Catholic Church Hierarchy as Cult

T

oday we take a look at a more serious implication of the monarchical structure of our Roman Catholic Church: the relation of monarchy to cult, and the consequent relation of cult to its members.

         Monarchy is easily understood as the prime paradigm of a cult. A cult is always centered around a living leader who requires absolute submission. Questioning and dissent are forbidden, and violations of either are quickly met with immediate consequences including marginalization and/or expulsion.

         An example of marginalization toward a member bishop is the case of Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle, Washington. Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI) of the Vatican Curia subjected Archbishop Hunthausen to a humiliating investigation, and for a time took away much of his authority with the appointment of a coadjutor archbishop. The investigation centered around progressive perspectives that Hunthausen held on moral issues: e.g., women’s role in the Church; use of married priests; ministry to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transvestites; justice and peace; group confession, etc.  Hunthausen retired in 1991.

         A cult presents itself as special and elitist. We saw this when we presented the narcissism native to the culture of bishops. In a cult, behavior of members is controlled, sometimes to the minutest detail. By custom; insertion of fear by the Curia; controls at every level of behavior; and by their own timidity in the face of danger to their status, bishops have no stomach for straight talk or argumentation on moral or doctrinal issues with the Vatican power base. The thought of representing the wisdom of the laity on a host of issues is frightening to bishops and they cannot entertain the idea, even collegially.

         The cult structure of the episcopacy, and the cultural addiction of its members, imprisons both individuals and the group itself in a box, the equivalent of a steel trap. Escape becomes almost unthinkable, and rarely occurs. Once a priest candidate commits to membership in the episcopal cult, he already feels, thinks, and behaves as the cult leader prescribes. And then the puppeteers take over. Not all is golden in the purple culture.

Aristocratic Trappings Alive and Well in the Church

I

n this issue we respond to the question:  Does the hierarchy today really retain the trappings of the aristocracy of old?  The answer of course is yes.  Still we should reassure ourselves that this is true.

Historians have determined that a papal court existed at least from the seventh century. It has possessed its full grandeur since the Renaissance in the fourteenth century. Pope Paul VI, in his Motu Proprio, Pontificalis Domus (1968),  reorganized the court. No longer called the papal court, the same entity is now subsumed under the titles Papal Household and Papal Chapel.

Prior to the issuance of the Motu Proprio, pontiffs regularly granted titles such as duke, marquis, count, and duchess to select lay people. An American woman received the title, duchess, from Pope Pius XII through the mediation of Cardinal Spellman. Today those former titles are no longer bestowed, though some individuals retain those previously awarded. Other titles such as Stewards of St. Peter and Gentlemen of His Holiness are now in use. Basically it is more a matter of titles than of substance.

Cardinals today still rank just below crown princes in the aristocratic alignment. They are thus given the appellation Your Eminence. Bishops, Their Excellencies, remain princes of the Church. Monsignor translates as My Lord.

Besides Gentlemen of His Holiness, the highest honor given a layman, there are a slew of papal knights: The Supreme Order of Christ, The Order of the Golden Spur, The Order of Pope Pius IX, The Order of St. Gregory the Great, The Equestrian Order of Pope St. Sylvester, etc. Knight Orders have corresponding “Dame” awards for women. Precedence governs all these awards as is evidenced in the order found in ceremonial processions.

Aristocratic heraldry is alive and flourishing in the Church. Heraldry is described as “a celebration, based on ancient symbols, of the sense people have of themselves, personally and in groups.” One does not need to speculate on just who those persons and groups are.

Precedence, the pecking order, within the hierarchy is visibly displayed on their coats of arms. The color and number of tassels (fiocchi) on each coat of arms immediately tells the knowledgeable viewer what is the title and rank of the bearer.

In a prior issue of this blog, we touched on how the trappings of the aristocracy fill the liturgies of the Church.

Clearly, the purple culture is alive and thriving in the episcopacy.

Note: For any reader interested in observing the full extent of aristocratic trappings in the Church, we recommend leafing through The Church Visible – The Ceremonial Life andProtocol of the Roman Catholic Church by James-Charles Noonan Jr, 1996, Penguin Books.

The Purple Culture in Bloom

W

e are looking at the culture of the episcopacy as it evolved over time. Father Thomas Bokenkotter, priest and historian, notes that by the time of the French Revolution (1789), the aristocratic families had gained complete control over the appointment of bishops.   

Their sons were often installed in Episcopal palaces before they were dry behind the ears.    

Those sons carried with them into the episcopacy the same culture that we described in the previous issue of this blog.   

They were often more interested in worldly affairs and the gossip of the court than in spiritual matters. 

Bishops lived lavishly.   

Luxury abounded in episcopal palaces and even in the houses of many of the religious orders whose abbots and abbesses lived and traveled in princely style.  

The purple culture of the bishops was in full bloom.

A relevant example: A curé(Pastor) at that time was paid 300 livres per year. A bishop received up to 400,000 livres. That’s a 1 to 1,333 ratio.

           

What about the relation of the aristocracy, both secular and episcopal, to the common people, the non-aristocrats and the laity? Frankly, the latter were almost totally discounted.

They were useful as servants, but had little to offer except their labor, their taxes, their adulation and, of course, their use as cannon fodder. In its modern-day formulation it was “pay, pray and obey.” 

The reality was that the rest of humankind seldom entered the aristocratic consciousness. If the aristocrats happened to notice the dire poverty and terrible sufferings of the masses, they generally did little more than thank God that they were not of that class. Their perspective was supported by the common theology of that time: As they were aristocrats by the grace of God, just so the grace of God had established those others in their misery.

But, then came the FRENCH REVOLUTION. The causes of the revolution are complex and not the subject of this blog. It is enough to say that it sprang from the long-suffering discontent of the peasants and the middle class. It was shock and awe, filled with blood and horror, a revolt ultimately against a caste system that penetrated both society and the church. It brought its battering rams to the walls of established privilege and under the clear call of liberty and equality, privilege fell brick by brick. The peasants took their voice back. Their first word was revolution.

           

In the next issue we will take a brief look at the results of the revolution as they affected both the secular and the clerical aristocracy. 

 Resource:

Church and Revolution:  Catholics in the Struggle for Democracy and Social Justice, by Thomas Bokenkotter.

The Culture of Aristocracy in the Golden Age of Princes

B

etween the 5^th and 18^th centuries both the secular aristocracy and the ecclesiastical aristocracy increased their power and their control over the lower classes. The time, just prior to the French Revolution, has been called the Golden Age of Princes. Using France as an example, it was a time when the magnificence and displays of monarchy and aristocracy were at their height. The aristocracy had strengthened itself considerably in the time between Louis XIV and Louis XVI. They now numbered about 400,000 in France and they maintained all the privileges of the aristocracy. They were exempt from taxes. The burden of the chief tax, called the taille, was imposed on the peasants and the middle class to pay. The control over and the distribution of justice remained in aristocratic hands. 

What was the culture of the aristocracy like? Precedence, the pecking order, controlled relationships within the group. And precedence was itself controlled by a maze of rules of etiquette. The movie, “Marie Antoinette,” reveals this culture in action. The rising ceremony of the queen (like that of the king) showed how members of the aristocracy vied with each other to present an article of clothing to the queen for her to put on. If someone higher in the pecking order, e.g. princess over duchess, happened to come in, the article went to the loftier of the two for handing to the queen. 

In effect, all eyes went upward to the higher order of precedence, and finally to the king. Fawning and sycophancy define the culture because ambition could only be advanced in that manner. The whim at the top had to be played to. Obedience and kowtowing became primary virtues. 

As a consequence, members of the aristocracy, for the most part, were a fairly shallow bunch. Gentlemen and ladies did not work so they were faced with finding ways to fill their time. They concerned themselves with gossip, parlor games, entertainments, sport, intrigue, and of course, their ambitions and their genealogies. They were self-absorbed to the point of ignoring anything outside their particular culture. It was a culture based on pretense. Aristocrats were basically actors, having to play in a culture that was exploitative, belittling and pompous. Trivia, as in the rules of etiquette, replaced anything of substance. 

Next week, we look at the purple culture of the bishops in this golden age of princes.

Resource: H.D. Molesworth, The Golden Age of Princes, 1969, G. P. Putnam's Sons.