EXCERPT:
....Last week I suggested we might create a "new brand" for Catholicism by taking a cue from Vatican Council II. That Council did not legislate a less Euro-centric, more global Catholicism for its own sake. Rather, the Council examined the signs of the times and concluded that the "modern world" (meaning global culture in the post-World War II nuclear age) displays a widening gap between power and wisdom.
The downside of this insight: what if modern power--military, technological, economic, scientific, political--simply runs amok, unrestrained and unprincipled? The prospect was as horrifying as a mushroom cloud, a global depression, an environmental catastrophe, an invasion or a genocide.
The upside: what if the wisdom traditions of the world, like Christianity, were mobilized to harness and guide the world's power, and to ensure that such power always served good hands with just means? So, instead of fearing catastrophe, we humans might hope for a future of global peace and justice.
This bright vision from Vatican II, based on a partnership between power and wisdom, might help us answer the questions "What good is parish--What can we offer now?" Certainly, the abuse of power concerns everyone, and the urgent need for wisdom is no secret or mystery. Just look at BP, the financial crisis, or the debate over government power.
But there are two hurdles to developing a “wisdom” role for parishes.
First, the Catholic hierarchy has squandered all its credibility as models of leadership using wisdom to guide power. On the contrary, the spreading sex-abuse scandal is a scandal precisely because it displays the abuse of power unguided by any wisdom at all.
Second, parish leaders do not typically see themselves in the “wisdom business.” For parish to offer something new, this will have to change--and we must begin by asking ourselves what kind of wisdom parishes could possibly bring to people's lives that is unavailable to them anywhere else?
I have always believed Vatican II was right about power’s urgent need for wisdom. And now I believe such wisdom is precisely what our parishes need to offer in order to survive and grow. But that makes it absolutely critical for us to begin this conversation: What sort of “wisdom business” can parishes engage in? And how?
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
#301: Time for a NEW BRAND of Catholicism
EXCERPT:
Catholicism has often depended on good branding. When millions of immigrants from Ireland, Poland, Italy, Canada, and Portugal faced discrimination and thwarted opportunities, American Catholicism thrived in its trademark working-class role as "your refuge, your strength, your protector." Meanwhile, in much of Europe, Catholicism's brand as the aristocracy’s ally against the working class weakened the Church well into the 21st century.
But such national variations in Catholicism's brand were challenged in 1959 when Pope John XXIII called for a world-wide council of bishops (Vatican II, 1962-1965) to renew the Church with a new, improved brand of Catholicism.
This re-branding did not abandon Catholicism's ancient values and traditions, but it did re-package them to enable the Church to more powerfully penetrate the modern, global culture that had emerged in the 20th century. Picture John's successor, Paul VI, trading in the old sedia gestatoria (portable throne) for a bubble-top Lincoln, rolling into Yankee Stadium to celebrate Mass carrying his favorite crosier with its modernist rendition of the crucifix, and you get the picture: it's still the Pope, but the packaging has changed.
John XXIII, Vatican II, Paul VI, John-Paul II -- all these transformed Catholicism's brand, so that by 2000 the Catholic Church was once more a moral force to be reckoned with, and moreover was re-fitting itself for a global future, replacing much of its trappings (descended from the Roman Empire and medieval Europe) with new, more truly global features. By 2000 it was no longer our grandparents' Church -- the stodgy chrome-and-fin-studded gas guzzler of the 1950s had given way to a simpler fuel-efficient model that brought the Pope to 100 countries in twenty years.
But Paul VI also planted a second legacy, when his 1968 birth control cyclical Humanae Vitae left millions of Catholics -- and millions more outside the church -- wondering if Catholicism ancient wisdom had revealed its Achilles heel: its inability to comprehend human sexuality in the post-Freud era.
In retrospect, 1968 marks the birth of another, sex-obsessed Catholic brand that has competed with the Vatican II brand for more than 40 years. Of course, common sense tells us that competing brands are bad for any enterprise; but worse than that, the 1968 brand of seems to be taking over—and taking the Church's good name with it.
For millions of Catholics, Humanae Vitae alone was enough to dismiss the Catholic hierarchy’s authority on matters sexual, but things got no easier after that. The 1970s and 1980s saw huge numbers of priests leaving to marry, and equally large numbers of younger men by-passing their priestly vocation to avoid committing to celibacy in the first place. Mass attendance began dropping, and by the late 1980s American Catholicism's brand included increasingly empty pews, empty seminaries, and even closing parishes.
Sexually-loaded moral issues like abortion, homosexuality, and women's ordination reinforced the split between loyalists convinced Rome was always right and heartsick faithful equally convinced that the “Old Boys’ Club” had lost touch with human nature.
Then the 1990S are brought, over the distant horizon, a sex-based tsunami rolling in from the past. First in Newfoundland, then in New Orleans, then Fall River and Springfield and Palm Beach, and finally crashing ashore in Boston in 2002, its backwash splashing across all oceans, came the sex-abuse scandal...
The laity's reluctance to challenge authorities -- especially the reluctance to bring suit -- had protected the ecclesiastical cover-up from exposure, but that only meant the tide of evil kept rolling deeper and higher until its eventual crash brought scandal of biblical proportions. Imagine BP claiming its spill was "only a gulf problem," only to have more spills break out in every ocean it drills. Imagine Toyota claiming mechanical failures were rare, only to have 5% of all their cars crashing on our interstates.
Like those corporations, the hierarchy makes feeble PR pleas, only to commit further gaffes that further damage its brand…The Vatican announces new rules urging bishops to report priest-criminals to authorities if civil laws require it… then that same Vatican publishes a document explicitly linking pedophilia with ordaining women, under the common heading of "grave sins" committed by clergy.
…Today’s brand of Catholicism is so tarnished that, when the Church presents its face to the world, reactions range from shame to disgust to laughter.
The Church's mission cannot be accomplished by a laughing-stock, a public pervert, or a village idiot. If these are the public face of today's Catholicism, there can be no more urgent task than rescuing our tradition from such a PR disaster and restoring its good name with a better, credible, authentic brand of Catholicism.
How about a pre-owned “Vatican II”? It's got some miles and nicks on it, but its owners only drove it on Sundays, and never really gave it full throttle on the open road. No model out since can match it. With a little work, it'll run like it’s Brand New.
Catholicism has often depended on good branding. When millions of immigrants from Ireland, Poland, Italy, Canada, and Portugal faced discrimination and thwarted opportunities, American Catholicism thrived in its trademark working-class role as "your refuge, your strength, your protector." Meanwhile, in much of Europe, Catholicism's brand as the aristocracy’s ally against the working class weakened the Church well into the 21st century.
But such national variations in Catholicism's brand were challenged in 1959 when Pope John XXIII called for a world-wide council of bishops (Vatican II, 1962-1965) to renew the Church with a new, improved brand of Catholicism.
This re-branding did not abandon Catholicism's ancient values and traditions, but it did re-package them to enable the Church to more powerfully penetrate the modern, global culture that had emerged in the 20th century. Picture John's successor, Paul VI, trading in the old sedia gestatoria (portable throne) for a bubble-top Lincoln, rolling into Yankee Stadium to celebrate Mass carrying his favorite crosier with its modernist rendition of the crucifix, and you get the picture: it's still the Pope, but the packaging has changed.
John XXIII, Vatican II, Paul VI, John-Paul II -- all these transformed Catholicism's brand, so that by 2000 the Catholic Church was once more a moral force to be reckoned with, and moreover was re-fitting itself for a global future, replacing much of its trappings (descended from the Roman Empire and medieval Europe) with new, more truly global features. By 2000 it was no longer our grandparents' Church -- the stodgy chrome-and-fin-studded gas guzzler of the 1950s had given way to a simpler fuel-efficient model that brought the Pope to 100 countries in twenty years.
But Paul VI also planted a second legacy, when his 1968 birth control cyclical Humanae Vitae left millions of Catholics -- and millions more outside the church -- wondering if Catholicism ancient wisdom had revealed its Achilles heel: its inability to comprehend human sexuality in the post-Freud era.
In retrospect, 1968 marks the birth of another, sex-obsessed Catholic brand that has competed with the Vatican II brand for more than 40 years. Of course, common sense tells us that competing brands are bad for any enterprise; but worse than that, the 1968 brand of seems to be taking over—and taking the Church's good name with it.
For millions of Catholics, Humanae Vitae alone was enough to dismiss the Catholic hierarchy’s authority on matters sexual, but things got no easier after that. The 1970s and 1980s saw huge numbers of priests leaving to marry, and equally large numbers of younger men by-passing their priestly vocation to avoid committing to celibacy in the first place. Mass attendance began dropping, and by the late 1980s American Catholicism's brand included increasingly empty pews, empty seminaries, and even closing parishes.
Sexually-loaded moral issues like abortion, homosexuality, and women's ordination reinforced the split between loyalists convinced Rome was always right and heartsick faithful equally convinced that the “Old Boys’ Club” had lost touch with human nature.
Then the 1990S are brought, over the distant horizon, a sex-based tsunami rolling in from the past. First in Newfoundland, then in New Orleans, then Fall River and Springfield and Palm Beach, and finally crashing ashore in Boston in 2002, its backwash splashing across all oceans, came the sex-abuse scandal...
The laity's reluctance to challenge authorities -- especially the reluctance to bring suit -- had protected the ecclesiastical cover-up from exposure, but that only meant the tide of evil kept rolling deeper and higher until its eventual crash brought scandal of biblical proportions. Imagine BP claiming its spill was "only a gulf problem," only to have more spills break out in every ocean it drills. Imagine Toyota claiming mechanical failures were rare, only to have 5% of all their cars crashing on our interstates.
Like those corporations, the hierarchy makes feeble PR pleas, only to commit further gaffes that further damage its brand…The Vatican announces new rules urging bishops to report priest-criminals to authorities if civil laws require it… then that same Vatican publishes a document explicitly linking pedophilia with ordaining women, under the common heading of "grave sins" committed by clergy.
…Today’s brand of Catholicism is so tarnished that, when the Church presents its face to the world, reactions range from shame to disgust to laughter.
The Church's mission cannot be accomplished by a laughing-stock, a public pervert, or a village idiot. If these are the public face of today's Catholicism, there can be no more urgent task than rescuing our tradition from such a PR disaster and restoring its good name with a better, credible, authentic brand of Catholicism.
How about a pre-owned “Vatican II”? It's got some miles and nicks on it, but its owners only drove it on Sundays, and never really gave it full throttle on the open road. No model out since can match it. With a little work, it'll run like it’s Brand New.
Monday, July 19, 2010
#300: Our Endangered Priests
EXCERPT:
I have worked with priests most of my life, from altar boy to student in Jesuit schools to parish work. And since beginning my consulting work, I have had several hundred priests as clients. In just the last few months, there has been a storm of stories about the priests I know, their lives, and there work -- stories that seemed to bear a message for us lay folk...
First, morale has never been lower. Many priests feel battered, distrusted, disrespected, abandoned, even ridiculed. They feel scapegoated by both laity and bishops, tainted with guilt by association, and without support for protection against even groundless accusations. The vocation they once embraced for its esteemed role in helping others now seems despoiled beyond repair.
Second, many are suffering mental and emotional overload. Many others are suffering stress-related ailments. Some are succumbing to premature retirement or even premature decline and death. Among the rest, overwork and moral exhaustion are commonplace.
Third, there is a growing generation gap among priests themselves. As the larger pool of older priests ages, retires, and dies, the smaller pool of younger priests are becoming pastors in their own right. But this younger pool is not only smaller, it is also less diverse. It is dominated by conservatives who arrive with an attitude. The outlook is complex, but can comprise one or more of three elements: (1) they feel called to save faithful souls, and have little interest in church renewal, or evangelizing the alienated, or engaging contemporary culture; (2) they are deeply nostalgic for the "golden age" of Catholicism before Vatican II -- and age they never knew and thus tend to romanticize; (3) they may be convinced that Catholicism's current struggles were caused by older priests, and see their own mission to be "cleaning up their mess."
Fourth, there is a significant percentage of priests who, simply because they are gay, feel targeted. They see many people scapegoating homosexuals as the cause of the sex scandal, they know many Catholics believe keeping gays from ordination is the solution to the problem, and they know official policies now embody this belief that gays are not suitable for ordination. The celibate priesthood, once Catholicism's custom-designed (though not by design!) closet for Catholic gay men, has suddenly become a stage spotlit by scrutiny and suspicion.
Fifth, the priest shortage means each priest has more work, while the other declining numbers (in lay ministers, Mass attendance, and collection monies) mean he has less help for that work. In some dioceses, financial pressure on their parishes is increasing even as their personal financial security is weakening.
Finally, there is the long-standing structural problem facing diocesan clergy, who (unlike laity) give up family but (unlike members of religious orders) don't get the community to compensate for that loss. Given today's shortages and struggles, that leaves many rectories (already the loneliest places in the Church) empty, and most pastors isolated.
...Here is the message for the rest of us: today's priesthood is now an endangered species. Its future survival cannot be assured without our help. By “endangered” I mean more than numbers...The priesthood can survive with fewer members -- but not if those members are burnt-out cases, overworked and under-supported, lonely and leery of public opinion, confused about their future and conflicted among themselves.
Once we acknowledge the facts of the current situation, their “endangered” status is simple common sense -- but its implications are not. The only real solution to an endangered priesthood is a priesthood supported, cared for, and ministered to by the "laity" (the Greek word means "the people”) of the Church.
See the Catch-22 here? The very idea of laity ministering to clergy amounts to a radical reversal of roles—roles in place for more than 1500 years, and never more entrenched than among the immigrant families of American Catholics.
Those families produced the vast numbers of priests who led the American Church through the 20th century, but in most places (especially the large urban dioceses) those priests monopolized all ministry. Saint Paul may say we're all called and gifted for service by our Baptism, but for generations of Catholics the only sacrament of vocation was Holy Orders.
So the challenge we face is profound. In a church where laity have long been children to the priest-parents, we now see the "children" called on to care for their failing "parents."
There is no manual for this, so we laity will need to create this new role of caretaker to the clergy by ourselves. But then, life -- even life in the church -- does not come with a complete set of instructions.
I have worked with priests most of my life, from altar boy to student in Jesuit schools to parish work. And since beginning my consulting work, I have had several hundred priests as clients. In just the last few months, there has been a storm of stories about the priests I know, their lives, and there work -- stories that seemed to bear a message for us lay folk...
First, morale has never been lower. Many priests feel battered, distrusted, disrespected, abandoned, even ridiculed. They feel scapegoated by both laity and bishops, tainted with guilt by association, and without support for protection against even groundless accusations. The vocation they once embraced for its esteemed role in helping others now seems despoiled beyond repair.
Second, many are suffering mental and emotional overload. Many others are suffering stress-related ailments. Some are succumbing to premature retirement or even premature decline and death. Among the rest, overwork and moral exhaustion are commonplace.
Third, there is a growing generation gap among priests themselves. As the larger pool of older priests ages, retires, and dies, the smaller pool of younger priests are becoming pastors in their own right. But this younger pool is not only smaller, it is also less diverse. It is dominated by conservatives who arrive with an attitude. The outlook is complex, but can comprise one or more of three elements: (1) they feel called to save faithful souls, and have little interest in church renewal, or evangelizing the alienated, or engaging contemporary culture; (2) they are deeply nostalgic for the "golden age" of Catholicism before Vatican II -- and age they never knew and thus tend to romanticize; (3) they may be convinced that Catholicism's current struggles were caused by older priests, and see their own mission to be "cleaning up their mess."
Fourth, there is a significant percentage of priests who, simply because they are gay, feel targeted. They see many people scapegoating homosexuals as the cause of the sex scandal, they know many Catholics believe keeping gays from ordination is the solution to the problem, and they know official policies now embody this belief that gays are not suitable for ordination. The celibate priesthood, once Catholicism's custom-designed (though not by design!) closet for Catholic gay men, has suddenly become a stage spotlit by scrutiny and suspicion.
Fifth, the priest shortage means each priest has more work, while the other declining numbers (in lay ministers, Mass attendance, and collection monies) mean he has less help for that work. In some dioceses, financial pressure on their parishes is increasing even as their personal financial security is weakening.
Finally, there is the long-standing structural problem facing diocesan clergy, who (unlike laity) give up family but (unlike members of religious orders) don't get the community to compensate for that loss. Given today's shortages and struggles, that leaves many rectories (already the loneliest places in the Church) empty, and most pastors isolated.
...Here is the message for the rest of us: today's priesthood is now an endangered species. Its future survival cannot be assured without our help. By “endangered” I mean more than numbers...The priesthood can survive with fewer members -- but not if those members are burnt-out cases, overworked and under-supported, lonely and leery of public opinion, confused about their future and conflicted among themselves.
Once we acknowledge the facts of the current situation, their “endangered” status is simple common sense -- but its implications are not. The only real solution to an endangered priesthood is a priesthood supported, cared for, and ministered to by the "laity" (the Greek word means "the people”) of the Church.
See the Catch-22 here? The very idea of laity ministering to clergy amounts to a radical reversal of roles—roles in place for more than 1500 years, and never more entrenched than among the immigrant families of American Catholics.
Those families produced the vast numbers of priests who led the American Church through the 20th century, but in most places (especially the large urban dioceses) those priests monopolized all ministry. Saint Paul may say we're all called and gifted for service by our Baptism, but for generations of Catholics the only sacrament of vocation was Holy Orders.
So the challenge we face is profound. In a church where laity have long been children to the priest-parents, we now see the "children" called on to care for their failing "parents."
There is no manual for this, so we laity will need to create this new role of caretaker to the clergy by ourselves. But then, life -- even life in the church -- does not come with a complete set of instructions.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
#299: The Culture Clash Within Our Walls
EXCERPT:
The New York Times has published a Watergate-style investigative report revealing a secret Vatican meeting in April 2000, more than a year before Boston broke, where alarmed Bishops from twelve countries challenged Vatican officials to confront the sex abuse problem.
The Vatican has so far claimed that its Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) only received the mandate to investigate abuse cases in 2001, when authorized by Pope John Paul II. But the Times reported that Philip Wilson, Archbishop of Adelaide, notified the 2000 gathering of an authorization already in force since 1922, one which he had confirmed in the 1990s with then-CDF head cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI...
It now appears that John Paul II's hesitancy to acknowledge the crisis inhibited Ratzinger from exercising his own authority before 2001…Thus the Times charges that “the future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of non-responsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction.”
For me, that word "culture" jumps out. It suggests this scandal cuts deeper than I had previously realized.
I have always known that the sex abuse crisis operated on two levels. First was the immoral, even criminal behavior of the priests. Second was the mishandling of those priests by bishops...
I have always considered the cover-up to be the bigger scandal, which had the graver consequences on millions of Catholics (especially younger adults) who lost all faith in the institutional church’s credibility and moral authority.
And now I fear the spreading crisis has revealed a third level: an ecclesiastical culture of non-accountability – of immunity from scrutiny or questioning -- that borders on a totalitarian hoarding of power.
Of course, the scandal itself has always been about power rather than sex: the predatory power of priests over children and adolescents, and the paternalistic power that bishops (obsessed with protecting priests) exercised over victims and their families.
But this third level is not about personal power to prey on others, nor about official power to favor priests over people. It is about absolute power (the kind Lord Acton said corrupts absolutely) to do and say whatever one wants -- no matter how stupid or harmful -- while remaining immune to any check or balance...
This culture of immunity, with its disconnect from reality and its blindness to power’s abuse, may well cause more harm to the Church than either the abuse itself or its mishandling by Bishops. In this day and age, such a culture repels almost everyone except those who benefit from its privileges -- and that number shrinks daily.
To the extent that such a culture pervades Catholic life, we will alienate younger generations far into the foreseeable future. They will leave ashamed of their own Church and heritage…
The sad irony is that Catholicism moved to establish a radically different culture of accountability almost 50 years ago…Vatican II (1962-1965) …called for a wide variety of gatherings -- synods, conferences, and councils -- on all levels of church life.
The idea was to disseminate decision-making so the challenges were addressed as locally as possible...Vatican II’s vision for collective decision making at all levels offered precisely the kind of participatory culture that builds confidence among members of any institution. It ensures that authorities at all levels must answer to others for their actions.
But that vision has faded to the degree that the Roman Curia has restored its pre-conciliar role as the all-purpose arbiter, often pre-empting the proper role of bishops, pastors, and even laity. This restoration of a culture without accountability clearly clashes with the cultural program of Vatican II.
Benedict XVI has said that the real threat to the Church now comes, not from outside, but from within. He’s right, but the threat is not primarily priestly misbehavior, or even the bishops’ cover-up, but an entire institutional culture of immunity...
I now fear that this cultural clash within the Church, along with the scandal itself, has become the main story of the post-Vatican II era. Unless this clash is resolved, it may be a long time indeed before people regain confidence in their Church.
How long, O Lord?
The New York Times has published a Watergate-style investigative report revealing a secret Vatican meeting in April 2000, more than a year before Boston broke, where alarmed Bishops from twelve countries challenged Vatican officials to confront the sex abuse problem.
The Vatican has so far claimed that its Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) only received the mandate to investigate abuse cases in 2001, when authorized by Pope John Paul II. But the Times reported that Philip Wilson, Archbishop of Adelaide, notified the 2000 gathering of an authorization already in force since 1922, one which he had confirmed in the 1990s with then-CDF head cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI...
It now appears that John Paul II's hesitancy to acknowledge the crisis inhibited Ratzinger from exercising his own authority before 2001…Thus the Times charges that “the future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of non-responsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction.”
For me, that word "culture" jumps out. It suggests this scandal cuts deeper than I had previously realized.
I have always known that the sex abuse crisis operated on two levels. First was the immoral, even criminal behavior of the priests. Second was the mishandling of those priests by bishops...
I have always considered the cover-up to be the bigger scandal, which had the graver consequences on millions of Catholics (especially younger adults) who lost all faith in the institutional church’s credibility and moral authority.
And now I fear the spreading crisis has revealed a third level: an ecclesiastical culture of non-accountability – of immunity from scrutiny or questioning -- that borders on a totalitarian hoarding of power.
Of course, the scandal itself has always been about power rather than sex: the predatory power of priests over children and adolescents, and the paternalistic power that bishops (obsessed with protecting priests) exercised over victims and their families.
But this third level is not about personal power to prey on others, nor about official power to favor priests over people. It is about absolute power (the kind Lord Acton said corrupts absolutely) to do and say whatever one wants -- no matter how stupid or harmful -- while remaining immune to any check or balance...
This culture of immunity, with its disconnect from reality and its blindness to power’s abuse, may well cause more harm to the Church than either the abuse itself or its mishandling by Bishops. In this day and age, such a culture repels almost everyone except those who benefit from its privileges -- and that number shrinks daily.
To the extent that such a culture pervades Catholic life, we will alienate younger generations far into the foreseeable future. They will leave ashamed of their own Church and heritage…
The sad irony is that Catholicism moved to establish a radically different culture of accountability almost 50 years ago…Vatican II (1962-1965) …called for a wide variety of gatherings -- synods, conferences, and councils -- on all levels of church life.
The idea was to disseminate decision-making so the challenges were addressed as locally as possible...Vatican II’s vision for collective decision making at all levels offered precisely the kind of participatory culture that builds confidence among members of any institution. It ensures that authorities at all levels must answer to others for their actions.
But that vision has faded to the degree that the Roman Curia has restored its pre-conciliar role as the all-purpose arbiter, often pre-empting the proper role of bishops, pastors, and even laity. This restoration of a culture without accountability clearly clashes with the cultural program of Vatican II.
Benedict XVI has said that the real threat to the Church now comes, not from outside, but from within. He’s right, but the threat is not primarily priestly misbehavior, or even the bishops’ cover-up, but an entire institutional culture of immunity...
I now fear that this cultural clash within the Church, along with the scandal itself, has become the main story of the post-Vatican II era. Unless this clash is resolved, it may be a long time indeed before people regain confidence in their Church.
How long, O Lord?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)