The Code of Silence.

In 1956,  Chinese dictator Mao Zedong, with uncharacteristic benevolence, undertook what is now known as The Hundred Flowers Campaign.    He invited input, surveys, thought, even criticism,  from all quarters.  Over the course of a year, Chinese citizens optimistic about the hope of a more free society streamed forward with ideas and petitions in the areas of art, education, the sciences and so on.   

The three years which followed gave the lie to Mao’s supposed liberality.   A fierce crackdown ensued, and the Hundred Flowers campaign ended with the effective purge of all dissidents, leading most historians to conclude that this was Mao’s plan all along:   to identify the uncooperative and to make everyone else afraid to express concern ever again. 

You may be asking yourself why we would tell this tale at this particular moment.   

The story came to mind when we learned that, as the Uniting in Heart plan got underway last year, the diocese, under the leadership of Bishop Timothy L. Doherty, issued a statement. It was delivered repeatedly at meetings, and it made abundantly clear that it was “unacceptable”  

“…to privately or publicly speak or act in opposition to the Uniting in Heart 2030 Plan.” 

If a person works anywhere in the diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana, they are and have been under a strict code of speech as regards Uniting in Heart since 2019, and are not allowed to express anything but good vibes.  They are not permitted to criticize anything about it. 

That prohibition apparently applies even within the four walls of their own home, since the directive specifically forbade opposing the plan even in private.

Colloquially, this reads to us at Red Wolf as: “Shut up and do as you are told.”

Got that, diocesan or parish workers?  It’s a nice little job you have there, modestly supporting your family while serving the Church.  It would be a shame if something happened to it.

Does a bishop or his diocese have authority, moral or ecclesial, to tell his flock they cannot speak, publicly or privately, their opinion on his plans?

One might wish to put some kinder construction on this statement (and the diocese no doubt will attempt this), but it has been confirmed for us repeatedly from members of the Faithful who attended such meetings that the sense of these presentations and communications was, indeed: You are not to say anything against this.

We find it to be highly inappropriate that any leader of the Church has placed such a restriction on the speech of the Faithful, as if to say that everything in his strategic plan was beyond questioning, and that it admitted of no criticism from the people who would be impacted by it.

The Faithful, while called to respect and honor their shepherds, are not serfs, and treating them in this fashion reeks of clericalism.

How might one truly be said to engage in “civil and substantive consultation to the bishop” if the only options are agreement or silence?

Fellow Catholics: 

At this moment, as we grapple with the pandemic stretching across the globe, we realize that our time on earth is limited, and we may only have one opportunity to do what is right. If this awareness of mortality has awakened in you, as it has in us, a desire to choose well, then we must decide if the sorrow, pain and controversy involved in criticizing the behavior of any Church leader outweighs the moral necessity to do so.

Ask yourself if you’ve seen drastic personnel shifts in our diocese lately.   Have you seen demotions within offices and parishes, and unexpected retirements among clergy and lay staff?   Have some of these seemed bizarre and unnecessary?  As if in some cases good and conscientious people were being taken out of roles of influence? Or were unable in conscience to remain?

Ask yourself if the series of demotions and shifts was preceded by a period of information gathering, surveys, and reviews;  a series of tests and evaluations.

Did some flowers bloom? Did the skeptical or the concerned become the disempowered?

Controlling the Narrative

These codes of enforced silence have reigned throughout the somewhat ironically-named Uniting in Heart planning process, and go further than the statement above.

Despite the facade of openness and transparency which the diocese maintained,  information has been heavily contained or suppressed.

Why else would they hold closed-door meetings in which participants were:

• forbidden to enter the meeting with a cell phone on their person,
• Told to remove their smart watches or anything that might record or capture or share information,
• Only allowed to view program information distributed in numbered packets,
• Made to return and account for said packets before leaving.

… all so that no information whatsoever about the plans for our Church could leave the building and be leaked to the rest of the Body of Christ.

Almost sounds like the people in charge don’t trust their priests or their people very much.

If this sounds more like Communism than Catholicism to you, you’re not alone.  

On its face, as we’ve said before, Uniting in Heart sounds positive and friendly.   Behind closed doors, maybe not so much.

We’ve been told the plan is full of the Holy Spirit and destined to help us be wonderful disciples. But you know what?    If that’s all Uniting in Heart is, why would people of goodwill be told to keep their concerns to themselves, both at work and at home?

If that’s all Uniting in Heart is, why would there be a code of speech, a pattern of controlling behavior, and the fear of firing or demotion? Why would suppressive methods be employed? Why would leaders not welcome the contributions of the people of this diocese, or minimally, accept their disagreement in good faith?

There is something very wrong here. 

In our estimation, it betrays a profound lack of sensitivity to a suffering Church for leaders ever to use silencing tactics for any reason on their people again.

Red Wolf must with due respect remind those in power:   

The culture of secrecy, the codes of silence and intimidation by leaders in the Church have not served us well in past generations.   We in the pews remain both disgusted by it and wary of those who believe they can still utilize it for their own ends.      

Anyone Catholic today has seen that great wrong is done when people are told to be silent while someone else’s will was imposed on them, told there will be bad repercussions if they speak out.

In our estimation, it betrays a profound lack of sensitivity to a suffering Church for leaders ever to use silencing tactics for any reason on their people again.

Diocesan leaders may have miscalculated just a little here in assuming that people who are treated with contempt will simply bow their heads and accept it.

Sometimes, the right thing to do is to destroy the silence.

One of the saints tells us: 

“Be silent no more! Cry out with one hundred thousand tongues. I see that, because of this silence, the world is in ruins, the Spouse of Christ has grown pale; the color is taken from her face.”

Catherine of Siena

A hundred thousand tongues.  Not a hundred flowers.

What do your consciences say about this, readers?  

Authority has an integral, indeed a sacred, place in God’s plan for the Church, and we as God’s people rightly revere it.   Authoritarianism, however, has no place.

If you have witnessed or experienced silencing, discrimination, workplace bullying, implicit or explicit threats to employment or any other inappropriate behavior within our diocese during the Uniting in Heart process, let us know below, or send us an email. We will not publish information without your consent. editor@theredwolfreport.com