When US bishops LARP as politicians

This is my first podcast episode affiliated with my new Substack.

You can read the article and view the associated videos by visiting my Substack here: https://doxaweb.substack.com/

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Clayton Emmer 0:27

Nearly three weeks ago in Minneapolis on a Friday afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Christy Gnome, presided over a press conference about the work of ICE in Minneapolis.

Kristi Noem 0:43

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for being here today. I appreciate it. My name is Christy Gnome. I'm the United States Secretary of Homeland Security. And today we're here in Minneapolis and St. Paul visiting with folks and community members and our law enforcement officers about the worst of the worst. This office here has done incredible work to make sure that we are getting criminals, terrorists, uh, foreign terrorist organizations, gang members off of our streets and protecting the members of this community. I have behind me four of the individuals that work here in the state and in this region to make sure that we're getting dangerous people away from the citizens in this community in this state. And I want to introduce them for you. We have Sam. Sam West Bay is with HSI. He is the acting special agent that's in charge of this office. And he'll make a few opening remarks here in a little bit as well. We also have David Easterwood. David is with ERO. He is the acting field office director, and I'll ask him to give you a quick update on some of the work and operations that they've been doing as well. We have Tanya Price, who's HSI, an assistant special agent in charge that is stationed here and is doing good work for the citizens of Minnesota, and also Toria Rich. She's the ERO Deputy Field Office Director that has been here for several years now working to help protect community members. Listen, the work that these individuals have done has been incredible. Under the Trump administration, our president has been focused on protecting American citizens, on making America safe again. And these individuals get up every single day and support their law enforcement officers that are out on the street upholding the law. Now remember, in this country, with this president in the White House, we don't pick winners and losers. We don't decide which law gets enforced and which one doesn't. There are laws, they are on the books, they were put in place, voted on, and instituted, and therefore we enforce them all. If members of Congress, senators, governors don't like the law, then they should go through the work of changing them and telegraphing and communicating to their members that live in their communities why it needs to be changed. So today these officers have done incredible work to make sure they're protecting our next generation of Americans. Just since January, they have removed over 4,300 individuals off of our streets who have been arrested and were committing crimes in here illegally in this country. Also, eleven of those individuals were known or suspected terrorists, people who will not be able to commit those atrocities here in the United States because we were out on the streets arresting them and removing them and bringing them to justice. Two of the individuals that have been arrested just since January were foreign fugitives, which means other countries were wanting them for violent crimes and looking for them, and they were able to locate them and send them home to their countries to face justice as well. Our officers are in the streets every single day doing difficult work to make sure that our laws are upheld and that families are protected. Since January, 515,000 have been arrested and deported across this country and removed for breaking our laws. 70 percent of those individuals had pending or criminal charges against them. I'll talk about a few of the worst of the worst that have been removed from this area, but I want you to know that the individuals that have been arrested and removed have had crimes and charges against them, such as murder, assaults, homicides, robberies, carjackings, and shootings. And all of those numbers in this community in Minneapolis and St. Paul, those numbers have only gone up since 2019. Under the leadership of Mayor Frye, under the leadership of Governor Walls, more violent crimes are being perpetuated in these communities because of their refusal to defend American citizens. Regardless, our Federal officers, our ICE officers, ERO, HSI, in partnership with our Department of Justice agencies and other individuals throughout the Federal Government, we will continue to do the work to make sure that these criminals are removed from our communities. I want you to look at these posters that we have up here at the front of the room. One of the individuals, his last name is Munos, he's from Mexico, and he was brought in and arrested for charges of homicide. Another one is Hernandez Rivera from El Salvador. The charges against him are human slavery and trafficking, trafficking of individuals in this country. Garcia is in front of us as well. His last name is Garcia Oliver from Mexico. He's been wanted and charged with sexual assault. And then another individual in front of us on these posters in front of us is Gonzalez Revais. Alfie's from El Salvador and is wanted for assault. These individuals have been arrested because of these individual law enforcement officers in our community and will be brought to justice and deported from our country never to return. We also had operation that has been working in this area specific to visa fraud. Visa fraud has been very rampant in these cities, and the U.S. CIS agency has worked on Operation Twin Shield, which is a first of its kind visa fraud operation that has gone out and investigated those who maybe came into this country under wrong paperwork or overstayed and refused to leave, and they utilized fraud to do so. It has been incredible the work that these officers have done in conjunction with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to make sure that those individuals no longer get to break our laws and aren't held to consequences of it. The violence against our law enforcement officers has gone up a thousand percent in recent days, which means because of the rhetoric of politicians in Washington, D.C., but also here locally, our law enforcement officers have been demonized. And because of that, the consequences of the violence that they've had to face has been overwhelming for them at time. I'm here today to ask all of the people in Minnesota, all of the people in the Midwest and throughout our country to support your law enforcement officers, to support them and help protect them as they go out and do their jobs. Each and every single one of them took an oath. They took an oath to support and to defend this country, to defend their communities and protect people, and that's what they're doing every day when they go out and they enforce the law. They make sure that people who perpetuate violence on individuals are brought to justice, and that those who break our laws face the consequences of that and are removed from our country. We've seen attacks across our country on law enforcement, but also on their facilities. We last night had an unprecedented attack on a Coast Guard facility in California by San Francisco. We've seen individuals going after patriots who step up to defend not just our streets, but also defend us internationally and defend us on a national security standpoint each and every day. We need to change our ways in this country. We need to start telling the stories of the victims that will be protected, the people that will be protected, the families that will be able to let their kids walk to school safely now because that terrorist or that sexual predator is off the streets. We need to start talking about these families that need justice for the lost loved ones in their lives. And we need to make sure that we're talking and sitting at a table coming up with solutions on what we can do to make America safe again. Violent protests, violent attacks and riots, and attacks on our law enforcement officers shouldn't be happening in this country. This country was founded on freedom and liberty and raising individuals who can be examples to others of the way that we should live. The Midwest and the Minnesota has always been proud of that, and I think that we can continue to set an example by new agreements that we can reach with law enforcement agencies, but also this city and this governor by making sure that we're enforcing our laws and that we have partnerships together. In fact, we've been very encouraged by the fact that we have one of our local counties that assigned a 287G program to help us be able to make sure we're getting criminal, illegal aliens off of our streets and out of our communities and off of our roads so that we can protect individuals going forward. The people of this state deserve peace, and I'm hopeful that we'll continue to see that through the good work of these law enforcement officers in front of us. If you get the chance today, thank someone who defends our laws. Our laws matter. And if we don't like them, we change them. But in the meantime, we're going to continue to work to make America safe again. With that, I want to turn it over to Sam, who's going to talk a little bit uh about some of the work that this office in particular has done. And I'll let him do that, and then we'll go to David as well. Thank you, Sam.

Samuel Westbay 9:59

Good afternoon. Uh thank you, Secretary Nome, for joining us today and for your unwavering support of the critical work we do at ICE and Homeland Security Investigations. My name is Sam Westley. I'm the acting special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations in St. Paul. I have the privilege of leading a team of exceptional pre professionals who are dedicated to safeguarding our communities and dismantling the transnational criminal networks that threaten our national security. The threats we face today are more sophisticated and global than ever before. Criminal organizations operate across borders, exploiting vulnerabilities to traffic drugs, weapons, and humans launder money and engage in cybercrime. These crimes don't just harm individuals, they undermine the fabric of our society, our economy, and our national security. But HSI St. Paul is meeting these challenges head on. Across Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, our agents and analysts are conducting complex investigations that are breaking apart these networks, receiving rescuing victims, and holding perpetrators accountable. We have united with our federal partners and other law enforcement agencies to create the Homeland Security Task Force St. Paul to combat the cartels, foreign terrorist organizations, and take harmful narcotics and weapons off the streets in Minnesota and the Dakotas, like you see in front of you. The work we do is not easy. It requires long hours, meticulous attention to detail, and a willingness to confront dangerous and often unpredictable situations. But the men and women of HSI St. Paul rise to the occasion every day, driven by a deep sense of duty to the Constitution and federal laws and an unwavering commitment to the mission. As Secretary Noam has highlighted, the safety and security of the American people is our top priority. HSI St. Paul is proud to play a leading role in advancing that mission, and we will continue to do so with the same determination and resolve that has defined our work thus far. Thank you.

David Easterwood 12:05

Thank you, Secretary Gnome, for your leadership and for taking the time to join us here today. Your presence underscores the importance of the work we do every day in service to the mission of the Department of Homeland Security and the American people. My name is David Isherwood. I'm the acting field office director for enforcement and removal operations, ERO St. Paul. I am honored to lead the officers and staff of ICRO across Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska. The men and women of ERO St. Paul embody the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and dedication. Every day, they face complex challenges with determination and resolve, ensuring the safety of our communities and the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. Their work is critical to the security of the United States, and I am proud to lead such an outstanding team. Across Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa, our efforts have made a profound impact. Whether it's apprehending criminal illegal aliens who pose a threat to public safety, managing detention operations with care and professionalism, or collaborating with federal, state, and local partners, our officers demonstrate every day what it means to serve with honor and dedication. As Secretary Noam has emphasized, our mission is clear to protect the homeland, uphold the rule of law, and ensure the safety and security of the American people. As we move forward, I am confident that this team will continue to rise to the challenges before us. Thank you.

Kristi Noem 13:36

Thank you, Sam and David. And this office has been focused on getting the worst of the worst off of our streets. The results that they have brought forward for this community and the city has been absolutely incredible. But as they talked about, they service not just Minnesota but the surrounding region as well. And we pray every day for their safety when they're out doing their work and that they would continue to have the support of the people who live here. So with that, we will open it up to any questions that you may have. So the first 12 to 1,500 are out in their offices now, have been trained and qualified and equipped and are out there doing their work. We have thousands more in the next week or two that will be deployed to field offices as well, and this office will be the beneficiary of that as well. So you'll see dozens of new agents and federal officers here doing the work to get these criminals and terrorists off of our streets. They were. One last question. Who wants to be the last one? Yes, sir.

Speaker 10 23:26

Other parents say they were trading and unable to turn for the kids.

Kristi Noem 23:39

Absolutely. Those children, absolutely, that never happened. That's a fake story that is not true. Children have never been zip tied, uh, and that will not happen in the future. We I can't speak specific to a contract, but we are looking for more opportunities for detention partnerships here in the state of Minnesota. So uh we're looking uh a lot to state agreements, but also where the state isn't cooperative, such as Governor Walls has not been. Uh I would say we're looking for sheriffs, local communities, smaller towns that may have the ability to help provide and partner with us because they know so many of these individuals that are dangerous in their communities, and they can work with us to make sure that we're meeting not just their law enforcement needs, but also we're getting those people out of their area as soon as possible.

Speaker 8 24:38

Why don't they have our law and not been democratically?

Kristi Noem 24:41

Well, I think starting by calling our law enforcement officers uh Nazis and Gestapo uh would be just about the worst thing you could ever do. Uh when you have someone who has taken an oath to give their life to defend communities and to defend this country and our constitution, that's a horrible thing to say. And I haven't heard him apologize for it yet either. Um but if he would sign agreements with us to have our backs out on operations, that he would help with the safety and the security of our federal officers when they're out there protecting people and making sure that we're focused on getting the worst of the worst off our streets as soon as possible, um, that would be absolutely wonderful. That would be a sea change that would be fundamental because I don't know how he sleeps at night. I don't know how he goes to bed knowing that he's letting these people walk these streets and there can be more victims the next day. I hope that the next family who loses their child to the drugs that are on this table or illegal weapons that are on the streets doesn't have to put up with a governor like that. Thank you, everybody.

Clayton Emmer 25:50

And this week, in tone-deaf and ideological fashion, the U.S. bishops released a statement about immigration. A statement they considered balanced and nuanced.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 26:11

I asked Archbishop Henning, Bishop Brivitch, Bishop Flores, and Bishop Seites to form a drafting committee. They developed a draft which was shared with you and which we all discussed in our regional meetings. The drafting committee received many amendments and spent many hours, I believe five, last night to review them and to incorporate them into a new draft. This revised pastoral special message was shared with you this morning in the meeting app, and I hope all of you had a chance to read it. I asked Archbishop Henning and the others of the drafting committee to come forward and present the special pastoral pastoral message. While they're making their way up here, I have to express my thanks for all of the diligence and very hard work. Archbishop, please go ahead.

Archbishop Richard G. Henning 27:17

Good afternoon, brothers. It's good to be with you and with Bishop Flores and Bishop Sykes and Bishop Burbage. As you have received the latest draft of the special pastoral message, we're grateful to Archbishop Brolio for his leadership and for inviting us to form this ad hoc drafting committee. We're also grateful to all of you, brothers, for your feedback and suggestions. Your wisdom has been invaluable. We're grateful to the USCCB staff members for their assistance in the drafting and revision meetings and in collating drafts and input from the body of bishops. While it was not possible to include every suggested revision or addition, we believe that the version you have received early this morning reflects your voice. This draft message addresses the people we serve and strives to help us speak to our people as pastors. In the drafting and revision of the message, we have tried to keep the message as succinct as possible. Having reviewed many pages of your input, a number of stylistic and structural changes have been incorporated into the text. You also asked for changes in content. Many of you asked that the first paragraph be strengthened to reflect the gravity of the topic. Many of you asked that we include more references to the Lord and to the Word of God. Many of you suggested an explicit rejection of violence. Many of you suggested some invocation of the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe. And many of you asked that we acknowledge the importance of past and present dialogue with our public and elected officials. As your drafting committee, we believe that we have addressed these content recommendations in this new draft. Many of you also suggested that we include more elements from Catholic teaching. But as this is not itself a teaching document of the conference forged by the usual and longer process, and in the interest of brevity, we chose to include hyperlinks within the text to other resources, including Catholic teaching on migration and refugees. With limited time and space, we hope that this draft does justice to the very important moment before us and to your very helpful recommendations. May the Spirit of the Lord now give us wisdom in our deliberations, and may our Blessed Lady, Mother of the Church, intercede for us.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 29:46

Thank you very much, Archbishop. Because we have a limited amount of time, please note that this is not the time for further edits, but the time to speak in favor or against. Issuing this special pastoral message, we have allowed it allotted 15 minutes. With that, I open the floor. Cardinal Supic, followed by Bishop Popraki.

Cardinal Blase Cupich 30:18

Thank you to the committee for your your work on this. Just a point of order with regard to the process here. Since this is a document that we were able to weigh in before and follow that procedure, how is it that now amendments from the floor are not possible? Because this is a statement of the full conference. I'm puzzled by that because I don't remember that there's not a possibility of amendments from the floor when we have such a document.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 30:55

I think it's in the interest of time, Your Eminence. We only have so much time to discuss this. But I'll I'll defer to the parliamentarian. However, if you propose an amendment and it's seconded, we could certainly consider it.

Cardinal Blase Cupich 31:14

Thank you. The reason I ask is because our region had a very robust discussion uh about the language in this uh document, which reflected kind of how we are we are feeling about. We're disturbed, we're uh upset, and so on. And while that's okay to to uh to uh announce to the public, should we not say that we oppose the indiscriminate deportation of people, which is taking place today? I I think that's a central issue. How can we say to the people who are suffering from this moment that we stand with you if we don't clearly say that we are opposed to the indiscriminate deportation of people? I think that has to be in this statement. Thank you. Thank you.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 32:08

Is there is there a uh just a moment. Is there a second to this? And then then Bishop Papraki and then I second that. Oh thank you. Yeah, um uh uh Your Eminence, if you could give us the exact wording you'd like.

Cardinal Blase Cupich 32:36

Simply put, we oppose the mass deportation of people and where in that first paragraph. Okay. Yes, the indiscriminate that's right. We we oppose the indiscriminate deportation of people.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 33:07

We are disturbed. Would it be after the sentence that begins, we are disturbed?

Cardinal Blase Cupich 33:16

Yes, I think that that could fit in there quite well. All right. That seems to be the central issue that we're facing in with our people at this time because people are indiscriminately being deported.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 33:37

Um yes, uh Archbishop Gujak.

Archbishop Borys Gudziak 33:43

I could suggest adding to that sentence without due process, just to make sure that you know we want we're we're sticking to the laws. So and I suggest it be after that legal status sentence a little lower. Because you have the crescendo, and then it really that's kind of it leads up to this very clear statement. So we em uh we oppose mass uh indiscriminate uh deportation that violates uh due process.

Archbishop Richard G. Henning 35:08

Thank you, Archbishop. So that first paragraph uh was conceived as really a a voice from pastors sharing with um the faithful what we hear and experience among the faithful. Uh so I might propose if these uh amendments are being suggested, they might be more suitable near the end of the document where we sort of talk about how to respond. Uh it would kind of alter or interrupt that kind of um mood or tone of that first paragraph. While it does talk about deep emotions, it's mostly simply describing experience. Um I I think to suddenly shift voice and say, we oppose, I think that may belong, if if at all should belong perhaps near the end, or we find different language for that in that first section that fits with the rest. Otherwise, we're probably now gonna have to amend pretty significantly in that first uh paragraph.

Cardinal Blase Cupich 36:12

I really think it doesn't matter where we have that sentence, but it I'm just saying it should be included in the document. And I would leave it to the committee's uh good judgment where to place it. Thank you.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 36:27

On the basis of that, could we have a voice vote uh for those who are in favor of making the amendment and allowing the committee to making the addition and allowing the committee to determine where in the message it goes. All those in favor of the addition, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. All right, uh Bishop Prapraki.

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki 37:06

Thank you, Archbishop Bolio. I'd like to speak in favor of the special message uh on immigration. I think it is uh both compassionate uh for the concerns of uh migrants and at the same time expressing uh the call for meaningful immigration reform, which I think is so so much needed. I grew up in a trilingual parish on the south side of Chicago, originally a Polish community that later became Hispanic. I my first assignment as a priest was also in a similar trilingual uh community, Polish, English, and Spanish. And then later as a pastor, I served a large uh immigrant community, new immigrants uh from Poland. And as a young priest, I went to law school and got a civil law degree and co-founded what was originally called the South Chicago Legal Clinic for Immigrants, and now known as the Greater Chicago Legal Clinic. And I practiced immigration law primarily, and one of my main reasons for doing that was to see how vulnerable immigrants were who did not have uh documentation that could be uh hired uh and paid below a minimum wage. And if the employee threatened uh that they were not being paid a just wage, uh the employer could always have the threat of uh saying, well, we'll call the immigration authorities. So my objective uh always was to try to get people legal status so that they would not be subject to such exploitation. And I'm very glad that the document reflects that uh statement that uh that those uh who who do not have uh proper immigration status are subject at the uh to the risk of exploitation. And so there's a very strong call on this for uh immigration reform. Uh I think we all we all know that from the the people that we serve, uh in including many of our priests. Uh I currently have one of my priests from another country that uh is um a pastor. I ordained him. He's a pastor of a parish, but uh because of immigration problems, he's had to leave the country for a year. Uh the the immigration system is broken, and the laws need to be reformed. And so I uh I'm very glad to see this statement that calls for uh compassionate care for immigrants, but at the same time urging our lawmakers for meaningful immigration reform. Thank you.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 39:39

Archbishop Coakley, followed by Bishop Mansoor, thank you, brothers.

Archbishop Paul S. Coakley 39:52

Uh, I would simply concur with uh the comments uh which Bishop Apracki just made. I think it's a strong statement. I think it's a balanced statement. Uh I'm strongly in support of it for the good of our immigrant brothers and sisters, but also to find a nice balance, uh, protecting the rights of immigrants, but also securing uh and calling upon our our lawmakers and our administration to uh to offer for us uh a meaningful path of reform of our immigration system. So thank you very much.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 40:29

Bishop Mansoor, followed by Bishop Lorenzo.

Bishop Gregory John Mansour 40:36

Thank you, Archbishop, and thank you, team, that's been working on this. Um suggestion was based on Cardinal Supich's intervention. Maybe at the end of the second paragraph where it's and where it says for this reason we feel compelled now in this environment to raise our voices in defense of human dignity. And the sentence would be we oppose the indiscrimination in the indiscriminate deportation of people without due process. I would suggest that. But this is a very strong statement. It's a good statement. It's very well balanced. It's not uh political, it's more on the moral issues, and so I commend those who have put it together.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 41:17

Thanks. We need a second on that proposal. Thank you, Bishop. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Can I propose an amendment to the amendment?

Archbishop Paul S. Coakley 41:34

Yes, go right ahead. Sorry.

Archbishop Richard G. Henning 41:39

Forgive me, Bishop Mansoor, we now need to propose an amendment to the amendment. We were conferring up here during the discussion and we had a a slightly different proposal for where we thought that language should go. Um so if you see in the document uh the last full paragraph that begins we pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric, we would propose that the cardinals uh proposed language go there at the head of that. So that that paragraph would now begin. We oppose the indiscriminate, we oppose indiscriminate mass deportation. We pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and so forth, like that. That would be the proposal of the drafting committee. Okay, all right.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 42:42

That comes from a committee, so it doesn't require a second. All those in favor of that proposal, please signify by saying aye. Anyone opposed? All right, a few opposition, anyone abstaining? All right, the uh amended amendment passes. Thank you. Um now, Bishop Lorenzo, followed by Bishop Garcia Maldonado.

Bishop Elias R. Lorenzo OSB 43:12

Thank you, brothers, for your work on this excellent um statement and for uh accepting so many and diverse amendments and suggestions from the body. Uh in the paragraph on the bottom of the first page, the church's teachings, which has all the biblical references, and I'm very happy to see that. Our position is based on the living and enduring word of God, which is unchanging. Um, in the reference to Matthew 25, it says, We see the one in the least of these. Will all of our people know who that one is? I think I know the answer to the question, but should we be more explicit that it is we see the face of Christ, or we see the Lord in the least of them? We see the face of Christ in the immigrant, or can it you explain the choice for the word one with a capital O?

Archbishop Richard G. Henning 44:09

So, Bishop uh just point you out to the um beginning of that sentence. In the Lord Jesus, we see the one who became poor for our sake, we see the good Samaritan who lifts us from the dust, we see the one who is found among the least of these. So those are all references back to the very beginning of that sentence where it is the Lord Jesus.

Bishop Elias R. Lorenzo OSB 44:30

Okay.

Archbishop Richard G. Henning 44:30

So I would I think it's clear. If the body disagrees, then you can propose one person's voice. Okay, okay. And a very good person.

Bishop Jose Maria Garcia Maldonado 44:48

Yes, I'm here. Uh I'm a new bishop. Uh this is my first time in the USCCB meeting here in Baltimore, and I am an immigrant. So I just want to express uh my deep and sincere gratitude. Just being here, I really feel uh the welcoming of this country, of these valued Catholic bishops in the United States. I am aware that I'm not the only uh migrant bishop in the United States. So with this, uh I am sure uh that the message will be not only for the uh migrant community in the United States but also for uh many of the priests that probably are waiting for this statement because there are many priests they want to support they want to march peacefully or to do many other things with the parishioners just to support this. So, once again, as a migrant uh person coming from Mexico to the United States, me and my whole family thank you so much for this, and I think this is the gospel that we preach, and in the name of God, let us move on. Thank you, thank you so much for thank you, Bishop.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 46:15

Archbishop Casey, followed by Archbishop Gudjak.

Archbishop Robert G. Casey 46:23

So I'm recently arrived to the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, uh, where we have Springfield, Ohio, and a Haitian community that lives continually in anxiety in these days. And so I just want to express my gratitude to the body of bishops for moving forward with this statement. Uh by the way, my first pastorate as a priest of Chicago was at Bishop Fropki's home church. And I go back to those days and prior when I was a seminarian and a young priest, I've added my voice to those seeking immigration reform for decades. And this is something that rises above politics and partisanship. So I am very grateful to us for coming together in a way of expressing this statement in a very clear way that this is this is not about this moment in time, it is about any moment in time, adding our voice to the voice of peace and justice. So thank you very much, and I support the uh the uh draft.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 47:16

Archbishop Guziak, followed by Bishop Cantu, and Bishop Cantu will be the last speaker.

Archbishop Borys Gudziak 47:22

In keeping with uh the suggestions of many, and following also what uh Bishop Baron said about uh gender issues, I just suggest that uh in the second paragraph where it says voices ends with voices in defense of human dignity, that it be stated that in defense of God given human dignity. So this is not just the dignity that is guaranteed by charters or you know laws, but that this is a s a holy God given dignity.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 48:04

Do we have a second for that? It's accepted as a friendly amendment by the committee. Bishop Kantu.

Bishop Oscar Cantu 48:28

Thank you for for working on the statement. I I think it's a good statement. I was hoping for something stronger. Um I think it has been made stronger by uh Cardinal Supich's uh amendment uh that we've accepted. Um just a reminder of what I had mentioned previously that, along with the statement, that we, as a body, perhaps in our own dioceses, can also, along with the statement, do some sort of prophetic gesture.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio 48:59

Again, thank you to all of you. I think it's time to vote. This action requires a two-thirds majority of the membership to pass. Using the meeting app, please open the voting section and find the ballot for the action item number nine, special pastoral message on immigration. Please vote now.

Clayton Emmer 49:47

The sausage was made in the Chicago sausage factory. The messaging strikes me as a kind of political pornography, sentimental and unwilling to observe the complexities of navigating a political issue in practical ways. I also noticed that the tone and focus of the U.S. bishops closely aligns with the messaging we get from the Vatican press office. That's not surprising, as everyone wants to give the impression of being aligned with the boss.

Pope Leo XIV 50:22

In the first place, the role of the church is to preach the gospel. And just a couple days ago we heard uh Matthew's gospel, chapter 25, which says Jesus says very clearly at the end of the world, we're going to be asked, you know, how did you receive the foreigner? Did you receive him and welcome him or not? And I think that uh there's a deep reflection that needs to be made in terms of what's happening. Uh many people who've lived for years and years and years never causing problems, have been deeply affected by what's going on right now. The spiritual rights of uh people who have been detained should also be considered, and uh, I would certainly invite the authorities to allow uh pastoral workers to attend to the needs of those people. Um many times they've been separated from their families for a good amount of time no one knows what's happening, but their own spiritual needs should be attended to.

Clayton Emmer 51:23

I will have more to say about that later. But I think, as a general principle, it is a sure sign of decline and corruption when people abandon their vocation and assume someone else's vocation. It's generally a bad thing to be confused about who you are and what you are called to do. Is there a reason the bishops have declared the Trump administration an enemy and will not engage the administration with honest questions? The practice of setting up strawmen to attack is not a good look for the church. No one is impressed by the church's efforts to score ideological points at the expense of the president, his staff, and, to be frank, the poor and disenfranchised. Dear Catholic bishops of the United States, please leave politics to lay Catholics with the competency to address matters of prudential judgment in the public square, and get back to being stewards of the sacraments. Let the laities step forward into their own proper mission. No need to usurp the rights and responsibilities of the baptized. No one benefits by continuing the master slave dynamic in the church. A talk on the theology of the body as a cure for clericalism may be instructive.

Dr. Peter Colosi 53:07

By Katie Vanshaek. I'll read her bio and then I'll say a couple things. Um has been reflecting on the mystery of love and marriage since the beginning of her courtship with her Dutch husband Jules, who I mentioned to you before is one of our co-organizers, in the mid-80s, when she first encountered John Faltou's thought in a philosophy class at Franciscan University. It remained the focus of her interest through three years of graduate studies at the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein. She has given talks and published articles in various Catholic forums. In 2007, she and Jules founded The Personalist Project. You should look that up online, The Personalist Project. She shakes these brilliant pieces out of her sleeves, and there's tons of them on there on all different types of topics. And we also went to college and graduate school together. So let's welcome Katie.

Katie van Schaijik 54:11

For me, it's a particular joy to speak about love and marriage in this country that gave me my husband. That was today. We will we are exactly one month shy of 30 years of marriage. And this is the area where my mother-in-lama grew up. This is where my mother-in-lama courted her, and where they got married. So it's especially meaningful to me. So I had a central difficulty preparing this talk, and that is that I really have way too much to say. Um so a lot of what I want to say, I'm gonna have to just leave out, and what I'll do today is just sort of sketch my case in bruminant lines, and I want you all to try to receive it as the beginning of a conversation. All the best ideas come from dialogue, and that's especially true when we're talking about the deep mystery of the person and of communion. So if anything I say, and today it's all provisional, if anything I say raises questions for you or thoughts or objections, I would love it if you would send them to me at the Perseless Project, and there we can kind of continue the conversation over the coming weeks and months. Alright, so my basic claim is that John Paul II's theology of the body shows us the right way to understand and resolve the problem of clericalism. So I see that problem as a standing disorder in the relations between the clergy and the laity that is at the root of the dysfunction and toxicity that is now pervading the church. The church is hurting in the way a family hurts when a marriage is in crisis. I think we can't overstate the effect the scandals have had on the ordinary Catholics in the last 20 years and especially the last two years, when not only new revelations of sexual abuse of minors, but also what Pope Francis called abuses of power and conscience that seem to be all over the church, all over the world, in every, you know, maybe not every seminary, but many, many seminaries. I've lived in staunchly Catholic circles my entire life, and I can say that even the most devout and most faithful, most committed Catholics are perturbed in a new way. We no longer see this as the isolated case of individual sin and corruption, but rather we're seeing massive institutional failure. Many are losing their faith. Others are using the local parish just to get the sacraments, but they're otherwise disengaging. They're no longer giving their money or their time and their talent, and that, of course, impoverishes the local community both materially and spiritually. And one result of that is that priests have new burdens. They're increasingly consumed with administrative functions, leaving them less time and energy for their primary vocation. Many priests are expressing stress, loneliness, depression, and a general lack of joy and fulfillment in their personal lives. Laity, too, feel neglected and used in the church. I could tell anecdotes about this all day long. I had a whole list of them, but I'm not going to do that to save time. I'll just say that the problem is everywhere and it's getting worse. So, what is that problem? What is and what causes clericalism? I put it down to the shortcomings of what Waitiwa called the cosmological view of the church. That view has two essential features: an externalist or excessively objectivistic, that's John Paul's phrase, understanding of the church as an institution, where our basic roles and duties are determined by our place in the whole. A good way to understand this if you've seen the musical Fiddler on the Roof, and it has this great opening song about tradition. The mamas do this, the papas do that, the sons do this, the daughters do that. That's how their role, their basic duty, their basic vocation is determined. Which category are they in? Number two is a hierarchical notion of the relation between clergy and laity, by which the clergy are understood to be above the laity and in charge of the laity. The role of the clergy is to lead and govern. The role of the laity is in the classical sort of cynical phrase, pay, pray, and obey. A friend of ours who's just written a book on the history of the church over the last 200 years with a particular focus on clericalism, drew my attention to a famous instruction from a late 19th-century Archbishop of Montreal. He said, Quote, let each declare in his heart, I hear my pastor, my pastor hears the bishop, the bishop hears the Pope, and the Pope hears our Lord Jesus Christ. Now that puts the problem more starkly than a bishop today would, but it highlights it well. In this view, and I think we have to understand, this is a view that has had its effect on generations of Catholics. The laity's way to God and holiness is through docility, trust, deference, and obedience to priests. It's a view in a system we inherited from history, particularly the Roman Empire and the medieval world. It served the church well enough for centuries, but it's increasingly in an unsustainable tension with modern developments and sensibilities. So, what is the solution of the left? Abolish the priesthood. Throw out the old order. Just last month, there was in a major American monthly magazine, there was an article by a former priest, James Carroll, titled To Save the Church, Abolish the Priesthood. And what's the solution of the right? Reject modernity, reassert the old order, double down on the traditional. Roles and the hierarchical relation between them. So what happens is the tension increases to the point of crisis. And this is where I think we are now. And this is also why I have so much hope and even a kind of eagerness and joy when it comes to thinking, when I think about it, and that comes from three basic sources. Number one is my faith in God, that He is working out our salvation across human history. And moments of crisis often turn out to be moments of great renewal and advance. Secondly, my personal experience, and thirdly, my study of John Paul II's words and witness. John Paul II transcended the left-right divide. He was deeply rooted in tradition, formed in that tradition, but he was also someone who was exceptionally open to and engaged with modern thought and experience. In fact, I claim that his attitude and approach toward modernity was distinctly spousal in character. He didn't fear and oppose the modern world as hostile to the faith. Rather, he opened his heart and mind to it. He paid close attention to its thinkers, artists, heroes, saints, and ordinary members. He got to know it and understand it, and he saw in it unique values that were exactly suited to the tradition that he also loved and cherished. In the opposition, even collision, between the modern world and the Catholic tradition, I think Carol Witiwa perceived a match made in heaven. He saw that modern thought and experience could enrich the tradition and draw out of the deposit of faith what had always been there, but had been mostly latent until now, until the experience of modern experience. And that's what allowed him to foresee and help bring about a new springtime for the church. Now, let me make this more concrete. What gifts did the Pope find in modernity? I think they can be summarized in what he called the turn toward subjectivity that has characterized our age. In 1975, then Cardinal Waitiwa wrote a short essay called Subjectivity and the Irreducible in Man. To me, it's the key to understanding his entire legacy and particularly theology of the body. In it, he critiques the cosmological view of human life that has prevailed since Aristotle. It has its validity and its uses, but he said it's also proven inadequate and problematic, inasmuch as it tends to overlook the most important thing about human beings, which is the fact that, as Janet Smith stressed last night, we are irreducible to the world. We are irreducible to any general category or any role or function in society. The time has come, Waitiwa said, to do full justice to the fact that human beings are first and foremost not objects, but subjects. Completely unique, free, and self-determining persons who live their lives from within. Now, he takes care to point out that this new personalist type of understanding is not the antinomy, this is a quote, not the antinomy of the cosmological type, but its complement, unquote. Nevertheless, he also stresses that the personalist perspective should have priority when it comes to thinking about and dealing with persons. Quote, we must, as it were, give the irreducible the upper hand when thinking about the human being, both in theory and in practice, for the irreducible also refers to everything in the human being that is invisible and wholly internal, and whereby each human being, myself included, is an eyewitness of his or her own self, of his or her own humanity and person. Unquote. Giving subjectivity the upper hand when it comes to persons is a kind of Copernican revolution in the spiritual realm. Objective reality remains exactly what it was, but our perspective on human life has changed very radically. And just to give one example, when a husband and wife engage in the conjugal act, from a cosmological perspective, they are doing something valid and appropriate to their objective state, provided they don't use artificial birth control. But personalistically, everything depends on what is the spirit and emotion that animates that particular act. Is it tenderness? Is it mutual self-giving? Or is it habit? Or is it resentment? Or is it self-gratification? We cannot evaluate the moral worth of that act, its goodness or badness, except from that standpoint. It's important to note that the turn toward subjectivity is not just a theoretical development among scholars, but a historical and experiential development that happened gradually over centuries. We can understand it as the impetus underlying great things like the move from empire and colonialism to self-government and democracy and human rights. We can see it underlying the abolition and civil rights and the move for conscience and religious liberty. And also we see it in various artistic movements, pedagogical schools and cultural works, and so on. We could go on and on about that. All of these are rooted in the same basic insight. Every person is unique and precious, an end in himself, never to be used. Vatican II, I proposed, was the point at which the church made this essential modern development her own. She's been gradually working out its implications ever since. Theology of the body is both a fruit and a contribution toward that effort. It was formulated to provide the theological and anthropological rationale for Humanevita, which was published at a moment in time and on an issue that can be thought of as ground zero in the collision between the old cosmological order of the church and modern society. Would the church, this is how the world looked at it on pins and needles, would the church get with the progressive program and permit birth control, or would she double down on her hidebound traditions and prevent it, prohibit it? In the event, I would argue, the document did both and neither. It began rather to break through that impasse and open the way toward the comprehensive solution that was given in theology of the body. It's worth noting, I think, that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI expressed some dissatisfaction with that document, not with its conclusions. They wholeheartedly agreed with both its conclusions that artificial birth control is prohibited and natural family planning is a positive good for marriage. But they thought, and both of them said Benedict even more strongly than John Paul, that its reasoning lacked the personalist dimension that was especially wanted for meeting the concerns and answering the questions of today's men and women. For that, we needed a new pope, a pope of immense faith and courage, plus deep and broad theological and philosophical learning who would go back to the beginning, the creation accounts of Genesis, bearing with him the gift he had received from modernity, namely the priority of personal subjectivity. In effect, theology of the body is a re-examination and a reconsideration of human life, its origins, its design, its fall, its redemption from a personalist perspective. And what is the central finding of that reflection? I think we can say that it's the discovery that spousal love and communion is the source and aim and meaning of personal life, both human and divine. It's the pattern of right relations between persons and the mode and structure of redemption. Theology of the body reveals that life and love and salvation are, in deepest reality, an interpersonal dynamic. The essence of that dynamic is a free exchange of complementary subjects, of persons created for their own sake, who are fulfilled through making a sincere gift of themselves and receiving the gift of another. Together with that central insight comes a corollary, and it's one that I don't hear discussed as often, but for me it's been the most important, practically, in terms of understanding my life and the situation in the church. And that is that the opposite of love, the principle of sin and death and destruction in the world and in our hearts, is also an interpersonal dynamic. It's known in philosophy and theology as the master slave dynamic. It's a mode of relating whereby I regard and treat another person not as a fellow subject who deserves to be loved and served, but as something less than that, something subordinate to me, something I can use, something I can manipulate, something I can control for my own purposes, whether of pleasure or profit or prestige or whatever it might be. Or, also important on the other side of the dynamic, which is maybe even more important for our purposes here today, I might allow myself to be regarded or treated as less than. I cooperate with my own objectification or degradation. So an extreme example of this is the phenomenon of a young woman who sets herself up with a sugar daddy, you know, someone who will pay for her to have that kind of luxurious lifestyle that she can't afford on her own. Or you can think of the sycophants around powerful politicians or celebrities that trade their integrity to become yes men for them. Or in the much more subtle and much more commonplace cases, maybe even in ourselves, we find it just never becoming the protagonist in our own lives. We maybe let ourselves be driven or passively borne along by the opinions or decisions of more dominant personalities or groups, because that's easier and more comfortable than becoming a true self. The master slave dynamic we learn in theology of the body is the result of the fall. With original sin, a one-up, one-down mode of relating to enters the picture, and with it shame, fear, violence, and abuse. The dynamics of power. Fear and force in place of love and freedom. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will lord it over you. He'll be tempted to domineer. You'll be tempted to be servile and dependent. Since the fall, that dynamic has menaced all our relationships, all our interactions, and all our societies. We are constantly inclined by our fallen nature to be less than persons and to treat others as less than persons. We're tempted to establish a one-up, one-down mode of being, structures, patterns, habits of relating in place of the communions of love that require us to be both self-standing and vulnerable, genuinely open to and welcoming of the subjectivity of others. So the antidote to the master slave dynamic, according to TOB, is reciprocity, mutual self-giving and other receiving. John Paul II practically identifies original innocence with reciprocity. Adam and Eve could be naked without shame because Adam's recognition of Eve, you are a gift for me, went hand in hand with his understanding and expression, I am also equally a gift for you. Throughout the text, John Paul stresses reciprocity as the form and condition of authentic communion between persons. From this point of view, redemption can be understood as the gradual overcoming of the master slave dynamic and replacing it with the dynamic of reciprocal spousal love. It's not a new gospel, it's a deeper and fuller understanding of the Christian gospel. So in our spiritual lives, just to give a little bit more concreteness, it involves a new set of ideals and aims. So for instance, when I was still before, let's say before I really began to absorb this new perspective, I didn't understand as a mother the importance of cultivating my children's individuality, of leaving them free, of giving them space to make choices for themselves, and so on. My motherhood tended to be more about enforcing rules and standards than nurturing persons. I had to learn, I had to gradually acquire new habits of behavior. In other relationships, on the other hand, I discovered I was actually too dependent and servile. I wasn't being my true self. I was letting myself be used or dominated, and I had to stop doing that. I had to end some relationships to stop doing that. On the societal level, replacing the master slave mode with the authentic with authentic communion, a culture of life, a civilization of love involves establishing a new ethos in two distinct movements. The masters have to stop mastering, domineering, and the slaves have to stop slaving. I think of this dual movement every time I hear the verse, the mountains will be made low and the valleys will be filled in. And I think of it every time I hear, in Christ there's neither man nor woman, slave nor free. And I no longer call you slaves, but friends. And scores of other verses that have taken on new meaning for me as I've gradually learned to live theology of the body. We also have to work to dismantle the structures of power that thrive on and exacerbate the master slave dynamic and build new structures that are better framed to foster union and communion. Alright. That's the gist of the new perspective on human life that comes to us through theology of the body, put very briefly and in a kind of rushed way. Now I'm going to spend a few minutes just trying to show what this has meant practically for marriage, and I think then you'll begin to see the application to the problem of clericalism. I won't be able to avoid some oversimplification here, so bear with me. Up until Vatican II, Catholic teaching and ethos about marriage was distinctly cosmological. Marriage was understood and taught as to be a natural institution created by God with the primary end of procreation and the nurture of children. It had secondary ends of mutual help and a remedy for concupiscence. It was hierarchical in structure. The husband was the head, the authority figure. His role was to govern, provide, and protect. The role of the wife was to submit to his leadership and devote her time and attention to the home and the children. Casti Kanubi, a 1930 encyclical by Pope Pius XI on marriage, is explicit about this. The woman, quote, owes obedience to the man, unquote. While the encyclical grants that they have certain rights in common as human beings and as spouses, nevertheless, quote, in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life, unquote. Now, that's basically what all Catholics believed and lived by for two millennia until feminism appeared on the scene, which is why faithful Catholics tended to see feminism as a diabolical attack on God's plan for marriage and family life. That's how Casty Kanubi spoke of feminism, and that's definitely how I saw feminism as a young woman. I was mostly formed in the what's called, we call it the conservative counterculture. And in that world, we saw the social pathologies all around us, all the things that had been predicted by Paul VI, the spread of divorce, the abuse of women, the acceptance of birth control, abortion, sexual immorality, all that as having everything to do with subjectivism and moral relativism, the breakdown of authority and adherence to natural law. So, to us, the solution was obviously to put particular emphasis on those things. So, as a college student, for instance, I listened to a lot of teachings and read books and articles on how the authority and submission model was God's plan for marriage. It was biblical and it was the teaching of the church and it was practical. Someone has to be in charge, is the way it was often expressed in those teachings. And that made sense to me. I accepted that wholeheartedly. I remember scoffing at the idea that there was anything degrading about wives being submissive to their husbands. I deplored the phenomenon of women working outside the home. I saw that as a rejection of their God-given role as mothers and homemakers. And that was my very sincere belief as a believing, practicing Catholic. So then I got married. And Jules and I at first really tried to live that model of marriage, but we found very soon that it doesn't actually work. Both the hierarchical element and the strict role division felt wrong to both of us. And then I noticed it wasn't just me. Many of my Catholic friends and peers were going through similar struggles. Even more, I started to notice major problems in the conservative Christian counterculture, a pattern of dysfunction and abuse in the very groups that had most deliberately focused on authority and obedience and conformity to rules and rules for living. Financial and sexual abuse and institutional cover-ups were almost always to be found at their center. We can think of the Legion of Christ, of course, as the prime example, but there are many others. While I was finding all this in my experience, I was also reading John Paul and noticing something. There had been a lot of teaching on marriage since Vatican II. Humanivite, familiaris consortio, the theology of the body, the new catechism of the Catholic Church, and none of it said anything about the husband being in charge and the wife being supposed to submit. On the contrary, the Pope was everywhere making a point of stressing the equality of women in marriage. In Muliaris Dignitatum, he even explicitly rejected the hierarchical model of marriage. Quote, in the relationship between husband and wife, the subjection is not one-sided but mutual, unquote. A major breakthrough for me personally came in 1995 when I read the Pope's letter to women. I was stunned to find him calling feminism a largely positive development in history and saying that its work wasn't yet done. He publicly thanked the women who had fought for their rights and dignity, especially when doing so was thought to be inappropriate and irreligious and unfeminine. He thanked the women who work, and he called on society to change its structures to allow more women to participate more fully in all its areas without harming their primary vocation as wives and mothers. All of this was explicitly rooted in the personalist anthropology he had worked out so carefully and thoroughly in theology of the body. I wish I could read that whole document to you because it's so beautiful and it's exactly relevant for the problem we're talking about here today. But here's just one passage. Quote Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. The dignity of women has been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented. They have been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves, and it has resulted in the spiritual impoverishment of humanity. I'm going to read that again, making a word substitution, and I think you'll see what I've been driving at. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of the laity. The dignity of the lay vocation has been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented. They have been relegated to the margins of the church and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented the laity from truly being themselves, and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of the church. So that's it in a nutshell. I'm arguing that the relationship between the clergy and the laity needs to be transformed in the same way marriage has been transformed over the last several decades. It needs to go from cosmological to more personal and more personalistic and from hierarchical to reciprocal. Marriage, as we heard in last night's homily, is the prime biblical image for Christ's relation to the church, and therefore also for priests' relation to the church. And since the church's teaching on marriage has developed dramatically, so too should our understanding of relations between clergy and laity. And before I say what I think that means in practice, I'm gonna um what steps we can take, I'm gonna address two potential concerns and objections. One, how is this even possible? How can one priest relate spousally to a congregation of hundreds or thousands? And two, what about the fact that the hierarchical structure of the clerical vocation is part of the essential teaching of the church? These are good questions. And the answer to both of them lies in the notion of corporate subjectivity. Personal life exists on two levels, individual and communal. In the first, we're talking about a person, in the second, we're talking about a community or a people. Think of the Jewish people. Think of a religious order like the Benedictines. Think of an association like Alcoholics Anonymous or the Rotary Club or a football team. All of these have a degree of personal subjectivity. As a group, they have a unique character and purposes, they have distinct features and values and aims. They have structure, they have agency, they have self-determination, they can act, they can relate to others. The Catholic Church, too, is a corporate subject with the form of a family. I'm going to read a passage from Familiaris Consortio. Quote, the family which is founded and given life by love is a community of persons, of husband and wife, of parents and children, of relatives. Its first task is to live with fidelity the reality of communion in a constant effort to develop an authentic community of persons. The inner principle of that task, its permanent power and its final goal is love. Without love, the family is not a community of persons. And in the same way, without love, the family cannot live, grow, and perfect itself as a community of persons. Similarly, I'm proposing a Catholic parish is founded and given life by love, both human and divine. Its first task, together with worship of God, is to live and cultivate its reality as an authentic community of persons with its inner principle of love. In a healthy family, each person is welcomed and affirmed and known and loved for who he is and for his own sake. It's a place where his unique gifts and charisms are recognized and affirmed and drawn out and cultivated. And I don't know about you, but parish life does not look like that to me today. The love in a family begins with and radiates out from the love between husband and wife. Now, following John Paul II, I propose that ecclesial life, like humanity, is divided into two complementary forms, the petrine and the Marian, the clerical and the lay. In a way, they form two distinct peoples who are designed for a fruitful union of love. The priesthood has a hierarchical dimension as part of its essential structure and makeup. The priest lives his vocation under the authority of the bishop, and then within that mystery, he relates himself spousally, not to hundreds and thousands of individuals, but rather to the laity as a communal whole, the local body of believers, the particular body of believers that's been entrusted to him. The laity are not part of the hierarchy, and they are not under the hierarchy. Rather, they have their own or should have their own complementary form and structure. Here's a key quote from John Paul II's letter to priests of 1992. Quote, the ordained ministry has a radical communitarian form and can only be carried out as a collective work. The laity also exists in a radical communitarian form. The form of the priesthood has a hierarchical dimension. The faithful don't stand under it, but rather vis-a-vis. So now we've come to the number one thing that I think needs to happen for clericalism to be overcome and the church to fully live the beautiful truth and theology of the body. Namely, the laity have to take form separate from the priesthood. We have to come out from under the clergy and become a self-standing people so that we can relate to our priests properly as spouse, not subordinate. I have in mind especially the laity of each parish here, each local center of Catholic life. Now, theology of the body teaches that self-possession is a condition of self-giving. Self-giving is only possible, quote, on the basis of the mature possession of one's own eye in its bodily and emotive subjectivity. For those who have been conditioned into habits of passivity and dependency, for those who have historically been on the slave side of the master slave dynamic, self-possession is a moral task, a difficult one, requiring lots of courage and fortitude, plus trial and error. Slaves aren't used to taking ownership and initiative, but that's the call here. As things are right now in the church, the laity of any given parish are typically so formless as a people that the priests can't really see us. Never mind, relate to us as spouse. Priests are in something like the position of Adam before the creation of Eve. They understood that they're responsible to cultivate the earth, but they lack a companion. So what did God do? He put Adam into a deep sleep and he took out part of him and he formed it into a whole complementary person. Then Adam could say, At last, here is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone. This is the moment wherein, as I see it. By the grace and power of the Holy Spirit that dwells in us through baptism, the laity have to begin forming ourselves into the kind of corporate subject that can stand vis-a-vis the priest as a compliment and companion in the great and beautiful task of redeeming the world. The initiative lies mainly with us. In a way, it would even be good if priests would sort of go to sleep. And I mean by that, refrain from interfering with the process. Don't try to stop it or control it or manage it. Let the laity go, live, you know, sort of let go and let the laity do it. So how? How does the laity go from formless independent to strong corporate self-possession? First and foremost, we have to become embodied. The body makes visible the invisible. It allows us to experience ourselves and act as a person, or in this case, a people. It lets us relate to ourselves and to others. It invites communion. So how is a corporate subject embodied? It's in things like founding documents, mission statements, governance structures, traditions, rituals, buildings. Think of the rule of Saint Benedict, for example, the Liturgy of the Hours and Benedictan Abbeys, or the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Capitol building. Think of the Twelve Steps and the Twelve Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous, their meeting rooms and their meetings. These are what give those corporate subjects form and agency and vitality and efficacy. I forget now where I read it, but somewhere when I was preparing for this talk, I found a quote, or I found a place where Pope Francis was urging the laity to form, quote, robust structures of belonging. Pope Benedict urged us to foster a culture of encounter. Somewhere else, John Paul says that every community of believers should, quote, pulsate with awareness of its unique identity. In the master slave dynamic, the slave has no identity, right? Everything is just under the will of the master. So practically, I'm proposing that the laity of each parish form a lay association of the faithful that will enable us to be seen, to experience ourselves, to act, and to relate as a body of lay believers. So I envision things like this. We formulate a kind of rule, a structure of governance, terms of membership, establishing means and modes of communication with each other, websites, publications, ways of expressing our ideas, of sharing our opinions, of raising our concerns, acquiring a way to collect and disperse money so that we have a shared ownership in the life of the local parish. Having ownership of physical spaces where we can meet each other and so on. Right now, this is practically impossible in our parish to even meet in the parish buildings because the pastor manages them all and he has very strict rules about who can use them for what purposes. That's not okay. That's really stifling the life of an initiative in the parish. All right. Secondly, we need to throw off the habits of slavery and practice self-possession and self-determination. Right now, the laity lack that. We essentially have no voice, no vote in the affairs of our parish. It's the pastor who speaks for us and to us. He's the only one with decision-making power. That means, among other things, that most of the spiritual and material wealth of the parish is totally untapped. Notice that in none of this, though, do we encroach on the prerogatives of the ordained ministries? The laity don't vote on doctrine. We're not saying mass or hearing confessions. I'm speaking about the things that are within our competence as laity, and I would argue belong to our dignity as persons and as baptized. And the more we begin to take up that responsibility that belongs to our vocation, the more enjoyable and rewarding we'll find parish life, and the more our priests will be free to give their time and energy to the things that belong to their ministry and things that we can't do. So, and the good news here is that I know I'm rushing through all this. The good news is that we're not starting from nothing. The theological rationale is already laid out in theology of the body. We have the experience of how it's worked for women in marriage over the last 60 years. We've had a lot of trial and error through various lay associations and initiatives that have sprung up since Vatican II. And we have a huge fund of practical wisdom in the literature and testimonies around codependence. Books like Codependent No More and Boundaries and Programs like Adult Children of Dysfunction have a lot to offer people in our situation. That is, people who are working to recover from unhealthy dependence and enmeshment and move into mature, full, personal self-standing. All right, now just a word to what priests can do. The first thing is, for many at least, is a mental adjustment, a new way of thinking about what it means to serve the church and to love the church and cherish the church as bridegroom. It will mean a recognition that the laity are meant to be loved and served by you as complementary equal and companion. They are meant to be peers and co-agents, not objects of your ministry, not subordinates. Loving them means listening to them, being available to them, receiving them, turning to them, trusting them, and relying on them. In theology of the body, we also learn that the man has a particular role to play in helping the woman realize her full subjectivity and her equal dignity with him. And he does it mainly by seeing it, affirming it, and delighting in it. And so in chapter 33, we read Although maintaining the balance of the gift seems to be something entrusted to both, the man has special responsibility, as it depends more on him whether the balance is kept or violated, or even, if it has already been violated, reestablished. The priest has the particular task of helping the laity see their dignity and their value as full partners in the church's life and mission. And so I want to say to priests, don't be afraid of the laity developing autonomy as a corporate subject. Welcome and encourage that development. Rejoice in it. Recognize that the kind of communion we're designed for and called to involves reciprocity and mutual deference. You as a priest are made to be a gift to the laity. They are made to be a gift for you. Not abstractly, not so much mystical body of Christ, but as the people of God, this people of God. A man doesn't marry the ideal essence of a woman. He marries a particular woman with all her concreteness, her strengths, her weaknesses, her potentialities and limits. He's called to love and serve her particularly as she is called to love and serve him. So open your hearts to your congregation as a unique corporate subject. Help them become a unique corporate subject or encourage that. They have gifts for you that in the divine economy of redemption are exactly matched to your needs and your gifts. And your priesthood will become much more beautiful and fruitful and rewarding. So getting to there from where we are is going to be, it's important to realize, a gradual, messy process. We have to be patient. But at the same time, it won't be long before we start feeling the difference. Picture a couple that's been miserable together for years, renewing their vows, committing to a new way of relating, and beginning to fall in love with each other again. Wounds take time to heal, and they won't be able to overcome all their bad habits at once. But basically, they will be experiencing happiness and hopefulness in place of the misery and resignation that had been dragging them down for years. So I'm going to read a final quote from that letter to priests, and then I'm just going to add a very quick postscript to conclude. Quote: The priest who welcomes the call to ministry is in a position to make this a loving choice. That is his gift of self to the church. As a result of which the church and souls become his first interest, and with this concrete spirituality, he becomes capable of loving the universal church and that part of it entrusted to him with the deep love of a husband for his wife. Unquote. Alright, now just really fast the postscript. I would love, I would have loved to go into this more, but I just want to say, because I think it really helps us to have confidence and to see that this vision is not just one Pope, it's not just John Paul II, but it's really the Holy Spirit. I've been reading two books about Pope Francis. One is about his life and his pastoral priorities by Austin Ivory. It's called, I think, The Great Reformer. It's a kind of biography and an analysis of his themes as seen through his life and work. And the other is by Massimo Borghese, and it's called, I forget what, but it's about the intellectual formation of Jorge, the mind of Pope Francis, I think it's called. Both these books make a big point of showing how deeply Pope Francis was formed within a school of thought known as the theology of the people. And it was formulated as an alternative to both Marxist liberation theology and the kind of sclerotic elitist conservative establishment church in Latin America of the last century. It emphasizes complementary opposition and reciprocity in place of the one-up, one-down social and economic structures that oppress the poor and corrupt the rich and powerful. I find in theology of the people a remarkable correspondence with John Paul II's theology of the body. And I'll end with just a short quote from one of the leading thinkers of that school of thought, one of the major influences on Pope Francis. Quote, the concept of a people presupposes this dialectic, that of the relationship between man and woman, a model for overcoming overcoming the master slave relationship. Thank you.

Clayton Emmer 1:39:05

Take civil servants seriously before waxing eloquent with half-baked opinions about their failures. Further, do you actually have an obligation to telegraph the opinions of the Vatican Press Office or of Cardinal Supage? Are you branch managers or successors of the Apostles? And I have a link in the footer to one of my sources, which is the Homeland Security Press Conference in Minneapolis, which was held on October twenty fourth, two thousand twenty-five. It's a uh a link to uh C SPAN.org. Thanks for listening.