parallels with codependent behaviors.  Thus, the priesthood attracts codependents accounting for their high percentage in church leadership.  Furthermore, he explains that emotionally healthy ordained and lay ministers struggle to avoid adopting codependent behaviors because they constantly interact with codependent colleagues and leaders.  Many succumb and unconsciously begin adopting codependent behaviors.  This trickles out to the laity and the same occurs there, especially as the laity value approval of clergy or confuse clergy approval with God’s approval.  Thus, codependency has become characteristic of church leadership and culture.

Here’s a simple seemingly innocuous example of ecclesial codependency: Father is habitually late for Mass but people look the other way because he doesn’t take criticism well.  Yet Father chastises others for shortcomings in their liturgical ministries.   This sends many unhealthy messages: “Do as I say and not as I do”, “You are not good or perfect enough”, “Don’t embarrass me”, “Don’t say things about me that aren’t nice but I can say things about you that aren’t nice”, etc…  If parishioners escalate to the bishop, a codependent bishop defends the priest because admitting the priest has human flaws shatters an illusion of perfection.

As we look at more serious issues such as pedophile priests, we start to understand why the bishops fail to address these situations properly.  It’s more important to lie and cover-up for the abusive priest than to deal with truth.  This is an “unpleasant thing” so don’t talk about it, hence the Vatican’s directives for handling pedophile issues with a code of secrecy.  Above all, the bishop wants to project an image of perfection and harmony.  As people force bishops to be accountable for handling pedophiles, they become angry because their alternate reality is threatened.  They begrudgingly comply but as minimally as possible.  They invest more effort in creating an illusion of fixing the problem than in actually fixing the problem. 

Both situations are manifestations of the same issue: power abuse stemming from codependency in church leadership impacting the general church population.  In both cases, those trying to foster healthy operating environments and healthy relationships are seen as threats.  Codependents attack those fostering healthy emotional and interpersonal practices instead of the abusers.  They push promoters of healthy interactions to the margins or try to bully them out of the group, protecting the abuser instead of the abused.

Examining the impact of codependent leaders on the micro and macro church is probably ample fodder for a doctoral dissertation rather than a blog entry.  But, I will leave you with a few questions.  What codependent practices have we consciously or unconsciously adopted as survival mechanisms in the church?  Is it more important to prophetically speak God’s truth or retain approval from church leaders?  Do I confuse God’s approval with church leaders’ approval?  Do I compromise my values to enable codependent clergy or lay ministers?  What might I do differently to better live gospel truths and love, rejecting codependency in the church?

Thanks to my cyber-friend, George for inspiration to write on this topic.

What is the best posture for receiving communion?

A local priest criticized the Second Vatican Council during a recent Sunday homily.  He disparaged Vatican II because he felt it ushered in the “new” without properly respecting the “old”.  His was one of the more publicly expressed dissents against these church teachings but it reflects a church leadership trend of steadily departing from Vatican II teachings. 

Another church leader dissenting from Vatican II-based norms is Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship.  He expressed his personal opinion that Catholics should resume the pre-Vatican II practice exclusively receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling rather than in hand while standing.  This was a personal not an official statement so it does not change reception norms.  However, it is confusing for the worldwide liturgy leader to say this. 

These types of dissent represent alarming ignorance and disregard for church teachings, not only those emanating from Vatican II but also those on the dogmatic precedence conciliar efforts have over individual utterances and pronouncements, including those of popes.  Due to affirmation of the Spirit’s guidance across a large body of individuals rather than just a single individual, the church teaches councils’ doctrinal efforts carry more weight than individual pronouncements.  Thus, the Second Vatican Council’s teachings should be considered extremely binding, not things to dismiss casually based on personal preference or disagreement. 

Like it or not, Vatican II resulted in sixteen documents that present binding (albeit not infallible) church teachings: four constitutions, three declarations and nine decrees.  They do not include Humanae Vitae, Pastores Dabo Vobis, Mulieris Dignatatem or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, lesser binding (and also not infallible) teachings issued via papal encyclicals from Paul VI and John Paul II.  They do not include Inter Insigniores which is a lesser binding (and not infallible) teaching issued via declaration made by a Vatican office rather than a council.  For those unfamiliar with those latter documents, they contain teachings on birth control, priest gender requirements and the role of women - topics from which many church leaders permit no dissent.  Why do current leaders tolerate no dissent for lesser binding teachings while dissenting from more binding conciliar teachings?   

Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council was not about ushering in the new and discarding the old.  It was about reclaiming the old, looking back to original Christian traditions and appropriately adapting them for the Church in the Modern World.  During its multi-millennial history, the church took many small, seemingly valid tangential deviations that cumulatively set the church off course.  Vatican II corrected course, returning to that which Jesus originally entrusted to his followers.    

The statement about communion reception is particularly puzzling for a few reasons.  First, Cardinal Llovera feels that kneeling is THE appropriate way to respect and adore Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist.  Going back in time, standing was a sign of respect; kneeling symbolized subservience.  Regardless, is there really a universal way for someone to show respect?  How can someone think to impose a universal “ultimate” when respect is conveyed in diverse ways depending upon individuals and cultures?    

Second, the Eucharist re-actualizes the Last Supper.  The church teaches that priests represent the person of Jesus in this effort.  At the Last Supper, the disciples reclined at table with Jesus; they didn’t kneel.  Scripture suggests Jesus was the only person who knelt at the Last Supper, as he made himself a servant to wash the disciples’ feet.  He told them to do likewise.  He even chastised Peter, who felt uncomfortable with Jesus’ radical act of humility.  Yet Jesus told Peter accepting this seemingly inverted humility was essential for inheritance in God’s kingdom. 

If we imitate Jesus, shouldn’t priests, acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) during the Mass, kneel during communion – not before the host but as they serve the people approaching them for reception?  At the Last Supper Jesus didn’t say, “Get down on your knees and adore me or you cannot share in my inheritance.”  He blessed and broke bread, sharing with friends.  Therefore, at a minimum, shouldn’t people approach the Eucharist in communal friendship rather than servile adoration? 

This brings up another point of confusion.  Jesus told the disciples and apostles “Follow me.”  He didn’t say “Adore me.”   It seems many people expend great efforts trying to perfectly “adore” Jesus and fall far short following him.  Adoration is significantly easier than emulation.  

Yet scripture indicates our judgment will not be based upon how much we adored Jesus, or passing an exam on the church’s dogmatic teachings, but rather how well we followed Jesus.  When I was hungry, did you feed me?  When I was thirsty, did you give me something to drink?  When I was naked, did you clothe me? When in prison, did you visit me?  When a stranger in a strange land, did you welcome me?  Did you radically forgive and radically include?  If I follow Christ, shouldn’t I kneel before the poor I serve at the food pantry more readily than kneeling before the host?    

The Church is the People of God...

July 19, 2011 Pope Benedict XVI accepted the resignation of Philadelphia’s Cardinal Rigali and named Charles Chaput as its new Archbishop in the wake of recent rampant clergy sex abuse issues there.  Chaput has a reputation for zero-tolerance of clergy sexual impropriety yet vigorously lobbies against extending the statue of limitations for criminally prosecuting those who sexually abuse minors.  (He thinks this unfairly targets clergy, though it applies to anyone who sexually molests a minor.)  He has a reputation for judgmental conservatism stemming from his actions such as barring the child of a lesbian couple from attending Catholic school in his diocese, and enthusiastically supporting the use of Holy Communion as a weapon to influence people’s political votes.

Recent opinions about Chaputs appointment published in the Philadelphia Inquirer gave me pause for reflection.  Christine Flowers applauds Chaput’s appointment and accuses people, especially Catholics, of “anti-Catholicism”, who don’t support him and his agenda.  She writes, “Catholicism is, for them, a dirty word. Because it judges. Because it has rules and beliefs they just don't buy. And Charles Chaput, like New York's Timothy Dolan, isn't going to let them get away with it anymore.”    She vilifies “Voice of the Faithful”, an organization that advocates for abuse victims because they seek to identify and address the root causes of the church’s systemic abuse and accountability issues.  She mocks people who properly quote church doctrine that the church is “the people of God” not an institution.  For her, the church is the institution with its rules and hierarchical governing bodies to keep people in line. 

Let’s address that last point first.  Though presenting herself as an authority, Ms. Flowers’s statement directly opposes church teaching.  Here is an excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER THREE I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

ARTICLE 9 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"

Paragraph 2. The Church - People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit

Please note the Catechism states the church is the people of God, not the institution or its hierarchy.  Furthermore, this section of the Catechism includes such teachings as:

804 One enters into the People of God by faith and Baptism. "All men are called to belong to the new People of God" (LG 13), so that, in Christ, "men may form one family and one People of God" (AG 1).

805 The Church is the Body of Christ. Through the Spirit and his action in the sacraments, above all the Eucharist, Christ, who once was dead and is now risen, establishes the community of believers as his own Body.

806 In the unity of this Body, there is a diversity of members and functions. All members are linked to one another, especially to those who are suffering, to the poor and persecuted.

807 The Church is this Body of which Christ is the head: she lives from him, in him, and for him; he lives with her and in her.

809 The Church is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the soul, as it were, of the Mystical Body, the source of its life, of its unity in diversity, and of the riches of its gifts and charisms.

810 "Hence the universal Church is seen to be 'a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'" (LG 4 citing St. Cyprian, De Dom. orat 23: PL 4, 553).

A  July 25, 2011 letter to the editor by Mr. Daniel Dufner echoes Ms. Flowers’ opinions on what defines Catholicism.  Mr. Duffner writes, “Archbishop Charles Chaput is just the person we need to ensure the message is delivered to the entire archdiocese that you cannot sit back and claim to be a Catholic and not embrace church teachings, values, and fundamental beliefs. No gay marriage. No abortion. No just going to Mass when you feel like it. No euthanasia. No tolerating child abuse.”  Mr. Dufner and Ms. Flowers seem to define the church as a hierarchical institution opposed to “bad” things and Catholics as a homogenous group of unquestioning followers.    

However, the catechism teaches that the church is the people of God, a diverse people, unified by their faith and baptism in the Triune God.  Actually, rather than primarily being an institution “against” things, the church is the people of God who are “for” what Christ is “for” with particular concern for the suffering, poor and persecuted.  This reflects what we see Jesus practice in the gospels: radical inclusion, radical forgiveness, radical detachedness from material goods, radical concern for the poor, and radical healing of the suffering. 

As an aside, Jesus also said to leave judging to God at the end of time.  This has been the focus of the last two weekends’ gospel readings (MT 13).  Why would someone think the church’s job is to judge people on a daily basis? 

Furthermore, how can one reconcile the church’s teachings with leaders who judge and persecute rather than forgive and free from persecution?  How can the faithful rejoice in the prospect of excluding members of its body through rejecting the diversity of its parts and suppression of individual charsims?  More importantly, why are there so many Catholics who believe they are superior protectors and defenders of the Catholic faith when many of their actions and beliefs directly oppose church teachings and Jesus’ examples? 

I actually think I can answer that last question.  Beginning in 1978 with Pope John Paul II’s papacy during which Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, there has been a systematic and concerted effort to narrow the Catholic faith to a few teachings (Berry “Vows of Silence” and Reese “A Flock of Shepherds”).  Rather than gather all to Christ, they wish to “purify” the church and make it smaller by excluding and driving out people who differ with them on select teachings. 

The questionnaire for potential new bishops reflects this attitude.  It asks church leaders for the bishop candidate’s stand on, “the priestly ordination of women, on the Sacrament of Matrimony, on sexual ethics, and on…loyalty and docility to the Holy Father, the Apostolic See and the Hierarchy; esteem for and acceptance of priestly celibacy.”  This focus, in effect, has narrowed the definition of Catholicism to anti-female clergy, anti-gay civil unions, anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-married clergy and pro-unquestioned hierarchical power. 

Every bishop appointed over the last 33 years by John Paul II and Benedict XVI must be in lock-step with their beliefs on these aspects of doctrine, effectively elevating them to pre-eminent importance over all other church teachings.  This mantra is reinforced as bishops ultimately control who teaches within the institutional church, and censure and persecute believers who question this narrow definition of Catholicism.   

The question I can’t answer is why the real church, the people of God, settles for this cheapened, narrow definition of Catholicism and does not reclaim the church.  

What is childlike faith?

A few days ago the priest at morning Mass elaborated upon Jesus’ directive to have “childlike” faith.  He said that being childlike involved not asking questions of Holy Mother Church because children don’t ask questions; they just listen and obey.  I don’t know what children he has met but that has not been my experience with children; they sustain an almost inexhaustible, unrelenting barrage of “whys”.

Some formal definitions I found for “childlike” include “having good qualities associated with a child”, or “like or befitting a child as in innocence, trustfulness or candor”.

After 24 years of parenting three children, I think “childlike” means having an innate sense of right and wrong accompanied by a well-tuned “b.s. detector”.  Many children see through lame excuses and self-serving manipulation packaged as “I’m doing this for you.”  Being “childlike” means having a genuine inquisitiveness.  Kids ask a million questions, listen and ask one or two million more.  Children value truth and think people want to hear it.  Thus they speak it prophetically.  The combination of their “b.s. detector” and value for truth inspires them to write-off and ignore people who lie to them.

Why would this priest equate “childlike” with blind and unquestioning obedience?  I think some parents hope their child will stop asking questions but good parents encourage questions.  Sometimes answering them is exhausting but a good parent knows how to lovingly deal with childlike persistence.  Sometimes parents don’t know the answers but good parents learn researching the answers.  Good parents are secure enough to say, “I don’t know” when they don’t know and "I was wrong" when they learn they were wrong.  Good parents revel in their child’s inquisitiveness and see it as a source motivating growth for them and their child. 

Ineffective parents make up answers and tell their children to stop asking questions.  This stems from a mistaken belief that parents must always appear to "know" things.  Some parents punish their children for asking questions, conditioning them to not ask.  Thus, some children learn to not ask, but the questions still naturally form in their minds.  They are just suppressed by the abusive environment in which the child resides.  In mildest form, the abusive environment just suppresses questions but sometimes it is the accomplice to greater abuses like physical, sexual or substance abuses.  What role does suppression of questions play in enabling abuses in the church?   

This priest echoed a sentiment I’m hearing more and more, especially from priests emerging from seminaries in the last 15 – 20 years.  His inaccurate understanding of children and what it means to be childlike aligns with a statement Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) made during a homily given December 31, 1979.  “The Christian believer is a simple person: bishops should protect the faith of these little people against the power of intellectuals.”  Ratzinger equates theologians with intellectuals.  Thus his statement was directed at theologians.  Why does Ratzinger think people are simplistic?  Why does he think theologians, with their childlike inquisitiveness and prophetic expressions are something from which people need protection?  Why does he want to stifle people’s spiritual growth? 

Between his roles as pope and prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (formerly called the Office of the Inquisition), Ratzinger has censured over ninety theologians for the simple reason that they ask questions…are childlike.  He has created an environment conditioning clergy, theologians and the faithful to suppress their childlike questions.  But, the childlike questions still remain.

What is the impact of suppressing childlike inquisitiveness to individuals, the church and society?  How should we respond to leaders that suppress childlike questioning?  How should we cultivate our childlike questioning and prophetic expressions of truth?