The Fatherless Fathers

Recently, people have been passing around a piece on Pillar Catholic, Who is responsible for these controversial Twitter Priests? It is an interesting article, although not for the reasons explicitly set forth in the article itself. Let’s start with the reality in the world: there are several Priests out there in who have a reputation for speaking and writing. Many of these are largely uncontroversial and widely respected for promoting the faith to a large audience. In the English speaking world, Fr. Mike Schmitz and Bishop Robert Barron are two prominent examples. There are too many, quite frankly, to list. They are found on every continent and in almost every diocese. On the whole, they are models of using methods of 21st century communication to proclaim the Gospel.

But some of these Priests have a penchant for saying things which are judged importune or imprudent, at best. Quite frankly, I am sure that has happened to almost anyone, even the habitually cautious. I anticipate this problem will only be magnified by the fact that the livestreaming of Masses and Homilies will mean that potentially most Priests will be able to seen, heard, and scrutinized, by people who are thousands of miles away. We know from experience how difficult it can be to defend ourselves from being accused of gross clerical malfeasance because a person or group of people decide to write a letter campaign to the chancery. Now, anyone, anywhere, can in theory make a move against us. And we are open targets.

In the past thirty years or so, Bishops and their curiae have become increasingly more willing to ‘police’ their clergy. This has become largely a phenomenon borne out of the clerical sex abuse crisis. Lawyers the world over have tried to peg Bishops and Dioceses for the actions or inactions of their rank-and-file clergy. Bishops have largely accepted this state of affairs, without reminding the press or the people at large of the simple fact that the policing of clergy is at best an imperfect science. But liability insurance people and their legal advisors don’t want to hear this. The fact here is, and almost all Priests know it, that there are some Priests who get away with all sorts of misconduct, whether they are protected or for other reasons. And there are others who are thrown out on the street or into a clerical gulag (‘mental health facilities’) because of “anger problems” or “authority issues” or, my favorite shibboleth, “rigidity” . Can a Priest have these issues? Certainly. But do they have to lose their reputation, and be virtually incarcerated for it? No. Moreover, if Bishops establish the precedent that a Priest can, because of a word, be deprived of all semblance of human justice or due process, then it should not surprise them that an increasing amount of Priests do not respect their Bishops, because we know that, when push comes to shove, they will abandon us. Every man for himself.

This is why I find the treatment of the Priests on the Pillar Catholic article to be so one-sided, and overly idealistic. Fr. Pius Pietryzk, OP, is quoted all throughout the article as a canonical expert. Everything he says is true and unobjectionable, in my mind. For instance, he makes mention of the fact that, ecclesiologically and sacramentally, no Priest is an “independent sacramental minister…you can not even conceive of priestly ministry disconnected from ecclesiastical authority.” This is true, in regard to the theological truth of the matter. The lived reality is something different, unfortunately. One question which is never asked, possibly because it is too difficult, is why are so many Priests willing to become vagi (wanderers), or go looking for a welcoming Bishop or Diocese? Mentioned in the article are several Priests who have been, for one reason or another, outside of their diocese for long periods of time. The ‘problem’ of having Priests outside of their diocese is centuries old, just like having Bishops outside of their diocese. The logic is simple: if a cleric wants to be entitled to the income and benefits of an assignment, he ought to, at the very least, be present for the needs of the people or institution which he serves. If a Priest decides to work outside of his diocese with the consent of his Bishop, oftentimes the Priest agrees to pursue some sort of ministry which will provide for him a stable income to support himself. Hence, many of these Priests who work outside of their diocese of incardination are teachers, writers, retreat masters, ‘on-loan’ curial officials, and so forth.

Speaking to Priests who occupy chancery assignments, they say that the problem of even just parish Priests being on social media is an increasing one; we Priests know already that our lives are always under heavy scrutiny by the world, and even by the lay faithful. But Priests, especially young ones, expose themselves to a whole new level of this when they go on the internet. Many do so with the best of intentions. But unfortunately, something as innocent as a vacation picture, or an alcoholic beverage in hand, or a lit cigar, or presenting a picture sitting next to a female (or male) friend in an atmosphere of affection and friendship, can be easily misinterpreted by bad actors and internet trolls. These pictures or communications can be screenshotted, copied and forwarded to officials who, it is well known, are inclined habitually to see perversion and wickedness in the clergy. This is especially true where dioceses have hired former cops and prosecutors to perform their internal investigations; it is a fact that some of these men and women, freed from the constraints of ethics in regular law enforcement, can question, and indeed persecute, their victims ad infinitum. Their motto might as well be fiat justitia, et ruant caeli “let justice be done, and the heavens fall down”. This is even before we get to a discussion of Diocesan Review Boards, who, as the ultimate Ecclesiastical Star Chamber, largely act independently, confidentially and prejudicially against a cleric who is accused of any sort of misconduct. As myself and others have said, the standard of evidence which constitutes a “credible accusation” is extremely weak and oftentimes does not hold up under scrutiny either in civil or ecclesiastical court. Yet, these entities have the power to divest a Priest completely of his livelihood and his reputation.

What I just described is just one example of how a perfectly loving, innocent and good Priest can find himself in the turmoil of a maelstrom which is the result of a paranoid ecclesiastical apparatus which does not respect the Priest’s dignity, or civil and canonical rights. Things can quickly spin out of control for them. We see in our collective experience how much resentment can grow among clergy, as otherwise good men are treated in this way. Even if they are guilty of some non-criminal moral fault or another, most of us are in favor of reconciling and nurturing them back to spiritual health. We believe that Priests are not disposable, just like no human person is disposable. This is not “circling the wagons” or “protecting our own”, in the pejorative sense of the term. This is about human decency and justice.

In response to the non-leadership or hostility of so many of the Bishops, it seems understandable that an increasing amount of clergy seek to take initiatives which fall outside of their reach. Far better to have peace in one’s life, and perhaps have to earn one’s bread outside of their diocese, than to put up with a local situation which may be slouching toward collapse. In my opinion, it is impossible to speak of ‘vagrant Priests’ without asking, much like in society, “where are their Fathers?” Children, adolescents and young adults often lack direction and wander throughout life because they lack the guidance of a parental figure, and most especially, a father figure. Although the analogy limps, Priests above all need Bishops to be Fathers to the Fathers. Otherwise, no matter what the theology says, they are in effect spiritual orphans. I am the first person to say that theology ought to inform life. But the institutional Church currently is not taking the inspiration for its mode of governance from theology or from the principles of reason and Natural Law. It is taking them, under the metaphorical barrel of a gun, from a world that has laid us low. Some will argue that we did this to ourselves, and they are not entirely wrong. But the answer to a challenge should be change, adaptation, growth and reform. What has happened is surrender, subservience, bureaucratization and regulation. If Priests felt that, on the whole, they would be supported in their initiatives in upholding Catholic faith and morals, if they could reform of the liturgy of their churches so as to be more in accord with liturgical law, and they could do these things without being called by the chancery because of every ‘Karen’ who misses felt banners and liturgical dance, we would see a lot more good things in the Church.

Perhaps it would be important to see this phenomenon also in the recent article on National Catholic Reporter, where they totally excoriate Priests for introducing “the spirit of hyper-orthodoxy” into their Parishes. They attack particular Priests by name, Fr. Matthew Codd and Fr. Brendan Buckler, both of the diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina. I think this is borderline libel, because as any Parish Priest knows, if you get a reputation for being “unassignable”, that is the true 21st century scarlet letter that ends your ministry. It is not a canonical category, but an administrative or reputational one. It is laicization by slander: if you attach enough controversy to a cleric, whether he is truly controversial or not, you can make him ‘radioactive’ enough that no Bishop wants to touch him with a ten-foot pole. And now, wherever those poor Priests go, a new parishioner can Google them, and they will read these terrible things said about them. When I read this article, I prayed for those two men, because Mr. Peter Feuerhard, the author, may think he was writing a piece of informative journalism, but I am sure that he has now empowered a pitchfork mob against those Priests. They may in time find their parishes, both the current and any future ones, impossible to manage. Sometimes I wonder whether Canon Law ought to have a category, Odium populi fictum, or ‘feigned hatred of the people’, versus what we should call Odium populi probatum, ‘proven hatred of the people’. We all know what a small group of malcontents in a parish or diocese can do. Bullies only become emboldened by weakness on our part. But if a Pastor resists, and a Bishop caves, what recourse does that Priest have?

The initial article on The Pillar asked good questions about the phenomenon of ‘rogue Priests’. But what it did not investigate was the reasons why an increasing number of Priests do not want to stay in their dioceses of incardination. It is unfair to lament the symptoms without examining the cause of the disease. I want to be completely fair to the Priests mentioned in that article. Knowing, from just what is out there on public record, of the difficulties Fr. Pavone that has faced in his life and ministry, is it any surprise that his posts on Twitter and other places should be increasingly angry and extreme? It reminds me of the times I have heard Bishops berate their Priests for drinking too much; no one ever seems to ask why these Priests are seeking their escape in a bottle or in other vices. Why are their Priests unhappy? What can we do to nurture and support them? These are the questions Bishops need to ask, if they want to rediscover their paternal relationship to their Priests. Fathers, as the Book of Hebrews reminds us this week, often have the task of disciplining their children. But there is world of difference between the chastisement of a Father who loves you and wants you to grow and be converted, versus an abusive Father who beats you because of his own insecurities, fears, and inner demons.

If people want to go after these Priests for being vagrants, I think we need to ask the most fundamental question: where are their Fathers? We will find that all too frequently, they are absentee, abusive, or inept. Children run away from abusive homes all the time. Is it any surprise that Priests, then, want to flee from abusive dioceses and Bishops? These questions merit deeper reflection than most people, especially the institutional media, are willing to do. But this reality is not going away, and no amount of study of ecclesiology can cure it. We all know what theology says. Most of us believe it and want to practice it. But do our Bishops?