Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power in the Church

I continue to be puzzled by the language in the documents emerging from ecclesiastical bureaucrats. Who are these people talking to? Not “people of goodwill” around the world, nor the basic layman in the pew.

The jargon is so thick that the only possible audience could be other bureaucrats. And in my experience, questionable things are brewing when bureaucrats write to other bureaucrats in their own specific argot—a term I have used purposefully because it originally described the jargon, slang, or secret language used by criminals, rogues, and beggars to communicate without being understood by the authorities or outsiders, so it seemed appropriate in this context.

The Final Report of Study Group Number 9

Examples aplenty can be found in the Final Report of Study Group Number 9, one of the ten “study groups on relevant questions from the Synthesis’s [sic] Report of the First Session of the XVI General Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.” Already, I see problems.

The “final report” (dear Lord, if only!) is titled “Theological Criteria and Synodal Methodologies for Shared Discernment of Emerging Doctrinal, Pastoral, and Ethical Issues.” I miss the days when texts had simple titles like The City of God or Grammar of Assent. I miss the days when churchmen wrote texts that were both eloquent and moving. The “final report” of “Study Group 9,” by contrast, has this to say about a key “emerging issue” (a.k.a. problem):

For example, the growing number of adult catechumens in some Churches, where participation in ecclesial life seemed extinguished or in decline, can be considered an emerging issue for those communities which, through a process of ecclesial discernment, are called to reassemble functions, roles, and habits in light of the newcomers approaching the Church and preparing for baptism.

In this regard, the dynamic wisdom of the ongoing synodal path has suggested a fundamental, indeed indispensable, practice for the ecclesial discernment of emerging issues: “conversation in the Spirit” (cf. FD 45). This practice marks a cornerstone in the acquisition of the paradigm shift inspired by the principle of pastorality and constitutes the appropriate experiential framework for employing the tools and procedural criteria available to ecclesial communities. Therefore, the exercise of conversation in the Spirit must become an ecclesial habitus that marks every step in the implementation of discernment processes: not exhausting itself in the solution of a question, but constantly reactivating the listening and learning skills of the People of God, also in function of making decisions of varying degrees of importance, so that the process is transparent and shared.

Let’s presume for a moment that someone could actually decipher all that. Does any of that have the power to move the heart and inspire the mind? Had the Gospels been written this way, would there be any Christians? Let’s say that “participation in ecclesial life” seems “extinguished or in decline” (fewer people are going to church). Is there anything in that paragraph that would inspire them to return? If that’s a “paradigm shift,” it’s a shift in the wrong direction. Worse yet, not only do I not think there’s anything in the entire document that would inspire anyone to join or return to the Church, I think there is plenty that would keep any sensible person away.

The passage above describes “pastorality” (is that a word?) in a way that makes “pastorality” seem like a species of mental torture. The description makes it sound less like something a shepherd would do and more like something an office manager does. Anything that requires “the appropriate experiential framework for employing the tools and procedural criteria available to ecclesial communities” is something I know I’m not fit for and would avoid like the plague. I am a simple teacher of theology to young people. But I don’t think I’ve ever had the “experiential framework for employing the tools and procedural criteria” of pretty much anything. That’s why I don’t work in the corporate offices of General Motors.

Institutions need to pay a corporate salary for people to endure meetings like that — endless meetings like that. Because as the document says forthrightly: the “habitus” that “marks every step in the implementation of discernment processes” does not exhaust itself in the solution of a question — we never make a make a final decision — but is “constantly reactivating the listening and learning skills: more meetings! This is all “so that the process is transparent and shared.” I defy anyone to show that the results of such meetings are either transparent or shared. Their very construction guarantees they will be neither. The results are purposefully vague, and no one is responsible for the results. “It was the committee’s decision,” not anyone on the committee.

No one with any sense would ever read such pointless drivel. The results are not only soul-deadening but community-destroying. No one cares enough to read the document; no one takes responsibility for what it says, but the authors still claim the mantle of transparency and a shared vision, which everyone knows is false. You don’t earn authority with such stuff; you merely make clear that what’s involved is a thinly veiled imposition of bureaucratic power.

Perhaps we could describe all this as “pastorality and emerging processes directed to inculcating the habitus of synodal methodology in service of the spirit-filled institutionalization of the faith experiences of diverse ecclesial communities and cultures within the People of God.” I just made that up, but you could re-mix those words in pretty much any order, and it would be the same.

One “sign of the times” the authors might have attended to more closely in all their “attentive listening” is how little patience most modern people have for such empty verbiage and how little power such documents have to move the hearts and minds of people and. And these are the “experts” to whom we are supposed to turn to find out what will bring more Catholics back into the fold?

One might reasonably ask whether, to help fill the churches, we should (a) hold assemblies for “listening to the voice of the Spirit to actualise the community’s performative fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, discerning in a spirit of communion the experience that was being lived out in concrete terms,” as Group 9 suggests, or (b) get people together to read and discuss Augustine’s Confessions, Pascal’s Pensées, and the Scriptures.

Both “processes” involve “listening.” But much depends on who we are listening to and why.

Highly selective listening

A former dean at my university, unhappy with the Catholic character of the institution, once suggested we survey the students who didn’t come to the university to see why they hadn’t come.

One likely reason is they weren’t interested in a Catholic liberal arts education, and neither was this dean. A consulting agency once told us that we shouldn’t emphasize our Catholicism so much because it turned away prospective students. When they were probed further about this, it turned out that their conclusion was based on the comments of two teenagers in Chicago who expressed a “negative” view toward one of our ads that pictured a religious sister in her habit. These are not only examples of very selective listening, but examples of selective listening with a clear purpose. One listens to the voices that will tell you what you want to hear and avoids those that won’t. And from all that very advanced, very sensitive “listening,” we derive general conclusions that will apply (and be enforced) universally. Less focus on Catholic character. The “experts” did a study!

Group 9 says that

synodal discernment of … life experiences must be exercised … with attentive and open listening both to the Word of Jesus — made alive and relevant by the Holy Spirit within the space of ecclesial communion and with attention to the “signs of the times” — and to what the People of God have experienced in diverse cultural contexts and in relation to various life situations. Particular care must be given to those who find themselves living on the existential, social, and cultural “peripheries.” It is in this perspective that we consider it more appropriate to describe the issues in question as “emerging” rather than “controversial.”

It is certainly quite different to describe the lifestyles of those living on the “cultural peripheries” as “emerging” rather than “controversial.” It provides a rather different flavor to the section on “Experiences of people of faith with same-sex attractions” to describe the testimonies of the two gay men to whom they “placed themselves in a position of listening” as “emerging.”

So we have two testimonies of the experiences of two gay men? This is not exactly the gold standard of sociological research. No women? No celibate gay men? Group 9’s “listening” seems rather selective. Most readers probably could have suggested ten or twelve others whose “experience” of gay culture and lifestyle and their involvement with the call of the Gospel would have been equally revealing and instructive. But most of us also recognize that our circle of relationships is relatively small, so there will always be others whose experiences are different from ours.

So, for example, one testimony (of two!) “describes the problematic membership in a Catholic group (Courage) which, by pushing for ‘reparative therapy,’ had the effect of separating faith and sexuality. Missing here are testimonies from those whose experiences with Courage have been lifesaving and life-sustaining. Courage has publicly criticized the report, calling it a form of “calumny and detraction.” They deny that they ever associate with or promote “reparative therapy”. From my discussions with the founders and leaders of Courage, I know this to be true. To the accusation that Courage meetings are “secretive and hidden,” Courage officials reply that this is essential to the confidentiality of these meeting, because it allows members to speak freely. Indeed, one could make the same accusation of all Twelve-Step meetings. An essential part of their service to that community is their strict confidentiality.

The “helpful” study of theology

Since talking with others in Courage meetings was not the thing for this particular gentleman, what helped instead? According to Group 9, the study of theology! I teach theology, and even I suspect that this claim might be a bit of “special pleading” by some people who—guess what?—teach theology. I suppose theology might have been helpful to this gentleman somehow in this instance, but I wouldn’t want to draw a general conclusion, such as, if you’re struggling with same-sex attractions, don’t go to Courage meetings, enroll in some theology classes. Much would depend on who was teaching those classes, what texts were being taught, and how they were being interpreted.

So, for example, what “helped” this man, according to Group 9, was that “the study of theology allowed for the opening of new horizons for a contextual interpretation of the Bible, moving beyond traditionalist or even fundamentalist readings.”

“Traditionalist” is an interesting term in this context. Do they mean the way the Church has, according to a long tradition of reflection among the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, read the Scriptures? It sounds very different if you make that an “-ism.” In that same spirit, someone might respond: “I hope this poor fellow moves beyond all those progressivist readings of the Scriptures, so that he can open new horizons based on an authentic interpretation of the Bible, transcending the narrow confines of modernist ideological agendas.” But this is all just rhetorical mudslinging, not serious intellectual engagement.

But here’s where the “language games” go from tedious to serious. It’s one thing to write a piece of tedious bureaucratic prose; it’s quite another to attribute the positions in that document to the Scriptures and, as we will see in a moment, to official Church documents. Moving beyond traditionalist or even—God help us!—fundamentalist readings of the Bible would, according to Group 9, allow this man to experience “the liberating power of a personal encounter with Christ, who loves us just as we are; self-acceptance linked to the deepening of faith and to active participation and service within the life of the Christian community; and the specific contribution of a theology capable of opening up a contextual and hermeneutic reading of the Bible.”

I’m not sure I recall exactly where in the Bible it says that Christ loves us sinners “just as we are” and that the key is “self-acceptance.” This would have been a good place for a citation to some texts so that we could get a sense of what “context” and what enlightened “hermeneutic reading of the Bible” would allow one to draw those conclusions.

A “paradigm shift” not found in the documents of the Council

The document speaks repeatedly of a “paradigm shift.” So, for example, the shift in terminology from “controversial” to “emerging” is “not merely superficial,” they insist, “but expresses a proposal for a reformulation linked to a paradigm shift.” Indeed, shifting paradigms seems to be the order of the day. On the very first page of the document, the authors announce: “we have noted the inadequacy of our current categories and operational paradigms.” Sadly, they report: “There is a persistent resistance — whether or not its underlying reasons are consciously recognized — to changing our usual mental and behavioural habitus.”

The entire first section of the document is titled “A Paradigm Shift in the Church’s Mission and the Synodal Dynamics That Promote It.” The term “paradigm” shows up 22 times in the document’s 33 pages.

Worse yet, the authors cover themselves and their “paradigm shift” with the justifying blanket of vague references to the Second Vatican Council. They write: “A fundamental aspect [sic] for bringing about this paradigm shift is a hermeneutics of the human that embraces its historical, experiential, practical, and contextual nature. This was demonstrated in practice, in an inceptive but decisive manner, by the teaching of Vatican II, particularly in Gaudium et spes and Ad gentes.”

But this was certainly not “demonstrated” in any manner (inceptively or otherwise) in Gaudium et spes and Ad gentes. So, for example, the “hermeneutics of the human” found in Group 9’s report never gets around to mentioning the two key statements about the human proclaimed in Gaudium et spes. The first, from Gaudium et spes, 22: “The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light” and “in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown.”

And the second, from Gaudium et spes, 24:

God, Who has fatherly concern for everyone, has willed that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood. For having been created in the image of God, Who “from one man has created the whole human race and made them live all over the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26), all men are called to one and the same goal, namely God Himself.

For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself…. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law” (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.

Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, “that all may be one. . . as we are one” (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God’s sons in truth and charity.

And as is well known, this section culminates in its dramatic final sentence: “This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.”

You can wave your magic wand over a pig and say the words “Vatican II” with a lot of other gibberish, but that won’t turn it into a prince. It’s still just a pig. There’s nothing in this document that shows any fidelity to, or even a basic understanding of, the teachings of that great Council.

Not dialogue, but monologue

But of course, fidelity to the Council or to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium is not the point. As I said above, no one with any sense would ever read such pointless drivel. Its only purpose is to empower other bureaucrats to do what those bureaucrats were already intent on doing. Fr. James Martin, S.J., has welcomed Group 9’s report as representing a “historic change.” Its inclusion of the testimonies of “married” homosexuals represents, he insists, “a new ecclesial paradigm.”

But of course, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Especially since, if recent reports are accurate, Fr. Martin himself was the one responsible for those two testimonies. He covertly helps to imbed these two testimonies in Group 9’s report and then rejoices publicly at the “emergence” of a new “ecclesial paradigm.” Is he showing fidelity to the Council, or merely to his own ideological agenda and the “Gospel” of self-acceptance according to which, according to Group 9: “sin, at its root, does not consist in the (same-sex) couple relationship, but in a lack of faith in a God who desires our fulfilment”?

The danger here is not merely verbal. As Josef Pieper points out in Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power: “Word and language, in essence, do not constitute a specific or specialized area… No, word and language form the medium that sustains the common existence of the human spirit as such… And so, if the word becomes corrupted, human existence itself will not remain unaffected and untainted.”

The authors of the Group 9 report claim to be “listening”; they claim to be eager for dialogue. But as Pieper notes, those who are not interested in reality are incapable of dialogue:

Any discourse detached from the norms of reality is at the same time mere monologue. What does it mean, after all, to be detached from the norms of reality? It means indifference regarding the truth. To be true means, indeed, to be determined in speech and thought by what is real. The very moment … that someone in full awareness employs words yet explicitly disregards reality, he in fact ceases to communicate anything to the other.

“Speech without a partner,” notes Pieper, “intends not to communicate but to manipulate.” There is no partner to whom Group 9’s verbiage is addressed “in dialogue.” It is an ideological statement; its goal is to put an end to dialogue, not engage in it:

Whoever speaks to another person — not simply, we presume, in spontaneous conversation but using well-considered words, and whoever in so doing is explicitly not committed to the truth — whoever, in other words, is in this guided by something other than the truth — such a person, from that moment on, no longer considers the other as partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person. From that moment on, to be precise, all conversation ceases; all dialogue and all communication come to an end.

Such people are not speaking honestly to others to understand them. They are seeking to handle and control others, to manipulate and possibly dominate them. Words have become instruments of power. “Thus the situation is just the opposite of what it appears to be,” writes Pieper. “It appears as if a special respect is paid, while in fact, this is precisely not the case. His dignity is ignored; I concentrate on his weaknesses and on those areas that may appeal to him — all in order to manipulate him, to use him for my purposes.”

People must “be led and eased into believing (and that is the true art!) that by acquiescing to the intimidation, they really do the reasonable thing, perhaps even what they would have wanted to do anyway.” The result, says Pieper, is tyranny, despotism. “On the one side there will be sham authority, unsupported by an intellectual superiority, and on the other a state of dependency which again is too benign a term. Bondage would be more correct.”

And it can be found, warns Pieper, “wherever a powerful organization, an ideological clique, a special interest, or a pressure group uses the word as their “weapon.”

There’s an old saying, often attributed to W. C. Fields: “If you can’t bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull—.” This seems to have been the working principle of Group 9. But we should be under no illusions. Underlying all the unintelligible, incomprehensible gibberish in this document is a distinct ideological goal. And that goal is not liberation; it’s domination. Only the truth sets us free. Tyrants reply: “What is truth?”

That reply at least had the virtue of being short and clear; he didn’t bury it in a load of sophistic verbiage.