The instant outrage the tableau aroused — right or wrong — tells a larger story about something that has happened in Catholic life across the last four decades. But it has not been the only recent indicator.

In a January report on religious liberty the U.S. bishops told us somewhat alarmingly of their concern that "the very lives of people of faith" are threatened in the United States.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan inveighed in June against New York's proposed Nonpublic Dignity for All Students Act with complaints about "bullying" Catholics and forcing Catholics to "toe the line on "gender ideology."

One of the first attacks leveled at Kamala Harris once she became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president was that she "hates what [Catholics] believe."

We Catholics have come to prize a little too much being outsiders set against the culture and the world. Quite often, Catholics seem crouched defensively as though the church were under constant attack.

That's not a coincidence. For several decades, Catholics in the U.S. have been taught to see the world as a hostile place set against us, and to think of ourselves as a "sign of contradiction" set against that world.

This point of view has been nurtured within the church for two generations. Forty years can make it seem like Catholics always have seen our relationship with the world this way. We have not. And, in fact, that idea does not reflect our tradition very well.

The world as a partner

No matter how the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council called the church to turn toward and embrace the world — indeed, no matter how St. Augustine reminded us that our faith "does not repeal or abolish" the laws and norms of the world in which we make our earthly pilgrimage — we Catholics insist more and more on what historian Leslie Woodcock Tentler has called "Catholic difference."

We have come to be intoxicated by being different, standing apart, and the idea that the world is out to get Catholics.

It was not always this way. Vatican II itself proved that while the world is not the same as the Church, the Church can and must see the world as a partner.

The world is the field of salvation given to the church (Matthew 13:38).

A sign of contradiction

A temptation to stand apart from the world has always dogged the Church. The last 40 years have seen Catholics succumb thoroughly to that temptation, desiring to be a "sign of contradiction."

That phrasing — "sign of contradiction" — deserves particular attention. We find it in the Gospel of Luke (2:34) and in the Acts of the Apostles (28:22).

But the phrase came into its recent popularity during the John Paul II papacy. He used the phrase as early as a 1979 Angelus message, three months after his election.

But Pope John Paul began to speak of Catholics as a sign of contradiction to the world with considerable frequency after 1987.

A quick search of the Vatican website discloses 45 uses of the phrase "sign of contradiction" during the John Paul II papacy, 39 of which came in 1987 or later.

The Seventh General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops which took place in October 1987 may well have been the turning point that gave so much life to that oppositional, "sign of contradiction" narrative that we live with even today.

Addressing "the vocation and mission of the lay faithful in the church and the world," the synod took up the most neuralgic questions that had dogged the church since Vatican II.

They included the role of women and the participation of laypeople more generally in church leadership.

In 1987, NCR described that synod as the "first clear test of strength between papal loyalists and post-Vatican II church leaders" — we might say, between those who preferred to restrain the Council's reforms and those who intended to press them forward.

Looking back, it seems clear that those who preferred to restrain the Council prevailed, and something shifted in the church after the 1987 synod.

The influence of leaders like Milwaukee's Archbishop Rembert Weakland and Chicago's Cardinal Joseph Bernardin waned.

Others like Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law and New York's Cardinal John O'Connor ascended, and the overall trajectory of the U.S. bishops has traced the path of their influence since 1987.

It seems inescapable that under Pope John Paul the church began to embrace its identity as a "sign of contradiction," a church in opposition to the world. Read more

• Steven P. Millies is professor of public theology and director of The Bernardin Center at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.

But there is also evidence church attendance can be good for your health — unless, that is, you are a woman at a church that bars women from preaching or other leadership roles.

A new study published in the American Sociological Review has found that women who attend churches with such restrictions report worse health than those who attend churches with women in leadership roles.

The study suggests sexism can counter some of the health benefits associated with religion, said co-author Patricia Homan, an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University.

"Women who attend sexist congregations have the same health as those who do not attend religious services at all, and have worse health than women who attend inclusive churches," said Homan.

A number of past studies have shown that taking part in religious services and belonging to a religious community can be associated with better health outcomes.

Regular worship attenders are less likely to smoke, may be less likely to use drugs and may live longer than those who don't attend services.

That health effect of religion appears to be tied to active participation in a church. Those who have religious beliefs but don't attend can report poorer health outcomes. (Atheists, by contrast, also seem to report better health.)

Gender discrimination, on the other hand, can be associated with poorer health outcomes.

In a previous study, Homan looked at the effects of what she called "structural sexism" at the state level.

She found that states that had fewer women political leaders, larger gaps in wages and workplace participation between women and men, and a larger percentage of conservative Christians had higher levels of chronic health issues.

For this new study, Homan and her co-author, Amy Burdette, a professor of sociology at Florida State, wanted to see if sexism counters the health benefits of religion.

To do this, they drew from two nationally representative sources of data: the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.

The GSS collects data about religion, gender, marital status and health, among other factors.

The National Congregations Study collects data about local congregations, including data on the roles women are allowed to play in those churches.

The samples collected by the two studies are linked.

In 2006, 2012 and 2018, the GSS collected data about how often respondents attended religious services, then asked attenders to identify their specific congregation.

That data was used to create a nationally representative list of congregations for the NCS.

The researchers looked at three different measures of sexism, using four questions included in the 2006 and 2012 waves of NCS: Could women teach a co-ed class, could they preach at the main worship service, could they serve on the governing board of the church, and could they be the main leader?

Those questions were used to sort into what the researchers called either "sexist" or "inclusive" congregations.

Churches that banned women as the main leader (50%) were labelled as sexist.

So were congregations that only allowed men on the governing board (14%).

Homan and Burdette also looked at all four questions — and rated congregations on how many restrictions on women were in place. Those with more than two limits on women were labelled as sexist.

They then matched churches in both the sexist and inclusive categories with health data about individuals who attended those churches from the GSS.

The GSS asked participants to rate their overall health using this question: "Would you say your own health, in general, is excellent, good, fair, or poor?"

Their answers were then rated on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being poor and 4 being excellent.

Women in inclusive churches had an average self-reported health score of 3.03. Women in sexist congregations had an average score of 2.79.

That difference is equivalent to a person having at least three years of additional education (which has been shown to impact health) or at least 15 years' difference in age, said Homan.

"We found that only women who attended inclusive congregations got that health benefit from religious participation," Homan told Religion News Service.

And the more restrictions there were on women's participation in the life of a congregation, the worse the reported health outcomes were.

There was no conclusive data showing whether or not sexism had any effect on men's health in the study.

The role of women in churches has been the subject of a national debate over sexism in religious groups.

Southern Baptist Bible teacher Beth Moore made national headlines after telling RNS she no longer identified with that denomination after years of controversy over sexism, abuse and racial divides in the church.

Homan said she has a great deal of respect for Christians who hold so-called complementarian beliefs — the idea that men and women are equal in God's eyes but have different roles in the church and at home.

She grew up in a Southern Baptist family and attended complementarian churches for years as an adult and had a good experience.

The study also seemed to draw a line between complementarian beliefs and sexist structures in religious groups.

"Complementarianism provides a clear guide for the acceptable roles of men and women within gender-traditional religious groups, but the reality is more complicated.

"Rather than being simple-minded victims of patriarchy, numerous studies show that conservative religious women display a great deal of agency within church and home," the authors wrote.

Homan said her research of sexism and health outcomes at the state level prompted her to follow up with the study in religion and health and she can't deny what they found: Policies and practices that limit women's participation can undermine the health benefits associated with church attendance.

"The full equal participation of women in church and society is important for the health and well-being of everyone," Homan said.

• Ahead of the Trend is a collaborative effort between Religion News Service and the Association of Religion Data Archives made possible through the support of the John Templeton Foundation. See other Ahead of the Trend articles here.
• First published by RNS. Republished with permission.

He spoke at Our Lady of Mercy College, Parramatta on Tuesday.

On Wednesday he spoke on the same topic when he presented the Helder Camara Lecture at Newman College in Melbourne.

In his address on Tuesday Dew described clericalism as a "sense of entitlement".

He said that "bishops and priests are not set apart from laity" and that we all need to "focus on human frailty that we see around us."

Dew said being on "the margins you see more clearly" than in the centre and that "our task as leaders is to develop communities of care."

He emphasised that this is something Pope Francis has done repeatedly during his pontificate.

"Throughout his ministry, Pope Francis has lived servant leadership…he challenges us to follow Christ's words and actions."

He used the incident in which Pope Francis kissed the leader's feet in South Sudan as an example of servant leadership,

Dew said that "the only authority is the authority of service and the only power is the power of the Cross".

Following the cardinal's address on Tuesday, Vincent Long, bishop of Parramatta, gave his reflections on the cardinal's address and on Pope Francis.

Long drew parallels between Cardinal Dew's lecture and Pope Francis' pastoral approach, telling the audience we need to be the "church of humility, the church of inclusivity and being a humble, healing church."

After he had delivered the Helder Camara lecture, Louisa Selvadurai and Frank Brennan provided responses.

Source

• catholicoutlook.org
• Image: catholicoutlook.org

He appeared to be doing a great job leading, but he wanted to do better.

I always admire someone who wants to improve.

His question went like this. Knowing what you know now about leadership, what would you say are the biggest traps to avoid?

What are the worst leadership traits that you've seen limit a leader's potential to lead well?

That's a hard question because depending on the circumstances, I think there could be many different answers.

You can have some bad traits and perhaps still see some success as a leader, but they are still bad leadership traits - the worst.

And they keep one from leading well.

Eventually, they may derail a leader if not addressed.

There are many I've observed. I've seen laziness, for example, cripple a leader. But, with the right team around him or her, even a lazy leader can experience success.

I thought of incompetence, but I have seen some dumb leaders (like me at times) smart enough to surround themselves with wise people. But what about the worst?

So, I've narrowed my list to the following 5 of the worst traits I've observed personally. Feel free to disagree or add to my list. I certainly don't have all the answers.

5 of the worst leadership traits

Avoidance - The leader who ignores problems invites trouble to the church or organization.

Problems never go away on their own. They fester and eventually explode.

It may take a long time for them to be exposed, but they will eventually catch up with the leader.

Yet I have seen some leaders survive a long time while avoiding the real problems.

Control - Inflexibility on the part of a leader limits the church or organization to the level of performance solely by the leader.

That's always bad.

Even if the person is a genius, there's a lid placed upon the organization or church's future.

People feel squashed of their potential and under appreciated, producing half-heartedness and poor morale.

Who needs that?

But there are still growing organizations with controlling leaders.

Pride - Perhaps the worst trait I've personally observed is the arrogance of a leader.

It turns people away in disgust when they hear a leader brag on all his or her accomplishments.

The braggart feels good but is never as popular as he or she perceives.

I've found if a leader is really good at what they do, they won't have to tell others about it. Continue reading

• Ron Edmondson is CEO of Leadership Network. Previously, he was a pastor, revitalizing two churches and planting two churches. He has also been a church leadership consultant.
• Image: CrossMap

Church leadership is responsible for this, says German Cardinal Reinhard Marx.

Speaking at a news conference, Marx said the Church needs "more open and clear dialogue, accountability and a willingness to see abuse survivors and critics who push for remedy and reform not as enemies, but as "as cooperators with the Holy Spirit,". Read more