THE
PURPLE CULTURE AND COMPLETING A REVOLUTION
(TALK
DELIVERED AT CALL TO ACTION NATIONAL CONFERENCE)
In
our time the facts of the clerical sexual abuse scandal too often
leads Catholics to hope the horror disappears from the media and
quickly move out of our memories. We should rather, I suggest, stare
at the facts and magnitude of the scandal and ask why, and keep
asking why until we know its cause, and know how to stop it from
continuing. According to scholars like Richard Sipe and Thomas
Doyle, sexual abuse of children by the clergy has been with the
Church for centuries.
I
hope in my talk today to increase our understanding of the "why."
Why did it happen?
So,
we will start in that dark place, and move toward the light.
My
talk will be in three parts. The first part will be a brief review of
the scandal to put us all on the same page. The second part will
look at the relationship of the laity to the bishops, following an
historical trail from the first century to the era of revolutions,
the American and French revolutions. In part three we will look at
revolution as an historical fact and its relevance to our discussion.
We will conclude with the state of the relationship - laity to
bishops - in our times, what we might do to improve it and wherein
lies hope.
PART
1
:
A quick review of the scandal in three scenes:
Scene 1: The victims of child sexual abuse - to put us all on the same page
as to the horrors of this victimization.
Scene 2: The priests: the pedophiles.
Scene 3: The behavior of bishops, world-wide, as they related to both
pedophiles, victims and parents of victims, and to the general
public..
Part
1, Scene 1:
The
Victims:
Thousands upon thousands of children (Over 11,000 known; estimates
to 200,000): from infants upward through adolescence, boys and girls.
Father pedophile didn't just touch these children, an
over-exuberant hug, or some such touch. In many instances, Father
Pedophile raped, fellated and sodomized them. The horror for the
children penetrated deeply precisely because they were betrayed by
someone who was on a pedestal, put their by their parents, and by
their Catholic culture. They were victimized by men who were
considered more than pure by a laity conditioned to think that way.
Trusting and admiring the priest, the children were helpless in the
abusive situations. The consequence to the children has been
psychological debilitation of varying degrees and longevity,
sometimes lifelong, and too often life-ending in suicide.
Part
1, Scene 2
:
The
priests
.
(Over 5,600 accused or convicted in USA). First, we must remember
that at least ninety-one percent of priests were not pedophiles. If
some broke their promise of celibacy, they did so with consenting
adults, men or women. Richard Sipe, (A psychotherapist, author and
former lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine, and a scholar who has spent over forty
years studying celibacy and violations of celibacy by priests)
estimates that fifty percent of all priests honor their celibacy
promise, and at one time or another, fifty percent do not. "Of
the latter fifty percent, thirty percent are involved in heterosexual
relationships, fifteen percent are involved in homosexual
relationships, and five percent are involved in problematic sexual
behaviors such as transvestitism, exhibitionism, pornography, or
compulsive masturbation". He now estimates that nine percent of
priests have involved themselves sexually with minors, up from a
prior estimate of six per cent.. "The minor may be either male or
female, so the behavior can be either homosexual or heterosexual
depending on the sex of the victim. Twice as many victims are
adolescents as are prepubescent children. Of the nine percent of
priests involved with children or minors, both heterosexual and
homosexual orientations are represented." In this regard he adds
that the predominant factor is the sexual attraction to children and
minors, and that homosexually oriented priests, even though more
victims are boys than girls, are no more likely to be abusers than
are heterosexual oriented priests.
As to
the priest abuser. Again from Richard Sipe: From his practice and a
review of nearly 500 histories of priest abusers and nearly 1800
victims he sees a division of abusers into four types. "1. The
genetically programmed. Like intelligence, the psycho-sexual
development of some people is genetically programmed to stop at some
level." He gives the example of the priest who repeatedly
victimizes only high school sophomores. 2. "Abusers who are
programmed by early relationships." For example, they themselves
were abused as children. 3. The specifically clerical type." "It
is clear," he says, "that the institutional church fosters a
pre-adolescent stage to psycho-sexual development. This is a period,
typically prior to 11 years of age, when boys prefer association with
their own sex. The institutional church structure, although it
surely includes individuals who have matured beyond it, is dominated
by and entrenched in a level of functioning that cannot face the
sexual realities of adolescence, let alone mature male and female
equality and sexuality." 4. "The coldly immoral group."
These men "coldly, calculatingly, by design, involve themselves
sexually with minors because they want to. They choose it, not
compulsively, indiscriminately, or impulsively. They make a moral
choice, a choice for evil."
Because
of the mystique of holiness and purity surrounding the priesthood,
the abuser was welcome in families, often single mothers who saw him
as a substitute father figure for her children. Single or married,
they trusted their children to this priest in the privacy of the
rectory, on excursions like camping trips, even as baby sitters.
Father Pedophile violated those children and imprisoned them in
secrecy by threat of penalties up to and including damnation for both
the child and for the child's parents. When children did tell
their parents they were often not believed. Father would never do
such a thing! When they were believed, and the parents tried to get
help for them, they often went to their bishop. His reactions bring
us to
Part
1, Scene 3
:
The
Bishops:
*You
are a good parent. You protect your children. You move them
carefully from safe zone to safe zone. It never enters your mind
that your parish is anything but a safe zone.
*One
day your nine year old child is taken from the playground by the
pastor, Father Pious, to the rectory, where he sodomizes the child,
threatens the child with hell for himself and his parents, and other
dire consequences if he tells anyone.
*You
see a change in your child, uncharacteristic behaviors, quiet and
withdrawn or acting out. You persist in questioning the child until
you get beyond the child's fears and the story comes out. You work
through your initial disbelief, and realize the child is telling the
truth.
*What
to do? Seeing your seriously damaged child you want to kill the
abuser, but work through that. Do you go to the police or the
priest's superior, the bishop? You decide that you will start with
the bishop. Surely he will get the rapist off the streets and offer
you some help with paying for the care required by your emotionally
damaged child.
*You
probably won't get to see the bishop. Rather some chancery
official will meet with you, listen to your story, nod
sympathetically, and promise you that he will give all the
information to the bishop. He's confident the bishop will take
action.
*If
you do get in to see the bishops, he will listen. At first he is
conciliatory, verbally sympathetic. He will tell you that this is
the first time anyone has made such an allegation against Father
Pious. However, he will talk to Father Pious, and get his response
to the charges. Should he find them factual, he will see that the
priest will never again have the chance to violate a child. It is,
of course, vital that the whole matter be kept secret. It will do no
good to bring scandal to the church. So, if you promise not to make
the matter public, i.e. take it to the police, and promise not to
sue, he might be able to help financially with the child's care.
*You
don't see where your rights have to be compromised, and you tell
the bishop that. The bishop stops being conciliatory. He turns from
sweetness to hard ball and orders you to be silent about the matter,
under threat of ecclesiastical penalties.
*Within
days you are contacted by the bishop's attorneys They really play
hardball. If you sue, it will be the child's word against that of
the pious Father Pious. Moreover, they would counter-sue to protect
the priest's good name. They will, they insinuate, bury you in
debt forever.
*Where
are you? You are out in the cold, and so is your child. Father
Pious has the bishop and all of the resources of the church on his
side. What you don't know then is that there are thousands of
abused children like yours, and thousands of parents like you across
the country.
*You
later discover that Father Pious has been transferred. At first you
don't know where to. Then you find out he's in a parish across
the city, or in another county, or in another state. In every case,
he has access to children. You also discover that the bishop's
statement to the effect that your complaint against Fr. Pious was the
very first complaint was a bald faced lie. It was a common ploy used
by bishops.
In
short, the bishops did nothing or nothing effective to protect your
child and other children. And they had the ability to do so.
*The
bishops had another audience to deal with once the scandal broke in
the secular press. Revelation after revelation of abuse happened.
All over the country. Their actions to cover up were also revealed.
They mounted a campaign to contain the damage, and transfer
responsibility away from themselves.
1.
They hired costly attorneys to help prevent disclosure of diocesan
records that supported victims' claims. And attorneys to minimize
the costs of court awards to victims.
2.
They marshaled costly public relations firms to spin the damage
down. Soon we heard excuses like:
-most
priests are good priests. The implication being there are always a
few "bad apples."
-priests
are only human. Raping a child is human???
-what
would you expect from the liberal spree and permissive attitudes
unleashed by the second Vatican Council? (Ignoring the fact that
pedophilia has been a church problem from the earliest centuries)
They
turned to scapegoating:
-the
gays did it. The idea being that since most of the victims were
boys, it must be a homosexual thing. (The idea was shot down by
knowledgeable psychotherapists with long experience of dealing with
the priest abusers). Still, the bishops mounted a campaign against
homosexuals as in "They shouldn't be ordained."
-we
were told to understand that children can be very seductive temptors
and temptresses, sexually enticing. Suddenly, it was the childrens'
fault.
-they
tried to project the abusers as the real victims.
-bishops
tried to project themselves as fighting for the "common"
faithful. (Common is their word- we'll come back to that). The
common faithful would be the real victims since they would have to
pay the bill to these money-hungry complainers. Where's the
justice in that? So, they said, it isn't about justice.
-the
victims want the money that would go to our catholic charities. Is
that fair?
-the
church is on the verge of bankruptcy because of these money grabbing
victims.
-why
don't they just 'suck it up" and get on with their lives. Life
isn't fair.
-The
truth is the bishops lied. In deposition after deposition, with
proof of their complicity staring them in the face, they denied it.
The lied under oath.
That
brings us to:
The
Question:
How
could bishops behave in this manner?
That's
the real mystery in all this. How could bishops behave in the way
I've described, the way they actually behaved. Why no real empathy
for the victims? Why never a face to face apology between a bishop
and a victim? Why did they keep transferring sexual predators to
places where a new supply of potential victims, children, waited
unaware of the horror to come? Why are they still fighting input
from the laity (with the exception of attorneys - who by the way have
an interest in winning, not justice), in a host of matters. Quote
from Peter Isely, our Wisconsin SNAP leader, in the Harvard Divinity
Bulletin (2002). "The bishops have claimed time and again that
they have changed. But over the last decade, they have inexplicably
left out of their equation for change the victims of the sexual abuse
crimes, the very voices they need most to hear from." Why didn't
bishops bring victims into the solution at the very beginning?
I
hope in the remainder of this talk to shed some light on exactly "How
could they!" Where did their behavior stem from? Were the bishops
simply
ignorant
that keeping pedophiles loose among children wasn't the "moral"
thing to do? Ignorance may be part of the why, but these are men
with advance degrees who posture as moral leaders. Were they simply
evil
?
All these bishops in the western world? I don't think so. We're
not dealing with an exact science here, but I am persuaded that the
answer to "how could they?" is also the answer to other
questions. E.g.: What are the obstacles to structural reform? What
specifically should be the target of reform? Why aren't women
given full equality in the church? Why is the wisdom of the laity
treated as not worthy of a hearing?
I
suggest that the answer lies in the unique culture and the behaviors
that bishops have been conditioned into. In a homily I heard
recently, a Milwaukee priest related a science teachers lesson. If
you throw a frog into boiling water, the frog will instantly leap out
and save itself. But if you put the frog into water at room
temperature and slowly bring the water to a boil, the frog won't
get what's happening, and will perish. That's culture. We swim
in it. We think and act out of it, and think and refrain from acting
out of it. We simply do not reflect on it, or if we do, we are sure
that our culture is far superior to any other. Culture is defined
as "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human
beings and transmitted from one generation to another."
The
culture of our church leadership (the hierarchy as they refer to
themselves) differs greatly from the one you and I live in.
PART
II:
I'll
begin this part with simple question you can answer in your heart.
Do you think there would have been a sexual abuse scandal if bishops
had asked the laity, parents of small children, do you mind if I
place an accused Father Pedophile in your school?
I:
In this part we will look first at how potent and effective
the wisdom of the laity was in the first four centuries of the
Christian Era. Then we will look at how the Christian message was
tweaked and reshaped in the fourth and fifth centuries, and how this
tweaking caused the laity's wisdom and voices to fade and become
nearly impotent in the following centuries.
We
will then jump quickly through thirteen centuries to look at the
state of the Church just before the French Revolution, near the end
of the 18
th
century. We will gauge the strength of the laity's voice and
wisdom at that time.
We begin with two
examples of the power of the laity's wisdom and voice. 1. From
the Acts of the Apostles. (Ch. 15) In brief, some Jewish Christians
came from Judea to Antioch and began telling the gentile Christians
they were required to observe Torah, including the practice of
circumcision and food restrictions. The gentile Christians reacted
strongly, in effect saying, what's circumcision (imagine the adult
male reaction) or food got to do with anything Jesus taught? The
church, i.e. those gentile Christians
sent
Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem (the Vatican of the time) with their
complaint and their wisdom, and their voice prevailed. Can you
imagine today the church, i.e. you and me, sending a bishop anywhere?
With our message?
2.
The Council of Nicea, 325 A.D., condemned a heresy, Arianism, which
stated that Jesus wasn't quite God. He was the highest of all
creatures but still a creature. Arianism, however, did not die from
its condemnation. The emperor Constantius II favored it and exiled
Pope Liberius for his refusal to support it. Eventually, Liberius,
in exile, gave in to the emperor and returned to Rome. The people
would have nothing to do with him, and in fact, began to turn to an
anti-pope, Felix. "The people would not even go to the public
baths lest they should bathe with the party of Liberius." (I don't
believe they thought the heresy could be contracted that way).
Liberius got
the
message. To quote Cardinal John Henry Newman (Arians of the 4
th
Century) "The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of
Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the
bishops were not." The people had preserved orthodoxy. Powerful
voices again. And again a Pope, Liberius, listened to the people and
made a U-turn; he reversed his teaching.
II.
What happened to that powerful wisdom and voice, that partnership
between laity and bishop? A change of significant proportion
infiltrated the Christian message beginning in the fourth century.
That change was completed and permeated the Church only a century
later. What was that change? Christianity lost its original
egalitarian character!
It is important, I
think, to spend some minutes on how this came about - and later on
its implications. The emperor Constantine gave legitimacy to the
Christian religion in the early fourth century. And he favored the
church in many ways. However he did not nor could he force
Christianity on a population steeped in paganism. This imperial lack
of power was especially true in regard to the Roman aristocracy, who
possessed power and wealth that was critical for the support of the
emperors.
The aristocracy I am
speaking of were those of senatorial rank. They carried
identifications like
Illustres
(the
illustrious),
Spectabiles
(the
spectacular, the noteworthy) and
Clarissimi
(the
outstanding, the brilliant). They wore these appellations, these
titles, with great pride, much as today some wear the titles of Your
Excellency, Your Eminence, and Most Reverend.
What
united the aristocracy was the 'status' culture they shared. The
deepest concern of aristocrats was their 'status' in their world.
Max Weber, the noted sociologist, makes these distinctions: "Class"
is based on wealth, e.g. middle class, upper middle class, upper
class, etc. Party is based on power (Democrat, Republican). "Status"
groups are based on honor, however that is conceived. The Roman
aristocracy was a status group for whom 'honor,' as they defined
honor, was everything. Honor for them was aristocratic standing, and
aristocratic standing came from peer recognition. Only by meeting
the expectations of their peers would anyone gain acceptance, the
guarantee of aristocratic standing. So to be in the group, you had
to play to one another within the confines of this group..
The
aristocracy of those times was very rich and very powerful. While
both the emperor and the bishops wanted to convert this group to
Christianity, they were unable to force the conversion. They had to
appeal to the aristocracy on its own terms. There was no way that
this status group was going to relinquish the status center of its
existence. Consequently, the Christian leaders had to use terms and
concepts that were attractive to and consistent with traditional
senatorial values. In short, they had to appeal to and not threaten
the status concerns of the aristocracy.
Bishops
were able to make headway in converting aristocrats because they
found ways to assure them that this new religion was not only not a
threat to their status concerns, but in fact supported those status
components.
What
were those status concerns? Above all, of course, was honor.
Acceptance and recognition by peers, other aristocrats, was the most
basic component of the aristocratic status culture. What brought
them this acceptance and recognition? Social conventions such as
friendship, (one received honor from the number and prestige of one's
friends), family networks, nobility (nobility was an attribute
derived from either noble birth or high office), the correct religion
(aristocrats often sought a pagan priesthood for the honor it
brought. Participation in rituals, festivals, etc. carried the
honor), patronage, (honor coming from the status of the clients they
represented in the Senate and from construction of temples and the
like), recognition for high moral character (or its display),
recognition for having an intellectual life, and wealth.
Christian leaders and
preachers shaped the Christian message to appeal to aristocrats and
their concerns. Let's take a look at a few of those "shapings."
HONOR:
the key element. Bishops started the claim that the greater honor
did not come from secular offices, but from ecclesiastical ones.
Honor derives from leading the Christian life.
FRIENDSHIP:
taken into a Christian context. Friendship was preached as "a
relationship that furthered spirituality." Note however, that it
did not make friendship a relationship that went beyond the status
group. It was confined to the group and fostered honor. It was no
longer an egalitarian relationship. It was not a friend is a friend
for the sake of the friend, (Socrates) but for the honor. It was not
Jesus saying, "I call you friends because I have taught you all
that the father has taught me."
WEALTH:
We hear men like St. Ambrose saying, "There is no crime in being
rich, only in not employing one's wealth in proper fashion."
Wealth was justified because it could be used for charity, redeem the
sin of greed, and, again, bring honor to the donor.
PATRONAGE:
as in e.g. the status of clients they represented in the Senate or
building a church. Paulinus of Nola, a bishop, preached how the poor
will "place you above their own children...In all the churches,
they pray for you, in all of the public places they acclaim you."
Thus, patronage was also prestige and honor centered, self centered.
INTELLECTUAL
CULTURE: which for aristocrats conveyed power and honor. Christian
leaders boasted that they were heirs of a literary culture as old and
as prestigious as any of their pagan contemporaries. They prided
themselves on possessing a religion of the "word.."
NOBILITY:
This term was used to recognize both achievement and high birth.
Christian leaders acknowledged this but pointed to Christian piety as
having greater value in determining nobility. True, but the examples
they pointed to were men and women who met the traditional standards
of nobility, i.e. the aristocracy.
So,
when the aristocracy came to adopt Christianity, their status culture
remained almost unchanged. There were minor changes, e.g. charity
for the poor was more emphasized, but now it had a downward, not an
outward (to equals) direction. The Christian message had been
tweaked. All of the aristocratic cultural components we mentioned
entered into the Christian vocabulary. And as this occurred, as the
Christian message was shaped to appeal to the aristocracy, we find
that the bishops assumed to themselves the aristocratic cultural
components and loaded the office of bishop with elite and
aristocratic status.
For
their part, Christian emperors aided this process through
promulgation of laws. They extended aristocratic privileges to the
bishops.
-
bishops
could not be accused in secular courts.
-
bishops
were given judicial authority that could not be challenged. They were
given the power of distributing justice. Today we might call it
"Aristocratic justice," Justice meted out by a Lord. Didn't
we just see a lot of that attitude in the bishops' treatment of sex
abuse victims?
-
Clerics
were given tax exemption.
-
All
of this power was attractive to aristocrats.
Conclusion:
By the middle of the 5
th
century, the office of bishop was sufficiently loaded with status to
attract aristocrats. In fact, by that time aristocratic status was a
virtual qualification for bishop in much of the western world.
Christianity was now a caste system for all practical purposes,
having its own aristocracy and its own peasants, the bishops and the
laity. The original egalitarian focus of Christianity was lost.
Public recognition, honor, the sought-after goal for an aristocrat,
came with the office of bishop.
Just a few words now on
the lifestyle of the aristocracy in classical times. Both men and
women of this status group took extreme pains with their dress. They
had their slaves clothe them each day in expensive clothes and
jewelry. A purple border adorned the senatorial toga as a sign of
rank and distinction. ( I had to bring in the purple here.)
Their homes were lavish
and lavishly appointed.
Their daily lives were
centered on leisure and leisure activities: "writing poetry,
letters and orations; hunting, dining, socializing, sailing,
traveling, arranging marriages, and attending horse races and circus
games." In all of these activities, leisure was used in the
pursuit of honor from their peers. Let me point out that being a
bishop became for the first time a full time job - leaving plenty of
time for the requirements of leisure.
Aristocratic
women avoided physical work. Men, on the other hand, did work. But
they looked upon high public office as their distinctive domain. If
an office didn't bring distinction, aristocrats spurned it.
Now, let's
fast forward thirteen centuries to the late 18
th
century, the time just before the French Revolution. It is a time
that has been called the golden age of princes, a time when the
magnificence
and display of monarchy and aristocracy was at its zenith. The
aristocracy had strengthened itself considerably in the time between
Louis XIV and Louis XVI. They now numbered about 400,000 in France.
They were a privileged class in areas like taxes. The chief tax,
called the
taille
,
(taal) a direct tax was mostly left for the peasants and middle class
to pay. Aristocrats and clergy were exempt. Distribution of justice
remained in their hands. If the Lord's son raped your daughter,
you had to go to that Lord for any sort of justice.
What did the culture of
the aristocracy look like? In that culture, behavior was controlled
by a maze of rules of etiquette. Precedence, the pecking order,
directed everything. If any of you saw the movie "Marie
Antoinette" you saw what I mean. The rising ceremony of the queen
(like that of the king) showed how members of the aristocracy vied
with each other to present an article of clothing to the queen for
her to put on. If someone higher in the pecking order, e.g. princess
over duchess, happened to come in, the article went to the higher of
the two, to present.
In effect, all eyes went
upward to the higher order of precedence, and finally to the king or
the pope. Fawning and sycophancy define that culture because
ambition could only be advanced in that manner. The whim at the top
must be played to. Obedience and kowtowing become the primary
virtues.
As a result, for the
most part the aristocracy were a fairly shallow bunch. Gentlemen and
ladies were not allowed to work, so they had to divert themselves in
some way. They concerned themselves with gossip, parlor games,
entertainments, sport, intrigue, and, of course, their ambitions and
their genealogies. They were self-absorbed to the point of ignoring
anything outside their particular culture. And it was a culture
based on pretense. The aristocracy (and bishops) were basically
actors, having to play in a culture that was exploitative, belittling
and pompous. Trivia, as in the rules of etiquette, replaced anything
of substance.
As to their behavior
toward the common people, the non aristocrats, or the laity, the
aristocrats discounted them totally. They had nothing to offer,
except their labor, their taxes, their adulation, and as cannon
fodder. The reality was that the rest of humankind seldom entered
the aristocratic consciousness. If they did notice the dire poverty
and terrible sufferings of the common people, they generally did
little more than thank God that they were not of that class. As they
were aristocrats by the grace of God, the common theology of that
time, so the grace of God had established the others in their misery.
There existed no such thing as a Voice of the Peasant.
What did the culture of
the bishops look like at this time? The following is a quote from
"Church and Revolution" by priest historian Thomas Bokenkotter,
who also authored "A Concise History of the Catholic Church."
Quote: "One of the few but spectacular church scandals of the time
involved Cardinal de Rohan, the prince bishop of Strasbourg. Madly
in love with Marie Antoinette, he intended to seduce her with a
magnificent diamond necklace he planned to give her at night in the
royal park. But he was tricked when one of his creditors sent a
decoy, disguised as the queen, who grabbed the necklace and ran. The
de Rohan scandal pointed up a glaring weakness of the system of
appointments in the Church: the monopoly over them held by the
aristocratic families. Their surplus sons were often installed in
episcopal palaces before they were dry behind the ears - as had
been the case with de Rohan. Although most of them led lives
untouched by scandal, they were often more interested in worldly
affairs and the gossip and culture of the court than in spiritual
matters." In other words, those aristocratic sons carried their
aristocratic culture with them into the Church. They heard no Voice
of the Faithful.
A
relevant component of this culture is narcissism. There is a
narcissism that is native to the culture of aristocracy. Narcissists
are incapable of empathy and of receiving anything but affirmation
and praise from others. Wisdom only goes outward from them.
Professionals tell us that a large group of people can be
narcissistic. For example, an elite military force, indoctrinated as
being special, praised for their specialness, wearing the insignia of
specialness, considering themselves warriors without peer, and having
a sense of invulnerability. When shown to be vulnerable they can
react with violence even on innocent non-combatants. We hear
American bishops refer to their assembly as "the most exclusive
club in the world," and their society as a "perfect" society."
Their behavior clearly shows a mind-set where their role is "above"
and they alone are God's designates to "hand down." Narcissists
are incapable of empathy for others or of real listening.
Finally,
of great importance, the aristocratic societal structure is the
prime paradigm of a cult. A cult is always centered around a living
leader who requires absolute submission. Questioning and dissent are
forbidden. Behavior is controlled, sometimes to the minutest degree.
All
we need look at here in the church is the suppression of dissent in a
host of moral matters. "It is not even to be discussed," comes
from the pope himself in regard to women's ordination. In the
episcopal structure, all eyes and ears are turned to the leader.
None are turned to the laity.
Like
the executives who flew on private jets to a Congressional hearing
where they sought money, the bishops just don't get it. Back to
our original question for this part. Can anyone think there would
have been a sexual abuse crisis in the Church if bishops had turned
and asked parents, the laity: Do you mind if I put Father Pedophile
in your children's school? Or if the bishops were capable of
absorbing the wisdom received from those parents?
PART
III
Let's
look at revolution, and the results of revolution, particularly at
its lasting impact on secular society and on the Church. We will
conclude with applications to our situation today.
And then came the
FRENCH REVOLUTION! The causes of the revolution are complex and
not
the subject of this talk. It is enough to say that they sprang from
the discontent of the peasants and the middle class. It was shock
and awe, filled with blood and horror, a revolt ultimately against a
caste system that penetrated both society and the church. It brought
its battering rams to the walls of established privilege and under
the clear call for liberty and equality, privilege fell brick by
brick. The voice of the peasant
was
revolution.
Under
the mantel of the American and French revolutions the spirit of
democracy, liberty and equality, captured the hearts and minds of the
western world, never again to be smothered for long. Never again
would the subjection of the masses be greeted with an apathetic
acceptance. Never again would it have long-term staying power.
"
The
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" of 1789
defined liberty and equality.
"
Liberty
consists of being able to do anything that does not harm others; thus
the exercise of the natural rights of man or woman has no bounds
other than those that guarantee other members of society the
enjoyment of those same rights."
Liberty became
formulated as 1. Separation of Church and State. 2. Freedom of
Conscience. 3. Freedom of speech and 4. Freedom of the press.
Equality was defined as
"the law must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes.
All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to
all...employments according to their ability, and without other
distinction than that of virtues and talents."
Now, let's look at how
liberty and equality faired, first in society at large and then in
the Church.
In
society, briefly. We can tie liberty and equality together when we
talk of universal suffrage, the right of every individual to vote and
select their leadership, and settle issues by vote, each vote equal
in value. As history moved forward after the revolution, voting
became a right, but not for all at first. It was restricted in
various ways, by sex (men only) by race (whites only), by property
(only for property holders), by wealth, etc.
The
advance toward universal suffrage was slow. By 1900, over a century
after the revolution, there was still not a single liberal democratic
country with universal suffrage. One qualification requirement or
another got in the way. This analysis done by Freedom House states
that while no country had yet arrived to universal suffrage by 1900,
by 2000, another century later, 120 of the world's 192 nations, or
62% of them, had universal suffrage. Aristocrats are still around
today in the western world, but mostly in their own little enclaves
where they talk to themselves, but are politically impotent for the
most part.
So,
liberty and equality moved at an unsteady pace, but a deliberate
not-to-be-stopped pace in western society. Blood and terror, shock
and awe, appeared again at times but liberty and equality continued
and continues on its march in society. These needs are deeply rooted
in the soul of mankind.
Now,
what about liberty and equality in the Church? In the aristocratic
culture of the Church?
First,
when asked to support the French revolution, Pope Pius VI roundly
condemned it in 1791 in the encyclical, "Caritas." This was the
opening move by the Vatican against the emerging liberalism, liberty
and equality.
Shortly
after the revolution, calls were made again for the Church to take
the leadership roll in the cause of liberty. Instinctively people
sense that freedom is consonant with the gospel message.
Felicite
Robert de LaMennais (Lamennais), born prior to the revolution, a
scholar, priest and author, drew a group of followers to this cause.
Because there was governmental interference with the Church at every
level, governance, education etc, Lamennais stated that separation of
Church and State, complete freedom for the Church was in the Church's
best interest.
Lamennais
and his followers started a daily newspaper, L'Avenir, "The
Future." Its slogan was "God and Liberty." It subscribed to
the full liberal (liberating) agenda. 1. Complete religious liberty.
(Church should be free of governmental entanglements) 2. Freedom of
education. (The Church's religious curriculum should be in the
hands of the Church). 3. Freedom of the Press (The church should
not be afraid of truth or its own ability to defend itself). 4.
Decentralization of decision making in the Church (to prevent a
concentration of power at the top). 5. Universal "male"
suffrage. (So, not quite universal).
Lamennais
wanted to start a movement - based on his belief that liberalism
would find its proper home in the Catholic Church. L'Avenir
attacked the bishops as blind, worldly and cowardly. Tremendous
opposition arose in the Church to these ideas. The final
denunciation came from the Pope, Gregory XVI, in the encyclical
"Mirari Vos." (1832) In it he complains that the Church is
"afflicted" with "indifferentism." A brief quote that says
it all. "And so from this rotten source of indifferentism flows
that absurd and erroneous opinion, or rather
insanity
,
that liberty of conscience must be claimed and defended for
anyone....Nor can we foresee more joyful omens for religion and the
state from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be
separated from the State."
Thanks
to the wisdom and efforts of an American Jesuit, John Courtney
Murray, insanity made a U-turn and became sanity when the second
Vatican Council declared in its document on Religious Freedom (signed
by Paul VI on Dec. 7, 1965) "In all his activity a man is bound to
follow his conscience faithfully...It follows that he is not to be
forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the
other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his
conscience, especially in matters religious." And in the same
document: "government is to assume the safeguard of the religious
freedom of all its citizens." There it is! Freedom of conscience
and separation of church and state. Just one of many examples down
through history where bishops have made a U-turn in their mixed
history on moral issues.
We
should note that bishops today are a bit selective in their
application of the freedoms.
Freedom
of conscience: They repeatedly condemn politicians whose consciences
support the freedom of others in matters of contention.
Freedom
of speech: How much chance do you think I have of giving this talk in
the Catholic church of which I am a member? I have given talks of
this nature in Lutheran and Methodist churches to Catholics. Why
can't bishops handle this freedom of their members. Are they
ill-equipped to debate the issues? Or just cowardly?
Separation
of Church and State: We see bishops trying to force their conscience
on the body politic, regardless of the consciences of others.
Let's
turn to equality. Have we returned as a Church to the egalitarian
quality of the gospel and the first four centuries of church history?
No! Is the tinseled, clerical aristocracy defunct as is the secular
aristocracy? No! Do the laity have a voice that is heard by the
clerical aristocracy? No! Does the wisdom of the laity enter into
declarations of appropriate moral behavior? No! It is not an
exaggeration to say that the voices of the faithful in our times run
up against an insulated, impermeable wall when we try to input our
wisdom into the standards of the catholic moral conscience. That
wall is the purple culture of the bishops. It has no ear that turns
to the faithful. It feels secure in its unwitting narcissism and its
cult-like structure, and it does great harm to the people.
The
underlying reality is that their culture has become a first moral
principle in their consciousness. Anything that seems to threaten
that culture is immediately assumed to be an attack on God and on the
gospels. They believe truly that the privileged status they assert
for themselves is God's will, and therefore any danger to that
status (they will say danger to the Church)is defended with righteous
indignation and with any weapons at their command - including
excommunications, and even the basest forms of slander.
I
mentioned one moral arena above where the bishops made a U-turn, (at
least on paper) that on Freedom of conscience. Down through history
they have made many others, but seldom avert to them lest their
projection of infallibility be questioned: Religious freedom,
Ecumenism, the Jewish people, Galileo, Evolution, Slavery, Usury,
War. Most of those U-turns were made with no indication to the
faithful that they were U-turns. The bishops acted and continue to
act as if "it was the constant tradition of the Church."
Nonsense! Usury, for example, was condemned in council after
council, bishop after bishop for centuries. The people decided
otherwise by their practice. They began taking or paying interest on
their loans. And they didn't confess it. Confessors themselves
were divided on the issue. When the Vatican was informed of this and
asked for advice, the response of Pope Pius VIII (1829-1830) was:
"They are not to be disturbed." How's that for a "We were
wrong, but don't let it out" I suggest that on the basis of
current practice, contraception would be decided in the same fashion.
I also suggest that the purple culture is responsible for the
episcopal behavior in the sexual abuse crisis. How differently that
issue would have been handled if the wisdom of the laity had been
consulted!
What
to Do?
1.
First of all, do not leave the church. You are the church. We are
the church.
2.
Take your voice back! Let your conscience be heard! If we agree
with the Council that we are morally obligated to follow our
conscience, we may not hide that conscience - as in "I believe in
divorce but I'll shut my mouth. Let's look at some options.
A.
.
The equality of women: If you believe that equality is a moral
imperative, then let your behavior show it. When you next meet a
woman who has had the courage to be ordained, praise that woman,
thank her, acknowledge her courage, and offer the support you are
able to give. 69%
B.
Married priests. Married priests are beginning to form and service
parishes. Hopefully that will increase in the future, and give
bishops something to think about as well. Thank these priests and
support them. 70%
C.
Contraception. In the laity's wisdom, (80%-98%) contraception can
be about loving and supporting intimacy as much or more than about
procreation. The gospels are about loving, not procreation.
Contraception is not being confessed as a sin. It is part of our
faith, our conscience.
D.
What
about divorce? I don't have current statistics other than the fact
that Catholics divorce as often as their contemporaries; about 50%.
Who should be the judge of whether a marriage endures? Clerics from
reading questionnaires? Or the conscience of the individual who is
divorced? Who knows the situation best?
In
all of the above instances, the majorities are with the laity, not
the bishops. There are perhaps 10-15% of us who go with the bishops
on every issue. Shouldn't we be pointing that out to the bishops?
That they are more and more looking silly? More and more like little
tinseled emperors with no clothes? I believe that if we forcefully
present our consciences to the bishops they may see us as a source of
courage and truth for them.
When
will we know that we have succeeded in reform? Not when the bishops
greet us with a wink and a nod, or have a brat with us at a church
picnic, or come to dinner. We will know it when they listen to us,
when they realize that the people have spoken on contraception, and
other majorities of us have spoken their wishes on married and women
priests, and divorce; when they get up their courage and have the
balls to go to Rome and tell the Pope, "This is the faith of our
people. Our people are right, and we stand with them!" Only then
will the revolution, the turning back to the gospel, be complete.
Pray
for our bishops. They are our neighbors, and they are in a box, a
cult where all eyes are turned to the top, where they don't have
the liberty to speak an opinion even if they have one, where,
individually, they can be totally marginalized for dissent, where
they are trapped in their own enculturation. They are little
emperors without clothes who are trapped in a culture that demeans
them as they demean us. They are in great need of rescue.
Stephen
Boehrer
5691
S. 124
th
Street
Hales
Corners, WI 53130
414-425-6668
Bibliography:
Sex,
Priests and Power,
A.W. Richard Sipe
Sex,
Priests and Secret Codes
,
Thomas P. Doyle, A.W.R. Sipe, and Patrick J. Wall.
Sacrilege
,
Leon J. Podles
Acts
of the Apostles
Arians
of the Fourth Century,
John Henry Cardinal Newman
The
Making of A Christian Aristocracy,
Michelle Renee Salzman
Church
and Revolution,
Thomas Bokenkotter
The
Golden Age of Princes,
H.D. Molesworth
The
Church Visible,
James-Charles Noonan, Jr.
The
Sources of Catholic Dogma,
Henry Denzinger
Faithful
Dissenters,
Robert McClory
Rome
Has Spoken,
Editors, Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben
The
Purple Culture,
Stephen Boehrer