A Tribute to my Bishop, by Fr. Joseph Maduka Ukwu

            The following remarks are an introduction to Fr. Joseph's tribute to Bishop Anthony, and explain its posting on my blog. If you are from Nigeria, skip the remarks and scroll down to the tribute. If not, reading the introduction may be helpful.
           It so happens Fr. Joe was in the middle of a visit here in the states when he received a phone call from Nigeria, telling him of  Bishop Anthony's death, and calling him home to help with the funeral perparations.
           Joe had time to speak at length about Bishop Anthony, and I was deeply impressed by how close he felt to his retired  Ordinary. I am used to the priest-bishop relationship we have here in the Northeast, so the deep friendship between Joe and his bishop came as a surprise to me. Another surprise was that bishops in Nigeria are addressed as "Your Lordship". I call my Ordinary "Archbishop", and when writing or addresing a letter, "Your Excellency". I don't think those terms are especially formal, nor overly familiar. I would probably choke, however, before I could call my bishop "Your Lordship".  Of course, the use of the terms is purely cultural. and in Joe's situation, his customary salutation would be as natural and normal as my saying  "Archbishop", or "Your Excellency" . Nonetheless, I was surprised that Joe could regard anybody he called "Your Lordship" as a friend and brother, indeed as a spiritual father. Titles do have a way of emphasizing difference and creating distance between persons.
          The first memory Joe shared was his confrontation with Bishop Anthony a few weeks after his ordination.The bishop had him running from one outpost to another, without any break in between. After doing this a few times, Joe was exhausted, especially when he saw that the other newly ordained in his class were getting much better treatment than he was. He didn't mind a tough assignment now and then, but as a permanent diet, well, it was more than he could stomach. He called the bishop's office to make an appointment, discussed his problem a bit with the priest in charge of the bishop's calender, and was given a time to come in. So, in he went, to have it out with the bishop about the unfair treatment he was receiving, protesting about the hardship and difficulty he was going through, only to be utterly disarmed by the bishop's response. That is the first encounter   Fr. Joe describes in his tribute.
         The term "Iroko" also calls for explanation. In English , the Iroko is called the Ironwood, or Teak wood Tree. It is a rich cultural symbol throughout Nigeria. In Joe's essay, the tree stands for a man of great stature, not so much because of physical strength or height, but because of his character and leadership ability.

            The Iroko has fallen! A rare gem is gone!

           You were a role model and a paragon of virtue for me, Most Rev. Dr. Anthony E Ilonu. My encounters with you taught me more than I can say. You exemplified humility. I remember the first time I took issue with you, how attentively and calmly you listened to all my frustrations and imagined injustices, and how gently you spoke to me when I was finally done venting my anger. You took the time to explain your reasoning  to me, step by step, and you ended by softly saying: "I sent you because I knew you were equal to the task." As I left you that day, somewhat embarrassed at my misjudgment, the priest who had advised me to express myself frankly told me: "Never argue with a man who has nothing to lose." If ever there was such a man, that man was you. You had nothing to hide, nothing to defend, no arrogance or pride, no Ego that you were trying to protect, no high opinion of yourself. Your humility totally disarmed me. You did not use your authority as a bishop, but brought yourself down to my level and explained things to me. 

          You taught me devotion to prayer. Most days, after you returned from the cathedral building site, I would see you with your breviary, moving up the path to the fountain, or praying the rosary. As you left on pastoral visits, your first point of call was the rectory chapel to say or complete your office.

          You were a hard worker. From the time you got the land to build the cathedral, you spent your time, energy, and creativity making that site take the shape it has today. I will never forget the day I went down with you, all the way down, to the  cathedral foundation, how we narrowly escaped death when the sandy wall caved in on us.

           In financial matters, regarding money and what it can buy, you taught me not to be attached to mammon.I learnt from you how to live a life of sacrifice, how to give of myself and what ever material goods I have for the good of others. Your simplicity still confounds my imagination. At the creation of Kafanchan diocese, your drove down to Kaduna, where John and I were studying communications, to visit and see your flock. You did not look for a bishop's residence, a convent, or a classy hotel where you could he comfortable during your stay, but came to rough it out with us in our cramped apartment.

          Your meekness was such that, no matter what the insult, slight or great, you controlled your emotions and kept calm. I will never forget one incident that took place in your office. I was rushing in to resolve an explosive situation and restore order, and you calmed me down saying, "Joe, Take it easy, handle it kindly". When there were confusion, doubt, or arguments on pastoral matters, you were always there to clarify the issues,  speak plainly and humbly, and settle matters peaceably. 

         You were creative in your pastoral zeal for your flock. You were a genuine pioneer in the way you began new parishes in the bush country and the hinterlands. Instead of imposing a building on the people that they were not ready for, yours was an organic, step by step approach that grew out of the development of the people's faith. Your creativity was criticized by many at first, but today it has been adopted by many dioceses in Nigeria, because it has borne lasting fruit. For ordinations to the priesthood, you went to local parishes, as well as to distant villages and outposts that were hard to reach because of the terrain, in order to bring the Gospel to the people. You did not sit back, fold your hands, and wait for the government to restore the Catholic schools and property it had confiscated in the civil war, rather you took action. You planned and built Nursery and Primary schools in all the parishes that could sustain them. You did the same with Secondary and Vocational Schools, putting them under the protection of Our Lady, and naming them "Queen of the Apostles" Secondary and Technical Schools.

          Your attachment to Mother Mary amazed me. Your zeal to build a magnificent cathedral dedicated to the Immaculate Conception kept a pledge made by our bishops during the civil unrest. They were slow in assisting you, yet you went ahead and fulfilled the promise they made to God  because of your devotion to Mary, and your own commitment to honor Her in the diocese.

          You were rushed to the hospital on your feast day, Your death came in the early hours of the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, just a day before the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.The timing is an eloquent testimony that Our Blessed Mother took you in her very hands and led you to her Son in heaven.

         My reflections on your life and my personal encounters with you make the meaning of your coat of arms clearer and clearer to me: "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis...". Not to us, O Lord, not to us. May all power, glory and honor be to You, O Lord! May it be our joy and glory to serve You as priests, serve You as Bishop Anthony did. May we learn from your life Pa Anthony, what it means to be a priest, father, brother, man of God, and disciple of Jesus Christ.

May your gentle soul rest in peace. Omeka Omaghizu jee nke oma. Oje na-nwayoo...Ijeomaooo.

             

             

Part Six: Priesthood of the Future

   Beyond Clericalism

 What is the proper sense of self a priest should have in relating to other priests and to people? He should be a disciple focused on, and lost in, Jesus Christ. The priest “creates” himself, he forms his character, and he develops his personality in response to the Christ event. This response is what it means to live as a disciple. Clericalism made and makes it easier for priests to be churchmen only, rather than disciples, easier to be official functionaries than to follow the Master, easier to go through the motions, rituals, and activities, than to go through the continuing conversion required of us as “clay vessels” in Christ’s hands.   Clericalism makes it possible to reduce the Christ event to moralism, ritualism, legalism,  dogmatism, or to an ideology like any other, instead of a lived relationship to Christ in Faith, Hope, and Love. Clericalism promotes a codependent system whereby empty forms could become a substitute for the adventure of a real spiritual life.

Since every human being is a mystery, no one can ever claim to perfectly know or understand another. The” you” I know is the result of my perceptions of you, and my perceptions of you are largely dependent upon my perceptions of myself as well as how you impact me. Inevitably I will project onto you what is not there, but simply baggage I carry because of who I am. You will do the same in your perceptions of me. Neither of us is ever in full touch with ourselves or the real human person the other is. Complicating this truth is the changing Culture we live in. At any given point of time, America has a somewhat established and yet somewhat fluid way of seeing and treating men of the cloth. Also, men of the cloth, clerics, have come to expect a certain level of treatment based on past experience and have difficulty dealing with shifts in their social standing. This fixed-fluid social reality of Clericalism is as unstable as the greater Culture it fits into, so it is highly volatile!  In addition, because American Culture is increasingly secular, Grace is a constant challenge and surprise as it brings the unforeseeable action of God into the picture. (Clericalism, of course, makes Grace unnecessary, because it enables the priest to operate out of his own ego.)

Take the situation of any priest ordained, in 1977, or in 2007. He is part of a church system and social structure that is in place but also in flux because of the influences both natural and supernatural. The Culture of the Day, the influence of Grace, all interpenetrate priest and people to varying degrees. The priest daily has to decide if Grace will shape him.  If he makes no decision, he will be a product of the Culture. Culture’s power is to cultivate, perpetuate itself and its hold on society. Culture is an ecosystem that fosters and rewards the organisms in it to take on and incarnate its values. It is never a neutral grocery store in which one can freely pick and choose from assorted options. God’s Grace, however, creates its own culture built on man’s free response to it, which flies in the face of the predominating social culture. It will always be easier for a priest or any Christian to act out of the influences of the culture around him than out of the graces that come from above.

The most any priest can do is live up to his call to be a disciple and define himself by his relationship to the Christ event. If he functions only as a churchman, he works without grace, with only his personal charm, intelligence, will power, character, etc.  In short he becomes like any professional who functions on an ego level without God. If he lives as a disciple, he puts his skills and talents as a churchman in the service of Christ.

The priest has to live from grace to grace, inspired, sustained and led by the promptings of the Spirit. The Law of the gift is the operative principle of his priestly existence. No matter what natural gifts he has, they can never accomplish what he achieves by faithful discipleship. How can a priest take himself seriously when he says “I absolve your sins?” How can he do anything but laugh at himself when he says “This is my body”? Nothing he does as a priest is the result of his natural, human capabilities. His communion with Christ, his discipleship, consists in realizing that his ‘nothingness’ is precisely what makes him Christ’s instrument. Ordination makes him the property of Jesus Christ. That is the beauty of the Sacrament. Clericalism, on the other hand, encourages the self deception that he can somehow belong to Christ and still be his own man.

  The surprise is not to find forms of Clericalism and codependency in the Church.  The surprise would be if church were free of it. That will not happen till the kingdom has come in its fullness. Grace builds on nature but cannot be superimposed on it. Clericalism prevents authentic human relationships . The infused virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity cannot plant themselves in a human nature that is not open receptive to them.  Their purpose is to open us human beings to the Christ Event. An ungraced humanity ends up being inhuman.  I am incapable of recognizing who I really am as a human being or who another is, without the help of grace. I have to be living as a fallen-but-graced self in order to relate to another in a manner that is not codependent.  To live unaware of my fallen state, or to live unaware of my need for God’s grace, is already to be in a state of wrong relationship to others, and therefore codependent.

 Are there more serious matters than Clericalism for the priest to concern himself with?  Not really. Poverty, world hunger, drugs, racism, injustice, trafficking in human beings, genocide, abortion, etc. – all  obviously destroy countless people on a daily basis. That is the real world the priest is called to bring Christ’s love to. He cannot communicate Christ’s love to anyone unless he is first living in it. Clericalism prevents him from doing what he is called to do in Christ’s plan. Remember Christ’ words about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who “…. preach but do not practice” (Matt. 23:33).  “They bind heavy burdens hard to bear and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with their finger. (vs.34)” Certainly the point is that false piety should not be imitated.  But Our Lord is saying that it should not be winked at either. The collusion in Clericalism is the winking, the unspoken agreement that neither priest nor laity has to live the stuff that is preached, only pretend that they do. Priests are called to lead by example, not by word, and not by posturing. Artificial niceness reduces the faith to good manners and a pleasant demeanor. Courtesy and politeness can be no more than protecting one's personal space from interference and preserving one's individualism.

Once pretence is portrayed as the norm for people to live by, it becomes the “heavy burden” Christ speaks of, the one that cannot be borne.  What is so unbearable about it? The split it causes inside us who try to carry the burden by living one way and believing another. The longer the split is lived, the more ingrained and deformative it becomes.  In the short term such a psychic split prevents spiritual growth in priest and people.  In the long term, it leads to spiritual death, the “second death” that lasts forever.  (Rev.2:11 and 2O:14)  It is inevitable that either we end up living the way we believe, or we end up believing the way we live.

 Clericalism is based on the priest’s covenant with his false self: “I will pretend to be better than I am, I will project that image before all, I will lay on them my expectation that they will deal with me as if my idealized image were my real self, I will resist with all my might any attempt on the part of God or man to break through my façade, and I will build my life on this lie. To this I pledge myself.” That is a narcissist’s vow, a “Baptismal Promise” to his false self, which ultimately leads to his self destruction.  If a priest continues to shape himself on the basis of what he is not, he is acting as if what he is did not really exist. Thus he grows further and further away from his real identity as well as more and more incapable of recognizing that he is doing so. He becomes so blinded and so bound by his behavior that he falls in love with his false self and never sees that he is his own worst enemy.

      As with every human being, it is the priest’s real self that is called to be holy.  His calling is to put his humanity in the service of Christ, as Christ put his humanity in the service of all. How is the priest to do this? The way Christ calls him to do so at the Last Supper, by drinking from the cup of suffering that will result in his transformation and salvation. By eating the bread that will enable him to give himself up for the people he serves.  He is called to make of himself the victim and sacrifice he offers in the Eucharist. The priest has to become what he offers, live the sacrament he celebrates, that is what his vocation calls him to.

Why not just say that his calling is “to grow in holiness”? Certainly that is true, but it is also vague and vacuous. In our culture, holiness is the impossible dream of Don Quixote, and only possible by denying, repressing, or falsely “transcending” one’s humanity. The priest has to witness to Christ by being a man whose real human self is immersed in Christ’s gift of his divine-human self to His people.  This is the way he is to grow in holiness and lead his flock to Christ.  Any other life style makes his call to Orders a hoax.   

The priest may live his sacrifice by serving his people in many ways: by working in a poor, or rich, or ethnic parish with the various ministries that entails; by specializing as a priest teacher, high school principal/chaplain/guidance counselor, hospital chaplain, chancery official, etc... No matter what the ministry, the element of self sacrifice is an essential part. Even in retirement, the component of self sacrifice is never absent. Today it is an ironic fact of priestly life that forced retirement is imposed on some priests because they have been wrongly accused of sexual abuse of minors.  What greater sacrifice than to suffer this kind of victimization precisely because of one’s configuration to Christ by the Sacrament of Orders? It is reminiscent of John the Baptist’s plight as he awaits death in Herod’s dungeon instead of being allowed to work in the marketplace for the Messiah. What could be more sacrificial than the slow martyrdom of forsakenness and abandonment?

Brotherhood 

What should facilitate and strengthen the priest today are: 1) the brotherhood of the priesthood and the communal  nature of church life.  At present,  the individualism of American Culture as well as the anticlerical attitudes among priests and people make ministry more difficult than it has to be.

                How do we priests get beyond Clericalism?  First, recognize that it is real, it exists, and its hold is firmest when it is not recognized. One of the surest signs of addiction is denial, and Clericalism is an addictive life-style. Since addiction is complex, the cure is multifaceted.  Look at some of the main ingredients in the stew that create the climate of Clericalism in the USA: individualism, priestly formation, low morale and mutual mistrust among clergy, a lone ranger style of ministry, ignorance of one’s human nature with its innate needs for communication, and shifting social expectations. With a stew like that, how could any priest or person be so stupid as to think he could deal with the dilemma by himself?  Brotherhood is the basic, ongoing need that has to be part of priestly lives in the future in order for the present system not to perpetuate itself.

                In American culture a sense of community is no longer the foundation of society; autonomous individualism has replaced it. Our society may be communal in some places more than others, but it is so only superficially, and as a whole, a spirit of individualism predominates. In underdeveloped countries, such as the African Continent, where the individual is seen as an extension of the people, a sense of community is as natural, and tribal brotherhood is as normal as breathing. In America neither community nor a sense of brotherhood can be assumed. Education into both has to begin in the seminary with young men who are already on the road to being largely individualistic. Their formation in community and brotherhood cannot be left to their personal initiative because American males would see individualism as a positive part of their personality and be unaware of their need for brotherhood in the priesthood.

                If formation is to involve the whole person and make him capable of communion with God and man, it has to start with the actual human nature of the seminarians. As students they need to absorb the truth of Monsignor Giussani’s words, “To be good priests, you first of all, have to be men, to feel what men feel. Live the relationship with everything that becomes present. Live the truth of your humanity. Cry because you need to cry - or you are afraid, because the problem is difficult and you feel the inadequacy of your strength. Be human; live your humanity as an aspiration, as a sensitivity to problems, as a risk to face, as a faithfulness to what God makes urgent in your soul. In this way, reality will appear to your eyes in a new way.” When seminarians and priests live those words with one another, Clericalism will fade away. Living that humanely will open them to the Christ who calls them to be brothers in his priesthood.

                The seminary has available to it the firm foundation of Christian Anthropology established by John Paul the II from his writings both as a bishop in Poland and later as Pope in Rome, in which he bases the dignity of the human person on Scripture, Philosophy, and Theology.  But this treasure is largely left buried, like gold that has not yet been taken from a mine. Seminaries in this country need to build their formation programs on the riches left to the Church for the formation of generations of priests to come. ALL candidates for ordination, whether recruited from abroad or native born need to benefit from John Paul II’s teachings in order to form the brotherhood that will enable them to be priests after Christ’s own heart. A seminary or diocese that does not base their priestly formation on a well developed Christian anthropology will only continue to codependent clerical system that now exists.

Machiavelli on Obama and Romney

SR: Thanks for speaking with me again. Tell me, what do you think of our two candidates for president?

M: Why do you ask? What does my opinion matter? 

SR: You have a reputation for being manipulative, deceitful, and power hungry, so I thought it would be interesting to see what you think of these two politicians.

M: I will take your remark as a compliment, and answer this way: these two candidates are certainly my equal in political skills. I admire their ability  to change their positions and adapt to public opinion, split and divide the populace into interest groups, and then play on the feelings of each group to unite as many voters behind their side by giving a negative spin to everything the opposition says. 

SR: Would you give the edge to Romney or Obama?

M: It's hard to say, because it's impossible to know when a candidate is speaking for himself,  and when he is expressing what his advisers tell him to say. I would probably give the edge to Obama  because of his  proven ability to divide and conquer the American public.

SR: Why do you say that?

M: Look at  how skilfully Obama has undermined the Catholic bishops, using Catholics like Biden and Pelosi to speak against  the Church, and promote him as the candidate of the working class. Also, Obama's use of Catholics, especially disgruntled nuns and the Kennedy family, to give speeches against Church teaching at the Convention is masterful manipulation.  

SR: What about Romney's choice of Ryan, a Catholic, to be his running mate? Isn't Romney doing the same thing? 

M: Not exactly. It is a smart political move for Romney to have a Catholic as a vice president, since Obama has one as his vice president. But there is a difference. Ryan may turn out to actually believe Church teaching, whereas Biden is a dyed in the wool Democrat all the way, and nothing more than a cultural Catholic. Biden and Ryan may cancel each other out, because Catholics on both sides can use the one they want to justify their preference for the Democratic or Republican Platform.

SR: Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. So, do you think the Catholic vote will be the decisive factor?

M: No. It never has been, in spite of all the pronouncements and declarations of bishops. There is no reason to think Catholics will start listening to the bishops now.

SR: If the election took place today, who do you think would win?

M: I'd probably give the edge to Obama, since he has the liberal press and the media in his pocket. But the election is still far away. There are many other factors to consider. For example, the economy, the Mideast, Israel and the Palestinian problem, Afganistan, Pakistan and India, Iran and its drive for nuclear power, world-wide terrorism,  scandal and corruption here in the states or elsewhere, etc. Anything can happen anywhere, anytime, to sway pubic opinion one way or another. And it is impossible to see what that unpredictable event might be. 

SR: So we wait and see?

M:  Of course. Enjoy the entertainment. Politics continues to be the most expensive soap opera big money can provide!

Clericalism Part Five: Terror of the Holy

  I do not know how to prove there is an unconscious terror of the Holy in the core of humanity as a whole.  But I am convinced it is there. Since this terror is unconscious, it moves and motivates us without our awareness. This is a primal condition begun in the soul of mankind with the sin of Adam and Eve. Before the fall, we felt comfortable in God’s presence. After the fall, we had to run and hide because we could not stand to let Him look at us. To hide an awareness of Him became the way block Him out and live as if He did not exist.  We could not experience Him as anything but Threat because of our guilt. Before the fall, His Majesty inspired awe and wonder, even though it also made us quake and tremble.  But the quaking and trembling was not terror. It was a realization of our nothingness in comparison to His greatness.  After, we could not even entertain the thought of Him without cringing in fear. His greatness was Threat to us since we were now experiencing ourselves as His enemies and not as His image. The fact that He did not experience us as we experienced ourselves was not something our minds could grasp.

I think this terror of the Holy is still common to primitive peoples and cultures. In such a “progressive” civilization as ours, the enlightenment achieved by Psychology and Progress has anesthetized this terror into sophisticated numbness. Unlike more primitive societies which are still somewhat capable of awe and wonder, for us “moderns” boredom is new starting point where our conversion into Christian life begins.  In the past, surrender to Christ as He who saves us from our sins removed our terror of the Sacred and set us at peace with God. In the present, we first have to be made open to the Sacred, become aware that the Sacred is Goodness and Love we can trust, and let this new consciousness enkindle its love in us. The complications are our own fault because of the great lengths we have gone to insulate ourselves from the Sacred.

The wrong way to avoid the terror of the Holy is to hide from Him by denial. (We have yet to find a “right” way to hide from God because there is none.)  Denial once begun becomes easier and easier in its expansion. Denial of guilt becomes denial of sin. Denial of sin becomes denial of God, of obligation, and of responsibility. Denial also ego-inflates into an assertion of freedom, independence, and autonomy. The need for consistence and coherence in our lives either  moves us to open our selves more and more to God, or close ourselves off from Him more completely.

 In our Culture we believers go back and forth, forth and back, between conversion and denial.  This movement in us affects the way we view the relation of the natural to the Supernatural.  The more converted (holy) the person, the more awareness there will be of the presence of the Supernatural in the natural. The more into denial the person, the more absent the Supernatural will be from the natural. The person who takes one step forward and two backwards (most of us) will probably imagine the Supernatural on top of the natural, as a kind of layer that blankets it in a heavy invisible fog. There will be no awareness of the immanence of the Holy. The person who lives in Faith, Hope, and Love will “sense” the Supernatural present within the natural. The mystic will “see” the natural shimmer with Glory.

What has all of this to do with Clericalism? Clericalism is obviously more than abuse of power and/or enjoyment of perks that go with the priestly profession. It is a defense mechanism: our human attempt to “protect” ourselves from the intrusion of the Holy into our lives. Since the clergyman is a sign of the Holy, two perpetually easy ways to avoid what he stands for are to idolize him or despise him.  From apostolic time to today, it is easier to stop at the sign than to face what it signifies.Thus an encounter with the Holy Itself is avoided.  

Clericalism Part Four: Senator Kennedy and Cardinal Law

                           Apples and Oranges?

  Let me illustrate my point  about Clericalism by making a comparison between the downfall of a churchman and a politician: Cardinal Law and Senator Kennedy. There are striking similarities between the two. Both were based in Massachusetts, both seen as successful Irishmen, both were consultants to presidents, both highly influential in their own sphere as well as beyond its boundaries, and both went through an excruciatingly painful scandal that destroyed their public image.  Both still have their fans and their despisers. Both were substantially the same persons before their date with destiny as afterwards. It was public opinion of them that had changed, not their basic characters.   However, Kennedy was able to be rehabilitated after Chappaquiddick and continue his career in the Senate, and Law had to leave town and country in disgrace.  Public opinion allowed Kennedy to reinvent himself, while Law had to go into exile in Rome.

Is it fair to compare the two cases?  Their fall from grace took place at different times and circumstances. By comparing a cardinal with a senator, are we comparing apples and oranges? My contention is that in spite of all the similarities and difference, the decisive factor between their two cases is Clericalism. There are huge differences, of course. The feeding frenzy the Boston Globe provoked over Law’s situation, the deep pockets of the Church which attracted so many lawsuits, the justified public outrage over the sexual abuse scandal, the heinous nature of the crime itself, the reassignment of sexual offenders, all of these serious factors demand attention. But the basic difference between the two is that Law was a priest, and Kennedy was not. Law was a sign of Someone Greater than himself, and Kennedy was not. Kennedy was a cultural Catholic, nothing more. As a sign Law was presumed to be greater than he humanly was (idealization), and expected to incarnate perfection. After all, he was a prince of the Church! When the idol he should have been turned out to have clay feet in the public mind, well, the mob wanted blood. It would have meant little, (nothing really), to say that Law sacramentally was configured to the person of Christ by ordination and actually was doing his best to be the holy person Christ was calling him to be. The public wanted perfection by its idealized standards, not Christ’s.

 Clericalism set the Church up for the scandal, for the public outrage, for the media feeding frenzy, and for the preying lawyers who continue to loot the Church’s coffers.  The biased perspective the Public had against Law did not exist against Kennedy because Kennedy was a layman, whereas Law was and is a priest and a churchman. A somewhat sarcastic rhetorical question asks: If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? The question should apply to all the baptized, but because of the superficial way most of us live our Christianity, no matter what our denomination, society no longer accuses Christians of trying to be the light of the world or salt of the earth. Even priests are not expected to be salt or light, most of the time. Most Catholics are happy with their priests if they are “nice”, that is, politically correct and blandly inoffensive. Challenge is not “nice”. The question of Christian witness should be applied across the board, not only against a despised churchman like Law.

  Kennedy had his enemies who were out for his blood, but nobody ever presumed Kennedy was perfect, nor admired him on that basis. Those who really knew and loved him knew he could be his own worst enemy and had to be protected, from himself, and from the public. He may have been looked up to because of his wealth, his charm, his power, his political skills, the Kennedy mystique, etc., but no one seriously harbored any doubts that he was like the rest of men. His survival was partly possible because he did not have to live up to idealized standards of perfection, only appear to do so.

Cardinal Law, on the other hand, did have high moral standards, and was living up to them in his personal life. He did not drink to excess, did not engage in illicit sexual behavior of any kind, and had made innumerable positive contributions to both Church and State. He was presumed to be a paragon of perfection. It made no difference in his defense to point out that the percentage of priest abusers was lower than that of abusers in other professions, no difference to explain that Law was operating on the basis of the  best professional medical advice of the day,  it made no difference to point out that today’s society was judging yesterday’s crimes by today’s standards of awareness which did not exist  when the crimes were committed, and it made no sense at all to speak in terms of mercy, forgiveness, repentance and conversion, nor  gradations or degrees of sexual offense.  The only thing that mattered was that the outraged public that needed someone to be pay.

Where did that hatred come from?  Was everyone was swept up in the tsunami of public opinion? A “yes” answer to that question ignores the facts.  I believe it is a fact that school administrators had long been in the same position the cardinal was, and indeed had long been guilty of “passing along the garbage” by transferring their sexually abusive teachers to other schools. There was not the same call for their resignations, nor was there a public outcry for their blood, in spite of the betrayal of trust that they were guilty of and complicit in.   It is also statistically provable, I believe, that other denominations had (and have) a significantly higher percentage of clergy who commit pedophilia that the Catholic Church does. Yet public outrage against them was hardly noticeable. Pedophilia is pedophilia, whether it is committed by a priest, minister, rabbi, doctor, lawyer, coach, or teacher. If concern for children is the most important issue to the public, then the same outrage that was displayed over clergy sexual abuse should have been poured out in the other instances as well.  Why was not the same vilification heaped on other professions when those professionals are guilty of the same outrage? My conclusion is that Clericalism is the factor that makes the difference.

If you find yourself disagreeing, please see if the following fantasy makes any sense to you: Imagine a Catholic bishop or cardinal of great public stature as Cardinal Law before his disgrace. Imagine that this esteemed Prince of the Church is crossing a wooden bridge on an island with an attractive woman in his car late at night, and the car slides off the bridge somehow and into the deep water below.   Somehow the cardinal gets out and swims to shore while the woman drowns. Imagine too that as soon as he gets to shore he pulls out his cell phone and calls for help immediately. There is no delay, no suspicion of a cover up, no liquor on his breath. There are no aggravating factors that could justify suspicions, just an immediate call for help. An autopsy of the woman is performed which shows she died by drowning. That’s it, the whole story,   clean of any salubrious implications or grounds for doubt. Would it fly? Would people allow the prince of the church to continue in office? I would bet any amount of money they would not. A Cardinal in Kennedy’s situation, even if it were not as bad as Kennedy’s would be treated worse than Kennedy was, because the Cardinal is a man of the cloth. As a man of the cloth, he is idolized and victimized, praised and scorned, exalted and sacrificed, because he is seen as a living image of a Presence greater than himself. He is therefore presumed to be more than himself, the living incarnation of a holiness that the world fears and finds foreign.

As an idealized embodiment, the priest is a sign of contradiction, in success as well as failure, because no human, even a saint, is ever a complete embodiment of an ideal. Some will hate the priest no matter what he does because of the Christ Whom he re-presents to them, or because of incorrect impressions of what they think Christ represents. When Law failed, the protective wall of Clericalism crashed down with him.  The secrets of many hearts are laid bare. People stood before God with no welcome or unwelcome barrier interposed. Naturally they were not happy about being confronted with the supernatural!   

To be Continued...

Clericalism Part Three: Priestly Office and Person

 Co-dependence: The (Con)fusion of Priestly Office and Person

In the not too distant past the social and religious environment colluded to keep the priest coddled and comfortable because of his office and status.  Salary, stipends, pension plan, standard of living, medical insurance, rectory living, vacations, social standing, in short all he needed was handed to him on a silver platter with ordination. Only Grace could keep it from going to his head. Eventually he would get seduced by the arrangement and take advantage of it to some degree or another. Those who serve the greater cause live off the cause they serve. This seems to be a natural corruption of Christ’s saying that the laborer is worthy of his hire.  As the popular quotation by Lord Acton reminds us, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Nature, especially weak human nature, takes the course of least resistance.

             Office and the person fuse into one in the person of the priest. Priest and people may be aware of the distinction between the office and person in theory, but that does not mean they apply it in reality. Clericalism conditioned people to see Father as more than what he was as a person because of his office, and treat him as more. The priest was going to see himself as more than what he was because of his office and think he was more. This idealization on both sides led to the privileges and honors of Clericalism, and eventually to rage and resentment when its bankruptcy was exposed. How could the priest not think he was more than he was, when the society and culture inflated his ego balloon and puffed him up? How could the laity not feel betrayed and angry when he did not live up to their expectations? True, he the priest should have had more sense to begin with. But the red carpet treatment is heady, intoxicating, and seductive.

.

All noble professions become sacred cows at one time or another. Successful doctors, lawyers, statesmen, teachers, etc. are presumed to be worthy of esteem and respect because of the profession they are in. There is naturally shock and scandal when an idolized person is shown to have clay feet. People rightly get angry when the banker or financier they thought honest is found guilty of embezzling funds. Understandably, the anger turns into rage when the perpetrator is a priest who betrays the people’s trust by sexually abusing minors. But something more is involved than the fall of an idol.

The sexual nature of the crime, the fact that a priest is the perpetrator, the betrayal of a sacred trust, the lifelong harm done to the individuals who have been abused, all these contribute to the public outrage. Yet I believe another factor also comes into play and it is all the more influential because it is the least recognized: The widely used, socially acceptable defense mechanism of Clericalism has broken down.  The spiritual Berlin Wall is blown to pieces. No insulation remains to protect people from the intrusion of the Divine. This creates a fury against the clergy. The problem is not only the sin and the crime, nor the harm it has done, but that the sin demolishes the buffer zone, the last cultural defense, between man and God.