In my previous post on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, I wrote that it would have been a mistake to focus on Amy Coney Barrett’s membership in the ecumenical group People of Praise. I have changed my mind.
Popular reporting notwithstanding, People of Praise is not solely a Catholic group. Its membership is ecumenical, and thus open to other Christian denominations. While this on its face would not necessarily be concerning, closer examination of unusual character reveals an authoritarian structure that is way beyond mainstream Catholic thought and practice. Indeed, there is more going on with this group than meets the eye, and certainly more than Barrett and the group itself wish us to see. This merits closer scrutiny.
As much as her supporters want to cast as anti-Catholic questions about her fitness for the court, as a Catholic myself, I can say that it is not. My question and concern is about possible undue influence on the part of People of Praise to which she has made a lifetime covenant.
We know the organization practices what they call “male headship," a practice in which the wife submits to the husband in all matters. Does that give her husband a say in or even control of the direction of her decision-making? Given the tight hierarchical nature of the 1200 member organization, it is reasonable then to further inquire, does the husband in turn, answer to someone or some group above him that instructs him in how to instruct his wife in her professional life? Consider what the organization’s handbook states about “the covenant” each member must make:
“We agree to obey the direction of the Holy Spirit manifested in and through these ministries in full harmony with the church (italics added).”
What this means is suggested in the wider context of the handbook, notably the section entitled “Authority and Obedience.”
This section contains language that suggests a top-down male hierarchy where obedience is required. Here is a sample “Just as there is an order in the Trinity based on the Father, so there is a familial order based on the father.”
In yet another page, citing St. Paul, the wife’s subordination to the husband is further emphasized:
“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject tin everything to their husbands."
I showed People of Praise’ handbook to a noted Catholic theologian who teaches ata prestigious Catholic university. He commented:
I have now read the whole thing …Yes it is very authoritarian and certainly tainted with a religious misogyny. Paul did not say that wives are inferior to their husbands; but he did reflect the cultural understanding of his time. The household of the first century Greco-Roman world was hierarchical, with the adult male firmly entrenched at the top and his wife, children and slaves below. Submission meant a woman was expected to center her life around her husband, avoid the assertion of her own desires and conform herself to her husband’s will.
When first century authors of Scripture penned their words and first century audiences heard them they did so in this context.
But we do grow in our understanding … unless one is controlled by a static and unchanging cultural understanding.
I find People of Praise locked in the earlier cultural understanding. Shouldn’t a Supreme Court justice be someone with a good historical and contemporary understanding.? Power over another person is not a healthy Christian perspective and opens the door for all kinds of abusive and demeaning behavior.
Concern of undue influence arises when the role of “coordinators” is raised:
This sentence leaps out:
“Men and women with the appropriate gifts are assigned to this service by the coordinators. In general, they give encouragement, prayerful advice and correction.”
How far would "correction" by the "coordinators" go? Would it reach into the thoughts of a member of the Supreme Court?
The handbook also talks of boards of governance and leaders. “The community must guard each member’s faith-life, and to this end we provide an adequate means of instruction for each believer, in a community environment established to support faith and morals. To what extent does the influence of the boards of governance and leaders extend? Will she be expected to seek their approval on cases concerning reproductive rights and marriage equality?
Beyond the disturbing language of the handbook, there are also testimonies from former members, especially former women members that tell of physical and mental cruelty such as this example from Coral Anika Theill:
I miscarried in 1984 and had to have D & C surgery. After I returned from the hospital, I was forced to attend a "People of Praise women's meeting." They wanted to go shopping. I couldn't, due to just returning from surgery and feeling weak. I left the meeting to go home and rest. I was met by my husband and forced into the car where I was driven to the cult leaders home. I was interrogated and psychologically abused until early morning. The next morning the community was informed to SHUN me. I would never allow anyone to treat me this way today and it traumatizes me to admit this was my life at that time.
Theill’s use of the term cult should not be taken lightly. Since my last post I have learned of other similar stories from others. As mental health counselor and mind control expert Steven Hassan warns, “After much research, conversations with journalists, and interviews of former members, I feel there is enough evidence that the People of Praise Community uses specific methods and techniques that influence how a person thinks, feels, and acts to instill obedience over conscience.”
All this raises serious questions about extent of control others may have over Judge Barrett. The answers to the obvious reasonable questions about the extent of the influence of People of Praise over Barrett may reveal nothing nefarious. But all the same, there is nothing anti-Catholic or anti-religious about asking them.
The integrity of the Court and religious freedom of all Americans is at stake. Just as Barrett deserves a fair hearing, we deserve good answers. We need to know in so far as it is possible that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is not under the thumb of a secretive religious sect.