When I was young and trying to be what my mother used to call a “career girl,” (and didn’t it sound unseemly coming from her lips!) I worked briefly at a job I barely remember. I misremember the job because I was never any good at it; the last girl at the desk had left abruptly, and so my training relied upon a half-instinct, half-dunce-cap pedagogy. Far more clever than smart, I quickly deduced that I had been formed in failure, and a bare three months into the gig found another job and gave notice. It was then I discovered the odd paradox that those who can’t do, teach.
“It so often happens,” St. Augustine wrote, “that the office of distributing gives us the merit of receiving, and that the office of teaching serves as a foundation for learning.”
Quite true. By the time I had trained my replacement, I finally understood and appreciated my post so well that I exited with a hat-throw, a la Mary Tyler Moore, and a sense of boundless gratitude for my providential escape.
Years later, when I married and had children, I encountered an uncommon number of wistful old ladies expressing a desire to redo their motherhood armed with the 20/20 knowledge of hindsight. I dismissed them as sentimentalists when they warned that my children would teach me more than the finest university. This too has turned out to be true, although they forgot to tell me that the lessons would be so interior, so humbling, so unforgettable and, occasionally, so shaming that decades later, in the wee small insomniac hours of creeping middle age, the memories of my failings still bring tears of stinging regret. Through my children I learned that I am a monster of ego who should never be given absolute power, for it doth corrupt, and absolutely.
Power, corruption, failure and where monsters lie are the stuff of headlines and scandal and they have, tragically, become part of our yearly Lenten musings. But as we draw toward Easter I wonder if Augustine’s observation can prompt us to look forward in hope. If “those who can’t do teach,” then a few of our teacher-bishops imparted some profoundly important lessons to us over the past six weeks. The shocking story of Belgium’s Bishop Roger Vangheluwe, and his stomach-turning delusions about what constitutes love and “moments” between an adult and a child comes to mind.
Unable to “do the math” and sum up why his actions were so despicable and so viscerally off-putting, the bishop has nevertheless instructed the rest of the world in grotesquery, and with such precision that we may expect any future attempts by some to normalize “intergenerational love” or to mainstream organizations like NAMBLA will meet with renewed resistance. That sounds like small compensation for the torments endured by his two nephews, but given our times and trends, we may never fully realize how preventative in nature was the lesson learned.
Likewise, our bishops, whose offices of distribution were meant to assist in the bestowing of sacramental graces upon the world, have this Lent – thanks to a few of their brothers—found themselves in receipt of renewed scorn from the punditry and (perhaps more ominously) a pained and exhausted sigh from the people in the pews. The failure of the Diocese of Philadelphia to take timely and appropriate action against some of her priests, the large abuse settlement incurred by the Jesuits and other still-draining pustules of our vastly infected Body have weakened the church’s ability to speak to the world with convincing moral authority.
If any obvious good is to come out of so much evil – and that is certainly a thing we pray for – those churchmen who did not know how to do their jobs and who failed all of us so spectacularly in love and in the Gospel will have rendered clear instruction on what not to do to our current and future bishops.
In our upcoming sacred Triduum, as we re-enter into the whole drama of Christ’s passion, we will remember the betrayal, untruth, cowardice, connivance and plain lack of understanding that was exhibited by the very first priests and bishops of the Church. On Easter Sunday, we will rediscover mercy and renewal, and remember that it came first to them. It may be a powerful opportunity to ask these imperfect elders to pray for their apostolic progeny, and to plead with the risen Christ for the fast-healing work of grace in their lives and the life of the church.
We may believe emphatically that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church established by Christ, but there is a sense in the pews that a limit has been reached and that the rattling of the wrought iron that has borne up fairly well over 2000 years of supernatural battle has finally induced a troubling stress fatigue. The weakness has come about not because the gate has been molded without enough “give” to weather changes in pressure, but because, perhaps, the smithies reformed its hinges too far away from its nuts and bolts; the resulting clatter and bang is fomenting doubt, insecurity and fear.
The Gate will hold; that has been ordained from above. But perhaps a bit of restoration is in order, a removal of what has corrupted, and a shoring up of the foundation. It needn’t be anything dramatic or harsh, just enough to reassure ourselves that messages have been received, ledgers brought to account and lessons learned, and that we are safe from the corrupted monsters.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
Comments:
season whichcis meant to bring us all into instrospection, is a movie to watch and glean from the story how commitment to a "cause" is so definitive of success or failure. There is a parallel to what goes on in the church inclusive of the congregation of course. The movie is violent well beyond what is necessary. Maybe watch it after Holy Week.
I find such commentary insulting. Pithy adages seem fine for commentary amongst anti-elists, but should not be recognized as truthful.
As far as the abuse in the Church: no change in leadership, either with specific personnel changes, or with substantive structural changes have occurred. The priest in Philadelphia who is on trial for his administrative conduct was a well-regarded priest in a "plum" position. He had not suffered any "lowering" of his status. There were only changes in education and a lay group's oversight,the composition of such a group determined by the reigning prelate.
As such, without trying to sound all-SNAP, it is delusional to think that there are any real changes in actions. We are relying on the men and the hierarchical and clergy-centric culture that brought us to this point to accomplish change without structural change. If we perceive that any structural change in leadership functions in the Church is somehow against the will of God, then abuse, cover-up and the choice of protecting the Church's image over children will continue. That's not a judgement, just a statement. Its a choice that has been made.
The abuse crisis has been a leadership crisis that touched probably every Church leader throughout the globe. Its not about gay priests, despite some intense deflection of attention in that direction. Its about leadership, structure, and accountability. Without change in that, no amount of education or "after-the-fact" oversight will assist.
We will have to become accustomed to headlines like this without change.
"Unseemly". The meaning of that word seems no longer part of our cultural vocabulary. What (now virtually lost) cultural and spiritual understanding was your mother expressing?
Her intuition and almost certainly her sense of loss was, I think, concerned with a certain "pearl of great price" that was in her care; an ancestral inheritance, so to speak, from the women who went before her.
This insight of hers (if I am correct) is related to something understood and observed by the Jews; that is, the fact that "there are important truths about the human condition that cannot be accounted for in terms of work or economics." My point is that this knowledge was traditionally in the care of women as a precious inheritance. Seen as God-given, it is the source of the respect and reverence which was previously a birthright of the daughters of the woman of Proverbs.
Full demonstration of this knowledge, after the work necessary to maintain the world was done, was found in observance of the Sabbath. Rabbi Sacks teaches: "The Sabbath is one of those phenomena - incomprehensible from the outside - that you have to live in order to understand. For countless generations of Jews, it was the still point in the turning world, the moment ... during which we live the truth that the world is not wholly ours to bend to our will but something given to us in trust to conserve for future generations, and in which the inequalities of a market economy are counterbalanced by a world in which money does not count, in which we are all equal citizens."
Women who chose to work within the private and civic sphere had the privilege and the freedom to protect this "Sabbath" approach to life. And among people of good will, there was enormous power for good in this.
The point is not that becoming a "career girl" is a bad thing. The concern is for the rest of life - in my opinion, those things that make life worth working for. Who will preserve them now?
I was coming into the Church when many were departing. As an evangelical who poped, I could see the Church as It is, human failure not withstanding, while those departing could not or would not.
When I volunteered to teach parents who wanted their young children baptized, the material I was given for "teaching" was abominable. The only charity I can offer for the material was that it was not explicit. It could mean anything the presenter wanted it to mean, which means that anyone who was cowed offered a demand that would not challenge the hearers. Not very Christ-like. He wanted his listeners to desire His company and a place in heaven.
In doing presentations and small group discussions, I discovered what appeared to be the remnants of an eighth-grade catechesis among many of the parents. They often did not have a cogent answer as to why they were Catholics as adults, but they were promising God to raise their children as Catholics. I wasn't there to avoid trouble. I was not afraid to ask the question: Why would parents who don't know why they are Catholics promise to raise their children as Catholics? This was even more so for those who were not active as Catholics. I got lots of bad answers, including being told to mind my own d... business, and sometimes great hostility. I never got a good answer from those who were not really committed to being Catholic, especially those who would not cast a shadow in a Church but for some reason wanted their child baptized.
Back to those who can't, teach. I learned deal more in preparing to teach than I originally knew when I came into the Church, and I knew a great deal when I made the decision to leave evangelicalism for Catholicism. I always knew more than I could teach, which prepared me to answer all legitimate questions and often to draw out people who needed to perform an examination of why they were there.
I have since taught adults and young children and have generally discarded whatever catechesis I was given. Commonly the material lacked both rigor and precision, and calling it Catholic is an insult to orthodoxy. When the children were using it for pinadas for their pencils, even their appreciation for the material could not be avoided.
One wishes that there were times when someone with real authority would be a bit quicker in responding to the failures that plague the Church (including substandard catechetical material), but one is reminded that Jesus knew who would sell Him out and allowed that individual - who surely had all the graces that come with being an apostle - to complete his journey to hell by rejecting that grace.
When I left evangelicalism for the privilege of becoming Catholic, one of my old peers suggested that I was becoming Catholic to save the Church. I assured him that I was coming into the Church to be saved, which statement tightened his jaws noticeably. It was true. The Church had the mind of Christ and I needed that Mind to get to the right eternal destination.
Nothing has changed. I am still in the Church, I am still learning, and due to people like Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins I am even more knowledgeable than I was before. I am still a teacher and evermore a son of the Church.
The test on this will be given whenever our Lord decides to give it. Be prepared.


