How about the truth?

This week Msgr. Lynn’s criminal trial for child endangerment revealed great insight into what passes for church hierarchy’s “logic.”   Aware that Fr. Stanley Gana also slept with women, abused alcohol and embezzled church funds, Msgr. Lynn and his bosses left this serial child rapist in active ministry with access to children reasoning that his other egregious behaviors disqualified him from being a “pure pedophile.”   

I think it’s safe to assume all pedophiles are “impure” rather than “pure.”    Despite Lynn’s inglorious explanation, the question remains: Pure or impure pedophile, why was Fr. Gana left in ministry?

Similarly inverted “logic” was used this week to arrest a whistleblower for his part in exposing corruptions in the Vatican and Vatican bank rather than arresting the parties actually responsible for the corruptions, i.e. the pope and several ordained Vatican officials.  The pope called the exposure of his and his leadership team’s corruptions, “criminal”, not the corrupt behaviors themselves.  

Perhaps since they committed other egregious behaviors like re-instating a holocaust denying bishop, enabling pedophile clergy, unjustly sanctioning theologians, launching a war on women, unceremoniously removing clergy who disagree with them, forcing an inaccurate and unwanted English liturgy translation, and giving preferential treatment to orthodox bullying organizations, they do not consider themselves “purely corrupt.”

I think it’s safe to assume that all collaborators in corruption are “impure.”  The question again remains: Pure or impure in their corruptions, why do the pope and his accessories in corruption imprison the whistleblower while they walk with impunity?  Being the supreme dictator of one’s own country and religion has its perks, I guess.

Both situations involve “logic” based on this flawed axiom: if something protects the institutional brotherhood of the Roman Catholic clergy, then it is “good” but if it in any way threatens the brotherhood, it is “bad.”   The hierarchy seems to place higher value on this axiom than on principles set forth in the Ten Commandments, like truth.  With increasing exposures of corruption and enablement of abuses, the truth increasingly is seen as an enemy to those who claim to defend and proclaim it.  How can they defend and preach that which they do not recognize or practice?

Rather than stand for truth as Jesus relentlessly did, they become spin doctors and turn seminaries into residency programs refining spin doctoring techniques.  Pastoral training has gone on hiatus because truly pastoral people also threaten the sordid brotherhood that has usurped control of the church.

During cross-examination on Thursday, Msgr. Lynn replied to Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington, “I don’t know how you want me to answer questions…”  Blessington’s response was simple, “How about the truth?”  It was a brilliantly simple response to a person who by the nature of his position should know implicitly to answer in honesty. 

I think many Catholics tire of hearing about clergy scandals.  They wish clergy would stop committing the offenses, the guilty clergy would be removed and punished, and people would stop talking about scandals so they don’t have to defend remaining in a corruptly led organization, or alter their routines.  

St. Thomas More once wrote, “For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.”   As Catholics weather wave after wave of scandals, I think it is important to reflect upon this thought. 

Have we suffered our clergy to be ill-educated and their manners corrupted from the infancy of their vocations by enabling them to live privileged, detached and aloof lifestyles?  If we permit them to live as invincible, infallible beings above the law, should we be surprised that they behave like they are above the law and truth?  If we turn a deaf ear and blind eye when they err, lie, manipulate or distort, do we have a right to be scandalized when they continue such behaviors?   Must we look in the mirror when we ask, “What is wrong with the church?”  Whether we leave the church or remain, if we do so in silence, are we accessories to the clergy’s crimes?  Will corruption leave the church only when we insist that it does?

In the case of the Vatican scandals, the person arrested was the Pope’s butler.  Think about that for just a minute, the pope’s butler… just like Jesus had?  The butler is one of the Pope’s personal staff comprised of four women who tend his apartment and some personal secretaries – yes that is a plural - secretaries.  Why aren’t people scandalized that the self-acclaimed Vicar of Christ (a homeless, itinerant, staffless preacher) has a staff of servants, including a guy who holds his umbrella over him in the rain?  If we permit church leaders to live like royalty and distort truth while committing atrocities, then do we have anyone to blame but ourselves for the church being in its current shameful state?

The U.S. Bishops are encouraging a “fortnight of freedom”.   From June 21^st to July 4^th they are asking Catholics to stand up for religious freedom.  Their hope is people will protest the U.S. government.  Should we protest secular or ecclesial government?  Which should we hold to a higher standard?

Perhaps instead of rallying at some secular government building with other Catholics, we should rally outside of diocesan chanceries, demanding religious freedom within our church, demanding truth and transparency, demanding justice for religious sisters, for women, for gays, for immigrants, for abuse victims, for lay people.  Perhaps instead of writing secular officials we write bishops and other clergy expressing our outrage at their corrupt brotherhood.

Perhaps we begin our fight for religious freedom in our own parishes, reverting to the Mass language that fits our culture.  Perhaps we send our charitable donations to a food pantry instead of the collection basket.  Perhaps we boycott ministerial involvement leaving the clergy to perform all the tasks themselves.  If we do not in dramatic ways insist upon honesty and religious freedom within our church, can we ever expect an end to the parade of scandals?

Thanks to my friends Jack and Caridad whose correspondence gave me the idea for this article.

What is "radical feminism" and is it "bad"?

The Vatican has accused U.S. religious sisters of “radical feminism”.  The term might conjure images fit for a reality T.V. show, “Nuns Gone Wild”, where after delivering a university lecture for her “Dismantling Family Values 101” class, Sr. Mary She-Ra firebombs Fr. Pete O’File’s residence on her way home before enjoying a celebratory meal with fellow sisters, dancing naked around a statue of their patroness, “St. Lorena Bobbitt”.   I’m not sure if that’s the image the Vatican intended by using that term, but I’m not sure it wasn’t either.  Regardless, it’s not an accurate image of “radical feminism.” 

So, what is “radical feminism” really?  The word “radical” means “at the root”.  “Feminism” advocates for women's rights based upon the belief that women should have political, social, and economic equality to men.   Since the church teaches that sexism is a sin, one would expect the church to support something that tries to understand gender inequality’s roots.   

Why then is the Vatican seemingly strongly against “radical feminism”?  “Radical feminism” developed a theory that asserts patriarchal social structures are a root of gender inequality.  Therefore, to have true gender equality, one must work to dismantle patriarchal structures which unequally divide power and money based on gender. 

Irrespective of “radical feminist” theory's accuracy, based upon church teachings regarding sexism alone, if the church’s patriarchal governance structure causes sinful sexist oppression of women, then church governance must change to eradicate the sin of sexism.  Herein lies the rub.  Evidently though church doctrine supports gender equality on paper, if that support actually requires tampering with the all-male hierarchy’s patriarchal system of power, then those patriarchal leaders quickly revert to George Orwell’s Animal Farm definition of equality.  "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”

Is it valid to say that the church’s patriarchal system oppresses women, thus justifying radical feminism in the church?

According to Webster’s dictionary, “oppression” is “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.”   Cruelty is in the eye of the beholder provided it passes a test of reasonableness.  Therefore, to some extent individual females decide whether or not they experience cruelty at the hands of the all-male church leaders.  However, only men in the church decide the institutional rules, and those rules bar women from one sacrament and certain activities as well as completely eliminate them from decision-making bodies to establish those rules.  Only the all-male leadership decides what constitutes “just” or “unjust” behavior towards women.  Such a system that excludes female voices from defining justice and setting rules in an organization to which they belong seems inherently unjust towards them. 

Furthermore, church leaders strip away females’ right to their own feelings by telling women how they should feel.  For example, church leaders say a girl, who is denied (based upon gender alone) the opportunity to be an altar server, has an "equal" opportunity to serve the church by cleaning - much as the clown shoveling horse excrement has an “equal” opportunity as the horse and its rider in a parade.   Because church leaders say the opportunities are equal, they say a girl should not feel offended when rejected from one and relegated to another, no matter how strongly she senses a calling to do one versus the other.  Church leaders tell her she is selfish and prideful to not be content with what they have determined is her calling.  Such rape of mind by forcibly thrusting one’s feelings into another person is cruel beyond expression.  It is dehumanizing.

This rape of mind is very present in the Vatican’s document censuring the nuns and actually becomes a rape of their souls too.  The Vatican invalidates the sisters’ Spirit-inspired prophetic voices bestowed upon them in their baptisms and renewed in their confirmations and religious vows, by saying that their prophetic voices are only valid if the all-male church leaders say so.  Church leaders forcibly thrust their experience of the Spirit into these women’s souls trying to conquer the Spirit’s presence in a domain that is beyond their knowledge and control.    

Even worse, in the case of women sensing a call to ordination, church leaders insert their words and opinions into Jesus’ mouth and mind, and then say that Jesus is the person raping women’s minds and souls, not them.  At best their stance is, “We raped your mind and soul because Jesus made us do it.”  Should we be surprised that men, who continue to side-step accountability for their enabling role in the rape of countless children’s bodies, minds and souls, have no compunction raping the minds and souls of women, or blaming their actions on Jesus?  

Why is this group of unmarried men pre-occupied with controlling women’s sensations of the Spirit and doing so based upon anatomical body parts?  Why are they pre-occupied with controlling women’s bodies?  Why do they think “radical feminism” is “bad?”  Since sexism is a sin, aren’t we all called to be “radical feminists” trying to purge this sin from our institution?

I think one could assemble a plausible argument that Jesus, who repeatedly ignored social and religious gender-based norms, was a “radical feminist”.  But, he too committed the same error in the eyes of the church hierarchy as the sisters by focusing on corporal works of mercy rather than teaching about an all-male priesthood or homosexuality.  Would Cardinal Levada and Pope Benedict XVI censure Jesus as well?   

Does the church provide fodder for a reality T.V. show called "Nuns Gone Wild" or one called "Clergy Gone Wild" where Fr. Pete O'File is on trial for serially raping youths with Msgr. Teflon, Vicar of Clergy, who moved dozens of priests like Fr. Pete and thereby endangered the lives of thousands of kids, and whose only defense is, "It's not my fault; I just followed the orders of Cardinal N. Abler who just happened to die the night the courts said he would have to testify at my trial."  In this episode we see Catholic parishes and schools being closed and sold to pay monetary restitution to victims who are actually blamed for the scandal instead of the clergy. One need look no further than the criminal trial underway currently in Philadelphia to find footage. 

Is this censure of the sisters really about “radical feminism” or “radical chauvinism" and "radical clericalism?”  

Who are good shepherds?

Another “Good Shepherd” Sunday has come and gone.  This past weekend’s readings included Jesus saying, “I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me … (John 10:14)”   The church teaches that ordained clergy follow in Jesus’ footsteps as “shepherds.”  However, do recent events such as the Vatican reprimanding U.S. religious sisters and censuring Irish priests conjure images of shepherds tenderly caring for sheep or ones of Don Quixote attacking and slaughtering them?

In Miguel Cervantes’ book, "Don Quixote" (Chapter 18), the title character beat the crap out of two herds of sheep.  He did this because in his delusion of himself as a knight-errant, he assumed the dust raised by the approaching flocks was actually caused by two advancing enemy armies.  Quixote ignored the sound advice of his "squire", Sancho Panza, who explained that they were actually approached by sheep rather than enemies.  But, Quixote rejected plain, simple truth to cling to his delusion.  Based upon this imagined threat born of delusion, and his accompanying delusions of grandeur associated with his noble “quest”, he attacked the sheep and killed seven.

Are the “threats” of the American religious sisters and Irish priests real or imagined?  The “threat” created by the censured Irish priests seems to be their open criticism of continued global mishandling of the church’s sexual abuse crisis and their insistence on greater clergy accountability.  The “threat” created by the chastised American religious sisters seems to be their emulation of Jesus with emphasis on offering corporal works of mercy more than judgmental moral lectures.  Are truth, accountability, advocacy for children and emulating Jesus threats? Are church leaders acting as good shepherds or as Don Quixote?  If shepherds don’t know or recognize their sheep, are they “good”? If they attack and slay their sheep, are they “good”?  

Whether on a local level where clergy bully and dismiss those who question and expect accountability or on a global level where the pope censures Irish priests who advocate for clergy accountability and chastises nuns who emulate Jesus’ actions, are sheep being mistaken for "the enemy”?  Wouldn’t it be nice if the church’s Don Quixotes stopped beating the crap out of sheep they delude themselves into thinking are enemy forces? 

Many people are inspired by Don Quixote’s “quest” as expressed in the lyrics of the song “The Impossible Dream” by Joe Darion (included at the end of this article).  Heard in isolation, those are very stirring sentiments.  But Quixote’s noble quest cannot be detached from the absurdities and harm caused by his delusional pursuit of that quest.  Many people enjoy Don Quixote’s absurdities because they create situational humor as he misinterprets reality and blunders.  However, the physical harm resulting from these blunders is endured by fictional characters.  When it’s real people suffering from real people’s delusions about imagined enemies, real people get hurt.  That’s not funny or inspiring.

In Don Quixote, the real shepherds protected their sheep from Quixote’s delusion-inspired attacks.  As of this writing, over 28,000 faithful Catholics have signed a petition at change.org defending sheep under attack, i.e., the American religious sisters.  In Ireland, hundreds of faithful Catholics protested at the Papal Nunciature (embassy) in Dublin, defending sheep under attack, i.e., the five censured Irish priests.  Who are the “good shepherds”?    

The Psalm this past weekend states, “The stone rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone (Psalm 118).”  Are the religious women and censured priests, those rejected by the self-acclaimed church builders, the true cornerstones?

This past weekend’s Psalm also said, “It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.”  Should we trust in those who emulate the Lord’s passion for the ill and impoverished or the princes of the church who chastise them?   Should we trust in those who emulate the Lord’s passion for truth and advocacy for children or the princes of the church who chastise them?  

“The Impossible Dream” music by Mitch Leigh, lyrics by Joe Darion

To dream ... the impossible dream ...
To fight ... the unbeatable foe ...
To bear ... with unbearable sorrow ...
To run ... where the brave dare not go ...
To right ... the unrightable wrong ...
To love ... pure and chaste from afar ...
To try ... when your arms are too weary ...
To reach ... the unreachable star ...

This is my quest, to follow that star ...
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far ...
To fight for the right, without question or pause ...
To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause ...

And I know if I'll only be true, to this glorious quest,
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm,
when I'm laid to my rest ...
And the world will be better for this:
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
To reach ... the unreachable star ... 

What is the "Good News" in the New Evangelization?

The pope and bishops are launching, “The New Evangelization.”  The word “evangelist” comes from a couple of Greek words meaning, “I bring a message of good news.”  Therefore, evangelization involves expressing good news.  What good news do the new evangelists bring?  To whom do they bring it?  Does that target audience find the message to be “good news?”                                        

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has three goals for the New Evangelization:  

1. For Catholics’ to live their faith in Jesus enthusiastically and openly
2. To welcome everyone in the church
3. To foster gospel values in society. 

On the surface those goals seem fine.  But, the devil is in the details.  Let’s start with the second goal first – welcoming people.

According to a 2009 Canadian study 72.3% of Catholic school students believed their schools were unsupportive of LGBT students and 87.5% felt teachers at their schools were ineffective at addressing homophobic bullying.  Those statistics are far higher than expressed by students at non-Catholic schools.  It is difficult to make a case for welcoming everyone in the Catholic Church when Catholic schools do not welcome homosexual youths as warmly as public schools do.  Youth are a target audience for the new evangelization but they do not see the church as lovingly welcoming their LGBT friends and family.  On this topic, they do not see the church as bringing very “good news”. 

The New Evangelization also tries to bring back fallen-away Catholics.  Therefore the opinions of Catholics who have left the church are important to understand.  According to the 2012 “Empty Pews” study, the top reasons people leave the Catholic Church are:

• Mishandling of the sex abuse crisis
• The church’s attitudes towards homosexual people
• “Arrogant”, “distant”, “aloof” and “insensitive” priests
• Uninspiring homilies
• Hierarchy’s entanglement in secular conservative politics and alignment with the Republican Party
• Attitudes towards divorced and remarried people
• The status of women in the church

Though fallen-away Catholics are a target audience, this study reveals many of them feel the church lacks compassion dealing with divorcees, homosexuals, and abuse victims.  They are horrified by the lies, deceit and skewed priorities dealing with the abuse crisis.  They see the church as homophobic and sexist and feel it discriminates against homosexuals and women rather than welcomes them.   Women are “welcome” only if they abide by the clergy’s defined mould for women; homosexuals are “welcome” only if they accept the church’s teaching that their God-given sexual orientation is actually “intrinsically disordered”.  Many people just don’t find this very “welcoming” and perhaps even find it unjust. 

Hierarchical leaders refuse to consider that they might be wrong and so they counter that people who feel the church is unwelcoming or unjust are simply either uninformed or misinformed.  They sincerely believe that if people just heard their rationale, they would support church practices. Thus, one of the tactics for the New Evangelization is to re-evangelize the faithful.

In re-evangelizing the faithful, people are encouraged to develop an educated, mature faith.  Mature faith involves probing deep, difficult questions.  But, many people who become educated and mature in their faith and ask questions, find themselves chastised, marginalized, censured, or excommunicated.  Do hierarchical leaders foster education and maturity, or indoctrination? 

Recently seniors at De LaSalle Catholic high school in Minneapolis attended a mandatory marriage presentation and were told that same-sex love was akin to bestiality and children from single-parent homes were abnormal.   Students, maturing in their faith, felt the seminar was an overt political maneuver, trying to shape their minds as soon-to-be-voters on an upcoming same-sex marriage ballot question.  Aligned with their consciences, many students protested.  Rather than engage in mature dialogue, school and diocesan officials abruptly ended the session.  I don’t imagine these students find the church welcoming to gays, single parents, children of single parents, or people of mature faith.

Those students’ reaction is similar to that of many people of mature faith who disagree with church policies.  They are very familiar with the gospel and church teachings.  They feel they have a very strong faith in Jesus but feel Jesus would very strongly object to the church’s policies.  They feel they must openly and enthusiastically live their faith aligned with a Jesus who sought out the marginalized, the unwanted, the devalued, and the sinner.  They feel they must openly and enthusiastically welcome women in ways that break social and religious cultural norms, just like Jesus did.  They feel it is not their place to evaluate the absence or presence of sin in same-sex love but to love the individuals involved because they are fiercely certain the Jesus they know demands such non-judgmental acceptance.

The New Evangelization assumes that louder, more frequent repetition of the same messages that drove people away will cause people to rejoin the church.  Will it do that or just inspire more people to leave? 

In their New Evangelization efforts, church leaders say they seek the “lost” sheep.  But the “lost” sheep think the shepherds are actually the ones who are lost.  Consequently the “lost” think it’s breathtakingly arrogant of church leaders to label them as such.  They don’t think church leaders have very good news to share, or at least not the good news associated with Jesus.  They actually feel Jesus would reprimand today’s religious leaders every bit as vehemently as he did the Pharisees of his day.  Both sides believe they are correct.  Is this an unbreakable impasse?

The New Evangelization materials say the church needs to reach out and show people that the church answers their deepest questions and concerns.  Do church leaders think the “good news” is that they have the answer key to a very complicated final exam?  Or do they think the “good news” is simple acceptance of the Triune God with the assurance that despite our sufferings and failings in this world, we will be forever reunited with God?

My mom died on Valentine’s Day this year, surrounded by about two dozen family members.  That group included married people, unmarried people, divorcees, remarried people, single parents, lapsed Catholics, practicing Catholics, heterosexuals, homosexuals, Caucasians, African Americans, young, old, men and women…all the sorts of people that the church manages to alienate. 

As the end drew near, we held her and each other while quietly singing in multi-part harmony her favorite hymns.  Our diversity allowed us to sing confidently in our own voices – in unified harmony not uniformity or unison – and that enhanced our song.  This reflected the welcoming table my mother set.   What can be said of the choir of voices formed by the forced unison and uniformity of the New Evangelization? 

We sang “There is a balm in Gilead to heal the wounded soul…”  That seemed like good news.  We sang, “I sing because I’m happy; I sing because I’m free; for his eye is on the sparrow and I know he cares for me…”  That seemed like good news too.  We sang several songs and could sense the way their messages eased her journey from this world to the next.  It eased our journey watching her departure.  That was good news too.  But she died as we sang these very words, “I am the resurrection; I am the life; if you believe in me, even though you die, you will live forever.”  That was her good news – pure and simple.  That is the good news she instilled in us.  It is my understanding that is the gospel's good news too.

My mom railed against injustice in the church whenever she felt it complicated the pure and simple “good news”.   Does the New Evangelization offer pure and simple “good news” or have church leaders complicated and perverted it?

Guest artist: Len Swidler's open letter to the Pope - "Dear Joe"

Earlier this week I received a copy of this letter from my friend, Len Swidler.  Len knows Pope Benedict XVI from their days teaching together at Tübingen.  He asked that people share his letter so I post it here for others to read.  This is the first guest artist on my blog. 

AN OPEN LETTER TO PROF. JOSEF RATZINGER, POPE BENEDICT XVI

Dear Joe,

Some years back when you were still the head of the Holy Office (“of the Sacred Inquisition” is, as you know, stilled chiseled in stone over its dark building immediately next to St. Peter’s square), I wrote you an open letter concerning the role of women in the Catholic Church. At that time I addressed you with a familiar “Dear Joe,” relying on our relationship from the late 60s/early 70s when I was frequently a Visiting Professor at the Catholic Theology Faculty of the University of Tübingen, and you were Professor Ordinarius there. I did so in the thought that this form of address would tell you that I seriously hoped you might open your mind and heart to hear what I wanted to say to you. I have no way of knowing what success I may have had, if any, in that regard. However, relying on our former “collegiality,” I am approaching you once again in this fraternal fashion.

I am disturbed that especially of late you have been giving signals that are in opposition to the words and spirit of Vatican Council II, during which you as a leading young theologian helped to move our beloved Catholic Church out of the Middle Ages into Modernity. Further, while a professor at our Alma Mater University of Tübingen, you, along with the rest of your colleagues of the Catholic Theology faculty, publicly advocated 1) the election of bishops by their constituents, and 2) limited term of office of bishops (see the book Democratic Bishops for the Roman Catholic Church, http://institute.jesdialogue.org/ecumenical_press/democractic_bishops).

Now—http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/world/europe/pope-assails-disobedience-among-priests.html?ref=world— you are publicly rebuking loyal Catholic priests for doing precisely what you earlier had so nobly advocated. They, and many, many others across the universal Catholic Church, are following your youthful example, trying desperately to move our beloved Mother Church further into Modernity. I deliberately use the word “desperately,” for in your own homeland, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, the churches are empty, and also are so many Catholic hearts when they hear the chilling words coming from Rome and the “radically obedient” (read: “yes-men”) bishops. In my own homeland, America, the birthplace of modern freedom, human rights, and democracy, we have lost—in this generation alone!—one third of our Catholic population, 30,000,000, because the Vatican II promises of its five-fold Copernican Turn (the turn toward 1. freedom, 2. this world, 3. a sense of history, 4. internal reform, and above all, 5. dialogue) have all been so deliberately dashed by your predecessor, and now increasingly by you.

Joe, you were known as one of the Vatican II theologians who promoted Pope St. John XXIII’s call for aggiornamento (bringing up to date) by the reforming spirit of returning to the energizing original sources (resourcement!) of Christianity (ad fontes!—to the fountains!). Those democratic, freedom-loving sources of the Early Church were exactly the renewing “sources,” the “fountains,” of renewal that were spelled out in detail by you and your Tübingen colleagues.

I am urging you to return to that early reforming spirit of your youth. I am reminded of that spirit now in preparation for the 50^th anniversary celebration of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies (JES), which my beloved wife Arlene and I launched in 1964. There in the very first issue of JES are articles by your friend and fellow Vatican II theologian Hans Küng, and yourself (!), looking to bridge over the isolating Counter-Reformation gulf that divided the Catholic Church from the rest of Christianity, and indeed the rest of the modern world.

Joe, in that spirit, I urge you to return to your reforming fountains: Return ad fontes!

Pax!

Len

Leonard Swidler, Ph.D., S.T.L. dialogue@temple.edu

Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue, Temple University

Co-Founder, Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church