When US bishops LARP as politicians

Send us a text

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/

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Clayton Emmer (00:27):
Nearly three weeks ago in Minneapolis on a
Friday afternoon, the Departmentof Homeland Security Secretary,
Christy Gnome, presided over apress conference about the work
of ICE in Minneapolis.

Kristi Noem (00:43):
Good afternoon, everybody.
Thank you for being here today.
I appreciate it.
My name is Christy Gnome.
I'm the United States Secretaryof Homeland Security.
And today we're here inMinneapolis and St.
Paul visiting with folks andcommunity members and our law
enforcement officers about theworst of the worst.
This office here has doneincredible work to make sure
that we are getting criminals,terrorists, uh, foreign

(01:05):
terrorist organizations, gangmembers off of our streets and
protecting the members of thiscommunity.
I have behind me four of theindividuals that work here in
the state and in this region tomake sure that we're getting
dangerous people away from thecitizens in this community in
this state.
And I want to introduce themfor you.
We have Sam.
Sam West Bay is with HSI.

(01:27):
He is the acting special agentthat's in charge of this office.
And he'll make a few openingremarks here in a little bit as
well.
We also have David Easterwood.
David is with ERO.
He is the acting field officedirector, and I'll ask him to
give you a quick update on someof the work and operations that
they've been doing as well.
We have Tanya Price, who's HSI,an assistant special agent in

(01:49):
charge that is stationed hereand is doing good work for the
citizens of Minnesota, and alsoToria Rich.
She's the ERO Deputy FieldOffice Director that has been
here for several years nowworking to help protect
community members.
Listen, the work that theseindividuals have done has been
incredible.
Under the Trump administration,our president has been focused

(02:10):
on protecting American citizens,on making America safe again.
And these individuals get upevery single day and support
their law enforcement officersthat are out on the street
upholding the law.
Now remember, in this country,with this president in the White
House, we don't pick winnersand losers.
We don't decide which law getsenforced and which one doesn't.
There are laws, they are on thebooks, they were put in place,

(02:32):
voted on, and instituted, andtherefore we enforce them all.
If members of Congress,senators, governors don't like
the law, then they should gothrough the work of changing
them and telegraphing andcommunicating to their members
that live in their communitieswhy it needs to be changed.
So today these officers havedone incredible work to make

(02:53):
sure they're protecting our nextgeneration of Americans.
Just since January, they haveremoved over 4,300 individuals
off of our streets who have beenarrested and were committing
crimes in here illegally in thiscountry.
Also, eleven of thoseindividuals were known or

(03:35):
suspected terrorists, people whowill not be able to commit
those atrocities here in theUnited States because we were
out on the streets arrestingthem and removing them and
bringing them to justice.
Two of the individuals thathave been arrested just since
January were foreign fugitives,which means other countries were
wanting them for violent crimesand looking for them, and they

(03:56):
were able to locate them andsend them home to their
countries to face justice aswell.
Our officers are in the streetsevery single day doing
difficult work to make sure thatour laws are upheld and that
families are protected.
Since January, 515,000 havebeen arrested and deported
across this country and removedfor breaking our laws.

(04:19):
70 percent of those individualshad pending or criminal charges
against them.
I'll talk about a few of theworst of the worst that have
been removed from this area, butI want you to know that the
individuals that have beenarrested and removed have had
crimes and charges against them,such as murder, assaults,
homicides, robberies,carjackings, and shootings.

(04:41):
And all of those numbers inthis community in Minneapolis
and St.
Paul, those numbers have onlygone up since 2019.
Under the leadership of MayorFrye, under the leadership of
Governor Walls, more violentcrimes are being perpetuated in
these communities because oftheir refusal to defend American
citizens.
Regardless, our Federalofficers, our ICE officers, ERO,

(05:04):
HSI, in partnership with ourDepartment of Justice agencies
and other individuals throughoutthe Federal Government, we will
continue to do the work to makesure that these criminals are
removed from our communities.
I want you to look at theseposters that we have up here at
the front of the room.
One of the individuals, hislast name is Munos, he's from
Mexico, and he was brought inand arrested for charges of

(05:28):
homicide.
Another one is Hernandez Riverafrom El Salvador.
The charges against him arehuman slavery and trafficking,
trafficking of individuals inthis country.
Garcia is in front of us aswell.
His last name is Garcia Oliverfrom Mexico.
He's been wanted and chargedwith sexual assault.
And then another individual infront of us on these posters in

(05:49):
front of us is Gonzalez Revais.
Alfie's from El Salvador and iswanted for assault.
These individuals have beenarrested because of these
individual law enforcementofficers in our community and
will be brought to justice anddeported from our country never
to return.
We also had operation that hasbeen working in this area

(06:10):
specific to visa fraud.
Visa fraud has been veryrampant in these cities, and the
U.S.
CIS agency has worked onOperation Twin Shield, which is
a first of its kind visa fraudoperation that has gone out and
investigated those who maybecame into this country under
wrong paperwork or overstayedand refused to leave, and they

(06:33):
utilized fraud to do so.
It has been incredible the workthat these officers have done
in conjunction with the UnitedStates Citizenship and
Immigration Services to makesure that those individuals no
longer get to break our laws andaren't held to consequences of
it.
The violence against our lawenforcement officers has gone up
a thousand percent in recentdays, which means because of the

(06:56):
rhetoric of politicians inWashington, D.C., but also here
locally, our law enforcementofficers have been demonized.
And because of that, theconsequences of the violence
that they've had to face hasbeen overwhelming for them at
time.
I'm here today to ask all ofthe people in Minnesota, all of
the people in the Midwest andthroughout our country to
support your law enforcementofficers, to support them and

(07:19):
help protect them as they go outand do their jobs.
Each and every single one ofthem took an oath.
They took an oath to supportand to defend this country, to
defend their communities andprotect people, and that's what
they're doing every day whenthey go out and they enforce the
law.
They make sure that people whoperpetuate violence on
individuals are brought tojustice, and that those who

(07:40):
break our laws face theconsequences of that and are
removed from our country.
We've seen attacks across ourcountry on law enforcement, but
also on their facilities.
We last night had anunprecedented attack on a Coast
Guard facility in California bySan Francisco.
We've seen individuals goingafter patriots who step up to

(08:00):
defend not just our streets, butalso defend us internationally
and defend us on a nationalsecurity standpoint each and
every day.
We need to change our ways inthis country.
We need to start telling thestories of the victims that will
be protected, the people thatwill be protected, the families
that will be able to let theirkids walk to school safely now

(08:20):
because that terrorist or thatsexual predator is off the
streets.
We need to start talking aboutthese families that need justice
for the lost loved ones intheir lives.
And we need to make sure thatwe're talking and sitting at a
table coming up with solutionson what we can do to make
America safe again.
Violent protests, violentattacks and riots, and attacks

(08:41):
on our law enforcement officersshouldn't be happening in this
country.
This country was founded onfreedom and liberty and raising
individuals who can be examplesto others of the way that we
should live.
The Midwest and the Minnesotahas always been proud of that,
and I think that we can continueto set an example by new
agreements that we can reachwith law enforcement agencies,

(09:02):
but also this city and thisgovernor by making sure that
we're enforcing our laws andthat we have partnerships
together.
In fact, we've been veryencouraged by the fact that we
have one of our local countiesthat assigned a 287G program to
help us be able to make surewe're getting criminal, illegal
aliens off of our streets andout of our communities and off
of our roads so that we canprotect individuals going

(09:25):
forward.
The people of this statedeserve peace, and I'm hopeful
that we'll continue to see thatthrough the good work of these
law enforcement officers infront of us.
If you get the chance today,thank someone who defends our
laws.
Our laws matter.
And if we don't like them, wechange them.
But in the meantime, we'regoing to continue to work to
make America safe again.

(09:45):
With that, I want to turn itover to Sam, who's going to talk
a little bit uh about some ofthe work that this office in
particular has done.
And I'll let him do that, andthen we'll go to David as well.
Thank you, Sam.

Samuel Westbay (09:59):
Good afternoon.
Uh thank you, Secretary Nome,for joining us today and for
your unwavering support of thecritical work we do at ICE and
Homeland SecurityInvestigations.
My name is Sam Westley.
I'm the acting special agent incharge for Homeland Security
Investigations in St.
Paul.
I have the privilege of leadinga team of exceptional pre
professionals who are dedicatedto safeguarding our communities
and dismantling thetransnational criminal networks

(10:21):
that threaten our nationalsecurity.
The threats we face today aremore sophisticated and global
than ever before.
Criminal organizations operateacross borders, exploiting
vulnerabilities to trafficdrugs, weapons, and humans
launder money and engage incybercrime.
These crimes don't just harmindividuals, they undermine the

(10:42):
fabric of our society, oureconomy, and our national
security.
But HSI St.
Paul is meeting thesechallenges head on.
Across Minnesota, North Dakota,South Dakota, our agents and
analysts are conducting complexinvestigations that are breaking
apart these networks, receivingrescuing victims, and holding
perpetrators accountable.
We have united with our federalpartners and other law

(11:04):
enforcement agencies to createthe Homeland Security Task Force
St.
Paul to combat the cartels,foreign terrorist organizations,
and take harmful narcotics andweapons off the streets in
Minnesota and the Dakotas, likeyou see in front of you.
The work we do is not easy.
It requires long hours,meticulous attention to detail,
and a willingness to confrontdangerous and often

(11:26):
unpredictable situations.
But the men and women of HSISt.
Paul rise to the occasion everyday, driven by a deep sense of
duty to the Constitution andfederal laws and an unwavering
commitment to the mission.
As Secretary Noam hashighlighted, the safety and
security of the American peopleis our top priority.
HSI St.
Paul is proud to play a leadingrole in advancing that mission,

(11:49):
and we will continue to do sowith the same determination and
resolve that has defined ourwork thus far.
Thank you.

David Easterwood (12:05):
Thank you, Secretary Gnome, for your
leadership and for taking thetime to join us here today.
Your presence underscores theimportance of the work we do
every day in service to themission of the Department of
Homeland Security and theAmerican people.
My name is David Isherwood.
I'm the acting field officedirector for enforcement and
removal operations, ERO St.
Paul.
I am honored to lead theofficers and staff of ICRO

(12:27):
across Minnesota, North Dakota,South Dakota, Iowa, and
Nebraska.
The men and women of ERO St.
Paul embody the higheststandards of professionalism,
integrity, and dedication.
Every day, they face complexchallenges with determination
and resolve, ensuring the safetyof our communities and the
enforcement of our nation'simmigration laws.
Their work is critical to thesecurity of the United States,

(12:50):
and I am proud to lead such anoutstanding team.
Across Minnesota, North Dakota,South Dakota, Nebraska, and
Iowa, our efforts have made aprofound impact.
Whether it's apprehendingcriminal illegal aliens who pose
a threat to public safety,managing detention operations
with care and professionalism,or collaborating with federal,

(13:11):
state, and local partners, ourofficers demonstrate every day
what it means to serve withhonor and dedication.
As Secretary Noam hasemphasized, our mission is clear
to protect the homeland, upholdthe rule of law, and ensure the
safety and security of theAmerican people.
As we move forward, I amconfident that this team will
continue to rise to thechallenges before us.

(13:33):
Thank you.

Kristi Noem (13:36):
Thank you, Sam and David.
And this office has beenfocused on getting the worst of
the worst off of our streets.
The results that they havebrought forward for this
community and the city has beenabsolutely incredible.
But as they talked about, theyservice not just Minnesota but
the surrounding region as well.
And we pray every day for theirsafety when they're out doing
their work and that they wouldcontinue to have the support of

(13:57):
the people who live here.
So with that, we will open itup to any questions that you may
have.
So the first 12 to 1,500 areout in their offices now, have

(14:41):
been trained and qualified andequipped and are out there doing
their work.
We have thousands more in thenext week or two that will be
deployed to field offices aswell, and this office will be
the beneficiary of that as well.
So you'll see dozens of newagents and federal officers here
doing the work to get thesecriminals and terrorists off of
our streets.
They were.

(15:05):
One last question.

(23:17):
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 nottrue.
Children have never been ziptied, uh, and that will not
happen in the future.
We I can't speak specific to acontract, but we are looking for

(24:04):
more opportunities fordetention partnerships here in
the state of Minnesota.
So uh we're looking uh a lot tostate agreements, but also
where the state isn'tcooperative, such as Governor
Walls has not been.
Uh I would say we're lookingfor sheriffs, local communities,
smaller towns that may have theability to help provide and
partner with us because theyknow so many of these
individuals that are dangerousin their communities, and they

(24:26):
can work with us to make surethat we're meeting not just
their law enforcement needs, butalso we're getting those people
out of their area as soon aspossible.

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 Nazisand Gestapo uh would be just
about the worst thing you couldever do.
Uh when you have someone whohas taken an oath to give their
life to defend communities andto defend this country and our
constitution, that's a horriblething to say.
And I haven't heard himapologize for it yet either.

(25:02):
Um but if he would signagreements with us to have our
backs out on operations, that hewould help with the safety and
the security of our federalofficers when they're out there
protecting people and makingsure that we're focused on
getting the worst of the worstoff our streets as soon as
possible, um, that would beabsolutely wonderful.
That would be a sea change thatwould be fundamental because I
don't know how he sleeps atnight.

(25:24):
I don't know how he goes to bedknowing that he's letting these
people walk these streets andthere can be more victims the
next day.
I hope that the next family wholoses their child to the drugs
that are on this table orillegal weapons that are on the
streets doesn't have to put upwith 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 statementabout immigration.
A statement they consideredbalanced and nuanced.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio (26:11):
I asked Archbishop Henning, Bishop
Brivitch, Bishop Flores, andBishop Seites to form a drafting
committee.
They developed a draft whichwas shared with you and which we
all discussed in our regionalmeetings.
The drafting committee receivedmany amendments and spent many

(26:32):
hours, I believe five, lastnight to review them and to
incorporate them into a newdraft.
This revised pastoral specialmessage was shared with you this
morning in the meeting app, andI hope all of you had a chance
to read it.
I asked Archbishop Henning andthe others of the drafting

(26:53):
committee to come forward andpresent the special pastoral
pastoral message.
While they're making their wayup here, I have to express my
thanks for all of the diligenceand very hard work.
Archbishop, please go ahead.

Archbishop Richard G. Henn (27:17):
Good afternoon, brothers.
It's good to be with you andwith Bishop Flores and Bishop
Sykes and Bishop Burbage.
As you have received the latestdraft of the special pastoral
message, we're grateful toArchbishop Brolio for his
leadership and for inviting usto form this ad hoc drafting
committee.
We're also grateful to all ofyou, brothers, for your feedback

(27:38):
and suggestions.
Your wisdom has beeninvaluable.
We're grateful to the USCCBstaff members for their
assistance in the drafting andrevision meetings and in
collating drafts and input fromthe body of bishops.
While it was not possible toinclude every suggested revision
or addition, we believe thatthe version you have received

(28:00):
early this morning reflects yourvoice.
This draft message addressesthe people we serve and strives
to help us speak to our peopleas pastors.
In the drafting and revision ofthe message, we have tried to
keep the message as succinct aspossible.
Having reviewed many pages ofyour input, a number of

(28:22):
stylistic and structural changeshave been incorporated into the
text.
You also asked for changes incontent.
Many of you asked that thefirst paragraph be strengthened
to reflect the gravity of thetopic.
Many of you asked that weinclude more references to the
Lord and to the Word of God.
Many of you suggested anexplicit rejection of violence.

(28:46):
Many of you suggested someinvocation of the intercession
of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
And many of you asked that weacknowledge the importance of
past and present dialogue withour public and elected
officials.
As your drafting committee, webelieve that we have addressed
these content recommendations inthis new draft.

(29:06):
Many of you also suggested thatwe include more elements from
Catholic teaching.
But as this is not itself ateaching document of the
conference forged by the usualand longer process, and in the
interest of brevity, we chose toinclude hyperlinks within the
text to other resources,including Catholic teaching on

(29:26):
migration and refugees.
With limited time and space, wehope that this draft does
justice to the very importantmoment before us and to your
very helpful recommendations.
May the Spirit of the Lord nowgive us wisdom in our
deliberations, and may ourBlessed Lady, Mother of the
Church, intercede for us.

Archbishop Timothy Brogli (29:46):
Thank you very much, Archbishop.
Because we have a limitedamount of time, please note that
this is not the time forfurther edits, but the time to
speak in favor or against.
Issuing this special pastoralmessage, we have allowed it
allotted 15 minutes.
With that, I open the floor.

(30:08):
Cardinal Supic, followed byBishop Popraki.

Cardinal Blase Cupich (30:18):
Thank you to the committee for your your
work on this.
Just a point of order withregard to the process here.
Since this is a document thatwe were able to weigh in before
and follow that procedure, howis it that now amendments from
the floor are not possible?

(30:39):
Because this is a statement ofthe full conference.
I'm puzzled by that because Idon't remember that there's not
a possibility of amendments fromthe 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 todiscuss this.
But I'll I'll defer to theparliamentarian.
However, if you propose anamendment and it's seconded, we
could certainly consider it.

Cardinal Blase Cupich (31:14):
Thank you.
The reason I ask is because ourregion had a very robust
discussion uh about the languagein this uh document, which
reflected kind of how we are weare feeling about.
We're disturbed, we're uhupset, and so on.
And while that's okay to to uhto uh announce to the public,

(31:39):
should we not say that we opposethe indiscriminate deportation
of people, which is taking placetoday?
I I think that's a centralissue.
How can we say to the peoplewho are suffering from this
moment that we stand with you ifwe don't clearly say that we
are opposed to theindiscriminate deportation of

(32:01):
people?
I think that has to be in thisstatement.
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 Paprakiand then I second that.
Oh thank you.
Yeah, um uh uh Your Eminence,if you could give us the exact

(32:30):
wording you'd like.

Cardinal Blase Cupich (32:36):
Simply put, we oppose the mass
deportation of people and wherein that first paragraph.
Okay.
Yes, the indiscriminate that'sright.
We we oppose the indiscriminatedeportation of people.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio (33:07):
We are disturbed.
Would it be after the sentencethat 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 centralissue that we're facing in with
our people at this time becausepeople 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 tothe laws.
So and I suggest it be afterthat legal status sentence a
little lower.
Because you have the crescendo,and then it really that's kind

(34:04):
of it leads up to this veryclear statement.
So we em uh we oppose mass uhindiscriminate uh deportation
that violates uh due process.

Archbishop Richard G. Hen (35:08):
Thank you, Archbishop.
So that first paragraph uh wasconceived as really a a voice
from pastors sharing with um thefaithful what we hear and
experience among the faithful.
Uh so I might propose if theseuh amendments are being
suggested, they might be moresuitable near the end of the

(35:30):
document where we sort of talkabout how to respond.
Uh it would kind of alter orinterrupt that kind of um mood
or tone of that first paragraph.
While it does talk about deepemotions, it's mostly simply
describing experience.
Um I I think to suddenly shiftvoice and say, we oppose, I

(35:54):
think that may belong, if if atall should belong perhaps near
the end, or we find differentlanguage for that in that first
section that fits with the rest.
Otherwise, we're probably nowgonna have to amend pretty
significantly in that first uhparagraph.

Cardinal Blase Cupich (36:12):
I really think it doesn't matter where we
have that sentence, but it I'mjust saying it should be
included in the document.
And I would leave it to thecommittee'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 whoare in favor of making the
amendment and allowing thecommittee to making the addition
and allowing the committee todetermine where in the message
it goes.
All those in favor of theaddition, please signify by

(36:48):
saying aye.
All those opposed?
The ayes have it.
All right, uh Bishop Prapraki.

Bishop Thomas John Paproc (37:06):
Thank you, Archbishop Bolio.
I'd like to speak in favor ofthe special message uh on
immigration.
I think it is uh bothcompassionate uh for the
concerns of uh migrants and atthe same time expressing uh the
call for meaningful immigrationreform, which I think is so so

(37:27):
much needed.
I grew up in a trilingualparish on the south side of
Chicago, originally a Polishcommunity that later became
Hispanic.
I my first assignment as apriest was also in a similar
trilingual uh community, Polish,English, and Spanish.
And then later as a pastor, Iserved a large uh immigrant

(37:49):
community, new immigrants uhfrom Poland.
And as a young priest, I wentto law school and got a civil
law degree and co-founded whatwas originally called the South
Chicago Legal Clinic forImmigrants, and now known as the
Greater Chicago Legal Clinic.
And I practiced immigration lawprimarily, and one of my main

(38:11):
reasons for doing that was tosee how vulnerable immigrants
were who did not have uhdocumentation that could be uh
hired uh and paid below aminimum wage.
And if the employee threateneduh that they were not being paid
a just wage, uh the employercould always have the threat of

(38:31):
uh saying, well, we'll call theimmigration authorities.
So my objective uh always wasto try to get people legal
status so that they would not besubject to such exploitation.
And I'm very glad that thedocument reflects that uh
statement that uh that those uhwho who do not have uh proper

(38:53):
immigration status are subjectat the uh to the risk of
exploitation.
And so there's a very strongcall on this for uh immigration
reform.
Uh I think we all we all knowthat from the the people that we
serve, uh in including many ofour priests.
Uh I currently have one of mypriests from another country
that uh is um a pastor.

(39:14):
I ordained him.
He's a pastor of a parish, butuh because of immigration
problems, he's had to leave thecountry for a year.
Uh the the immigration systemis broken, and the laws need to
be reformed.
And so I uh I'm very glad tosee this statement that calls
for uh compassionate care forimmigrants, but at the same time
urging our lawmakers formeaningful immigration reform.

(39:36):
Thank you.

Archbishop Timothy B (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 BishopApracki just made.
I think it's a strongstatement.
I think it's a balancedstatement.
Uh I'm strongly in support ofit for the good of our immigrant
brothers and sisters, but alsoto find a nice balance, uh,
protecting the rights ofimmigrants, but also securing uh

(40:15):
and calling upon our ourlawmakers and our administration
to uh to offer for us uh ameaningful path of reform of our
immigration system.
So thank you very much.

Archbishop Timothy Brogl (40:29):
Bishop Mansoor, followed by Bishop
Lorenzo.

Bishop Gregory John Manso (40:36):
Thank you, Archbishop, and thank you,
team, that's been working onthis.
Um suggestion was based onCardinal Supich's intervention.
Maybe at the end of the secondparagraph where it's and where
it says for this reason we feelcompelled now in this
environment to raise our voicesin defense of human dignity.

(40:56):
And the sentence would be weoppose the indiscrimination in
the indiscriminate deportationof people without due process.
I would suggest that.
But this is a very strongstatement.
It's a good statement.
It's very well balanced.
It's not uh political, it'smore on the moral issues, and so
I commend those who have put ittogether.

Archbishop Timothy Brog (41:17):
Thanks.
We need a second on thatproposal.
Thank you, Bishop.
All those in favor signify bysaying aye.
Can I propose an amendment tothe amendment?

Archbishop Paul S. Coakley (41:34):
Yes, go right ahead.
Sorry.

Archbishop Richard G. H (41:39):
Forgive me, Bishop Mansoor, we now need
to propose an amendment to theamendment.
We were conferring up hereduring the discussion and we had
a a slightly different proposalfor where we thought that
language should go.
Um so if you see in thedocument uh the last full

(42:03):
paragraph that begins we prayfor an end to dehumanizing
rhetoric, we would propose thatthe cardinals uh proposed
language go there at the head ofthat.
So that that paragraph wouldnow begin.

(42:24):
We oppose the indiscriminate,we oppose indiscriminate mass
deportation.
We pray for an end todehumanizing rhetoric and so
forth, like that.
That would be the proposal ofthe 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 thatproposal, please signify by
saying aye.
Anyone opposed?
All right, a few opposition,anyone abstaining?
All right, the uh amendedamendment passes.
Thank you.

(43:02):
Um now, Bishop Lorenzo,followed by Bishop Garcia
Maldonado.

Bishop Elias R. Lorenzo O (43:12):
Thank you, brothers, for your work on
this excellent um statement andfor uh accepting so many and
diverse amendments andsuggestions from the body.
Uh in the paragraph on thebottom of the first page, the
church's teachings, which hasall the biblical references, and

(43:32):
I'm very happy to see that.
Our position is based on theliving and enduring word of God,
which is unchanging.
Um, in the reference to Matthew25, it says, We see the one in
the least of these.
Will all of our people know whothat one is?
I think I know the answer tothe question, but should we be
more explicit that it is we seethe face of Christ, or we see

(43:56):
the Lord in the least of them?
We see the face of Christ inthe immigrant, or can it you
explain the choice for the wordone with a capital O?

Archbishop Richard G. Henni (44:09):
So, Bishop uh just point you out to
the um beginning of thatsentence.
In the Lord Jesus, we see theone who became poor for our
sake, we see the good Samaritanwho lifts us from the dust, we
see the one who is found amongthe least of these.
So those are all referencesback to the very beginning of
that sentence where it is theLord Jesus.

Bishop Elias R. Lorenzo O (44:30):
Okay.

Archbishop Richard G. Hennin (44:30):
So I would I think it's clear.
If the body disagrees, then youcan propose one person's voice.
Okay, okay.
And a very good person.

Bishop Jose Maria Garcia M (44:48):
Yes, I'm here.
Uh I'm a new bishop.
Uh this is my first time in theUSCCB meeting here in
Baltimore, and I am animmigrant.
So I just want to express uh mydeep and sincere gratitude.
Just being here, I really feeluh the welcoming of this

(45:12):
country, of these valuedCatholic bishops in the United
States.
I am aware that I'm not theonly uh migrant bishop in the
United States.
So with this, uh I am sure uhthat the message will be not
only for the uh migrantcommunity in the United States
but also for uh many of thepriests that probably are

(45:34):
waiting for this statementbecause there are many priests
they want to support they wantto march peacefully or to do
many other things with theparishioners just to support
this.
So, once again, as a migrant uhperson coming from Mexico to
the United States, me and mywhole family thank you so much

(45:57):
for this, and I think this isthe gospel that we preach, and
in the name of God, let us moveon.
Thank you, thank you so muchfor thank you, Bishop.

Archbishop Timothy B (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 thatlives continually in anxiety in
these days.
And so I just want to expressmy gratitude to the body of
bishops for moving forward withthis statement.
Uh by the way, my firstpastorate as a priest of Chicago
was at Bishop Fropki's homechurch.

(46:45):
And I go back to those days andprior when I was a seminarian
and a young priest, I've addedmy voice to those seeking
immigration reform for decades.
And this is something thatrises above politics and
partisanship.
So I am very grateful to us forcoming together in a way of
expressing this statement in avery clear way that this is this

(47:06):
is not about this moment intime, it is about any moment in
time, adding our voice to thevoice of peace and justice.
So thank you very much, and Isupport the uh the uh draft.

Archbishop Timothy B (47:16):
Archbishop Guziak, followed by Bishop
Cantu, and Bishop Cantu will bethe last speaker.

Archbishop Borys Gudziak (47:22):
In keeping with uh the suggestions
of many, and following also whatuh Bishop Baron said about uh
gender issues, I just suggestthat uh in the second paragraph
where it says voices ends withvoices in defense of human
dignity, that it be stated thatin defense of God given human

(47:46):
dignity.
So this is not just the dignitythat is guaranteed by charters
or you know laws, but that thisis a s a holy God given dignity.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio (48:04):
Do we have a second for that?
It's accepted as a friendlyamendment by the committee.
Bishop Kantu.

Bishop Oscar Cantu (48:28):
Thank you for for working on the
statement.
I I think it's a goodstatement.
I was hoping for somethingstronger.
Um I think it has been madestronger by uh Cardinal Supich's
uh amendment uh that we'veaccepted.
Um just a reminder of what Ihad mentioned previously that,
along with the statement, thatwe, as a body, perhaps in our

(48:50):
own dioceses, can also, alongwith the statement, do some sort
of prophetic gesture.

Archbishop Timothy Brogl (48:59):
Again, thank you to all of you.
I think it's time to vote.
This action requires atwo-thirds majority of the
membership to pass.
Using the meeting app, pleaseopen the voting section and find
the ballot for the action itemnumber nine, special pastoral

(49:19):
message on immigration.
Please vote now.

Clayton Emmer (49:47):
The sausage was made in the Chicago sausage
factory.
The messaging strikes me as akind of political pornography,
sentimental and unwilling toobserve the complexities of
navigating a political issue inpractical ways.
I also noticed that the toneand focus of the U.S.

(50:09):
bishops closely aligns with themessaging we get from the
Vatican press office.
That's not surprising, aseveryone wants to give the
impression of being aligned withthe 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 weheard uh Matthew's gospel,
chapter 25, which says Jesussays very clearly at the end of
the world, we're going to beasked, you know, how did you
receive the foreigner?
Did you receive him and welcomehim or not?

(50:42):
And I think that uh there's adeep reflection that needs to be
made in terms of what'shappening.
Uh many people who've lived foryears and years and years never
causing problems, have beendeeply affected by what's going
on right now.
The spiritual rights of uhpeople who have been detained
should also be considered, anduh, I would certainly invite the

(51:05):
authorities to allow uhpastoral workers to attend to
the needs of those people.
Um many times they've beenseparated from their families
for a good amount of time no oneknows what's happening, but
their own spiritual needs shouldbe attended to.

Clayton Emmer (51:23):
I will have more to say about that later.
But I think, as a generalprinciple, it is a sure sign of
decline and corruption whenpeople abandon their vocation
and assume someone else'svocation.
It's generally a bad thing tobe confused about who you are

(51:44):
and what you are called to do.
Is there a reason the bishopshave declared the Trump
administration an enemy and willnot engage the administration
with honest questions?
The practice of setting upstrawmen to attack is not a good
look for the church.
No one is impressed by thechurch's efforts to score

(52:05):
ideological points at theexpense of the president, his
staff, and, to be frank, thepoor and disenfranchised.
Dear Catholic bishops of theUnited States, please leave
politics to lay Catholics withthe competency to address
matters of prudential judgmentin the public square, and get

(52:26):
back to being stewards of thesacraments.
Let the laities step forwardinto their own proper mission.
No need to usurp the rights andresponsibilities of the
baptized.
No one benefits by continuingthe master slave dynamic in the
church.
A talk on the theology of thebody as a cure for clericalism

(52:48):
may be instructive.

Dr. Peter Colosi (53:07):
By Katie Vanshaek.
I'll read her bio and then I'llsay a couple things.
Um has been reflecting on themystery of love and marriage
since the beginning of hercourtship with her Dutch husband
Jules, who I mentioned to youbefore is one of our
co-organizers, in the mid-80s,when she first encountered John
Faltou's thought in a philosophyclass at Franciscan University.

(53:31):
It remained the focus of herinterest through three years of
graduate studies at theInternational Academy of
Philosophy in Liechtenstein.
She has given talks andpublished articles in various
Catholic forums.
In 2007, she and Jules foundedThe Personalist Project.
You should look that up online,The Personalist Project.
She shakes these brilliantpieces out of her sleeves, and

(53:55):
there's tons of them on there onall different types of topics.
And we also went to college andgraduate 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 thiscountry that gave me my husband.
That was today.
We will we are exactly onemonth shy of 30 years of
marriage.
And this is the area where mymother-in-lama grew up.

(54:36):
This is where my mother-in-lamacourted her, and where they got
married.
So it's especially meaningfulto me.
So I had a central difficultypreparing this talk, and that is
that I really have way too muchto say.
Um so a lot of what I want tosay, I'm gonna have to just
leave out, and what I'll dotoday is just sort of sketch my

(54:56):
case in bruminant lines, and Iwant you all to try to receive
it as the beginning of aconversation.
All the best ideas come fromdialogue, and that's especially
true when we're talking aboutthe deep mystery of the person
and of communion.
So if anything I say, and todayit's all provisional, if
anything I say raises questionsfor you or thoughts or

(55:19):
objections, I would love it ifyou would send them to me at the
Perseless Project, and there wecan kind of continue the
conversation over the comingweeks and months.
Alright, so my basic claim isthat John Paul II's theology of
the body shows us the right wayto understand and resolve the
problem of clericalism.

(55:40):
So I see that problem as astanding disorder in the
relations between the clergy andthe laity that is at the root
of the dysfunction and toxicitythat is now pervading the
church.
The church is hurting in theway a family hurts when a
marriage is in crisis.
I think we can't overstate theeffect the scandals have had on

(56:03):
the ordinary Catholics in thelast 20 years and especially the
last two years, when not onlynew revelations of sexual abuse
of minors, but also what PopeFrancis called abuses of power
and conscience that seem to beall over the church, all over
the world, in every, you know,maybe not every seminary, but
many, many seminaries.
I've lived in staunchlyCatholic circles my entire life,

(56:26):
and I can say that even themost devout and most faithful,
most committed Catholics areperturbed in a new way.
We no longer see this as theisolated case of individual sin
and corruption, but rather we'reseeing massive institutional
failure.
Many are losing their faith.
Others are using the localparish just to get the

(56:47):
sacraments, but they'reotherwise disengaging.
They're no longer giving theirmoney or their time and their
talent, and that, of course,impoverishes the local community
both materially andspiritually.
And one result of that is thatpriests have new burdens.
They're increasingly consumedwith administrative functions,
leaving them less time andenergy for their primary

(57:09):
vocation.
Many priests are expressingstress, loneliness, depression,
and a general lack of joy andfulfillment in their personal
lives.
Laity, too, feel neglected andused in the church.
I could tell anecdotes aboutthis all day long.
I had a whole list of them, butI'm not going to do that to
save time.
I'll just say that the problemis everywhere and it's getting

(57:32):
worse.
So, what is that problem?
What is and what causesclericalism?
I put it down to theshortcomings of what Waitiwa
called the cosmological view ofthe church.
That view has two essentialfeatures: an externalist or
excessively objectivistic,that's John Paul's phrase,
understanding of the church asan institution, where our basic

(57:55):
roles and duties are determinedby our place in the whole.
A good way to understand thisif you've seen the musical
Fiddler on the Roof, and it hasthis great opening song about
tradition.
The mamas do this, the papas dothat, the sons do this, the
daughters do that.
That's how their role, theirbasic duty, their basic vocation
is determined.
Which category are they in?
Number two is a hierarchicalnotion of the relation between

(58:19):
clergy and laity, by which theclergy are understood to be
above the laity and in charge ofthe laity.
The role of the clergy is tolead and govern.
The role of the laity is in theclassical sort of cynical
phrase, pay, pray, and obey.
A friend of ours who's justwritten a book on the history of
the church over the last 200years with a particular focus on

(58:42):
clericalism, drew my attentionto a famous instruction from a
late 19th-century Archbishop ofMontreal.
He said, Quote, let eachdeclare in his heart, I hear my
pastor, my pastor hears thebishop, the bishop hears the
Pope, and the Pope hears ourLord Jesus Christ.
Now that puts the problem morestarkly than a bishop today

(59:05):
would, but it highlights itwell.
In this view, and I think wehave to understand, this is a
view that has had its effect ongenerations of Catholics.
The laity's way to God andholiness is through docility,
trust, deference, and obedienceto priests.
It's a view in a system weinherited from history,
particularly the Roman Empireand the medieval world.

(59:27):
It served the church wellenough for centuries, but it's
increasingly in an unsustainabletension with modern
developments and sensibilities.
So, what is the solution of theleft?
Abolish the priesthood.
Throw out the old order.
Just last month, there was in amajor American monthly
magazine, there was an articleby a former priest, James

(59:48):
Carroll, titled To Save theChurch, Abolish the Priesthood.
And what's the solution of theright?
Reject modernity, reassert theold order, double down on the
traditional.
Roles and the hierarchicalrelation between them.
So what happens is the tensionincreases to the point of
crisis.
And this is where I think weare now.

(01:00:09):
And this is also why I have somuch hope and even a kind of
eagerness and joy when it comesto thinking, when I think about
it, and that comes from threebasic sources.
Number one is my faith in God,that He is working out our
salvation across human history.
And moments of crisis oftenturn out to be moments of great

(01:00:30):
renewal and advance.
Secondly, my personalexperience, and thirdly, my
study of John Paul II's wordsand witness.
John Paul II transcended theleft-right divide.
He was deeply rooted intradition, formed in that
tradition, but he was alsosomeone who was exceptionally
open to and engaged with modernthought and experience.

(01:00:54):
In fact, I claim that hisattitude and approach toward
modernity was distinctly spousalin character.
He didn't fear and oppose themodern world as hostile to the
faith.
Rather, he opened his heart andmind to it.
He paid close attention to itsthinkers, artists, heroes,

(01:01:15):
saints, and ordinary members.
He got to know it andunderstand it, and he saw in it
unique values that were exactlysuited to the tradition that he
also loved and cherished.
In the opposition, evencollision, between the modern
world and the Catholictradition, I think Carol Witiwa

(01:01:36):
perceived a match made inheaven.
He saw that modern thought andexperience could enrich the
tradition and draw out of thedeposit of faith what had always
been there, but had been mostlylatent until now, until the
experience of modern experience.
And that's what allowed him toforesee and help bring about a
new springtime for the church.

(01:01:58):
Now, let me make this moreconcrete.
What gifts did the Pope find inmodernity?
I think they can be summarizedin what he called the turn
toward subjectivity that hascharacterized our age.
In 1975, then Cardinal Waitiwawrote a short essay called

(01:02:20):
Subjectivity and the Irreduciblein Man.
To me, it's the key tounderstanding his entire legacy
and particularly theology of thebody.
In it, he critiques thecosmological view of human life
that has prevailed sinceAristotle.
It has its validity and itsuses, but he said it's also
proven inadequate andproblematic, inasmuch as it

(01:02:41):
tends to overlook the mostimportant thing about human
beings, which is the fact that,as Janet Smith stressed last
night, we are irreducible to theworld.
We are irreducible to anygeneral category or any role or
function in society.
The time has come, Waitiwasaid, to do full justice to the
fact that human beings are firstand foremost not objects, but

(01:03:05):
subjects.
Completely unique, free, andself-determining persons who
live their lives from within.
Now, he takes care to point outthat this new personalist type
of understanding is not theantinomy, this is a quote, not
the antinomy of the cosmologicaltype, but its complement,
unquote.
Nevertheless, he also stressesthat the personalist perspective

(01:03:30):
should have priority when itcomes to thinking about and
dealing with persons.
Quote, we must, as it were,give the irreducible the upper
hand when thinking about thehuman being, both in theory and
in practice, for the irreduciblealso refers to everything in
the human being that isinvisible and wholly internal,
and whereby each human being,myself included, is an

(01:03:51):
eyewitness of his or her ownself, of his or her own humanity
and person.
Unquote.
Giving subjectivity the upperhand when it comes to persons is
a kind of Copernican revolutionin the spiritual realm.

(01:04:12):
Objective reality remainsexactly what it was, but our
perspective on human life haschanged very radically.
And just to give one example,when a husband and wife engage
in the conjugal act, from acosmological perspective, they
are doing something valid andappropriate to their objective
state, provided they don't useartificial birth control.
But personalistically,everything depends on what is

(01:04:34):
the spirit and emotion thatanimates 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 moralworth of that act, its goodness
or badness, except from thatstandpoint.
It's important to note that theturn toward subjectivity is not

(01:04:57):
just a theoretical developmentamong scholars, but a historical
and experiential developmentthat happened gradually over
centuries.
We can understand it as theimpetus underlying great things
like the move from empire andcolonialism to self-government
and democracy and human rights.
We can see it underlying theabolition and civil rights and

(01:05:19):
the move for conscience andreligious liberty.
And also we see it in variousartistic movements, pedagogical
schools and cultural works, andso on.
We could go on and on aboutthat.
All of these are rooted in thesame basic insight.
Every person is unique andprecious, an end in himself,
never to be used.

(01:05:39):
Vatican II, I proposed, was thepoint at which the church made
this essential moderndevelopment her own.
She's been gradually workingout its implications ever since.
Theology of the body is both afruit and a contribution toward
that effort.
It was formulated to providethe theological and
anthropological rationale forHumanevita, which was published

(01:06:01):
at a moment in time and on anissue that can be thought of as
ground zero in the collisionbetween the old cosmological
order of the church and modernsociety.
Would the church, this is howthe world looked at it on pins
and needles, would the churchget with the progressive program
and permit birth control, orwould she double down on her
hidebound traditions and preventit, prohibit it?

(01:06:23):
In the event, I would argue,the document did both and
neither.
It began rather to breakthrough that impasse and open
the way toward the comprehensivesolution that was given in
theology of the body.
It's worth noting, I think,that both John Paul II and
Benedict XVI expressed somedissatisfaction with that

(01:06:43):
document, not with itsconclusions.
They wholeheartedly agreed withboth its conclusions that
artificial birth control isprohibited and natural family
planning is a positive good formarriage.
But they thought, and both ofthem said Benedict even more
strongly than John Paul, thatits reasoning lacked the
personalist dimension that wasespecially wanted for meeting

(01:07:05):
the concerns and answering thequestions of today's men and
women.
For that, we needed a new pope,a pope of immense faith and
courage, plus deep and broadtheological and philosophical
learning who would go back tothe beginning, the creation
accounts of Genesis, bearingwith him the gift he had
received from modernity, namelythe priority of personal

(01:07:29):
subjectivity.
In effect, theology of the bodyis a re-examination and a
reconsideration of human life,its origins, its design, its
fall, its redemption from apersonalist perspective.
And what is the central findingof that reflection?
I think we can say that it'sthe discovery that spousal love

(01:07:50):
and communion is the source andaim and meaning of personal
life, both human and divine.
It's the pattern of rightrelations between persons and
the mode and structure ofredemption.
Theology of the body revealsthat life and love and salvation
are, in deepest reality, aninterpersonal dynamic.

(01:08:12):
The essence of that dynamic isa free exchange of complementary
subjects, of persons createdfor their own sake, who are
fulfilled through making asincere gift of themselves and
receiving the gift of another.
Together with that centralinsight comes a corollary, and
it's one that I don't heardiscussed as often, but for me

(01:08:32):
it's been the most important,practically, in terms of
understanding my life and thesituation in the church.
And that is that the oppositeof love, the principle of sin
and death and destruction in theworld and in our hearts, is
also an interpersonal dynamic.
It's known in philosophy andtheology as the master slave
dynamic.
It's a mode of relating wherebyI regard and treat another

(01:08:55):
person not as a fellow subjectwho deserves to be loved and
served, but as something lessthan that, something subordinate
to me, something I can use,something I can manipulate,
something I can control for myown purposes, whether of
pleasure or profit or prestigeor whatever it might be.
Or, also important on the otherside of the dynamic, which is

(01:09:17):
maybe even more important forour purposes here today, I might
allow myself to be regarded ortreated as less than.
I cooperate with my ownobjectification or degradation.
So an extreme example of thisis the phenomenon of a young
woman who sets herself up with asugar daddy, you know, someone
who will pay for her to havethat kind of luxurious lifestyle

(01:09:37):
that she can't afford on herown.
Or you can think of thesycophants around powerful
politicians or celebrities thattrade their integrity to become
yes men for them.
Or in the much more subtle andmuch more commonplace cases,
maybe even in ourselves, we findit just never becoming the
protagonist in our own lives.

(01:09:59):
We maybe let ourselves bedriven or passively borne along
by the opinions or decisions ofmore dominant personalities or
groups, because that's easierand more comfortable than
becoming a true self.
The master slave dynamic welearn in theology of the body is
the result of the fall.
With original sin, a one-up,one-down mode of relating to

(01:10:20):
enters the picture, and with itshame, fear, violence, and
abuse.
The dynamics of power.
Fear and force in place of loveand freedom.
Your desire will be for yourhusband, and he will lord it
over you.
He'll be tempted to domineer.
You'll be tempted to be servileand dependent.

(01:10:42):
Since the fall, that dynamichas menaced all our
relationships, all ourinteractions, and all our
societies.
We are constantly inclined byour fallen nature to be less
than persons and to treat othersas less than persons.
We're tempted to establish aone-up, one-down mode of being,

(01:11:04):
structures, patterns, habits ofrelating in place of the
communions of love that requireus to be both self-standing and
vulnerable, genuinely open toand welcoming of the
subjectivity of others.
So the antidote to the masterslave dynamic, according to TOB,
is reciprocity, mutualself-giving and other receiving.

(01:11:29):
John Paul II practicallyidentifies original innocence
with reciprocity.
Adam and Eve could be nakedwithout shame because Adam's
recognition of Eve, you are agift for me, went hand in hand
with his understanding andexpression, I am also equally a
gift for you.
Throughout the text, John Paulstresses reciprocity as the form

(01:11:53):
and condition of authenticcommunion between persons.
From this point of view,redemption can be understood as
the gradual overcoming of themaster slave dynamic and
replacing it with the dynamic ofreciprocal spousal love.
It's not a new gospel, it's adeeper and fuller understanding

(01:12:13):
of the Christian gospel.
So in our spiritual lives, justto give a little bit more
concreteness, it involves a newset of ideals and aims.
So for instance, when I wasstill before, let's say before I
really began to absorb this newperspective, I didn't
understand as a mother theimportance of cultivating my

(01:12:34):
children's individuality, ofleaving them free, of giving
them space to make choices forthemselves, and so on.
My motherhood tended to be moreabout enforcing rules and
standards than nurturingpersons.
I had to learn, I had togradually acquire new habits of
behavior.
In other relationships, on theother hand, I discovered I was
actually too dependent andservile.

(01:12:56):
I wasn't being my true self.
I was letting myself be used ordominated, and I had to stop
doing that.
I had to end some relationshipsto stop doing that.
On the societal level,replacing the master slave mode
with the authentic withauthentic communion, a culture
of life, a civilization of loveinvolves establishing a new

(01:13:17):
ethos in two distinct movements.
The masters have to stopmastering, domineering, and the
slaves have to stop slaving.
I think of this dual movementevery time I hear the verse, the
mountains will be made low andthe valleys will be filled in.
And I think of it every time Ihear, in Christ there's neither
man nor woman, slave nor free.
And I no longer call youslaves, but friends.

(01:13:40):
And scores of other verses thathave taken on new meaning for
me as I've gradually learned tolive theology of the body.
We also have to work todismantle the structures of
power that thrive on andexacerbate the master slave
dynamic and build new structuresthat are better framed to
foster union and communion.
Alright.
That's the gist of the newperspective on human life that

(01:14:03):
comes to us through theology ofthe body, put very briefly and
in a kind of rushed way.
Now I'm going to spend a fewminutes just trying to show what
this has meant practically formarriage, and I think then
you'll begin to see theapplication to the problem of
clericalism.
I won't be able to avoid someoversimplification here, so bear
with me.
Up until Vatican II, Catholicteaching and ethos about

(01:14:26):
marriage was distinctlycosmological.
Marriage was understood andtaught as to be a natural
institution created by God withthe primary end of procreation
and the nurture of children.
It had secondary ends of mutualhelp and a remedy for
concupiscence.
It was hierarchical instructure.
The husband was the head, theauthority figure.

(01:14:48):
His role was to govern,provide, and protect.
The role of the wife was tosubmit to his leadership and
devote her time and attention tothe home and the children.
Casti Kanubi, a 1930 encyclicalby Pope Pius XI on marriage, is
explicit about this.
The woman, quote, owesobedience to the man, unquote.

(01:15:10):
While the encyclical grantsthat they have certain rights in
common as human beings and asspouses, nevertheless, quote, in
other things there must be acertain inequality and due
accommodation, which is demandedby the good of the family and
the right ordering and unity andstability of home life,
unquote.
Now, that's basically what allCatholics believed and lived by

(01:15:34):
for two millennia until feminismappeared on the scene, which is
why faithful Catholics tendedto see feminism as a diabolical
attack on God's plan formarriage and family life.
That's how Casty Kanubi spokeof feminism, and that's
definitely how I saw feminism asa young woman.
I was mostly formed in thewhat's called, we call it the
conservative counterculture.

(01:15:56):
And in that world, we saw thesocial pathologies all around
us, all the things that had beenpredicted by Paul VI, the
spread of divorce, the abuse ofwomen, the acceptance of birth
control, abortion, sexualimmorality, all that as having
everything to do withsubjectivism and moral
relativism, the breakdown ofauthority and adherence to
natural law.
So, to us, the solution wasobviously to put particular

(01:16:21):
emphasis on those things.
So, as a college student, forinstance, I listened to a lot of
teachings and read books andarticles on how the authority
and submission model was God'splan for marriage.
It was biblical and it was theteaching of the church and it
was practical.
Someone has to be in charge, isthe way it was often expressed
in those teachings.

(01:16:41):
And that made sense to me.
I accepted that wholeheartedly.
I remember scoffing at the ideathat there was anything
degrading about wives beingsubmissive to their husbands.
I deplored the phenomenon ofwomen working outside the home.
I saw that as a rejection oftheir God-given role as mothers
and homemakers.
And that was my very sincerebelief as a believing,

(01:17:01):
practicing Catholic.
So then I got married.
And Jules and I at first reallytried to live that model of
marriage, but we found very soonthat it doesn't actually work.
Both the hierarchical elementand the strict role division
felt wrong to both of us.
And then I noticed it wasn'tjust me.

(01:17:33):
Many of my Catholic friends andpeers were going through
similar struggles.
Even more, I started to noticemajor problems in the
conservative Christiancounterculture, a pattern of
dysfunction and abuse in thevery groups that had most
deliberately focused onauthority and obedience and
conformity to rules and rulesfor living.
Financial and sexual abuse andinstitutional cover-ups were

(01:17:57):
almost always to be found attheir center.
We can think of the Legion ofChrist, of course, as the prime
example, but there are manyothers.
While I was finding all this inmy experience, I was also
reading John Paul and noticingsomething.
There had been a lot ofteaching on marriage since
Vatican II.
Humanivite, familiarisconsortio, the theology of the

(01:18:17):
body, the new catechism of theCatholic Church, and none of it
said anything about the husbandbeing in charge and the wife
being supposed to submit.
On the contrary, the Pope waseverywhere making a point of
stressing the equality of womenin marriage.
In Muliaris Dignitatum, he evenexplicitly rejected the
hierarchical model of marriage.
Quote, in the relationshipbetween husband and wife, the

(01:18:40):
subjection is not one-sided butmutual, unquote.
A major breakthrough for mepersonally came in 1995 when I
read the Pope's letter to women.
I was stunned to find himcalling feminism a largely
positive development in historyand saying that its work wasn't
yet done.
He publicly thanked the womenwho had fought for their rights

(01:19:02):
and dignity, especially whendoing so was thought to be
inappropriate and irreligiousand unfeminine.
He thanked the women who work,and he called on society to
change its structures to allowmore women to participate more
fully in all its areas withoutharming their primary vocation
as wives and mothers.
All of this was explicitlyrooted in the personalist

(01:19:26):
anthropology he had worked outso carefully and thoroughly in
theology of the body.
I wish I could read that wholedocument to you because it's so
beautiful and it's exactlyrelevant for the problem we're
talking about here today.
But here's just one passage.
Quote Unfortunately, we areheirs to a history which has
conditioned us to a remarkableextent.
In every time and place, thisconditioning has been an

(01:19:49):
obstacle to the progress ofwomen.
The dignity of women has beenunacknowledged and their
prerogatives misrepresented.
They have been relegated to themargins of society and even
reduced to servitude.
This has prevented women fromtruly being themselves, and it
has resulted in the spiritualimpoverishment of humanity.

(01:20:10):
I'm going to read that again,making a word substitution, and
I think you'll see what I'vebeen driving at.
Unfortunately, we are heirs toa history which has conditioned
us to a remarkable extent.
In every time and place, thisconditioning has been an
obstacle to the progress of thelaity.
The dignity of the lay vocationhas been unacknowledged and

(01:20:33):
their prerogativesmisrepresented.
They have been relegated to themargins of the church and even
reduced to servitude.
This has prevented the laityfrom truly being themselves, and
it has resulted in a spiritualimpoverishment of the church.
So that's it in a nutshell.
I'm arguing that therelationship between the clergy

(01:20:55):
and the laity needs to betransformed in the same way
marriage has been transformedover the last several decades.
It needs to go fromcosmological to more personal
and more personalistic and fromhierarchical to reciprocal.
Marriage, as we heard in lastnight's homily, is the prime
biblical image for Christ'srelation to the church, and

(01:21:16):
therefore also for priests'relation to the church.
And since the church's teachingon marriage has developed
dramatically, so too should ourunderstanding of relations
between clergy and laity.
And before I say what I thinkthat means in practice, I'm
gonna um what steps we can take,I'm gonna address two potential

(01:21:36):
concerns and objections.
One, how is this even possible?
How can one priest relatespousally to a congregation of
hundreds or thousands?
And two, what about the factthat the hierarchical structure
of the clerical vocation is partof the essential teaching of
the church?
These are good questions.
And the answer to both of themlies in the notion of corporate

(01:22:00):
subjectivity.
Personal life exists on twolevels, individual and communal.
In the first, we're talkingabout a person, in the second,
we're talking about a communityor a people.
Think of the Jewish people.
Think of a religious order likethe Benedictines.
Think of an association likeAlcoholics Anonymous or the

(01:22:23):
Rotary Club or a football team.
All of these have a degree ofpersonal subjectivity.
As a group, they have a uniquecharacter and purposes, they
have distinct features andvalues and aims.
They have structure, they haveagency, they have
self-determination, they canact, they can relate to others.

(01:22:44):
The Catholic Church, too, is acorporate subject with the form
of a family.
I'm going to read a passagefrom Familiaris Consortio.
Quote, the family which isfounded and given life by love
is a community of persons, ofhusband and wife, of parents and
children, of relatives.
Its first task is to live withfidelity the reality of

(01:23:08):
communion in a constant effortto develop an authentic
community of persons.
The inner principle of thattask, its permanent power and
its final goal is love.
Without love, the family is nota community of persons.
And in the same way, withoutlove, the family cannot live,

(01:23:28):
grow, and perfect itself as acommunity of persons.
Similarly, I'm proposing aCatholic parish is founded and
given life by love, both humanand divine.
Its first task, together withworship of God, is to live and
cultivate its reality as anauthentic community of persons

(01:23:52):
with its inner principle oflove.
In a healthy family, eachperson is welcomed and affirmed
and known and loved for who heis and for his own sake.
It's a place where his uniquegifts and charisms are
recognized and affirmed anddrawn out and cultivated.
And I don't know about you, butparish life does not look like

(01:24:13):
that to me today.
The love in a family beginswith and radiates out from the
love between husband and wife.
Now, following John Paul II, Ipropose that ecclesial life,
like humanity, is divided intotwo complementary forms, the
petrine and the Marian, theclerical and the lay.

(01:24:36):
In a way, they form twodistinct peoples who are
designed for a fruitful union oflove.
The priesthood has ahierarchical dimension as part
of its essential structure andmakeup.
The priest lives his vocationunder the authority of the
bishop, and then within thatmystery, he relates himself

(01:24:56):
spousally, not to hundreds andthousands of individuals, but
rather to the laity as acommunal whole, the local body
of believers, the particularbody of believers that's been
entrusted to him.
The laity are not part of thehierarchy, and they are not
under the hierarchy.

(01:25:18):
Rather, they have their own orshould have their own
complementary form andstructure.
Here's a key quote from JohnPaul II's letter to priests of
1992.
Quote, the ordained ministryhas a radical communitarian form
and can only be carried out asa collective work.
The laity also exists in aradical communitarian form.

(01:25:43):
The form of the priesthood hasa hierarchical dimension.
The faithful don't stand underit, but rather vis-a-vis.
So now we've come to the numberone thing that I think needs to
happen for clericalism to beovercome and the church to fully
live the beautiful truth andtheology of the body.

(01:26:06):
Namely, the laity have to takeform separate from the
priesthood.
We have to come out from underthe clergy and become a
self-standing people so that wecan relate to our priests
properly as spouse, notsubordinate.
I have in mind especially thelaity of each parish here, each

(01:26:28):
local center of Catholic life.
Now, theology of the bodyteaches 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 owneye in its bodily and emotive
subjectivity.
For those who have beenconditioned into habits of

(01:26:48):
passivity and dependency, forthose who have historically been
on the slave side of the masterslave dynamic, self-possession
is a moral task, a difficultone, requiring lots of courage
and fortitude, plus trial anderror.
Slaves aren't used to takingownership and initiative, but
that's the call here.

(01:27:09):
As things are right now in thechurch, the laity of any given
parish are typically so formlessas a people that the priests
can't really see us.
Never mind, relate to us asspouse.
Priests are in something likethe position of Adam before the
creation of Eve.
They understood that they'reresponsible to cultivate the
earth, but they lack acompanion.

(01:27:30):
So what did God do?
He put Adam into a deep sleepand he took out part of him and
he formed it into a wholecomplementary person.
Then Adam could say, At last,here is flesh of my flesh and
bone of my bone.
This is the moment wherein, asI see it.
By the grace and power of theHoly Spirit that dwells in us

(01:27:52):
through baptism, the laity haveto begin forming ourselves into
the kind of corporate subjectthat can stand vis-a-vis the
priest as a compliment andcompanion in the great and
beautiful task of redeeming theworld.
The initiative lies mainly withus.
In a way, it would even be goodif priests would sort of go to

(01:28:12):
sleep.
And I mean by that, refrainfrom interfering with the
process.
Don't try to stop it or controlit or manage it.
Let the laity go, live, youknow, sort of let go and let the
laity do it.
So how?
How does the laity go fromformless independent to strong

(01:28:33):
corporate self-possession?
First and foremost, we have tobecome embodied.
The body makes visible theinvisible.
It allows us to experienceourselves and act as a person,
or in this case, a people.
It lets us relate to ourselvesand to others.
It invites communion.
So how is a corporate subjectembodied?

(01:28:56):
It's in things like foundingdocuments, mission statements,
governance structures,traditions, rituals, buildings.
Think of the rule of SaintBenedict, for example, the
Liturgy of the Hours andBenedictan Abbeys, or the
Declaration of Independence andthe Constitution of the United

(01:29:16):
States, the Pledge of Allegianceand the Capitol building.
Think of the Twelve Steps andthe Twelve Traditions of
Alcoholics Anonymous, theirmeeting rooms and their
meetings.
These are what give thosecorporate subjects form and
agency and vitality andefficacy.
I forget now where I read it,but somewhere when I was

(01:29:38):
preparing for this talk, I founda quote, or I found a place
where Pope Francis was urgingthe laity to form, quote, robust
structures of belonging.
Pope Benedict urged us tofoster a culture of encounter.
Somewhere else, John Paul saysthat every community of
believers should, quote, pulsatewith awareness of its unique

(01:29:59):
identity.
In the master slave dynamic,the slave has no identity,
right?
Everything is just under thewill of the master.
So practically, I'm proposingthat the laity of each parish
form a lay association of thefaithful that will enable us to
be seen, to experienceourselves, to act, and to relate
as a body of lay believers.

(01:30:21):
So I envision things like this.
We formulate a kind of rule, astructure of governance, terms
of membership, establishingmeans and modes of communication
with each other, websites,publications, ways of expressing
our ideas, of sharing ouropinions, of raising our
concerns, acquiring a way tocollect and disperse money so

(01:30:42):
that we have a shared ownershipin the life of the local parish.
Having ownership of physicalspaces where we can meet each
other and so on.
Right now, this is practicallyimpossible in our parish to even
meet in the parish buildingsbecause the pastor manages them
all and he has very strict rulesabout who can use them for what
purposes.
That's not okay.

(01:31:03):
That's really stifling the lifeof an initiative in the parish.
All right.
Secondly, we need to throw offthe habits of slavery and
practice self-possession andself-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 forus and to us.
He's the only one withdecision-making power.

(01:31:24):
That means, among other things,that most of the spiritual and
material wealth of the parish istotally untapped.
Notice that in none of this,though, do we encroach on the
prerogatives of the ordainedministries?
The laity don't vote ondoctrine.
We're not saying mass orhearing confessions.
I'm speaking about the thingsthat are within our competence

(01:31:47):
as laity, and I would arguebelong to our dignity as persons
and as baptized.
And the more we begin to takeup that responsibility that
belongs to our vocation, themore enjoyable and rewarding
we'll find parish life, and themore our priests will be free to
give their time and energy tothe things that belong to their
ministry and things that wecan't do.

(01:32:07):
So, and the good news here isthat I know I'm rushing through
all this.
The good news is that we're notstarting from nothing.
The theological rationale isalready laid out in theology of
the body.
We have the experience of howit's worked for women in
marriage over the last 60 years.
We've had a lot of trial anderror through various lay
associations and initiativesthat have sprung up since
Vatican II.
And we have a huge fund ofpractical wisdom in the

(01:32:30):
literature and testimoniesaround codependence.
Books like Codependent No Moreand Boundaries and Programs like
Adult Children of Dysfunctionhave a lot to offer people in
our situation.
That is, people who are workingto recover from unhealthy
dependence and enmeshment andmove into mature, full, personal
self-standing.

(01:32:50):
All right, now just a word towhat priests can do.
The first thing is, for many atleast, is a mental adjustment,
a new way of thinking about whatit means to serve the church
and to love the church andcherish the church as
bridegroom.
It will mean a recognition thatthe laity are meant to be loved

(01:33:10):
and served by you ascomplementary equal and
companion.
They are meant to be peers andco-agents, not objects of your
ministry, not subordinates.
Loving them means listening tothem, being available to them,
receiving them, turning to them,trusting them, and relying on
them.
In theology of the body, wealso learn that the man has a

(01:33:34):
particular role to play inhelping the woman realize her
full subjectivity and her equaldignity with him.
And he does it mainly by seeingit, affirming it, and
delighting in it.
And so in chapter 33, we readAlthough maintaining the balance
of the gift seems to besomething entrusted to both, the
man has special responsibility,as it depends more on him

(01:33:55):
whether the balance is kept orviolated, or even, if it has
already been violated,reestablished.
The priest has the particulartask of helping the laity see
their dignity and their value asfull partners in the church's
life and mission.
And so I want to say topriests, don't be afraid of the

(01:34:17):
laity developing autonomy as acorporate subject.
Welcome and encourage thatdevelopment.
Rejoice in it.
Recognize that the kind ofcommunion we're designed for and
called to involves reciprocityand mutual deference.
You as a priest are made to bea gift to the laity.

(01:34:39):
They are made to be a gift foryou.
Not abstractly, not so muchmystical body of Christ, but as
the people of God, this peopleof God.
A man doesn't marry the idealessence of a woman.
He marries a particular womanwith all her concreteness, her
strengths, her weaknesses, herpotentialities and limits.

(01:35:02):
He's called to love and serveher particularly as she is
called to love and serve him.
So open your hearts to yourcongregation as a unique
corporate subject.
Help them become a uniquecorporate subject or encourage
that.
They have gifts for you that inthe divine economy of

(01:35:22):
redemption are exactly matchedto your needs and your gifts.
And your priesthood will becomemuch more beautiful and
fruitful and rewarding.
So getting to there from wherewe are is going to be, it's

(01:35:45):
important to realize, a gradual,messy process.
We have to be patient.
But at the same time, it won'tbe long before we start feeling
the difference.
Picture a couple that's beenmiserable together for years,
renewing their vows, committingto a new way of relating, and
beginning to fall in love witheach other again.
Wounds take time to heal, andthey won't be able to overcome

(01:36:06):
all their bad habits at once.
But basically, they will beexperiencing happiness and
hopefulness in place of themisery and resignation that had
been dragging them down foryears.
So I'm going to read a finalquote from that letter to
priests, and then I'm just goingto add a very quick postscript
to conclude.

Quote (01:36:25):
The priest who welcomes the call to ministry is in a
position to make this a lovingchoice.
That is his gift of self to thechurch.
As a result of which the churchand souls become his first
interest, and with this concretespirituality, he becomes
capable of loving the universalchurch and that part of it

(01:36:46):
entrusted to him with the deeplove of a husband for his wife.
Unquote.
Alright, now just really fastthe postscript.
I would love, I would haveloved to go into this more, but
I just want to say, because Ithink it really helps us to have
confidence and to see that thisvision is not just one Pope,
it's not just John Paul II, butit's really the Holy Spirit.

(01:37:07):
I've been reading two booksabout Pope Francis.
One is about his life and hispastoral priorities by Austin
Ivory.
It's called, I think, The GreatReformer.
It's a kind of biography and ananalysis of his themes as seen
through his life and work.
And the other is by MassimoBorghese, and it's called, I

(01:37:28):
forget what, but it's about theintellectual formation of Jorge,
the mind of Pope Francis, Ithink it's called.
Both these books make a bigpoint of showing how deeply Pope
Francis was formed within aschool of thought known as the
theology of the people.
And it was formulated as analternative to both Marxist

(01:37:49):
liberation theology and the kindof sclerotic elitist
conservative establishmentchurch in Latin America of the
last century.
It emphasizes complementaryopposition and reciprocity in
place of the one-up, one-downsocial and economic structures
that oppress the poor andcorrupt the rich and powerful.

(01:38:10):
I find in theology of thepeople a remarkable
correspondence with John PaulII's theology of the body.
And I'll end with just a shortquote from one of the leading
thinkers of that school ofthought, one of the major
influences on Pope Francis.
Quote, the concept of a peoplepresupposes this dialectic, that
of the relationship between manand woman, a model for

(01:38:34):
overcoming overcoming the masterslave relationship.
Thank you.

Clayton Emmer (01:39:05):
Take civil servants seriously before waxing
eloquent with half-bakedopinions about their failures.
Further, do you actually havean obligation to telegraph the
opinions of the Vatican PressOffice or of Cardinal Supage?
Are you branch managers orsuccessors of the Apostles?

(01:39:27):
And I have a link in the footerto one of my sources, which is
the Homeland Security PressConference in Minneapolis, which
was held on October twentyfourth, two thousand
twenty-five.
It's a uh a link to uh CSPAN.org.
Thanks for listening.