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 

Mitered Mayhem

Episcopal consecrations in our movement are typically mundane. However, every so often there is the announcement of one that results in half a dozen messages to me of "can you believe this" or "OMG." This happens from time to time, and I may not be writing about something recent. Traditionally they follow the same pattern. An individual who has been with numerous jurisdictions, often has started and ended several parishes and/or religious groups, and will wax philosophical about how terrible the movement is and how awful it is everyone is consecrated a bishop--until it's them. 

From experience I have learned to take these announcements in stride. It is pointless to contact the consecrator about the wisdom of the action. It's always going to happen anyway. In the past these have resulted in hurt friendships or the ignoring of the message. I know of once instance where a bishop pleaded with another not to consecrate someone in his area only to be verbally berated. And we don't always have the full reasoning as to who, what, when, or why. So, life goes on. It either ends up in the person leaving the jurisdiction where they are (because now they have the "all-powerful episcopacy"), continuing their behavior, or, ideally, rising to the challenge. 

The reality is that we in the "Independent" or "Autocephalous" world are no different than any other group. There will always be people who are chosen for the clerical state (any part of it) in all different groups where some might think "really?" I have no doubt that our Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and various other brethren see consecration announcements and think "can you believe this" or "OMG." The issue becomes when the person creates scandal-- when their behavior or actions become scandalous to the faithful. And we Christians have been very successful at creating scandal in all our various ecclesiastical entities! The only real difference is that it's easier to end up a bishop in our corner of the Church.

So, then, what is the remedy? Is it to stay silent? Is it to confront? Well, at some point it is our job to discuss in a diplomatic way if possible. If this is not received, then we have to do something more than shake the dust off our feet. We must pray. This method doesn't just apply to bishops--it's to anyone ordained where we have a concern or an issue. We must pray that their ministry is fruitful. We must pray that they, and we, are transformed by God's limitless grace. We must ask God to bless them and to speak through them. Because, after all, are any of us truly "worthy" to be ordained?

This is true of all of our clergy. I entreat anyone who is reading this to pray for us. Pray for the stumbling clergy, the successful clergy, the addicted clergy, to clergy in need, the beloved clergy, the despised clergy, the shameful clergy, the saintly clergy, and everyone in between. Just pray. And leave the rest to God.

"My dear child, you must believe in God despite what the clergy tells you." 

- Benjamin Jowett

Sexual Abuse in the Church

We have all watched with horror the sex abuse happening in the Roman Catholic Church. The reality is, however, that none of us are immune to the risks of wayward clerics. The crucial part is how we deal with the issue. Autocephalous Catholics must have policies in place to deal with clergy who have had some type of sexual, physical, or other aggression towards others--especially children. It remains an issue at the forefront of our ministries, because we do get people from other traditions who have not matched the requirements of other entities. This can be for a whole host of reasons, but it does give us heightened cause to protect our ministries and the People of God.

The reality is that the Church is a hospital for sinners, and it will always attract people with problems. We cannot control who comes to us. All we can do is further protect children and vulnerable people so that they are not abused. This means putting policies in place that ensure people who have been accused or have the proclivity to abuse are not placed in ministerial positions. It also means (and this is going to be unpopular) ministering to abusers (while establishing boundaries) so that they are not cut off from the Christian community entirely. If we minister to all people we have to prepare ourselves to minister to people whose sins and condition we find morally repugnant. This is true of all clergy and all conditions.

There is a lot of conjecture currently about why priests abuse. Numerous psychological treatises have indicated that it is linked to a power dynamic in some cases. This seems natural because we instinctively look up to the clergy. They are presented as "worthy" figures whose voice has merit and gravitas. In the Roman Catholic cases, there is also the issue of improper formation. Human sexuality has not been viewed as something that is a natural part of an individual, but is often viewed as bad. When clergy are told that their vocation is the highest form of sacrifice at tender ages in minor seminary, a complex can be easily developed. These are not inclusive of why people abuse, they are just some of the factors. 

What I do not believe has any bearing on abuse is human sexuality. Controversial clerics in the Roman tradition, and in the Orthodox one, have attributed abuse to homosexuality. This serves a dual purpose. 1) it allows the externalization of blame--if only "those people" could be rooted out of the priesthood. 2) it gives people with an axe to grind against society another reason to wax philosophical about the decline of society and our moral status. Empirical studies have indicated that the vast majority of abusers are heterosexual. Simply preventing homosexuals from the priesthood is not going to solve the issue, because it is not an exclusively homosexual issue (although there were homosexual priests who abused just like there were heterosexual ones).

I also don't think that the various culture warriors are going to solve the problem. There are shouts from the right that the abuse is the result of Vatican II. However, the abuse happened by priests who were trained prior to Vatican II. Abuse has happened throughout the history of the whole Christian Church--not just in one epoch. Similarly, there are shouts to ordain women because it will be the salve that settles all problems. Including this is not a discussion of women's ordination--it's an acknowledgement that no one issue can solve the problem.

Abuse will continue to happen. Prohibiting something does not stop it. If that was true there would no longer be prostitution, abortions, etc. Even after training courses and safeguarding courses, abuse still occurs. The thing that we can do is learn from our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers. We are not looking to mimic them (as covered in the last post) but we are going to learn from their experiences. And we can put policies in place the prevent people who have the proclivity to abuse or who have abused into positions of ministry.

There is nothing to stop Fr X, who has been accused of abuse, from starting his own "Independent Catholic" chapel and going at it on his own. Any more than there is a priest who committed gross theft from doing the same. But we, as communities and jurisdictions, can do due diligence about researching people's backgrounds as well as implementing protections as much as possible.

Pray for the Church. All branches and parts of it. The bad decisions of bishops and leadership, even in one part of the Body of Christ, impact all of it. You can be rightfully angry at the people guiding the Church, but don't let it cut you off from the Most Holy Eucharist. Clergy are people and, as such, are sinners. But just as hopefully having one bad doctor does not dissuade you from medical care, do not let it be so for your spiritual care either. 

"When Napoleon told Cardinal Ercole Consalvi he had the power the destroy the church, the Cardinal responded: ‘If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you'll be able to do it?’”

I Never Met the Man

"Choose your acquaintances wisely. If a priest gives scandal you want to be able to say 'I never met
the man.'" This was a saying of Fr. Donald Curry. And it is one that has stuck with me. He was speaking about clergy in the Autocephalous Catholic Movement. I have noted in my posts what because there is a lack of quality control and because we are so much smaller than mainstream groups, our eccentrics are given the spotlight. Yet, we have to exercise our own discretion in who we take in to our churches as well as who we meet.

This is problematic for me. As an extreme extrovert I love to meet new people. But this quote pops into my head every now and again and provides me with caution. Sometimes meeting problematic people is unavoidable. However, it seems prudent to evaluate people's ministry and even sanity before rushing off to meet them. If they are a difficult person they can cause real problems to our ministries by their bad behavior.

This becomes a larger problem when we validate them. For instance, in our movement there is a desire to want to participate in everyone's ordinations. For some it's a change to dress up and participate. For others they see themselves as genuinely ordaining someone to minister to the People of God. Regardless, it's harmful to do unless we know the content of their character. The worst thing that can happen (and I have seen it happen) is to take someone in and discover they have a disreputable background. I've even seen the bishop be contacted by the media and put his name front and center for the crimes of his priest.

The result is a tapeworm like affect. A person with a past of abuse or fraud then affects our reputation, our church, our family, etc. Even if you depose them they are forever attached to your credibility. And now, thanks to the internet, nothing ever really goes away. How much better to be able to say "I never met the man."

"Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm." - Proverbs 13:20.

Quality Control

One of the greatest problems of the autocephalous Catholic movement is the quality control of clergy. The movement as a whole typically attracts people for a variety of reasons. Some legitimately feel their beliefs do not fit with the Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican churches, some wish to be married or in same-sex relationships, some are of another gender, and some could not have been ordained in another church.

I focus here on the last category. There are people who get ordained but have various psychological issues which should have prevented their ordination. I am not being hard on the movement as a whole, because we well know there are many more "mainstream" clergy who also should not have been ordained. The problem here with our movement is quality control. In the Roman Catholic church, for example, there is the requirement of excardination of clergy move dioceses. Generally, bishops will get permission from other bishops to accept a priest and will also receive a dossier of their suitability.

There is, unfortunately, no such process in the movement. It allows unsuitable clerics to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction causing havoc on each one. Bishops often do not ask for letters of incardination because 1) they believe the story of the cleric about their supposed abusive bishop, 2) they really want to grow their church and it doesn't matter if the cleric is properly vetted, 3) they believe (perhaps like a forlorn lover) that they can "change" the cleric. I can honestly say that having a cleric who is psychologically unsuitable is a hardship that is absolutely not worth the time and effort. Like energetic vampires they draw out energy which could be used building up the Kingdom. Moreover, many of them should not be in positions of authority over unsuspecting laity.

I do believe that there is a legitimate issue with clergy who have unsuspectingly found themselves under problematic bishops. Because of the lack of general ordination standards persons can be elevated past their mental or psychological ability. This is a continuation of the discussion above, because problematic priests can become problematic bishops. However, I think it behooves us to at least reach out to a cleric's former bishop and hear their side of the story. Then, weigh the evidence and try to make some reasonable determination if the cleric is fit. If the bishop is abusive, combative, or downright crazy then maybe there is a reason the cleric left! References can also be helpful as can psychological evaluations. It takes a multitude of sources to determine if a person is suitable. And that, for bishops, is the most important part of your job. You have the power to ordain and license people who are entrusted with the souls of others. This is a tremendously frightening and sobering responsibility. It can't be taken lightly.

"The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil." - 1. Tim. 3:1-13.