Control Issues in Autocephalous Catholicism

My church believes as me,
I control all I that I see,
Titles and dressing up are so much fun,
Yet now I am but a church of one.

We have a control problem in Autocephalous Catholicism. It starts early, as my dumb little ditty says. First, we find a jurisdiction that believes (almost) everything we do. After all, we might have come from mainstream denominations that we judged had too many liberals or too many conservatives, so we want to recreate the perfect oasis for ourselves and our beliefs. Naturally, the next step is to seek ordination. Our movement is, I have argued, almost opposite to clericalism because few people aren’t ordained! Inevitably, the next step is to move towards the episcopacy. Bishop so and so wants an auxiliary, we want to ensure we have some control, the succession must be preserved, etc. There are numerous reasons for it happening. And then comes the power struggle. Over very little.

One of the tests of Independent Catholicism is that we are made up of very independent people. We all want to be in control of our own destinies. This isn’t an inherently bad thing on its own, but when we use it with the desire to rule… Well, then we fall into the quote of Saint John Chrysostom that “the desire to rule of the mother of all heresies.” Unfortunately, this is playing out in several jurisdictions I know of right now and has happen untold times in the past. In a cynical view, a bishop is ordained who then wants to be in control or the bishop in charge does not want to give up control. And a split ensues. Or, in a more neutral sense, people just can’t get along and a split ensues. The result is the same.

I think this is something we need to address. There are a couple of realities we need to face first. Ultimately, we have not been good at continuing parishes and groups past talented leadership or a generation. Since the beginning of our movement, we have had churches, some quite successful, which have come and ultimately gone because they had a charismatic pastor (until they didn’t) or had a supportive group carrying it (until they didn’t). We also have not been good at keeping groups together on a larger scale. Parishes split off or groups discontinue, leaving dioceses with few constituents and jurisdictions with few members.

We have also never been good at screening candidates who want to serve. I’m not suggesting that we are alone in this dilemma. There are plenty of mainstream clergy who want to dress up and feel important as well, lest we be condemned as such. But the essence of ministry is service, not being served. How can we call people who truly want to serve the People of God by offering the sacraments of God? And how can we find a way to support them in this role?

Some path forward: Figure out why people are joining the jurisdiction. Is it because they believe exactly what you do? Is this a good thing necessarily? What are you willing to allow in divergent beliefs before you start anathematizing each other? Next, ask candidates what they plan to do with their ministry. Hold them to that and ensure that they are doing some ministry. It does not matter if you have less clergy because you don’t want people who don’t do anything. The majority of people think we are strange anyway, so having more people doesn’t necessarily even make an impact. Is it just to dress up? Why do they want to dress up?

Then and most significantly, identify and address control issues. What is it that is trying to be controlled? Why? Does it even really matter? I’m willing to do a lot to keep communion with people because it matters. Relationships matter. We have but a short time on this earth, and it’s a pity to spend any of it fighting over stupid things.

Now, I’m not saying this is a magic bullet for us all to live in harmony and grow. But I think it is some concrete steps to identify how we can stop some of the stigma we have had since Peter Anson’s time and move forward. If we can get control of our control issues, we’ll all be a lot better off in the end.

 

“You must not abandon the ship in a storm because you cannot control the winds. What you cannot turn to good, you must, at least, make as little bad as you can.” – St. Thomas More 

Morality vs Moralizing

I recently came across an obituary that stopped me in my tracks. It was a remembrance of Father James (Jim) Doherty of Glasgow. It is hard not to be struck by the stories listed in The Telegraph about him. Hagiography or not, they provide insight into the life of what sounds like an extraordinary priest. Here is one of the stories, courtesy of The Telegraph:

His bluntness irked the bishops, but to the laity it spelt sincerity and an absence of snobbery. An oft-repeated story told of Doherty ringing up a woman who had not been to church for years to see if she would like him to bless her home. “The old priest never came to see us,” the woman said, “because of our living arrangements – you see, I’m living with my partner and we’ve three bairns out of wedlock.”

“I’m here to bless your house, honey, not judge your circumstances,” replied Doherty. “Where do you live?”

“Oh, thank you father. We live in a flat, our name is Smith, but press the top buzzer. There are Smiths below us, but you don’t want to go there because they’re a couple of poofs.”

“Is that right? Well, see, if I do press the wrong buzzer and I get the two poofs, I’ll just say: ‘Hello you two poofs, can you tell me where the two fornicating adulterers and their three bastard children live?’ ”

A characteristic act of Doherty’s was to attach an HIV red ribbon to a statue of St Vincent. And in 2005 he addressed the Scottish Parliament. “Having a morality and moralising are two different things,” he said. “My Church has been trying to get its own house in order since it began.”

This story points out an important issue: there is a difference between morality and moralizing. For us as Christians, we are called to examine ourselves frequently and even harshly. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk reminds us: "Let us examine these things and the rest, and let us look at how we live, how we conduct ourselves, how we think, how we talk, how we act, with what kind of heart we go about before the God who sees all things, how we treat one another." Our morality and ethics are how we judge ourselves.

Yet, so often we have the desire to moralize and judge others. Saint Maximus the Confessor says: "Whoever is curious to know about the sins of others or judges his brother out of suspicion has not yet begun to repent, neither does he care to know about his own sins, heavier than heaviest lead indeed. He does not know why people are heavy-hearted, take pleasure in vanity and seek after falsehood (Psalms 4:3). So, as a madman wandering in the dark and neglecting his own sins, he muses on the sins of others—either real or imaginary—guided by his suspicion. "

As clergy and laity, let us focus on our own sins and not the sins of others. There are, of course, times when things must be dealt with accordingly. Those in the church have swept things under the rug far too often. This does not mean we turn a blind eye to grave scandal or someone is being injured, hurt, or in imminent danger. In these circumstances, we have a moral imperative to stop evil from occurring. Besides the harmful actions of others, when it comes to their sins, we leave those to God who is the only true judge.

To view Fr. Jim's requiem, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPkMvmb1JwI. To read the obituary in The Telegraph, view here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2022/01/21/fr-james-big-jim-doherty-well-loved-glasgow-catholic-priest/.

“Those who look well after their own consciences rarely fall into the sin of judging others.” – St. Francis de Sales

We Have to Live in Hope

 My intention is not to start 2022 with a melancholic post! But, I think that I have to realize that is just where we are right now. Here are some observations:

1. Church, generally, is becoming less part of people's lives. I saw a cleric post that in 2019, church was full for Christmas. 2020 was about half full. 2021 was about a quarter full. Another priest friend told me that their collection is only a small fraction of what they need to survive, and this is a mainline Catholic parish. How can we stop this and convince people that our message is still relevant? I am not convinced that they way is to make ourselves more trendy, but to show the beauty and majesty of our tradition and what it has to offer. But, if you've read this blog you know that already.

2. Orthodoxy is in a right mess right now. There are a large number of clerical obituaries and the churches are divided more than ever. Churches are entering into the territories of others (which is nothing new), but now there is larger expansion into other areas. This will cause ripples that may not be easy to repair. A friend of mine said that he was unsure how Orthodoxy managed to stay together all these years, given the different political outlooks and machinations present. I don't know that their togetherness is even possible anymore.

3. Roman Catholicism. I am watching in real time as super parishes are being created. This is nothing new, but the lack of vocations seems to be very concerning to an outsider. So, they are facing the possibility of large parishes with only a handful of clergy to reach out to parishioners. They could current ordain deacons as priests for assistance (this is really the only option since women won't ever be ordained), but this will change the face of the church dramatically. Latin Rite Catholics are generally unprepared for married clergy, because they have touted celibacy for so long.

The mainstream continues to hemorrhage clergy while there are vocations among traditionalists. There are challenges with some of the clergy, because of their perception of the modern church and Vatican II. Some traditionalist clergy seem to have the same issues as other clergy (despite the unfounded belief that traditionalist clergy are somehow holier than others) regarding impropriety. Regarding the issue of authority in the church, the Vatican thought it would solve this by outlawing the Tridentine Mass. Unfortunately, there is a greater problem now. For 13 years, more people have become attached to the Tridentine Mass who are not taking the news well. The same is true for priests, who are defying this action. The SSPX and independent parishes will swell, and two Roman Catholicisms will continue to exist despite their intentions.

Where does this leave independents? Well, as I have said previously, we are fortunate. We have a free structure which allows us to pivot and serve people quickly and in innovative ways. We are generally not bogged down by buildings which are largely growing more empty. This is, of course, a blessing and a curse because people can be unwilling to go to the church basement of another church for your services. But, the greatest gift is that we do not have to worry about power. I was speaking to a dear friend who is in a "non-canonical" Orthodox church recently who said "we don't have to worry about an imperial church because our church was never viewed this way." I am paraphrasing him but the essence is that we don't have to worry about other churches encroaching on our territory. Or, we don't have to worry about legislation that prevents our preferred form of worship. We are free.

But, it also means that we need to do a lot more working together. I have said this in the past and I will keep saying it. The essence of what we are doing is to have other like minded people to rely on and cooperate with so that we can be mutually successful. Our ministry (no ministry, in fact) does not exist in a vacuum. Therefore, we have to get to know each other and work together so that we can help each other. It also provides a bit of a barrier to weed out the ill-intentioned.

In the end, I am greatly consoled by the fact that when church gets too much to bear it is the lay people who see us through. Clergy will always be the most judgmental among us. I was reminded of this when I visited an Orthodox Cathedral with an independent friend in a habit recently. The lay people were not bothered to ask "what denomination are you? What is your habit? Why are you coming to our church?" They could care less. Those are the questions that clergy ask. Similarly, Roman Catholics generally have no idea what I'm asking when I speak about issues in vogue among clergy or a certain group of active Twitter users. I don't take that as being flippant or uneducated, they are simply trying to live their lives and do the best they can without complications.

In the end, Church has always been a mess. It is, after all, a hospital for sinners. So, we keep our heads down and we do the work as we feel called. We try to work together. As independents, we will always cling to the side of the larger church and their issues affect us. This is why I have discussed them above. But we can try to not let them get in the way and not speak ill of individuals. I realize some independents have done well lambasting the mainstream churches, but this is not the way. The way is to build our part of the kingdom the best we can. And, even though our footprint is small, we will never know its true impact where it counts. This is illustrated in the proverb about the nail:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. 

If you want to find rest here below, and hereafter, in all circumstances say‘Who am I?’ and do not judge anyone. - Abba Joseph of Panephysis

National Catholic Churches

The subject of national churches is a conflicting one for me. As we are aware, at the beginning of Christianity there were no national boundaries as we now understand them. The Roman Empire and tribal areas existed, and Christianity (eventually) flourished in the Empire (while also reaching other areas). As the Empire subsided and new kingdoms and entities formed, the Church in the West remained subject to Rome. Yet it would be wrong to ignore the impact of the nation upon the resident churches. Kings, for example, had the right to nominate and appoint bishops (something we now consider exclusively the purview of the Bishop of Rome). Churches and their clergy also were often subject to the state, as exists in some places still where taxes go to support the churches (or where clergy are considered civil servants). 

In the East, there was much less centralization. As Rome became the enter of the ecclesiastical world in the West, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople remained autocephalous in the East. Independent churches then emanated from Constantinople, but they quickly broke off. The Patriarchate of Bulgaria became independent as early as 927 with others following suit. Thus, national churches were an inherent part of the East which did not have the autonomy of Rome and was much more organic in development. 

As papal power grew in the West with the increase of ultramontanism, there were notable holdouts. The Church of Utrecht, for example, resisted the papal imposition of a bishop in favor of their charter which required an election by canons. Ultimately, the Church of Utrecht was joined by the Old Catholics in 1870 who implemented national Catholic Churches in what became Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, etc. Yet the spirit of the Low Countries permeates these churches as the motherland of the Old (Roman) Catholic tradition. 

In 1945, the Old Catholic Churches were joined by the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church and Dom Carlos Duarte Costa. Duarte Costa was in favor of the national model, with the goal of creating a church for Brazilians that was imbued with specifically Brazilian features such as Portuguese in the liturgy, etc. Yet, as early as 1948 Duarte Costa consecrated Castillo Mendez for the work of the church in Venezuela. He saw the benefit of the national church model and promoted its spread throughout South America.

In addition to the (former) Roman Catholic and Orthodox national churches, there remained the Anglican churches which were built on a national church model (with deference to Canterbury). As with Rome, independence was first rebuffed. But, the rebellious colonists sought out the help of Bishop Samuel Seabury who helped them establish the first church independent of the Church of England outside of the British Isles (with the assistance of the Scottish Episcopal Church).

There are many challenges with national churches. First, national churches can promote nationalism as we have seen in some of the Orthodox countries. The state church can become enmeshed with the government in ways that make them indistinguishable and ultimately harm the credibility of both. Second, national churches can take on the causes of the nation. Thus, the loss of ecclesiastical territory becomes a matter of national pride. The unfortunate situation then occurs where there are multiple churches of one tradition competing on the same soil, all while anathematizing the others. National churches can be difficult to hold together in a meaningful form of worldwide communion. The Anglican Churches are evidence of this, as the ordination of women and LGBT people becomes more problematic for sister churches. The same occurred in the Union of Utrecht, when the Polish National Catholic Church pulled out over the ordination of women. In short, egos, territory, definitions of heterodoxy, and other issues stymie national churches in ways that do not affect Rome.

However, there are not only negatives. National churches do join the social fabric of the nation. They knit together people so that they have a common destiny and have their own self-governed church. This church looks like them, speaks their language, and has their interests at heart. There are ways to mitigate heterodox beliefs by ensuring that there is some sort of common communion, as with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They don't always like each other (they frequently dislike each other), but there have been ways in which they have worked together in the past (notably when America was establishing its Orthodox presence). Like everything, national churches have to act intentionally and not independently. But, some would argue that this hinders prophetic calling and witness when one group is moved to act in one way but the other churches disagree.

It will be interesting to watch how Rome handles recent developments with local independence. As Pope Francis is committed to the synodal path and promotes national episcopal conferences, there are rumors of fractures already forming. The German Church, for instance, seeks to bless same-sex unions. Rome has said it is verboten, but what will be the outcome if there is a walkout? Will national churches become more favored as Roman Catholic dioceses become increasingly independent in charism?  The Orthodox have managed to keep themselves together, more or less, but it has been with common agreement and with an Orthodox phronema that you don't have to define everything. Rome has boxed itself into a corner by defining every article of belief, such that deviation is not permitted. How will Autocephalous Catholics be affected by Roman changes and how can we avoid the pitfalls while promoting the good?

Ultimately, as Autocephalous Catholics, I believe that national churches are a common form of structure of all of us. ICAB, Old Catholics, Continuing Anglicans, etc. all hold the concept of national churches even if they differ in liturgy and understanding of doctrine. I do not think that the concept should be abandoned, because I believe it is a good one and one to which I am committed. And, I believe that we have to work together as national churches. There are too many similarities between us. The structure of the Church should be accessible to the people and local enough that they have participation in its outcome. But, ideally this should be done in the spirit of  "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things liberty; in all things charity."

"In the first century the Christianity, the national Churches lived and developed in complete autonomy, without being vassals to the Bishop of Rome. I call to your attention to the testimony of Tertullian who said: "Our many churches considered themselves as all belonging to one church, the first of all founded by the Apostles and mother of the rest. They are all holy and apostolic and, together, cannot be looked upon as anything by a singe entity, whose message of Peace, whose mutual brotherhood, whose bonds of charity unite all the faithful." - Manifesto of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa

Christian Pessimism

I think the saddest thing I encounter with other Christians is pessimism. It seems to be in full supply as of late. Of course, we are conditioned in some ways to be pessimistic. As members of the animal kingdom, we have a disposition towards fear. We fear for our safety, for our livelihoods, for our families, and for our futures. Our lives are further complicated by the reality of original sin, that we have a fallen nature because of the consequences of Adam. Yet, we are also people who have been redeemed by Christ and who hope because we have "put our hope in the living God."

But hope doesn't sell. People don't give money to make hope go away. They don't glue themselves to the television to watch hopeful programming. We are conditioned for pessimism. We are enthralled at angry fights on Twitter and about having the last say. Just one more witty jab at our enemy. There are whole media outlets promoted towards selling fear, and we feed into it. In Orthodoxy, it is the fear of another Church encroaching on territory. In Roman Catholicism, it is the fear of what changes the Pope will make or the liturgy wars. In Independent Catholicism, it can be the fear that others will succeed. And this can make us terribly pessimistic. After all, God is always on our side...

There seem to be two places where the pessimism festers. One is in traditionalism. Hyper-ritualism has smoldered any joy out of some communities. The message is about how things are not as they used to be or not as we prefer. An angry God eagerly awaits to catch us and condemn us if every jot or tittle is not perfect. Instead of the God who forgives us 70x7, I have seen it argued that there is a limit to God's mercy and forgiveness. And we're all one step away from receiving the wooden spoon from God--the smack we deserve so we can burn for all eternity because of our disobedience.

The other one is in esotericism. I do not have any experience in these communities, so I am speaking as an outsider. But as people explore their beliefs, there are some who have a draw to Docecism and Gnosticism. For them, there is significant emphasis on the evil nature of matter. Because matter and the world are so evil, everything in it is inherently evil as well. The government is out to get them, COVID-19 mandates are out to get them, Democrats, doctors, the boogeyman, spiders, clowns, and whatever else are all just waiting to pounce. So trust no one, be self-sufficient, glorify independence, and shoot to kill. Gnosticism of this nature has crept into other aspects of Christianity, often times without people knowing it.

I know some people will read this and think I am naive. And I do not discount that there are bad actors out there, or people who seek to do us harm. God knows that I have experienced it. But I also realize that, for me, I can't live like that. I cannot live in a way where I don't give people the benefit of the doubt and trust their intentions. Perhaps it is because my favorite scripture passage is 1 John 4:7: "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." God loves us and wants us to deal with each other mercifully. If not, how could we expect Him to do the same? And hate, or in this case pessimism, is too heavy a burden to bear (to paraphrase Dr. King). 

"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:8

The Vincentian Canon

As the pandemic waxes and wanes, I have tried to spend more time reading. Specifically, I have focused on Orthodox theology. I will admit, as a Westerner I have not always understood Orthodox perspectives on theology. For me, the lack of concrete catechism and emphasis on mystery is challenging. This is probably exacerbated by my educational background in law, theology, etc. But, I desperately want to understand. To this end, I have been making my way through the book "Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind." It provides a detailed, helpful understanding of how Orthodoxy looks at belief. 

In the Old (Roman) Catholic context, we have always placed great emphasis on the Vincentian Canon. It has been repeated extensively throughout our publications and was hammered into my brain during my seminary training. Simply put, the Vincentian Canon goes as follows: "Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus]." The Catholic Dictionary further states: By this triple norm of diffusion, endurance, and universality, a Christian can distinguish religious truth from error."

However, while reading "Thinking Orthodox" a footnote caught my eye last week and I shared it with my friends. It says 

"... Unfortunately, that definition is not useful and Georges Florovsky had the courage to question this famous definition of Tradition. The sentiment is appealing and poetic; however Florovsky correctly observed that 'it is not clear whether this is an empirical criterion or not. If this be so, then the 'Vincentian Canon' proves to be inapplicable and quite false, because in fact Holy Tradition has not always been taught and believed everywhere and by all people.' Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, and Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Vol. 1,51."

Honestly, I was surprised by this view because the Vincentian Canon fit so well with how I understood Orthodoxy to view itself. This yielded more reading from Western views, and agreements on the above statements from Dom Gregory Dix and Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan (who later became Eastern Orthodox). 

From an Eastern perspective, Bulgakov agrees with Florovsky. He wrote the following:

"The maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins on tradition: “quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est” [what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all]—is often considered as a guiding rule on the subject. Nevertheless, this principle, systematically applied, cannot have the universal importance which is sometimes attributed to it. First, this maxim excludes all possibility of the historic origin of new dogmatic formula (this includes even the pronouncements of the seven ecumenical councils), for they do not agree with the “semper” of the maxim. So, to demand that tradition should be ecumenical quantitatively—ab omnibus et ubique—does not seem to correspond to the essentials of things, for then local traditions would become impossible (and nevertheless these traditions can, in the course of time, become universal). Besides, it can happen that the truth of the Church is professed not by a majority but by the minority of members (for example, at the time of Arianism). In general the above maxim makes impossible all movement in Church tradition, which is nevertheless movement itself; the life of the Church would be condemned to immobility, and its history would become superfluous and even impertinent. This is why the maxim of Vincent de Lerins, understood formally, does not correspond at all with the whole of the life of the Church. Thus it can be accepted only in a limited and relative sense, in the sense that true dogmas, already proclaimed by the Church as such, are obligatory for all." (The Orthodox Church, p. 29)

My mentioning the above is not to discontinue using the Canon itself. I still use it and consider it to be helpful. I believe that there are things which are immovable, i.e. dogmatic beliefs and the changing of the sacraments. I also do not believe this short piece to be exhaustive--more musings and putting "pen to paper." However, it would be disingenuous to acknowledge that Vincentian Canon should be used as an absolute sentiment of dogmatic finality. For me, it can be most effective when paired with the sentiment by Archbishop Marco Antonio de Dominis (and often misattributed to Saint Augustine) “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” But, of course, this is problematic, too, because one man's essential is another's non-essential.

I find no little irony in how many people use the Vincentian Canon as their statement of faith. The Old Catholics, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and others all contend that they are the ones who are upholding the faith believed everywhere by all. In fact, Dr. Jordan Cooper is a proponent online of the Canon and he is a Lutheran--a tradition which still others in this list will reject as being apostolic in belief.

While not discontinuing use of the Canon, I have personally enjoyed reading the writings of Orthodox theologians who believe it is not a definitive statement. For Florovsky, "no consensus can prove truth. This would be a case of acute psychologism, and in theology there is even less place for it than in philosophy." Despite this theological challenge, Florovsky does argue that truth can be identified as that deposit of faith which is held by the people of God and is taught by the episcopate as teachers and holders of apostolic succession (who are then responsible to the people). This sentiment was echoed by Metropolitan Philaret who wrote "All the faithful, united through the sacred tradition of faith, all together and all successively, are built up by God into one Church, which is the true treasury of sacred tradition, or, to quote the words of St. Paul, 'The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth!"

"A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian.”
- Evagrius

Cruel Clergy

It has been 14 years since my ordination to the priesthood, and I'd like to think I have learned some things. One of the largest changes I've seen in myself is that I am less rigid than I once was. This seems to be part of growing older, and a spiritual director once said to me "the Church had to canonize young people at one point because they were the most doctrinaire and idyllic." 

As part of this lessening of rigidity, I'd like to think that I have less time for nonsense. When I was a child, I thought as a child. I would get in theological and liturgical debates. But I have found that these matter less and less as time becomes more valuable. Another thing which becomes less important is knowing about other clergy. I don't mean for this to sound cruel. But, at one time I tried to know extensively about the orders and lineage of everyone in the Autocephalous Catholic field. I also tried to learn more about them so that I knew who I was dealing with if there was inevitable contact. 

I think one of the challenges of getting to know people (and about people) is that I found that the Autocephalous Catholic movement is full of wounded people. Many of our members are people who have had difficult histories. They have been rejected by their former faith traditions because of their sexuality, their marital status, etc. and we were a place of last resort. They sometimes try to recreate where they left except for their own peccadilloes. This can lead to "everything should be as Rome except my situation." Or, frankly, sometimes there are people who have criminal histories or sordid pasts and cannot minister anywhere else. We have a duty to protect the faithful from people who have a proclivity to act harmfully.

The problem with hurt people is that they hurt people. I frankly have grown exhausted with other clergy. I have found some clergy to be among the cruelest people I've ever encountered. They can take great pride in condemning others, denigrating others, and speaking ill of them. There is fighting, there are snipes at others, and there can be negativity. There is a perceived superiority to the interactions of "I'm real and you're not," which is troubling. And, in some quarters, there seems to be just endless anger.

This is particularly apparent when one cleric perceives another as successful. A friend recently posted on social media about jealousy in the movement. It does seem common that when one person gets a church building, or builds a parish there are numerous people ready to tear them down. Now, this does not mean that there is not a place for frank dialogue. I have had serious conversations with people which were not meant to harm them (although I think they were perceived that way), but were meant to be a wake up call. But frank conversation does not need to be malicious. 

This wounding behavior seems to be in our DNA as independent clergy. I, myself, am a sinner in this regard. I have said wounding things. I have tried to make amends where possible, and have left my gift at the altar to address my brethren. And I have had to shake the dust from my feet when someone will  not be converted to compassion. I hope I have learned and grown. Cruelty is never justified.

In the end, we can disagree with each other. We can have sincerely held beliefs about women's ordination, LGBT inclusion, etc. while still being charitable and without cruelty. After all, people do look to us (rightly or wrongly) to be charitable. We can be cautious about each other to protect ourselves, our families, and our ministries. After all, it seems anyone can be ordained in our movement. We can be aware of people's past while giving them a second chance (except in cases where they should be precluded from ordination). We can guard our hearts without reaching out to condemn others. We can support each other and applaud each other when someone is doing well. And we can carry ourselves as people with decorum.

“The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." St John Chrysostom.