Independent Catholic Narratives

A friend and I were recently talking about belonging to a tradition that is adjacent to a larger tradition. This is incredibly difficult. I have written on this topic many times, but I want to again reinforce it. Our adjacency to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, etc., makes it difficult to describe ourselves. The reality is that it is easy to default to "we're like x except..." 

A better example of this is illustrated in a talk given by a dear friend. In this talk to an ISM or Autocephalous Catholic jurisdiction, my friend said:

"Like me, you probably are invited to explain yourself when people find out that you belong to a church like this, or worse yet, are some sort of priest! Random inquirers probably misunderstand larger denominations with great regularity, but most of the time, they at least have some idea of what a Methodist or Roman Catholic might be – even if it is a completely wrong idea. But when they meet us, we often blow their categories and they aren’t quite sure who we are or how to understand us..... And most of us reach automatically for stored narratives we have in our pocket, which may have been useful along the way, but may be less so in this moment. The first automatic narrative might be called the inclusivity story, or the “just like… except…” tale... Well, we are just like the Roman Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or whoever, except we ordain women, or gay people, or trans people, or do same-sex weddings.” Or whatever the specifics may be. We hereby set up a game where our vocation as church is only ever seen or understood in comparison or contrast to one of the large denominations. We fail to answer the question or who we are or who we are called to be, without pointing to another church...."

We may feel like it's a "necessary evil" to define ourselves in relation to someone else. As humans, we like to categorize people. If we can place people in a bubble "gay/straight, Democrat/Republican, black/white, etc." we know if they are "on our side." But, I think a better path is to share what we believe to allow the inquirer to discern if they believe it, too. We also can share our rich history to explain who we are and how we got here.

Unfortunately, we belong to a tradition which defies explanation. Most Christians have associated the word Catholic exclusively with the Roman Catholic Church, despite its universal meaning. Despite, as well, its use among other traditions which offer a prefix like Anglo-Catholic, Old Catholic, Evangelical Catholic, or even Eastern Orthodoxy which often uses a derivative of the name Orthodox Catholic Church. 

I think the farther we can distance ourselves from mainstream churches in our descriptions, the better it will be. We may be buoyed by the names "Catholic" or "Orthodox" to describe our theological and (especially) sacramental commitments, but we do not have to use them as oppositional words. It is more important for us to build up strong, vibrant communities of faith. Doing this is only more difficult when we base our identity on our opposition to another Christian community. It is also complicated when we seek to change another Christian community, despite our having left it.

I have no interest or desire in changing another tradition, any more than I do by defining myself in relation to it.  As I have written multiple times, I wish there were different names to describe ourselves. But we are wedded either by historicity or our firm theological commitments. And these are what should guide us in describing ourselves, not our place in the Christian continuum. I will stand by using Catholic because that's what I am. Not because it's in relation to a larger version of Catholicism but because I am part of the universal tradition--the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic one.

"What a heavy burden is a name that has become too famous." - Voltaire 

Ordination without Sacrifice

Gandhi gave us his take on the Seven Deadly Sins, and one of them is "religion without sacrifice." I think of this a lot when it comes to ordination. The reality is that within Independent Catholicism (and its many iterations thereof), it is easy to be ordained. This reality spans from the liberal to the traditional--if you find a willing bishop, you, too, can be a priest. I do not think that this is inherently bad. There are many people who have been innately called to priesthood who should be ordained. For one reason or another, they are not able to pursue it in their church of origin. 

I do not always think that a theological degree is required for ordination. While helpful in explaining theological concepts to those to whom we minister, I also realize that they are out of the reach of many people. Because of the exorbitant cost of education in the US (especially), it does not make good financial sense to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for ministry that will never be able to reimburse you for your costs. However, thankfully, because of the internet, there are many opportunities for learning that are less formal but still provide insightful, challenging insights.

So, without formal training, what is the option for training clergy? Well, there are other ways to prepare. A lot of it depends on the candidate. The individual has to take every opportunity to prepare themselves for ordination. At a minimum, ordinands should work on their spiritual life, emotional health, professionalism, grammar, and demeanor. Without this, ordinands are doing themselves a disservice because 1) they are seeking the easy path without doing the work and 2) they limit their own success in ministry and their ability to minister to people.

Some of the fault is on the ordaining bishops, who do not challenge applicants to do this hard work. Sometimes, they are eager to ordain people to grow their church or, less cynically, there is a true ministry need. However, by ordaining too quickly you actually do the ordinand a disservice on your side, too. It is incumbent that each person called to public ministry be spiritually prepared, emotionally prepared, and intellectually challenged. To fail to do so can cause a host of additional problems. 

Technology has made our lives infinitely easier. If you wish to be ordained, take it upon yourself to learn and digest. Take courses to improve your grammar. Watch videos about professional conduct and take trainings about child protection. We have access to some of the most brilliant human minds at the click of a button. Document what you have done and show it to your bishop. Together, you can craft a meaningful, yet challenging plan forward that does not put you thousands of dollars into debt while still helping you grow as a person. What a time to be alive!

O Priest! You are not yourself because you are God. You are not of yourself because you are the servant and minister of Christ. You are not you own because you are the spouse of the Church. You are not yourself because you are the mediator between God and man. You are not from yourself because you are nothing. What then are you? Nothing and everything. O Priest! Take care lest what was said to Christ on the cross be said to you: "He saved others, himself he cannot save! - St. Norbert

Stability among Independent Catholics

I was speaking to a friend about the lack of stability in the Independent Catholic world, and it inspired a writing. As you may know, the Benedictines take a specific vow of stability. Thomas Merton writes: "By making a vow of stability the monk renounces the vain hope of wandering off to find a ‘perfect monastery.’ This implies a deep act of faith: the recognition that it does not matter where we are or whom we live with. …Stability becomes difficult for a man whose monastic ideal contains some note, some element of the extraordinary. All monasteries are more or less ordinary.… Its ordinariness is one of its greatest blessings."

I think this is all the more difficult in the Autocephalous Catholic world. Because of our independence, the sky is the limit on what we want and where we want to go in our spiritual life. We have seen that manifest itself chaotically--clergy who have cycled through religions as frequently as we change socks. We also see micro levels of this--clergy who change within the Christian tradition from Anglican to Roman Catholic-ish, to Orthodox, and everything in between. Or, clergy who start and stop and start again parishes while creating whiplash among attendees. Or, perhaps they change jurisdictions frequently--hopping from here to there in contravention of the vow of stability mentioned above.

In typing these, I realize that I am not immune to the call to change. I have frequently waffled in understanding if my beliefs are Old Catholic or Western Orthodox. I struggle between these two poles because my deep commitment to the Western liturgical tradition while being called to the theology and mystical understanding of Orthodoxy. I have found, in myself, a way to nurture both, albeit sometimes confusingly. Fortunately, the founder of my tradition lived in this same confusing place, so I am in good company.

As I have written before frequently and emphatically, there is no good name for us in this little world. We seem to swing between being accused of schism, imitation, and innovation. So, we live in a gray area. However, despite this we are called to "keep at it" as much as we can. This also has implications in our own worshiping communities. Not planning ahead can lead to starting and stopping liturgical plans and programs, which in turn creates confusion among those to whom we minister.

Another caveat is that I am not stating that it is ok to stay in a situation where, in good conscience, we cannot stay due to feeling abused or conflicted. Unfortunately, there are plenty of stories of bad jurisdictional experiences in our tradition (although the same can be said for mainstream churches). However, constantly hopping around or rapid changes do not benefit us and the people we serve. Consider the person who digs a well only superficially and gives up. If they but only dug a bit deeper, they would have found their treasure: water.

I have a very dear friend who has labored at his parish for many years. Unfortunately, the response has been low but he persists nonetheless because he knows the importance of what he does. I admire him so much because I have been in the same place, laboring consistently and working for growth. His little group continues to meet despite, what I might imagine, is some disappointment and frustration but also hope. Yet, people know he is there and visitors come. He is consistent and present. May we all be so, too.

“Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you.” - Saint Augustine

Mind Your Business People of God

A few weeks ago, I walked through a cemetery and one of the monks buried there had a sign that read "Almost everything is none of my business." I laughed and forgot about it until this week. For some reason, I thought about this sign again. The simplicity of the sign is profound, and I think is a message to us all. This is something I struggle with, because I try to know a lot about a lot. Being well versed in a variety of areas is important to me, so this sign gave me greater reflection and pause.

Religious people, especially clergy, can be especially pedantic. If people don't do things exactly the way we want or in the same way we would, we criticize them. Similarly, if someone believes differently from us, even slightly, we find it easy to condemn or vilify them. This is not unique to any side or perspective. You can do any number of things wrong: liturgy, being too or not enough justice oriented, believing too much or too little in something, wearing something wrong, etc. etc. etc. Instead of asking "well, why do you do that?" to try to understand, many times we just shut down or condemn.

On a forum recently, an individual posted about another denomination "their communion isn't real anyway." I think it is easy to write other people off. To say, "well, they're not like me, so I can say what I want." Or, "I have nothing to learn from them." Or even "they're not real and only I am." The reality is that none of this is new. We have been saying things about each other since the dawn of time. And, frankly, in my ministry experiences it has turned people off. Most normal lay people do not care about the complexities of this or that, they simply want to improve their lives through a reverent and involved faith. To some, this may be a sign of how far we've fallen. However, I think the farther we can get away from burning each other at the stake the better, and maybe this is a step in the right direction.

It seems like a good resolution to take into the New Year to say "almost everything is none of my business." See something you don't like? Don't comment on it. Let it go or ignore it. I think that we all have something to learn from each other--a different way to pray, to learn, to grow. If you shut that down, you have no chance to expand yourself. We all like to think we're the best or we're right or our way is the only way. We can choose, instead, to see the best in people. Now, I'm not talking about when people are being intentionally malicious and cruel. We don't have to put up with that. But for many things, we can disagree but still live in harmony. Or even work towards agreement! We just have to let it go and mind your business people of God.

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them." - St. Theresa of Calcutta

Clerical Relationships: Being a Blank Canvas

From 2008-2013, there was a TV show called Tabatha Takes Over. Tabatha, a well-known hair stylist, would take over failing salons to make them profitable again. On one of the shows, Tabatha made a quip about why hairdressers should wear black aprons which stuck with me. She said "all black means that you are a blank canvas for the client." They can then share all their cares with the hair dresser.

The priest wears all black for a similar reason. The conventional wisdom is that clerical black symbolizes "dying to oneself to serve the Lord." Part of dying to oneself is diminishing your identity. I think this is an important part of ordination that sometimes gets pushed to the side. 

After ordination, a priest is no longer themself. They belong fully to God and to their people. While it is important for a priest to know themself and have a healthy understanding of self (because we have seen when that has become twisted and broken), it also becomes imperative to carefully chose where this sense of self is shared. This does not mean that a cleric should be inauthentic or fake, but it does mean that they should be genuine but cautious.

It can present problems if a cleric shares too much of their angst, woes, frustrations, and opinions with the people they serve. In today's world, this includes social media. Frankly, most people do not really want to frequently know when their pastor is experiencing emotional woes. I am not talking here about health issues--people should get updates about their clergy and their well-being. I mean, here, relationship issues, emotional ones, mental health challenges, etc. It is imperative for clergy to form relationships with other clergy to share these concerns. Or, to people outside their congregation. These are ideal groups with whom to share your concerns, angst, and issues. Or, perhaps a spiritual director or a therapist (which are mentioned here as options but are very distinct roles from each other). The priest is a professional and sharing too much, much like if done by your physician or lawyer, can be churlish. 

Proverbs reminds us "He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls." This is doubly true of clergy. Healthy boundaries are the bedrock of good relationships. This means protecting the people we serve from our own challenges, but it also protects us from becoming too enmeshed and in situations which present moral and ethical challenges.

"Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Proverbs 4:23)

Image by <a href="https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/priest-praying-church_23992226.htm#query=priest&position=28&from_view=search&track=sph">Freepik</a>

The Beauty of Perspective: Thoughts on So-Called Independent Catholicism

I am fully aware that I am re-visiting a topic that I write about often... However, I do find a lot of beauty in Independent (Autocephalous) Catholicism. To start, I have never been a Roman Catholic. I entered this world in my teens through Baptism and, frankly, it is all I have ever known religiously. So, I do not have the often dour perspective on the movement of former Roman Catholics.

Because of this, I think it is important to forge our own identity. You will not find me concerned about issues in Roman Catholicism because I am not subject to their laws and regulations. Or, my tradition has not been since 1701. I am thrilled to work with our Roman Catholic siblings and to partner in building a better world. I am happy to minister to Roman Catholics who understand that I am not one of them. I also take an active ecumenical interest in what is happening in the Roman Catholic Church. However, my perspective is separate because I am not a Roman Catholic any more than I am an Episcopalian or a Baptist. Frankly, I cannot condemn their workings because I, too, live in a glass house with the chaos in my own tradition. 

 

Despite this, I also acknowledge as a descendant of the Ultrajectine tradition that I am forever linked with the See of Rome. Arnold Harris Mathew, in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine, stated "The Church has a visible Head or Chief Bishop on Earth--the Bishop of Rome." However, this was qualified with "... who is the Vicar of Christ as the first of the Five Patriarchs." It is clear that Mathew was a proponent of a modified Branch Theory of the Church. I also realize (to paraphrase the words of Prince Metternich) "when Rome sneezes, the whole of Christendom catches a cold." 

 

While I identify with a very specific branch of the so-called Independent Catholic movement, I think overall this tradition needs to be nurtured and new and innovative spiritual and theological insights need to drive our thinking. My own perspective is that I represent a version of Catholicism that is both dogmatically ancient while adapting to the pastoral needs of modern people. It maintains the sacramental viewpoints and beliefs of the universal (Catholic) church while being a distinct stream (branch) of it. 

Each movement brings something special to this tradition. ICAB and its descendants bring St. Carlos' commitment to justice and equality. The IFI brings the perspective of a national church borne of a subjugated native people. The PNCC contributes the history of a grassroots church close to the traditions of its immigrant people. Utrecht's descendants bring the perspective of apostolic dogma. While one may or may not agree with each aspect of each strand, together they bring a richness to the tapestry that is this tradition. Much more than clinging onto a Church that, frankly, we are no longer canonically a part of or in. 

My tradition is not a reaction to Vatican II, because we separate long before it happened, with our own traditions, liturgy, and dogmatic principles. I hope that we can all claim our unique identities and take pride in a movement built on ancient creeds, the sacraments, and a rich and varied history.

RIP: Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has a complicated legacy for me. I remember vividly being in the political science building in college spending time with friends when the white smoke appeared. As they came out to announce “Josephum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Ratzinger” one of the other students yelled “the Hitler Youth?!” I knew then that it was going to be a rocky experience.

I admire the former Pope in many ways. He was a brilliant intellectual who was also a very gifted writer. He used his gifts to write about church history, theology, and other topics to help people better understand their faith. His “Introduction to Christianity” helped present the faith to the modern word in a new way.

I also agreed with his approach to liturgy, and I was personally enriched by “The Spirit of the Liturgy.” I am of the opinion that the liturgical changes after the Second Vatican Council were too radical, while also acknowledging that a dramatic change was needed to make the liturgy more approachable to a modern world. Benedict XVI attempted to find a middle ground—to promote the sacred in the Novus Ordo while nurturing the Tridentine Mass. One can certainly appreciate the “Reform of the Reform” while also being grateful for more access to the Tridentine Mass. Unfortunately, as the old joke goes, “it is easier to argue with a terrorist than a liturgist” and problems continued with liturgical exclusivity and obedience.

However, his legacy was not without challenges. While he certainly went farther than John Paul II in handling abuse cases, there were places where that fell short. There was also the financial scandal that ultimately overshadowed the end of his papacy. He could be a polarizing figure—beloved by traditionalists and distrusted by progressives, although (as we see with Pope Francis) that is the fate (albeit switched) of every Pope to some degree.

I did not expect him to make sweeping changes, just as I did not expect this of Pope Francis. While infallible, the Popes have very little ability to radically change dogma in Catholicism. Sure, it can be said that infallibility was a great change but, to be frank, most people don’t particularly care about it. They ignore it to a large degree since it is used so infrequently. Popes can, like Francis, make statements here and there that encourage people or make them think change will be coming, but it rarely results. So the rank and file Catholics trudge on—even those that often feel excluded (the LGBT, divorced and remarried, those taking birth control, etc.)—receiving pastoral care from their local clergy (either outright support or a wink and a nod) while the Church at large remains unchanged. They stay because that is enough or they have found community, a desire of all of us.

For others, like many Independent Catholics, this informal support is not enough “for life is short and nothing is given to man” as Joan Baez says. Or they are fed up with multiple scandals and missteps. Or they have a profound theological disagreement. So, we look to Rome and the Papacy as a guide but forge out on our own, sometimes in the dark and the cold, but true to ourselves and our convictions despite the challenges. It can be a lonely, frustrating path, but nothing worth it really is easy we remind ourselves.

In some way, I respect Benedict XVI for doing the same, albeit the opposite. He stuck to his convictions, leading the Church as he felt called, trying to increase it in holiness and adherence to dogma. He saw rapid change at the Council and, I’m sure, it scared him. I believe he acted according to his conscience. I wish it did not come at the expense of gay seminarians and others who sincerely sought out a way to serve in the Church or were called to active membership but denied even though celibate.

In the end, every one of us has a complicated legacy. Perhaps it is more apparent for those who lead, because they are perceived as changing too much or not enough. Benedict XVI was no different. I believe he was a man of prayer, and I will pray for him. Because even when we disagree with someone, we pray for them. And I hope that he will pray for me.

Photo: M.Mazur/www.thepapalvisit.org.uk