As we come together this particular week-end to continue a quest for always rebuilding the church, we have come together at such an appropriate time in the church’s own calendar year. It is said in our first reading today: “The crowds listened eagerly to Philip.” Why was Philip in Samaria, and why were Peter and John right away sent there? Because– they were building Jesus’ church. They were re-building what was the religious structure before Jesus-the savior, the redeemer, the peacemaker came to extend God’s umbrella of love and acceptance to all, not just the chosen few.
Yes, there was religious structure in place before Jesus. There was the temple, there were the laws, and there was certainly all the rules and regulations. Those in power who had formed those rules and regulations did not want some new idea seeping in from Jesus or anyone else.
As we know well from our own modern history, those who are in power, resists new ideas, and almost never give up power willingly. They resist the hope within others for renewal, hope for rebuilding broader, more inclusive and just systems that can serve and meet the needs of all of the people more equitably.
This rebuilding process reminds me of San Jose’s poet laureate Edwin Markham who said, (and I paraphrase) “He drew a circle that shut me out. But love and I had the wit to win. We drew a circle that took him in.” Jesus, Philip, Peter and John all seemed to be about creating those ever wider more inclusive circles, just like many of you here today.
I encourage you to keep in mind, and follow these poignant words that you have just heard in our readings today. Listen again, if you will, to those words. It says: “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” Those are caring and fairness words; and those are beautiful action words.
Listen– it says: “Yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” In our language: non- violence. That gentleness and reverence can become the harder part of the rebuilding process. But, be not mislead by the word gentleness. This is the gentleness of a Joan Chittister who says that “Gentleness is not about forbearance. Gentleness is about the ability to bring truth without, at the same time, bringing destruction. This time it is for us, like Mary Magdalene, to say our truth to power, to heal those crippled by the system, to cure the lepers of their social diseases, and to raise women from the deadening effects of sexism. To be gentle is to unmask the inequities around us without destroying those who prefer to maintain the masks.”
We should all thank Joan for those very clarifying words on gentleness. Let’s give her a (one, all together) clap of thanks. (All make one unified clap!) Thanks Joan.
As you, as we all go about the work of rebuilding this wonderful, wonderful church, never let go of the fact that you have the example of the greatest change agent and re-builder as your model, as your guide, and as your mentor. You have Jesus, the greatest change agent ever, the greatest re-builder.
Jesus respected, but was not timid with the leaders of his time. As you will recall, he was anxious to be about his business and to get on with the work of his father.
We talk a lot about rebuilding, or making change. How does change usually happen? I’m glad that ‘you’ asked that question. Rebuilding or change usually happens by evolution or by revolution. The former, evolution occurs much too slowly for institutional systems change. It does work wonderfully for nature. The latter change approach, revolt or revolution, is explosive and definitely happens fast enough, but, most often, is much too violent. It is definitely too violent for those who seek to rebuild a cherished institution that continues to hold much significance for them; one that is still the corner stone of their way of being in the world.
Therefore, today I offer you a third possibility; a way to rebuild or cause change through a process that I call: “The Dis-ease of Change.” Excuse me — There is a lady in the front row asking, “Did she just say “disease?” And, of course the answer is, “No.” I did not say disease; I said ‘the dis-ease of change’… dis-ease meaning discomfort or pain.
When one approaches the opposition on a rebuilding or change project, by embracing the dis-ease of change process, the first thing you realize is that ‘those with whom you are engaged, the ones you are trying to convince to do something differently, those opposing the change will enter the “loss/grief process.” What you are suggesting to them sounds bizarre, crazy and/or unthinkable. A total paradigm shift is needed.
The fact that your suggestions have thrown them into the five stages of the loss/grief process is very good for you to know. Because now, you can shepherd them gently through these five stages of loss/grief, and help yourself and your cause at the same time. Actually, there are six stages. Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross defined the first five stages, and I, discovered and defined number six.
Not only will you be able to help them through the stages; more importantly, you will not be discouraged by their denial and resistance, as you now realize that it is necessary for their growth toward acceptance, and finally, even appreciation for your new idea.
Oops! That lady in the front row just asked another question. She wants to know “What are those six stages of loss/grief?” If she doesn’t mind, I will answer that in a minute, but quickly, if I may, the first question might be: “Why are they going into the grief process?” You merely want to make a change; no one has died, and yet they go into grief. They are grieving because they are mourning the loss of the familiar — that familiar majority power, the loss of that familiar comfortable control. They have always done it “this way.” They know this route very well. It is their ‘comfort zone.’ And you, you wish to take them out of their comfort zone and into unfamiliar territory. It is a shock to their system, and they begin the stages of grief. Now, back to answering that lady in the front row who wants to know the six stages.
Stage 1 is called Denial. They deny that change is really needed or necessary. They deny any negative effects of ‘their familiar’; and, deny the harmful effects upon those crying out for something different. As the old slave masters said, “Surely it is better for slaves not to know how to read. Let us make it the law.” Better for whom??? And, it was said, “Surely Black people prefer to sit in the back of the bus with their own kind.”
The opposition will make a mighty noise. Don’t you be confused. Sometimes, we confuse the magnitude of the size of the opposition noise of these mourners with the actual size of the change itself. For example: Rosa Parks was simply tired and needed to sit down. There is no big deal about bending one’s knees to sit in a seat (unless your arthritis is acting up). Taking a seat is a small simple change — opposition noise was huge, heard around America and the world. Rosa, like my friend the late Jim McEntee, knew that even a turtle knows that it has to stick its neck out to make progress. But remember, that turtle also knows to move deliberately, slowly, gently, and most important persistently.
During this dis-ease process, you will need to be a good listener. You will need to be a great interviewer, because you will want to learn from them (the opposition): all that they think and believe; the facts as they see it; and, the feelings they have about those facts and beliefs. Ask many questions, and listen well as you navigate them through denial. You need to understand their side of the argument as well as you know your own.
As denial begins to subside, they will enter stage 2 – Anger. “Good!” you will say to yourself. “They and we are making progress. So, let the anger begin!” Have you ever noticed how voices tend to raise, get louder, when it looks as if you have made a good point for your side of an argument. You will argue and negotiate your way through stage 2 – making progress much faster than evolution, and much less destructive than revolution.
They are about to enter stage 3 – Bargaining. Their bargaining will sound something like this: “If you insist on this kind of change, start over there first.” Or, “This may be needed, but we should not rush into anything…” When you have let them exhaust all of their bargaining chips; and perhaps you have even utilized some of them, they will enter stage 4 – Depression. They are depressed — You be happy, because they are making progress. Like all of the stages of loss/grief, depression too offers the griever a benefit. It allows them time to go inward and analyze things from a deeper/broader perspective. Until, finally they are ready to dip their toe into the cauldron of acceptance, which is the 5th stage.
Please note, the mourners are accepting the fact that change is inevitable, that it is coming. But, they are not necessarily accepting your idea as a good, valid, or correct one. That will come later as they enter stage 6 – Appreciation. But, be not disappointed; going through this process, even for loss of just “the familiar” still equals “growth through grief.”
I personally know this process well from both sides of the coin. The first side for me was when my son was born with Down Syndrome. I grieved the loss of the anticipated normal baby; denied the diagnosis, became angry that this would have a negative impact on my other 3 genius kids. I bargained with God to make it right; but to no avail. He or She just would not listen, so depression set in, and acceptance followed.
Acceptance meant taking a responsibility for my son, and moving onward with my life, and creating the best life for my family. Of course I ended up helping thousands of families across the state, the country and the world after I discover the 6th stage of grief — appreciation of this crazy change in my life. It took me three years to get from writing the first line of this poem, called Fleeting Moment, to the last line: “Sometimes when I just glimpse my son I see, the little ole boy that was to be – damn chromosome.” “Three years have flown for you and me, and now with wiser eyes I see; you are the boy that was to be – welcome home!”
The other side of the dis-ease of change made itself clear to me as I set about to make the world a better place for children with special needs and their families. I needed to change, doctors, nurses, social workers, schools, hospitals, legal, and political institutions. All of those people (the opposition) denied that these children and their families needed anything different; they became very angry that I, a mere parent, had the audacity to invade their professional domains; and they bargained like Hades to get me to ’start somewhere else’. In the end, they too reached that all important 6th stage that I called appreciation.
When one grows beyond acceptance, the opposition starts to say things like “Now I don’t know how we ever did without this.” And, parents of special kids begin to marvel at their kids uniqueness, and they speak of all that they have learned from their kids. They talk about what individuals with disabilities bring to the table of humanity — including unconditional love.
You know well the church for which you long. I encourage you to use the Dis- Ease of Change to guide others gently through the loss of their familiar and on to greater heights for all. I implore you to continuously, like the gentle drip of water that makes its mark on a stone — show the others: the oneness of humanity, the strength of inclusiveness expressed through the beauty of diversity. Share and show the strength of the spirit and harmony of a church alive and continually striving to reach its full potential.
And, of course all of this will be accomplished through actions in community; as you pray for strength; trust in God to be on the side of truth and justice. Persist like the nagging widow in the bible; who finally wore down the judge to get the justice she so rightly deserved.
Speaking of nagging, another little old Black lady wisely encouraged us during the bygone days of the civil rights movement. She said, “A flea is but a tiny speck, but attached to a Great Dane, can keep that big dog moving.” Stay engaged.
My final challenge to you as you go about gently, consistently molding and rebuilding the church into an ever-growing dynamic force, as you shepherd your resisting partners through the dis-ease of change. I ask you to be clear about your mission and vision. I strongly encourage you to work with your friends via, what I call mathematical collaboration: come together to add to each other’s expertise; subtract your differences; divide the work; and therefore multiply your successful accomplishments.
It may sound simple, but I beg you not to confuse goals and objectives. Goals are “to have” statements. Objectives are things “to do” to reach those goals. For example, your goals may be “to have freedom, justice, equality for all, male, female, able, and disabled, etc.” Your objectives will be things you do to attain that goal. When you make your goals ‘to do’ statements, they may never be fully accomplished, because your goal becomes the doing. I hate to hear, for example, some organization say that their goal is “to seek a cure for cancer.” Unknowingly, “seeking” is their goal. Their goal is ‘to have a cure.’
So, I further charge you to create the right language for forward movement. For example – I think we need to find a word to replace the word “racist.” Few if any consider themselves racists. And yet, they may be saying or doing things that cause racial harm, and/or disharmony. I believe that many of them are not racists. They may have ingrained biases and perhaps even subliminal stereotypes interfering with their way of being and acting. Once the word ‘racist’ is uttered, the conversation toward progress is derailed.
Speaking of words, let us not confuse the usage of a couple of three-letter words (not four letter words), the words “can” and “may.” Most inequities in the world have little to do with the word “can.” For example, if I should say – “Can I be a priest?” The answer would be, “Yes, of course I can.” Meaning I can – I have the ability to do it. But “May I be a priest?” No, I may not; because I do not have permission. Let us be sure we do not confuse ability to do with permission to do. Those in power often withhold permission with statements that indicate or insinuate a lack of ability. Be careful and watch those words.
While you are choosing the right words, be sure that you put things in writing. “So let it be written, so let it be done.” Not everything written gets done; but, almost nothing gets done that isn’t written.
In the often-quoted words of George Bernard Shaw (by Robert Kennedy): “Some people see things as they are and ask, why? I see things that have never been, and ask, “Why not?” Go ahead. Ask “Why Not!”
Finally, know by the words of today’s gospel that “you are not alone” — Jesus says: “I will ask the father, and he will give you another advocate to be with you always, the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows him. But, you know him, because he remains with you and will be in you.”
Go forth, “Be the change you wish to see in the world” (thanks Gandhi); then follow and give all praise to Lord Jesus Christ, the master architect of change. Amen.
RSS - Posts
After a fruitless search in the beginning, the Art and Environment Committee had recourse to the only artist who could accurately capture, as event organizer Lisa striebing has noted, “the role of the puppets within the community .” The artist, for obvious reasons, desires anonymity but our guys got his number–TCJ–along with the logo… It’s a scream.
Safe Environments: What Virtus Won’t Tell You… by Christopher Manion
May 29, 2008 — james mary evansThe USCCB has announced that April is “National Child Abuse Prevention Month.” In the spirit of the season, I took a look at the web site of Virtus, a “safe environment” program required by over a hundred U.S. Catholic dioceses.Virtus is a program of The National Catholic Risk Retention Group (NCRRG). And what is NCRRG? An insurance company. Now, no responsible insurance executive will inaugurate a program that collides with the interests of his shareholders or his clients. So who are NCRRG’s shareholders? Bishops. And who are the clients? Bishops and archbishops – 66 of them, according to its web site, which helpfully explains, “National Catholic is owned and ultimately managed by its Shareholders. Company policies are therefore established by Shareholders for the benefit of Shareholders.”
Well, you’d think that language was as plain as day, but Virtus “trainers” are apparently trained not to talk about it. Three years ago, the Diocese of Arlington, Va., began requiring Virtus, along with mandatory criminal background checks, of the faithful. Fr. Terry Specht, the chancery’s “safe environment” official, assured a parish assembly, “I’ve had this job for a year and I’ve never hear that word, ‘liability,’ used once.” But at the same time, Fr. Specht was requiring over 10,000 of Arlington’s Catholics to be fingerprinted and to sign hard-nosed waivers absolving the diocese of any liability. Today, three years later, he still does.
Perhaps no one ever told Fr. Specht, but Virtus is all about liability. But its popularity is also a product of the clerical abuse scandals, which blossomed in 2002, after simmering for decades. In June 2002, the bishops, meeting in Dallas, tried to “put the scandals behind us,” and Virtus has since been adopted by dozens of dioceses pursuant to the charter they adopted. But the bishops flatly (and almost unanimously) rejected a motion calling for a study of the causes of the scandals, including dissent and homosexuality. That renunciation comes through loud and clear in the Virtus programs.
Dr. Brian Clowes, a scholar at Human Life International, conducted an independent study published in Homiletic & Pastoral Review. His research reveals that, according to the John Jay Report’s own findings, homosexual men pose a much greater danger to children than do heterosexuals. Specifically, he found that a homosexual priest is more than one hundred times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual one, based on the bishops’ own numbers.
Curiously, the experts at Virtus and their bishop-bosses do not want us to know that explosive fact. Perhaps that reluctance stems from an exhaustive study published in The Dallas Morning News as the bishops began their 2002 meeting. According to Philip Lawler’s The Faithful Departed, the News reported that, while the crimes of abuse were committed by only a very small percentage of priests, “about two-thirds of American bishops had been guilty of covering up sexual abuse.”
Virtus “Myths” and Realities
But what else could the embattled bishops do? With their backs against the wall, they could hardly turn to the laity without profoundly apologizing, honestly addressing the causes of the scandals, and firmly and publicly identifying and removing their guilty brethren. But they had already voted that option down resoundingly. So they had no choice. They turned to defense lawyers and other professionals – “experts” and “consultants,” who apparently got the message loud and clear: “We want a program that never even gets near the issue of guilty bishops or the homosexual priests-predators whom they ordained and protected for decades.”
Frankly, this makes perfect sense. If it is your job to defend bishops (who are also your bosses), you are likely to do their bidding. In fact, any Virtus lawyer-consultant who divulges information that might be damaging to her clients risks being hauled up in front of the ethics committee of the bar. She might even be disbarred herself. So what if you want the whole truth? Remember, these are defense lawyers. Revealing incriminating facts is the job of the other guy’s lawyer.
And we, fellow Catholic parents, are the “other guy.”
And here’s what we’re up against: Taking us as far away from the real scandals as quickly as possible, Virtus huffily dismisses the “myth” that “most abusers are homosexuals” – even though 81% of the crimes in the bishops’ own report were “homosexual in nature.” Another “myth”: The explicit Virtus materials are unsuitable for children. Not so, says Virtus: “Young children are generally comfortable with the information provided in sex abuse prevention programs. It is parents who typically exhibit discomfort.”
As usual, Virtus blames us ignorant parents – which is sadly (but not surprisingly) the same approach taken by all too many bishops, both before and after the scandals broke out into the open. If parents are ignorant, then our experts must inform them, Virtus goes on, or their children will be at greater risk. But Virtus avoids the dangers posed by the predator-homosexual and his protector-bishop, so the result is – more ignorance.
Another “myth”: “The U.S. bishops are the problem and they still cannot be trusted.” Oh my – how can that be? Why, “The truth is that the bishops have hired a top law enforcement professional to manage the Office for Child and Youth Protection and have established guidelines for compliance, along with an audit process.”
As they say in court, “So what?” That defense professional works for – the bishops. Unsurprisingly, her job description does not allow her to pursue the problem of homosexual predator priests or predator-protecting bishops. And Bishop Skylstad, who headed the USCCB when she was hired, firmly laid down the law against such “witch-hunts.” When his Spokane Diocese went bankrupt, he blamed the laity for the scandals and praised the “many wonderful and excellent priests [he did not mention bishops] in the Church who have a gay orientation, are chaste and celibate, and are very effective ministers of the Gospel.”
Message received, Your Excellency. The result? “We’re Virtus. Just following orders.”
Virtus And Gays – Strange Bedfellows
Virtus pretends that the scandals never happened. Given all the facts, it simply constitutes pro-homosexual propaganda-by-omission. Like all propaganda, Virtus browbeats ceaselessly. Think Orwell’s Ministry of Truth: Once you’re in Virtus, you can’t escape. Every month, you must subject yourself to a new wave of lay heterosexual guilt, and follow the expert’s bouncing ball, lest you put your children even more at risk. (Note: No Virtus expert I contacted has returned my call.)
In the past, The Wanderer has received troubling reports from several parts of the country about Virtus sessions. When concerned parents have asked why the presentation includes nothing about the clerical or homosexual nature of the crisis, some trainers have reportedly responded by darkly warning the entire assembly that critics of Virtus are very possibly objecting because they are abusers themselves. Again, parents are the real problem.
Dr. Clowes found that this approach is actually a central ingredient of the “gay rights” movement. Clowes writes, “Homosexual activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they could to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church. It is particularly the link between homosexuality and child molestation that they seek to deny.”
Dr. Clowes points out that the “gay rights” crowd long ago decided that “the best defense is a good offense.”
Is Virtus really as offensive as its ideological gay bedfellows? In coming weeks, we will take a closer look, and consider some alternative, reality-based approaches for protecting our children in a post-scandal world.
© The Wanderer