Roman Catholic Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm Syndrome: feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor.

There is a real issue with how Autocephalous Catholics (or the ISM) interact with former Roman Catholic seminarians and clergy. This manifests itself in two possible ways which are discussed below.

First, the advanced seminarian or priest (hereafter cleric for both) wishes to leave the Roman Catholic Church. He wishes to marry, be in a relationship, or in the worst case scenario he was kicked out for malfeasance. He searches the internet and finds out about Independent Catholics. He may think "here are liturgical Christians with apostolic succession. I can be their savior!" This is natural, as he has advanced theological training and believes this places him in a superior position. He may join our movement to wax philosophical about what is wrong with it and how we need to be better educated in more unified. Ultimately, he will either accept the movement as it is or he will leave for a mainstream church.

I don't wish to portray that this is every former Roman Catholic cleric. I have met many who are gracious and humble about receiving the chance to continue ministering. But there are others who believe that they are God's gift to our movement. The rationale is that because of their training and background in a "real" church we should kneel to them in deference. 

The second issue is with jurisdictions who actively solicit former Roman Catholic clerics as their savior. They also exhibit faulty logic. They think "here is someone who is already trained, so we do not need to do it. They will integrate well because of their background." Again, I have seen this happen where former Roman Catholic clerics integrate well into a jurisdiction and add to it. However, there are also those who do not. Perhaps they still question if being in the ISM is "real." Or perhaps they think that since they have already committed ecclesiastical disobedience it no longer matters. Whatever the case, it can be frequent that former Roman Catholic clerics simply aren't a good fit. Our way of life is often too fluid, too unfamiliar for them to adjust.

In these ways a kind of Stockholm Syndrome is created where jurisdictions don't want to be Roman Catholic but view their former clergy as "real" and "truly trained." They eagerly solicit them because they, too, believe somehow that they can be the savior of the jurisdiction. It creates unhealthy expectations for both the jurisdiction and the cleric. The cleric, with an elevated sense of self, never feels like he is involved in something truly worthwhile. 

I think there is a middle way. We should welcome former Roman Catholic clerics. And I encourage them to eagerly seek out our movement. But it must be on our terms. Just as you do not demand to wear your shoes into someone's home in China, a former Roman Catholic cleric has to adapt to our way of life. If they refuse to, ultimately everyone will be unhappy. It can only be achieved by proper catechesis on our history and the realization that independence is part of our charism. Similarly, there has to be the understanding that ours is a difficult life. Gone are the accolades for being a priest and the expectation of remuneration. Here we work hard to minister, often while being derided as fake or worse.

It is up to the jurisdiction accepting the cleric to give them proper formation. This does not need to be a formal program mimicking mainstream seminaries. But it must be rooted in the history of our movement-- answering why is it that we were formed and why we exist. There must be knowledge about Utrecht and Brazil and Duarte Costa and Mathew and Thuc and all the people who conveyed apostolic succession to us. From there it is important to emphasize how communities continued and if/how they developed their own charism (because, frankly, most who don't do not continue). What is it that makes us ourselves? It's not all dressing up, as the detractors allege. 

Only then will we come into ourselves and provide the kind of welcome and expectations that those leaving Rome deserve. I was lucky to be baptized and confirmed in this wacky, crazy movement. But it is one I've come to love deeply, and I want others to love it too.

To go to Rome is little profit, endless pain; the master that you seek in Rome you find at home or seek in vain. - Sedulius of Liege 

Independence and Independent Catholics

Recently, there was discussion how Autocephalous Catholics or those in the ISM could unite. This is a common theme, because it is reasoned that being together will make us stronger. After all, if we could only unite we would have buildings, paid clergy, a national presence, etc. These are all laudable things.

However, I think that we are missing the mark on this conversation. While we do often desperately yearn to be a "real" church with buildings, retirement accounts, paid clergy, etc. we also realize that the mainstream is having to find ways to do without these things. It is becoming increasingly common to see mainstream clergy who are bi-vocational, who share churches with other denominations, and who have lost the trappings we traditionally associate with an "established church." They are investing time and money in their ministry and we will too. It costs a lot to be an ISM cleric.

I think that we have to realize that one of our common charisms is independence. The vast majority of people (but not everyone) entered our movement because they couldn't minister anywhere else. They may be married, divorced, LGBTQ, etc. But I anticipate we will see this number drop as well. Because now the ELCA, ECUSA, and other mainstream, liturgical churches have become more inclusive. Those who want a traditional ministry will be drawn to those places.

So where does that leave us? Well, we will continue to attract those people who like our model but value the freedoms in it. They like being able to establish communities or ministries with little oversight. This, of course, has its drawbacks. People can enter these ministries with impure motives and do a lot of harm. There are also limited resources available to these ministries, as they do not have a national backing with access to financial resources or other clergy if the minister exits. But, there is also a degree of freedom which has always been part of our movement.

This degree of freedom is something which is uniquely ours. We cherish it, even if we say we don't. When we lose it, it is difficult for us to adjust. This is akin to Anglican priests who became Roman Catholics--those who went from a distant bishop to one who has much more control over their daily lives. With the freedom in our movement, members can be consecrated a bishop even if they loudly proclaim on social media that they want no such thing. Or they can liturgically experiment. Or they can exercise ministries that could not. Or they can minister to a lot or very few.

I think the sooner we realize that rigid structures do not and will not work for us, the sooner we will find our affirmation of the movement. This is a place where if you want to celebrate a 10th century liturgy in Esperanto, you are free to do it. No one may show up, but you can go at it to your heart's desire. The key, as always, is not creating scandal for others. Sexual or financial scandal among the clergy is something that keeps people away and destroys the trust they place in the Church. It also means that we have to live with things we don't necessarily prefer. I have attended liturgies that I H-A-T-E-D. Like would have set myself on fire to be able to leave. But, they were celebrated with sincerity and with a sense of spiritual commitment. And for that I was grateful.

If people feel the need to create committees or dicasteries to give the illusion of cohesion to outsiders, they can go for it. But the reality is that given the distance and lack of binding commitments (salaries, retirement accounts, health insurance, etc.) there is only so much that can be done in terms of discipline.

The same principal of independence can be applied to education. It was very common historically for clergy to be illiterate. Many of them did not even have a missal with which to use because of their poverty before printing presses. Hence the tradition of so-called "white" and "black" clergy in the Orthodox church and simplex priests in the Roman Church. They were trained in basic theological care and liturgical mastery. Obviously now there is no excuse to not attempt to learn as much as possible, especially given the prevalence of materials on YouTube, podcasts, Google Books, etc. However, this need not always be formal education. Without a steady salary it does not make sense to go thousands of dollars into debt for ministry. Priests need a minimum threshold of education with a maximum ceiling for spiritual life. 

I care so much more about how a priest prays or how he interacts with others than his theological understanding. It is formation that will save us more than educational standards. Again, this does not exempt people from lifelong learning. But it is a recognition that our bond together should primarily be spiritual. This is not always possible in our fallen world, but it is something to ponder. When this happens, we will care less about the "stuff" of ministry and more about deepening our relationships with each other and our commitment to be in community. Then, I think, we will have arrived.

"It is easy to be independent when you've got money. But to be independent when you haven't got a thing, that's the Lord's test." - Mahalia Jackson