Spiritual Fruit Salad...

Just before I read reports of his Christmas address to the Vatican Curia, I was wondering if Pope Francis ever actually received the Christmas card and other letters I’ve sent him.  He doesn’t write…; he doesn’t call…; he doesn’t visit…  What’s a girl to think?

However, now I think it’s possible he has received my mail because his “15 Ailments of the Curia” echo many concerns I’ve expressed in my missives.  If you’ve not read his list, I encourage you to do so.  

As much as I appreciate Francis acknowledging and even chastising the hierarchy for its arrogance, hubris, insensitivity, hypocrisy, insecurity, self-absorption, fear and unhappiness resulting in over-bearing, domineering, control-freak, career-climbing, self-promoting, money-grubbing, gossiping, suck-up, fashionista hierarchy members who travel in cliques, his litany had a glaring omission: the ailment of “sexism.”   I don’t know why he overlooked that ailment unless maybe it’s one that plagues him or one he does not acknowledge.  Regardless, without addressing it, the other ailments will never be fully addressed. 

I actually believe that tackling Pope Francis’ list of 15 without correcting the ailment of sexism likely will just make a sick turn of the crank grinding women down further within the church and society.  I don’t know if that would be an intended or unintended consequence but humble, sensitive, secure, confident and happy sexists are still sexists.  One might argue that such sexists are even more destructive ones because their charm wins people’s confidence enabling them to manipulate and abuse people more easily.  

I think Francis would bristle at being labeled a sexist.  I think he probably envisions himself a very pro-female kind of guy what with him appointing 5 whole women to his 30 person International Theological Commission.  That mentality is fairly common amongst people of Francis’ and my parents’ generation.  They are so indoctrinated into promoting a gender ideology of females’ limitations and duties, that they often see their sexism as just a factual manifestation of nature…”it’s just how things are…”  And though some such folks believe themselves to be rather equality-minded, their face-palm worthy sexist statements and actions belie the gender ideology to which they are enslaved.

“Exhibit A” for Francis might be his recent simile drawn between these women theologians on his theological commission and strawberries.

Historically, women and their anatomy have been frequently compared to many fruits: peaches, apples, melons, cherries to name a few.  These tend to be degrading sexual metaphors.  However, some people from my father’s generation actually think they’re paying a compliment when they admire a woman's “melons.”  Lack of appreciation for such “compliments” simply baffles these folks.   Francis calling women theologians “strawberries upon a cake” might fall into this genre of sexism.  It might not.  

And while Francis might see magnanimity in him having 16% female representation on his theological commission, I see it as woefully inadequate.  Numerous qualified women theologians could bring the commission to an equal 50/50 split right now, today, no waiting.  Yet, my lack of appreciation for Francis’ “magnanimity” might befuddle sexists in the crowd.  My mathematical competence that realizes 16% is markedly less than 50% somehow gets confused with the word, "ingrate."

Perhaps rather than having sexually inappropriate undertones Francis just meant he thinks male theologians provide the foundational substance (cake) of theological thought and women theologians add superficial, yet palatable adornments (strawberries) to that foundation making it more attractive to consume; I don’t know.  But, I would expect a non-sexist to say something like this, “Women theologians are like male theologians; the depth and breadth of their diverse experiences of God are intrinsic to the very substance of theology.”

I discussed Francis’ “women theologians are like strawberries on a cake” statement recently with my youngest daughter (in her 20s) while eating her strawberry adorned birthday cake.  She mused that since strawberries atop a cake provide the only healthy nutritional part of it, maybe Francis believes women theologians provide the healthiest theological contributions.  If Francis’ few female leadership appointees prove to do anything other than mirror or smear frosting on 2,000 years’ of male theologians’ cake, I’ll agree with her. 

However, Francis overlooked female theologians such as Elizabeth Johnson who might actually act as a conduit for the “freshness, fantasy and novelty” of the Holy Spirit that Francis says he greatly desires.  He instead opted to appoint female theologians that seem to parrot what the guys have already said.  Francis, why are you so reluctant to letting the Spirit blow where it will when it comes to women?

By the way, Francis, a friendly warning here…When I acknowledge those same ailments in your list of 15, I’m labeled a “clergy-hater” or “church-destroyer”, so brace yourself...  But don’t be discouraged.  When people feel threatened, they often label and try to discredit the source of their threat.  Sometimes they even try to accuse the opposition of doing what they actually do.  It’s kind of like how the church hierarchy has peddled gender ideology for about two thousand years but now people who call the church out for this sexist practice get labeled by you as “demonic” peddlers of gender ideology.

Bottom line: whether or not Ray Burke wins Cardinal fashionista of the century, whether or not George Pell, Sean O’Malley and Tim Dolan avoid headlines and talk shows, whether or not the hierarchy starts interacting more frequently and directly with their flocks, it will not make your gender ideology that artificially limits women’s abilities any more acceptable.  Possession of a uterus does not magically or biologically make women more qualified to wash clothes, bake cookies, change diapers, make coffee, run photocopies or type documents.  Nor does it make them less qualified to think and lead.  In a globally connected world with instantaneous communication abilities as well as economic opportunities for women, taking centuries to correct errors and imbalances that could be corrected instantly just does not cut it.

Dear brother Francis, please be guided by the words of Michael Jackson…look at the man in the mirror and “if you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make that change.”  I appreciate you are doing this on many fronts but in the area of women, it is far too little, far too slow and suffers setbacks by your intermittent sexist statements. 

I welcome the opportunity to share with you the "freshness, fantasy and novelty" of the Spirit that blows through me.  Please feel free to visit when you're in the U.S. or give me a call anytime. 

 

"Don't Surround Yourself with Yourself..."

It is early morning Day Four of my Italy tour.  As mentioned in previous blog articles, I joined a tour group being led by the chancellor of my diocese.  We are in Florence now having already visited Assisi and with Rome yet on our itinerary.

As would be expected of a trip that costs thousands of dollars, the people in the group have incomes which support paying that kind of money for a trip.  That statement can be read as us having precisely zero poor people in the group and having several very wealthy people in the herd.  I am probably amongst the minority in that I have at least experienced poverty, growing up in a very low-income home.  I am definitely in the minority in that I am not a member of America’s Republican Party.

Many people on the tour are huge fans of Cardinal Tim Dolan.  Some have moved beyond admiration of the man to adoration and adulation of him.  These people are stunned and incredulous when they learn I do not or for that matter that anyone might not share their opinions of him.     

A telling conversation came about during Day Two’s lunch with some of Tim’s biggest fans in the group.  Their statement was that “everyone I talk to loves the man.”  Yet my reply was, “I know many people who dislike him.”  We will return to this thought momentarily.

Later that same day I read comments Tim made during the recent U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB’s) Fall Convocation.  When asked if the American bishops and the church needed to do anything differently to align better with Pope Francis’ stated desire to be “a poor church for the poor”, Dolan replied, “Can I think of anything new?  I don't think so. I like to think that this is an affirmation of the good things we are doing."  He went on to highlight that most complaints he hears from the people he interacts with are that the bishops emphasize social justice, government cut backs, and the poor too much.

I sent a link to an article about Dolan’s statements to one of the people participating in our conversation – one of the people who said that everyone he talks to loves Dolan.  I highlighted Dolan’s statements about what he hears from the people with whom he communicates.  The common theme between Dolan’s statements and those of my lunch companions was the concept of confining reality to the sphere of “the people I talk to…” 

With whom do Dolan and the Republican Catholics speak?  The rock group “Yes” has a profound lyric in the song, “I’ve Seen All Good People” which advises, “Don’t surround yourself with yourself.”  If one speaks exclusively to those with whom one agrees, growth becomes difficult if not impossible and there is a grave danger of elevating common opinion to the unwarranted status of “unmitigated fact.”

Quite simply, having a “poor church for the poor” requires understanding poverty and the church. 

Let’s start with the second item first – understanding the church.  One must acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of “the church” does not attend Mass and a near majority no longer even considers themselves Catholic.  So, if Dolan and the people with whom I had lunch earlier this week wish to know what “the church” thinks of either Dolan or the hierarchy’s behavior, they must begin not by understanding the views of the pious but with understanding the viewpoint of the church’s majority – those who do not or rarely darken the threshold of a Catholic Church.  They must seek out those with whom they disagree rather than surround themselves with themselves and declare their shared opinion a universal fact.   

Since the disenfranchised and marginalized are the majority of the church, these voices should be the majority of voices whose opinions we thirst to understand.  Sadly, I’m unsure if this demographic group ranks as high as getting even token slivers of the hierarchy and pious circle's bandwidth.  Also, there is a distinct difference between talking with and listening to people.  So we must ask if we are merely "talking" or sincerely listening to the disenfranchised and marginalized.   

Similarly, to determine if one is doing enough for the poor, the place to begin is by talking with and listening to the poor rather than the wealthy.  Very few wealthy people understand poverty so they are not the best or sometimes even credible spokespeople for it. Also,  I see a disturbing trend where people of economic security believe they actually are the poor and thus believe they already know and represent the poor’s opinions.  My little tour group and the U.S. bishops are only symptomatic of the global pervasive trend wherein the hierarchy allies with the wealthy more than the poor – where it communicates with the wealthy more than with the poor.

Many of my friends and relatives have questioned my sanity for joining this tour group because they knew there would be few if any people with similar spiritual outlook to mine.  Side note of good news: so far I have found two others of similar views to mine.   Anyway, my friends and family are correct in that many things the other group members find exhilarating I find stomach churning…be it the commercialization of St. Francis’ poverty, the opulence of shrines erected in his honor, the distracting opulent ornamentation of cathedrals, etc…  

However, I try to live the legacy of my parents – don’t surround myself with myself. I joined this trip to try to understand better the division in the church.  I can’t understand it by only talking to people who see the world as I do.  I can’t understand it by only listening to people who see the world as I do. 

I have been listening a lot and find it fascinating that people can read the same scripture and theology yet come to such different conclusions.  I find it fascinating that people can declare others' views as "wrong" versus being in disagreement with their opinions yet feel they do not judge.  I find it fascinating that people who want to follow Jesus - a guy who instructs us to "be not afraid" - not only harbor fear themselves, they want others to share their fear.

Unfortunately I have not yet sensed that those having the most different mindset from me have any interest in understanding my viewpoint as much as correcting what they believe are my grievous errors.  Perhaps they emulate their hero Dolan, who surrounds himself with himself, relying upon the views of a small minority of the church and allowing those opinions to bounce around in a confined echo chamber to the point of ultimately declaring those viewpoints as “universally held objective truths.”  Maybe this approach is considered part of the "New Evangelization"...spreading the "good news" of telling other people how wrong they are? 

I do ponder how much the ultra-pious, uber-orthodox crowd listens – really listens – to the poor and marginalized (that would be the majority of the church) versus surrounding themselves with themselves.  But with money comes power and so perhaps they feel they needn’t listen to the majority. 

But, the question I leave you all with is this: do you surround yourself with yourself?  In many respects Jesus advised his disciples against doing that.  

By the way, the clergyman with initials "T.D." that I most admire is Fr. Tom Doyle not Tim Dolan.

Divergent Priorities

Cardinal Tim Dolan seems a bit miffed, indignant or maybe even outright pissed that people don’t universally regard as heroic his sloth-like actions removing sexually abusive priests from ministry while he was Archbishop of Milwaukee.  To his credit, he did at least see some of them through to completion which puts him head and shoulders above many of his brother bishops.  However, that is somewhat analogous to being miffed at not winning “Father of the Year” for finally after years of stalling, ceasing to use a babysitter who molested your children.  Yes, that does make you better than fathers who knowingly continue to use babysitters with a history of molesting their children.  But Tim, in charity, I must confide that this is not typically considered award-winning parenting material. 

I think Tim’s attitude is due to the insulated and isolated clerical culture in which he dwells and the resulting priorities held by that culture.  To help span the cultural chasm between lay and ordained, I thought I’d use Tim’s experience as a teaching opportunity.  One of my daughters has been studying for her Medical Board examinations so I’m a bit steeped in study guides right now.  Therefore I put this in study guide form to aid comprehension and retention. 

Here’s how to read the table below: from left to right for each row, read the column heading and then read the column’s contents.  As an example the first row of content in the table below would read, “People interpret your actions <waiting months or years for Vatican responses on sexually abusive priests> as meaning you think <protecting children> <is not important> but many people think it is <very important>.”

The table demonstrates marked misalignment between what many people see as your priorities and theirs.  Thus, though you are perhaps dismayed as not being heralded as a hero, many people believe your actions are but a very tiny baby step towards addressing the clergy abuse problem.  Quite frankly Tim, many people are miffed, indignant or maybe even outright pissed that you and your brother bishops operate in a world that establishes, fosters, and validates your skewed priorities.    Such people often have similar emotions intensified when you have the audacity to lecture them about morality.

Furthermore, people’s ire only increases when you and your brother bishops repeat in parrot-esque fashion the mind-numbing phrase, “The abusive priests are just a minority of the clergy” in an attempt to diminish the severity.  Again, borrowing the parent and babysitter analogy, that is like downplaying the seriousness that one of your sitters is molesting your children because you also use nine other sitters who don’t molest your children.   Similarly, it is like justifying doing nothing or doing something at glacial pace to address the molesting babysitter because the other sitters don’t molest your kids.    

However, the mantra incessantly repeated by your brotherhood that perhaps most devastates the faithful is the one where you say you ignored this problem and dragged your feet, “Out of concern for the reputation of the church.”  Tim, God’s people are the church.  The church isn’t some abstraction of rules, or buildings or merely the clergy subset of God’s people.  But, the brotherhood’s priorities tell us all those things as well as your personal careers rank higher in priority to you than children, victims, their friends and family, and those who stand in solidarity with them.   This is the majority of this precious church that you wish to protect.

So, on one hand many hierarchy members think Catholics avoiding Mass indicates diminished morals while on the other hand, the majority of the church finds your priorities, attitudes and actions so deviant from the gospels that they leave.  Perhaps this is seen as a victory for the brotherhood to have critics leave.  But, that would be a tragic proof-point supporting your critics’ assertions. 

What can be done to close the chasm in value systems?  Hint: It isn’t “Let’s devalue children, victims and laity even more.”