Is Marriage Compatible with a Covenant Community? The Third Person in the Marriage

Is Marriage Compatible with a Covenant Community (endnoted, clickable).pdf

Download PDF • 583KB

Part I Introduction

In 1991 a team of canonical visitors, appointed by the Bishop of Steubenville to investigate a charismatic "covenant community" in his diocese, recorded the following in their official report to the bishop. A married woman told them that if she arranged her kitchen cabinet and the arrangement did not meet her husband's approval, she had to rearrange it according to his wish — and that "if she objected, this would be reason for correction from the pastoral leader."¹

Sit with that sentence for a moment, because every element of this Question from the Unsettled Mind is already inside it. A married woman. A husband exercising "headship" over the arrangement of a cabinet. And behind the husband, a third party — a lay "pastoral leader," neither priest nor bishop nor civil authority — with recognized standing to "correct" a wife inside her own kitchen, inside her own marriage. Who is this third person in the marriage? Where did his authority come from? Who gave the community the right to place him there? And what happens to a marriage — to its intimacy, its privacy, its joint governance of children and property, its very consent — when a couple binds itself by covenant to a body that claims that kind of reach?

In a previous Question, "Are there Cults Inside the Church?", I documented how a men's movement grown out of a Sword of the Spirit covenant community in Columbus, Ohio installed itself inside a Catholic parish.² That Question was about a movement and a man. This one is about an institution — the covenant community itself — and about the specific challenge that institution poses to every married or marriageable person it recruits. The question matters here and now, because the recruiting pitch is aimed precisely at marriage: the parish webpage for that men's ministry advertised it as forming "better men for future wives and families rooted in Christ."³ Better men for future wives and families. Very well — let us test the model against the thing it promises to serve.

Is marriage compatible with a covenant community? My answer to the question, stated plainly at the outset: No. Marriage is politically, morally, familially, metaphysically, and sacramentally incompatible with the covenant commitments of covenant community membership. And I will not ask you to take the incompatibility on philosophical faith. I will show it to you twice over: first from the movement's own covenants, manuals, and formation documents — most of them written by its own leaders and published or preserved in its own libraries — and then from the findings of the Catholic bishops and independent investigators who have examined these communities over fifty years, whenever the wreckage grew too large to ignore. The philosophical-theological arguments and the documentary record turn out to tell the same story. That convergence is the argument of this Question.

A note on fairness before we begin. The covenant communities are not cartoon villains, and this Question will not treat them as one. Their documents contain real qualifications, their recent apologies are unusually direct, and their members often include sincere, generous Christians. I will quote their qualifications and their apologies at full strength, in their own words, and I will flag every place where the evidence cuts in their favor. The case does not need exaggeration. It is stronger without it.

Part II What the Covenant Actually Says

Let us begin where honesty requires: with what the covenant actually says, because it is easy to overstate, and every overstatement is a door through which the communities escape.

The Sword of the Spirit — the international "community of communities" to which the Columbus covenant community belongs — publishes its Core Covenant in its own online library.⁴ It is two pages. Its operative promises are three sentences: "We know that we must meet together when the community meets. We must respect and support the pattern and order of our life together. We must support the life of the community with our material and financial resources." The commitment formula is deliberately soft: "I, [name], want to give my life fully to God, and live as a member of [name of community]." Not promise, not vow, not swear — want to. That is not an accident; the movement's own official history says the commitment "was deliberately phrased so that it could not be taken for a formal vow in Catholic usage."⁵ The covenant contains an exit clause: it "does not necessarily mean for everyone a lifelong commitment," though a departure "would be undertaken only with serious prayer and counsel." It even contains a churches clause: "we remain in our commitment to our churches, and… we will all support each other's commitments to those bodies."

So there is no oath of obedience in the Core Covenant itself, which raises the question this Question exists to answer: how do these three soft sentences and a "want to" become the kitchen cabinet? The answer has three parts: the covenant binds you to more than it shows you; the obligations it names are defined elsewhere; and the definition, once you do find it, reaches into everything.

First, the covenant binds you to more than it shows you. The Core Covenant provides: "We recognize that by virtue of our membership in [name of community] we are also members of the Sword of the Spirit, an international community of communities."⁶ There is no separate act of joining the international body, and none is offered; a person who commits to the local community in Columbus has, in the same breath, committed to a worldwide federation, its government, and — as we shall see — its teachings. And the covenant's own preamble tells you that the local text you signed is only a specimen of a common instrument: "Local covenants vary in their expression, but in essential matters they express the same understanding."⁷ The movement's Leaders Manual tells its leaders where the common instrument lives: "there is a core covenant for all communities in the SOS [the Sword of the Spirit]. This can be found in the Statement of Community Order."⁸ Mark what that means. The covenant a member signs is not the community's constitution; it is an excerpt of one — a component of a governing instrument the prospective member is never handed, whose other provisions, as we shall see, include the guidelines under which a husband may be corrected in his conduct toward his wife.

Second, the obligations are defined elsewhere. What is "the pattern and order of our life together" that a member must "respect and support"? The covenant does not say. But the movement does — in its formation courses and its leaders' manual. The binding standard is a document called "The Elements of Good Membership," adopted by referendum across the communities in 1995–96, and among its required elements is this one: the good member "seeks the input of the leadership of the community in significant decisions and problems."⁹ A companion instrument from the same referendum, "Basics and Norms of Membership" — a "simplified list… from the Sword of the Spirit's Statement of Community Order," approved, it says, "in 1995–1996 by a 2/3 plus majority of all the publicly committed members in the Sword of the Spirit at the time" — states the required basics in the same terms: the member "seeks community input for significant decisions" and "respects and follows community's pattern of government." Note what that document says about its reach: "When new members make their public commitment, including those in communities joining the Sword of the Spirit since 1996, they also assent to these basics and norms of membership."¹⁰ Whatever a local covenant says, this is the standard a member is measured against — and, as we shall see in Part III, it reaches into the marriage itself. The movement's own formation talks for new members spell out what a member takes to the community's governing "coordinator": "'Community' counsel (or, at times, directive input) in major life directions and transitions: state of life decisions, courtship and marriage decisions, career changes, residence changes, changes in the relationship to the community."¹¹ Read that list again. Directive input. On whom you court. On whom you marry. On where you live and what work you do. That is what "pattern and order" means, in the movement's own catechesis, to the people who have promised to respect and support it.

The Sword of the Spirit's Leaders Manual — the 232-page pastoral governance document its leaders work from — closes the loop from the other side. Of the Elements of Good Membership it says: "In a certain way, it authorizes our pastoral care… When we make our underway or public commitment, we ask for such help."¹² And of the formation process: "we also have to make progress in helping them acquire a readiness to submit major life questions to pastoral oversight."¹³ The covenant's three soft sentences, in other words, are a doorway; the house behind the door is a system in which submitting your major life questions to lay oversight is the definition of membership in good standing.

Third, there is a theology that locks the door from the inside. Its author is Stephen B. Clark — the founding theorist of the entire covenant community system, whose books the Sword of the Spirit republishes to this day in its free public library. In Knowing God's Will, Clark teaches that "God has placed certain positions of authority. He has placed all of us 'under' others whose word should direct our lives," citing Hebrews 13:17 — "Obey your leaders and submit to them." And then comes the sentence that converts an organizational preference into a spiritual trap: "Many Christians do not know the Lord's will for much of their lives, because he will only reveal it to them when they are in subordination in the right way and when they can receive direction from those who are over them."¹⁴ Consider what that teaching does to the member who begins to doubt. Guidance from God is available only through subordination; therefore the member who questions his leader has, by the act of questioning, disqualified himself from the very guidance that would let him judge the question. Clark illustrates this from his own experience: he told a struggling community member what course of action to take, and explains that "because I was over him and others… it was much easier for me to see what the Lord wanted of him than it was for him to see it."¹⁵

In fairness, the same book says that "in our community authority rarely involves giving commands," that "there is room for disagreeing with those who are over us," and that "authority can be abused like any form of guidance."¹⁶ The movement's own formation talks likewise insist: "We are not the kind of community in which members have full-life obedience and who are directed in an ongoing way by spiritual leaders."¹⁷ And its Leaders Manual states that the covenant commitment "is not normally the kind… found in religious communities and institutes, a commitment which puts the whole of each person's life under obedience… In this sense, the commitment together is a limited commitment." But then, the very same page describes the community relationship as "personal and family-like, with a concern that extends to the whole of their lives."¹⁸ There is the structure in a single page: a limited commitment with unlimited concern — formal authority narrowly defined, informal reach defined nowhere, and a member formed from his first year to submit his major life questions to it.

One more feature of the system deserves the reader's attention before we bring marriage into it, because everything that follows depends on it: the community sees you. Its basic pastoral unit is the small group — men's groups and women's groups of roughly four to nine, separated by sex.¹⁹ Its named discipline of disclosure is called "living in the light": "keeping the others up to date about our current situation, including our failures and weaknesses… If we are not open, they cannot stand with us in meeting our challenges." And should a member have "a good reason for not being open in the group," the formation notes provide the remedy: "we should discuss the matter with our pastoral leader or the coordinator or senior woman leader who has some responsibility for us."²⁰ Even the exception to disclosure is disclosed — one level up. The Leaders Manual explains why the sharing matters, with a candor that saves me the trouble of an argument: "We do that by having them share in men's and women's groups… The second reason is that we do not have to rely on what they say. We have brought them into a Christian environment, and we share life with them. As a result, we can often see for ourselves."²¹ Leaders complete periodic written "pastoral assessments" on individual members — is he "living the Elements of Good Membership reasonably well?"; is a transition coming up: "entering courtship? getting married? … children ready for courtship?"²² — and information flows up the "pastoral chain": "each level of pastoral leaders can be pastorally responsible for all those under them. They can get information about… the members they are responsible for by talking to those working under them."²³

A voluntary community with a soft commitment formula, a qualified exit clause, and a disclosure system that reaches "the whole of their lives," feeding a chain of lay governors authorized to give "directive input" on courtship, marriage, career, and residence. Now let us marry someone inside it.

Part III How the System Enters a Marriage

The covenant communities do not conceal their doctrine of marriage; they teach it — and they teach it in order. The Sword of the Spirit's official history, published in its own magazine, describes the content of its formation program matter-of-factly: "the teaching was a development of ideas presented in the earlier Foundations courses, such as the idea that the husband is head of the family, and that a clear choice of state in life should precede moves toward courtship."²⁴ Read that second clause again: a sequence. State-of-life decision, then courtship, then marriage — each stage under formation, each stage overseen. The honest way to examine the system, then, is not to list its features but to walk through it in time, the way a member walks through it: before there is a couple; during the courtship; and inside the marriage that results.

The oversight begins years before there is a couple. The movement's own university outreach, University Christian Outreach,²⁵ teaches its Christian Marriage course not to the married but to undergraduates: the husband "serves as head of the family (governor, protector, provider)"; the wife "is a helper to her husband," for whom "making a home is essential to her role," and who "is submissive to her husband."²⁶ The single women's companion handout lays the timetable out in a grid. The "pre-courtship" stage runs from "High School graduation until ready to seriously begin to court (Most, if not all of their college years)" — three to five years, by the handout's own arithmetic — during which the instruction is to "avoid exclusive relating and all forms of physical affection beyond a normal greeting." And the stage's stated purpose arrives in a numbered list whose order deserves attention: "To discern if the Lord is calling them to: 1) SOS Christian Community 2) Be open to marriage."²⁷ Community first; marriage second. The parents' curriculum completes the design from the other end. Parents of teenagers are taught that, ideally, a young person will "receive community formation (often given in the University Outreach), make a state of life orientation, and have a commitment to the community before beginning courtship" — and are urged to help build "a 'no dating' environment" so that the sequence holds.²⁸ The movement has a name for the whole design. Its anniversary history prints it as a diagram, "The Kairos Youth Bridge," with six piers: The Christian Child, Early Adolescent, Mid-teen, University Aged, Young Adult, The Adult Disciple — "a comprehensive approach that guides young people through the various stages of development." The regional youth program from which it grew was founded, the same page says, to encourage "young people who grew up in community to come into a personal relationship with Christ and to embrace the vision of Christian community for themselves." Mark the far bank of that bridge. It is not the parish; it is the community. And the movement's youth arm tells parents plainly which span is the dangerous one: "Most community youth who do not connect with one of our Sword of the Spirit outreaches, or college outreaches friendly to our movement, during their college years do not participate in our communities as adults" — wherefore the parent who is paying for college has "a large seat at the decision-making table. Use it to encourage your child to choose a college with a Sword of the Spirit outreach."²⁹ What the Catechism tells parents about that kind of pressure we shall come to in Part IV. Nor is the pool of possible spouses left to chance. An internal 1987 Sword of the Spirit courtship document instructs that "normally, commitment to The Sword of the Spirit should be a criterion for a marriage partner," and a member with a public commitment who wishes to look outside the community "should fully discuss the consequences of the decisions with their pastoral leader" first.³⁰ A second handout for the same women, Your Decision Regarding a Marriage Partner, states the criteria outright — and states the order once more. The first question is not about any man: "Will I stay in community even if it means remaining single?" And when the man is reached, among the "important criteria" is that he be "someone you can respect as head of the family and who will be reliable in handling his responsibilities as head."³¹ Before any particular man has noticed any particular woman, in other words, the community has already supplied the doctrine of the marriage, the timetable of the approach, the composition of the pool, the criteria for the man, and the officer to whom exceptions must be explained.

Then comes the courtship — the formation of the marriage — where the oversight is most formalized. The same 1987 document sets out the design: "A communal courtship pattern can function well only if it is common and concrete. It cannot be left to each individual, family, cluster, district or branch to work out its own courtship process." Pastoral leaders "should take an active role in overseeing the courtship process"; their counsel "should also be received very seriously because of the respect due his position"; couples advance "with the agreement of their pastoral leader"; consultation is mandated at all three thresholds — "before deciding to begin the courtship period (before 'dating'), before entering into a relationship, and before engagement"; the pastoral leader "should also keep his or her district head and coordinator informed of how courtship relationships are developing," and "sometimes it will also be helpful for the pastoral leaders responsible for the brother and the sister to communicate with one another about the relationship"; and the couple is taught, before the wedding, that in the marriage to come "the husband will make the decision on how to handle the matter if no agreement can be reached."³² The Leaders Manual carries the approach forward in the formation of young adults: those already in a romantic relationship when they enter formation should generally be induced to end it — "our normal strategy should be to have them leave the relationship behind"; single people unwilling to follow the community's courtship approach "should not continue in the formation process"; and members "should accept our direction about the process of courtship" and "take our input seriously about the actual decisions about who to court and who to marry, although they are not obligated to follow it."³³ Mark that final hedge — "not obligated to follow it" — and remember it when we reach the historical record, because the distance between that disclaimer on paper and the practice the bishops actually found is one of this Question's recurring measurements.

The courtship oversight is paired throughout. Each party has a pastoral leader, and the 1987 design names the two together: a couple "should move into a formally recognized relationship with the agreement of their pastoral leader," after which "the pastoral leaders of the two people should be especially involved in giving them oversight and care," the brother's leader "helping the brother to lead the relationship"; and at engagement "the pastoral leaders of the brother and sister should take special concern to see that the brother and sister make a responsible decision."³⁴ The document adds its own limits — "the final decision on whom to marry rests with the brother and sister, not with the pastoral leaders," and the leaders "should let the brother and sister themselves develop and work out their relationship, rather than seeking to do it for them behind the scenes" — two more hedges to set beside the first. But hedges on paper are one thing; members met the system from the other side. A woman in the Ann Arbor community described, in a 1992 newspaper account, learning only afterward how her 1976 courtship had begun: "Marty had gone to his pastoral leader to ask about me," she told the reporter. "And then his pastoral leader had talked to my pastoral leader. My pastoral leader had given permission for me to enter into a dating relationship. But all this time, I had no idea any of it was going on."³⁵ Two officers had conferred and a permission had been granted before the woman it concerned knew there was a question — behind the scenes, in the document's own phrase, a decade before the document was written. That is the intrusion at its earliest point — not into a marriage, nor into a courtship, but into the moments before either. Nor is the pattern confined to Ann Arbor, or to the last century.³⁶

After the wedding, the oversight system is already operating within the home. The basic marriage course states the model: "Scripture presents a model for order in marriage and family—placing the husband as the head of his wife and family," adding that the husband's authority "is not absolute" and — note this well — that "decisions can be appealed within the community."³⁷ An appeal, of course, requires a court. A marriage whose internal decisions are appealable has acquired a tribunal above it, and the tribunal is the community.

This is not the teaching of one course in one community. It is a term of membership across the whole federation. The "Basics and Norms of Membership" ratified by that 1995–96 referendum sets out, under "Relationships as Married or Singles," what a member in good standing is expected to be doing at home — marking with an asterisk the items it calls "of greatest importance." The husband "takes responsibility for his wife and children"*; the "wife supports her husband as head of the family"*; the "couple has a regular husband/wife meeting"; the parents "maintain obedience, respect, and good order in the home"* and "seek input and guidance for family life"; and the single member "approaches dating and courtship according to community instruction"*.³⁸ Read that list against the pages that follow. The weekly meeting this Question will document from course material of 2019 and later is not a local enthusiasm — it has been a norm of membership since 1996. The courtship supervision set out in a document of 1987 did not lapse when the document aged — the norm survived it, in these words. And the headship doctrine is not merely taught in a classroom by one community's instructors: it is a condition of membership in good standing, adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members themselves, and assented to by everyone who has joined the movement in the thirty years since.

The community's own history explains how the structure worked in the households. "In residential households, the head of the family was considered the 'head' of those in the household in the way that, as husband and father, he would be head over his wife and children… In other respects, the head of the household… acted as the representative of the coordinators."³⁹ The husband, in other words, was simultaneously the domestic authority over his wife and the bottom rung of the community's governance — the coordinators' representative inside his own home. "In many cases, including most households led by married couples, the members of the household received pastoral care from the husband in the family."⁴⁰ An internal Sword of the Spirit policy notebook from 1988, preserved in the archive of a former member, states the resulting chain with a bluntness the public documents avoid: the husband as head "is over everything in her life," and "the husband is under various authorities in his responsibility for his wife. In the community this means he is under his coordinator and the coordinator can correct/direct him in areas covered by community approaches as needed according to the guidelines of The Statement of Community Order."⁴¹ There is the third person in the marriage, drawn in the movement's own hand: wife under husband, husband under coordinator — and the wife thereby under a man she did not marry. Note where the policy anchors the corrector's power: not in the local community's judgment but in "the guidelines of The Statement of Community Order" — the same federation-level instrument from which the membership norms of Part II are drawn.

Nor is this ordering a later accretion on the movement's life. It is founding law. In the spring of 1974 — eight years before the Sword of the Spirit existed as a federation — the coordinators of The Word of God in Ann Arbor, the mother community, entered this decision in their minutes: "Women will not be allowed to make the public commitment if their husbands have not made it or are not making it at the same time, unless the woman is divorced, separated from her husband or has been abandoned by him." Men were under no mirror-image rule: a man "can make the public commitment without their wives also making it," though he should wait if his wife seemed close. And the coordinators recorded their reason: "We have to safeguard the order within the marriage relationship in allowing people to make a public commitment."⁴² Attend to what that sentence assumes. Before a woman could perform the community's founding act — the covenant commitment itself — her standing was routed through her husband's; his was not routed through hers. The Church knows no such rule. She asks no husband's leave to baptize a wife or to confirm her; and the very letter the movement cites for a wife's submission is written to women who had entered the Church without their husbands — wives of men who "do not obey the word." The marriage was hierarchically "ordered" at the threshold, in the movement's first generation, by minute of its governing body. The ordering this Question has traced in the 2019 courses was already present, in procedural form, in 1974.

For the married woman, the system adds a parallel women's chain — "handmaids," later renamed "senior women leaders," "with a special responsibility for the care of women, under the direction of the coordinators"⁴³ — and it routes her voice through her husband. The formation notes are explicit: because "some of the matters in the list affect the family as a whole… some matters are normally handled by the husband going to the coordinator or a senior leader, not by the wife going, herself, independently of her husband."⁴⁴ And should there be trouble in the marriage itself, the same notes tell her where to take it: married women "should talk to [their pastoral workers] to get input about how to handle your relationship with your husband, especially if you do not want to handle something with your husband that normally you should."⁴⁵ Read those two provisions together and observe what has happened to marital privacy. The wife's route to the community runs through her husband; her route around her husband runs through the community's officers. There is no direction she can face in which the system is not standing there.

Lest anyone suppose this is ancient history, that the covenant community movement has recanted its past, the community's own course materials — datable to 2019 and later — show the machinery at its most domestic. Every married couple is "STRONGLY encourage[d]" to hold a weekly "Husband/Wife Meeting": "at least an hour of protected time," explicitly "not the same as a date night." The course supplies the agenda — standing headings for House Rules, Discipline, Finances, Religious Education, School, Chores, television and media, and this one, verbatim: "Masculine and Feminine: Are our boys appropriating a proper masculine personality…? Are our girls appropriating a proper feminine personality…?"⁴⁶ The community "asks its members to set priorities: essential, important, and optional," and "asks members to make a schedule" — forms attached in both cases.⁴⁷ Where the family lives is community business too: members "make a commitment to a simple lifestyle," which the course observes "impacts where we live and with whom we live"; and one community's clustering paper counsels members facing a move to "talk to your district coordinator… early on in the process — even when you are simply toying with the idea." (In fairness: that paper is one community's, not federation policy, and it says plainly that the final decision "rests with the member/family." The pattern is consultation, not command — but the consultation is with an officer, and it begins at the daydream.)⁴⁸ Even the interior life reports upward: "Be open with your pastoral leader about problems handling emotions."⁴⁹ The schedule, the budget, the residence, the children's formation as men and women, the state of one's own feelings — each with a form, a meeting, or an officer.

So, how did the covenant community marital model look in operation? In 1975 the National Catholic Reporter sent a journalist inside the movement's flagship — The Word of God in Ann Arbor, the mother community of the Sword of the Spirit, with the leaders' cooperation. He reported a structure of about 1,400 members organized under 75 household "heads": "Each head takes a daily interest in those under him, serving as a sort of combination confessor and religious superior. He corrects them when they show sinful tendencies and advises them concerning such decisions as careers and marriage." Courtship ran through both parties' heads. A member of co-founder Ralph Martin's own household said on the record: "People have been told to quit their jobs, or not to marry someone… You leave if they tell you to." And most remarkably: "In some cases, heads even have told members to stop going to confession to a priest whose advice differed from theirs, said Russo. Martin confirmed that a recent memo from the coordinators to the heads sought to stop that problem."⁵⁰ The reporter also recorded a household scene that has stayed with me since I first read it: Ralph Martin's wife asked his permission to share something with the others in the household — and what she shared, with his permission, was her "dread" at the possibility of an overseas move, adding, "I knew that wasn't the way I was supposed to feel."⁵¹ A wife requesting leave to speak at her own breakfast table, in order to confess an unauthorized emotion. That is what "headship" looks like from inside a kitchen.

Nor was the doctrine a private eccentricity of Ann Arbor. The same year, from South Bend — the other pole of the covenant community world, and no part of Ann Arbor's federation — the national distributor was still selling a tape by a founding community leader teaching that heads of intense Christian communities, "like the pope, bishops and husbands… stand in the place of God"⁵² — and a People of Praise founding coordinator taught on cassette that "God's plan for function within his people places the roles of authority, of direction, of headship, of governance upon men. Women are called to be in a great variety of ministries which support that leadership… which are submissive to that leadership."⁵³

That is the marriage machine, assembled almost entirely from the Sword of the Spirit's own documents and walked through in the order a member meets it. Years before the couple exists: a campus formation that teaches headship and submission to the unmarried, a three-to-five-year non-dating holding pattern, and a discernment in which community comes listed before marriage. At the formation of the marriage: a courtship overseen, staged, and approved by lay leaders from first interest to wedding, inside a pool the community has defined. And after the wedding: a disclosure discipline that reaches the whole of life; a husband who is head of his wife and simultaneously the coordinators' representative and subordinate; a wife routed through her husband and around him only via the community's officers; and a domestic order — schedule, budget, residence, the children's formation, the emotions themselves — that answers, item by item, to a form, a meeting, or an officer. Now let us ask the philosophical question: can a marriage — the real, natural, sacramental thing — live inside that machine?

Part IV Five Incompatibilities

Before I articulate the incompatibilities, let's look at the standard. What, exactly, is the thing this system proposes to govern?

The Church's law answers in a single sentence: marriage is "a partnership of the whole of life… ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring."⁵⁴ A partnership — the Latin is consortium, a sharing of one lot — and the same Code that defines the partnership also distributes it: "Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life."⁵⁵ Nor is that equality a modern gloss laid over the tradition from outside. Pius XI — in the most hierarchical marriage encyclical of the modern age, a document we will meet again — taught that the love of husband and wife "holds pride of place" among the blessings of marriage, and that "this mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense… be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony."⁵⁶ And when Aquinas asked where the greatest of natural friendships is found, he answered: between husband and wife — maxima amicitia, the greatest friendship — joined not only bodily but in the shared conduct of the whole of domestic life.⁵⁷

Take the tradition at its word, then: marriage is a friendship — the total, lifelong form of friendship — and friendship has a property that governs everything which follows. It cannot be compelled. A friend wills the good of the other for the other's own sake, and an act of that kind must originate freely in the one who gives it. Extract it by pressure and the outward behavior may survive, but the act has changed species: a gift extracted is a payment. Some things in a marriage answer to a rule — the tradition has always had a discipline for adultery, in the confessional or in the courts — but the friendship cannot be governed so, because enforcement does not bend the marital act toward its end; it replaces it with a different act. And the tradition has always ordered the household accordingly, giving each of its relations a rule of its own kind — one for servants, one for children, and between husband and wife a third, which leaves the wife a sphere that is hers⁵⁸; Scripture keeps the vocabulary apart in just this way, asking obedience of children and of servants, and of wives never. Hold that standard — equal duty and right, mutual perfecting, a friendship no one can command, a rule unlike the rule over children — against the machine of Part III, and five incompatibilities come into focus.

Marriage is politically incompatible with covenant community membership. Married people hold legal responsibilities to one another, to their children, and to their property, for which they alone will answer — before the civil law and before God. As such they cannot make standing a priori commitments to follow the "directive input" of another adult in "major life directions" — precisely the domain the community's own documents claim, and precisely what its 1988 family-life policy requires in terms: "The married couple should accept and live the order for family life based on the interpretation of scripture followed in The Sword of the Spirit."⁵⁹ Not an order derived with the couple; an order accepted from the organization, as a condition of standing. (Military service is no counterexample: military obligation is created by public law, bounded by public law, and accompanied by legal provision for spouses and children. The covenant community's authority is created by a private commitment, defined by the community itself, and provisioned by nothing.) Even the Church, which does accept vowed obedience in religious life, hedges that vow with a wall the covenant communities do not have: a superior in religious life is forbidden by canon law to induce his subjects to disclose their consciences to him.⁶⁰ The covenant community inverts the safeguard — its members vow less than a religious, and disclose more.

Marriage is morally incompatible with covenant community membership, because husband and wife owe one another an intimacy and a privacy that no third party may compel them to breach. Marital privacy is not a modern indulgence; it is prior to the community, prior to the State, prior even to the Church, grounded in the "one flesh" union of Genesis — "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife." The Church herself touches the interior of a marriage only through the sacrament of Confession, whose seal is absolute and whose use is free. Outside genuine emergency — the neighbor who sees a man throw his wife through a window rightly intervenes, and so may Church and State — no one holds the right to require disclosure of a couple's communications and decisions. Now set that principle beside the system of Part III: sex-separated small groups with a named duty of disclosure "including our failures and weaknesses"; the exception to openness itself disclosed to a pastoral leader; leaders instructed that they "do not have to rely on what they say" because the community "can often see for ourselves"; a wife told to bring "how to handle your relationship with your husband" to a pastoral worker. The system does not merely fail to protect marital privacy. It is engineered to dissolve it — and to collect, transmit, and act upon what dissolves. And where the Church's own forum of privacy got in the way, the record shows the system displacing it in both directions: heads telling members to stop confessing to priests whose advice differed from theirs (1975, confirmed by a co-founder), and — as we shall see in the Steubenville findings — priests in community settings telling penitents to take matters out of the confessional to lay "pastoral leaders."⁶¹

Marriage is familially incompatible with covenant community membership, because parental authority cannot be transferred by consent. Children do not consent to being conceived, born, or raised; the duties of their education and nurture are imposed on their parents by nature and by God, and the parents are directly responsible to Him for their discharge. No other party carries the parental responsibility, so no other party can hold the parental right; parents may forfeit their authority by grave abuse, but they cannot delegate it by covenant. Parents entrust tasks constantly — to a school, a godparent, a grandmother — but in every such case the helper answers to the parents, who remain the judges of the help. The covenant reverses the direction: the parents answer to the helper. A community whose leaders give direction on the raising of children, family schedules, schooling, and household economy — and the historical record below will show exactly that, found as fact by an episcopal visitation — has assumed an authority that the parents had no power to give it. Worse: since a husband and wife must leave father and mother to form the new unity of a marriage, a couple that submits its family's governance to community leaders has not acquired new parents so much as it has returned to the status of children — fellow-children now with their own children, under a "father" of their own appointing. And that last phrase is the reversal that gives the arrangement away. Paternal authority is received, never appointed; it reaches a child before the child could have been asked, and no one has ever chosen the man who would hold it over him. Here two adults confer it by an act of will on a man who is not their father — and its reach then falls on children who were not asked at all. What they have made is not a father but an office, handed a father's scope over the one relation whose authority cannot be voted into being.

And the system's own parenting curriculum states that the structure is to be reproduced in those children. The father's active assumption of headship, one talk teaches, is "an important factor in raising strong, manly, and self-disciplined boys" and — "along with the wife's response to her husband's leadership" — in raising "strong, womanly, and appropriately submitted girls." The same talk instructs that the father "should not always bow to the mother's approach, especially her approach to raising sons. When appropriate, he should especially restrain or correct her in how she treats the sons."⁶² A wife corrected in her mothering; daughters raised toward submission as a stated formation objective; sons handed progressively from mother to father from the age of three by written policy.⁶³ The teen years continue the pattern: a handout for parents lists, among "Decisions that Impact Transgenerational Success," the "amount of access to automobile and money (creating an autonomous life)," the establishing of "a 'private life,'" and the "choice of a marriage partner."⁶⁴ Autonomy and privacy, listed as risks to be managed. The family is not merely governed by the system; it is the system's nursery. (The same curriculum, it should be recorded, teaches parents of preschool children a scripted regimen of corporal discipline, recommended implement included — lawful, mainstream in the American evangelical sources it draws on, and noted here for one reason only: to show how far the standardization of family life extends.)⁶⁵

Marriage is metaphysically incompatible with covenant community membership, because the capacity that makes marriage possible — full adult moral agency — is precisely what the system trains away. The campus course supplies the emblem. The wife, it teaches, "helps her husband care for the family, but she should not usurp his responsibilities — even if he is happy for her to do so."⁶⁶ Attend to that final clause. It is not merely that the wife must defer; it is that the couple together cannot rearrange the structure. Their joint, free, unanimous agreement is void where it touches the assigned roles. A rule that the spouses' own consent cannot alter is not a rule of their marriage. It is a rule over it — and it announces that the true legislator of this household sits somewhere outside the two people who constitute it. Children cannot marry. Why? Because they lack the capacity to make and take responsibility for adult decisions; consent is the metaphysical threshold of the institution. The covenant community's formation process, in its own manual's words, works to instill "a readiness to submit major life questions to pastoral oversight" — that is, to relocate adult decision-making outside the person. Clark's theology completes the relocation: God's will is knowable "only… when they are in subordination in the right way." A husband and wife formed in that school do not merely obey like children; they progressively become children in the one dimension marriage cannot survive losing — the capacity for responsible self-governance. The Steubenville visitors, as we shall see, put it more starkly than I would have dared: "It was as if the individual had surrendered his/her conscience to the community."⁶⁷

Marriage is sacramentally incompatible with covenant community membership, because matrimonial consent must be free, and the Church guards that freedom with a jealousy the covenant system cannot accommodate. Canon law declares marriage invalid if entered "because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it."⁶⁸ The faithful "have the right to be free from any kind of coercion in choosing a state of life."⁶⁹ The Catechism goes further than most readers remember — it restrains even parents: "Parents should be careful not to exert pressure on their children either in the choice of a profession or in that of a spouse."⁷⁰ Hold that up against the machinery of Part III: a courtship "process" that "cannot be left to each individual [or] family," advanced "with the agreement of their pastoral leader," under counsel that must be "received very seriously because of the respect due his position," within a community whose formation ladder a resistant single person is told he may not continue to climb. The authority that the Church forbids to a mother and father, the system assigns to a coordinator. Moreover, the consent exchanged at the altar — a single, irrevocable act that no human power can supply for them — does not close a transaction; it establishes a bond the spouses go on enacting, a mutual gift of self renewed in every choice of how to give themselves to one another.⁷¹ That ongoing gift belongs to the two of them as wholly as the consent that began it, and may not be ordered from without. The system does not dispute the ordering; one of its communities wrote it down. The confidential policies manual of the Steubenville community — the community Part VI will examine — gives this as the reason its members are expected to marry inside it: "the marriage covenant subsists within the covenant to be a people of God."⁷² Set that beside the Catechism: "The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God's covenant with man."⁷³ The Church places the marriage covenant inside one covenant only, and it is God's universal covenant with man. The manual fabricates a third — a community's own "covenant to be a people of God" — and sets the marriage covenant inside it. Nor can the phrase be read as God's covenant with all the baptized: the manual offers it as the reason members should marry within the community, and it is a reason only if the covenant in question is the community's own. A "covenant" that inserts a standing third party into that self-gift has not supplemented the sacrament. It has adulterated it. The word is exact, and the tradition has never confined it to the flesh. Adultery is the sin of the third party — the intrusion into an exclusive bond of someone who was never party to it. Here the third party is not a lover but an officer, and the injury is not carnal but jurisdictional. The shape, however, is the same shape.

These five arguments stand on their own. But philosophy is patient and institutions are not, so let us now ask the empirical question: when this model met actual marriages, what happened? And who in the Church noticed?

Part V The Claim of "Pastoral Authority"

Before the record, one more piece of the theory needs examining, because everything in Parts II–IV runs on a single load-bearing term: the "pastoral leader." The covenant communities' entire claim over marriage rests on the assertion that their lay officers hold pastoral authority — the authority of a shepherd — over members' lives. Where did that authority come from? And keep in view that the claim is double: the system constitutes not one authority but two — the officer's over the couple, and the husband's over his wife. Both need a source, so we will examine both.

Nor is this arrangement a peculiarity of the Sword of the Spirit that a particular covenant community could shed by leaving the federation. It is what a covenant community is. Strip the pastoral system out and what remains — common prayer, shared devotion, mutual help — is a parish, or a prayer group inside one; what makes a covenant community a distinct kind of body is precisely that every member is assigned a head. The People of Praise, the other large American network, has never belonged to the Sword of the Spirit, and Adrian Reimers, who spent years in its leadership, describes the two side by side: "Both Sword of the Spirit and People of Praise consider the pastoral care of their members integral to their communities. In both community systems, this is administered through a pyramidal structure of pastoral caregivers. Each member is assigned such a pastoral caregiver, to whom he or she is submitted. Originally both communities called these 'heads,' but in recent years, Sword of the Spirit has adopted the term 'pastoral leaders'… Every community member has one. For a married woman, her husband is always her head."⁷⁴ The Sword of the Spirit's own magazine classes the People of Praise as one of the "three… larger networks of ecumenical covenant communities," beside itself.⁷⁵ Whatever the federation, whatever the letterhead, the authoritative head is the institution.

So the question stands, and it now stands for every community that assigns a head, not just for one federation: where did that authority come from?

Not from ordination. The movement began among laymen — gifted, energetic laymen, but laymen. The famous origin event, the 1967 "Duquesne Weekend," was not a transmission of pastoral office from anyone: the two professors who organized it had themselves received what the movement calls the "baptism in the Spirit"⁷⁶ weeks earlier at a lay interdenominational prayer meeting hosted by a Presbyterian laywoman, and the retreat's key outside speaker was the lay leader of that prayer group.⁷⁷ Stephen Clark, the movement's chief architect, was candid decades later that the weekend "was put together to get people baptized in the Spirit" — an engineered event, whose organizers had concealed their own prior experience from the students.⁷⁸ I make no accusation in reporting this; I simply observe that at no point in the chain — prayer meeting, retreat, campus movement, community — does any ordained minister of any church, let alone the actual apostolic succession, confer any pastoral authority on anyone. The "pastoral" authority of the covenant communities is, on their own history, self-assumed by laymen and transmitted laymen-to-laymen.

Nor from prophecy. The communities themselves trace the covenant instrument to prophetic utterance — "In the Summer of 1969 we began to get prophecies about covenant," co-founder Bruce Yocum recounts, and by September 1970 Ann Arbor had become "the first covenant community."⁷⁹ But a private prophecy — whether real or imagined — cannot establish public authority over Christians, and the movement's own chief prophet concedes the premises that unravel the claim: "Christian prophecy must be regarded as a fallible vehicle of revelation. We can be wrong," Yocum writes — and, decisively, "As a Roman Catholic, I believe that the authority for identifying what is true and essential Christian truth… rests with the teaching authority of the Catholic church."⁸⁰ Just so. And that teaching authority has spoken to this precise point, twice over.

First, on the title and the office. In 1997 the Holy See issued the instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio — approved by Pope John Paul II in forma specifica, engaging his own authority — on the collaboration of the lay faithful in the ministry of priests. Article 1 §3: "It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as 'pastor', 'chaplain', 'coordinator', 'moderator' or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest."⁸¹ Notice that the instruction does not merely reserve the word "pastor"; it names the covenant movement's entire working vocabulary — coordinator included. And the same instruction states the deeper principle: "no community has the power to grant that mission to itself"⁸² — the governance of souls is not a thing a group of Christians can confer on its own officers by covenant, however sincere the covenant. Even where laity lawfully share in pastoral care, the instruction insists, their share "is participatio in exercitio curae pastoralis and not directing, coordinating, moderating or governing" — competencies "of a priest alone."⁸³ Nor does it help to answer that the instruction concerns laymen assisting priests in parishes, and not a private association. The laymen it restrains at least hold a bishop's mandate; the covenant community's coordinators exercise what the movement itself calls "pastoral care" with no mandate at all. What is unlawful for the deputized is not lawful for the self-appointed.

What makes the title question more than legal pedantry is that the movement chose titles that, on its leaders' own account, avoided the implication. In 1975 the National Catholic Reporter recorded the leaders' own account of the title: "coordinator" is "a term charismatic leaders say means the same as 'elders,' but avoids the implication of a new ecclesial structure."⁸⁴ There is the whole matter in one sentence, as the movement's leaders gave it to a reporter: the office is an eldership — a governing pastoral office — and the word was selected to avoid the appearance while keeping the substance.⁸⁵ Twenty-two years later the Holy See ruled the vocabulary unlawful for the very effect the movement's leaders had described: because it "can confuse their role and that of the Pastor."

Second, on recognition. The Sword of the Spirit's own published history records that in May 2003 the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Laity informed the movement that it would be impossible to provide official recognition for its Catholic arm, the Christ the King Association, "because of its relationship with the Sword of the Spirit."⁸⁶ To this day the Sword of the Spirit appears nowhere in the Vatican's directory of recognized international associations of the faithful. The system that claims pastoral authority over Catholic marriages holds no mandate from the Church whose members it governs — a fact its recruits are nowhere told.

So much for the shepherd's office. But the system contains a second constituted authority, less examined and closer to the marriage: the husband's own. And here the movement did something that deserves more attention than it has received — it legislated. In May 1988 the Sword of the Spirit adopted a formal family-life policy, and the policy does not speak in the idiom of spiritual counsel; it speaks in the idiom of law. "Although the husband is the final authority in all decisions, most will be arrived at jointly, and many he will delegate to his wife." "The husband is the head of the family. His wife should be submitted to his authority." "In his role as governor of the family, the husband must fear God and not fear his wife."⁸⁷ The policy binds these standards to membership itself — "We have set the standards in this area for making public commitment at a level we think our people can and should attain" — and it specifies the delivery system: "We provide this scriptural teaching for our members through community courses," courses on "right family order, on the characters and roles of husband and wife… on the formation of children" — a fair inventory of the very course documents quoted in Part III, still in service three decades later.⁸⁸ As for where the doctrine comes from, the course literature says so plainly: Stephen Clark's 1980 Man and Woman in Christ, which a course article commends as "an excellent and very thorough explanation of the position of the Sword of the Spirit."⁸⁹ Policy, curriculum, and named architect. The household order of Part III is not folk custom. It is legislation.

Now look closely at two of the policy's verbs, because they give the game away. The husband "authoritatively governs and corrects, forms and encourages"; the wife "should be active in her subordination to her husband and should obey him."⁹⁰ Obey. It is worth pausing over how remarkable that word is in that position. The New Testament's household instructions are carefully worded: wives are asked for submission (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1); obedience is asked of children (Ephesians 6:1) and of servants (Ephesians 6:5). Paul never commands a wife to obey.⁹¹ And the reason becomes visible when you look at what he commands the superior in each relation. Fathers receive a disciplinary charge — bring your children up "in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). Masters are assumed to hold coercive power and told to restrain it — "forbear threatening" (Ephesians 6:9). But husbands receive four verbs, and every one of them is tender: love, nourish, cherish (Ephesians 5:25, 29); "do not be harsh" (Colossians 3:19); live considerately, "bestowing honor" (1 Peter 3:7). There is no text in the New Testament instructing a husband to correct, discipline, or punish his wife. Obedience, in the household codes, is the duty that exists inside a disciplinary relation; submission is the duty that exists where there is none — and the absence of any corrective power over the wife is not an oversight in the text. It is the marker that distinguishes her relation from the children's. A system that attaches correction to a wife's non-compliance has therefore not intensified her submission. It has moved her out of the wife's place in the household order and into the child's. The movement's own documents draw the consequence without blushing: the marriage course names the wife's characteristic failing as "usurping the role of head (active or passive rebellion)"⁹² — rebellion, a disciplinary category — and the kitchen-cabinet finding with which this Question began shows who administers the discipline: "if she objected, this would be reason for correction from the pastoral leader."¹ The wife of Ephesians answers to no disciplinarian. The wife of this system answers to two.

The obvious replies fail in instructive ways. Surely submission includes some yielding — granted, and nothing here turns on the semantic range of a Greek verb; the question is who holds enforcement, and Scripture assigns none over a wife.⁸⁹ But the Church herself disciplines her members — she does, for sin, through offices lawfully constituted and bounded; but the covenant community correction here is administered by a layman for non-compliance with a husband's household preference, and a kitchen cabinet is not a sin. But older marriage rites had wives promise to "obey" — some did; none of them installed a standing third-party officer to enforce the promise. But the system limits the husband — it does, repeatedly and, I am prepared to hope, sincerely: he "should never lord it over his wife and children"; he does not always get his way; abuse is flatly forbidden. But run down the list of limits and notice what every one of them constrains: the husband. None constrains the community. The corrective office above the couple is not limited by a single sentence in the corpus.

Defenders will answer, finally, that every partnership needs a rule of decision — someone must hold the casting vote, or a family deadlocks. Even if we grant the point, the concession exposes what is actually distinctive here. A casting vote can rest on two different kinds of ground. It can be functional: assigned by the couple themselves, for competence, confined to the matters that require it, revisable by the couple as their circumstances change — and a tie-breaker of that kind needs no enforcement, because deferring to the abler judgment is simply reasonable, and when it ceases to be reasonable, it ceases. Or it can be ontological: assigned by sex as such, prior to any question of ability, extended to "all decisions," and — the decisive mark — unrevisable by the couple themselves, for we have already met the rule that the wife may not take up her husband's responsibilities "even if he is happy for her to do so." An ontological tie-breaker requires enforcement, precisely because it cannot appeal to competence: when the husband is manifestly wrong, no reason for deference survives, and only authority can compel what reason no longer recommends. That is why the system needs the pastoral leader. The corrector is not an accessory to this doctrine of headship; he is entailed by it. His presence inside the marriage is diagnostic — it tells you which kind of headship you are looking at, namely, a headship that has to be enforced. The 1988 policy even displays the inversion in miniature: it assigns the husband the family's external relations — "responsible for successfully relating the family to the rest of the Christian community and to the society at large" — not as the ground of his authority, a competence that might in a given couple be the wife's, but as a consequence of a headship already settled by sex.⁹³ Ground and consequence, exactly reversed.

And if this critique sounds like modern egalitarianism arraigning the tradition, let the tradition answer for itself — at its most hierarchical. Pius XI's Casti Connubii (1930) teaches "the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children" and "the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience" — and then, in the same breath, sets three boundaries. The wife's subjection "does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman"; it does not "bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife"; and it does not "imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors."⁹⁴ There is the household-code distinction again, drawn this time by a pope: whatever the wife's subjection means, it must not reduce her to the child's category — the precise reduction we have just watched the 1988 policy perform. The encyclical then adds two sentences that, between them, dismantle what remains of the structure. "If the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family" — set that beside the course rule that she may not take his place even with his consent. And the subjection itself "in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time" — set that beside a codified, federation-wide, unrevisable order. I note for the record that Stephen Clark knows this encyclical. Man and Woman in Christ cites it, and quotes with approval its Leonine formula that the wife obeys "not indeed, as a servant, but as a companion."⁹⁵ The limits were on his desk. The system Clark created observes none of them.

But Pius XI's vocabulary is itself the older stage of a teaching the Church has since carried further — and it is by the later stage that the earlier is to be read. In 1988 John Paul II took up Ephesians 5 directly. The apostle's words to wives, "so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time," are, he wrote, "to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a 'mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ.'" The husband remains "head" — but "he is so in order to give 'himself up for her,' and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life." Then the sentence that settles the matter: "whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the 'subjection' is not one-sided but mutual." He called this "an innovation of the Gospel," one that "must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs" — the same slow work, he observed, by which Paul's "no more slave or freeman" took generations to end slavery — and he drew the conclusion without a hedge: "All the reasons in favour of the 'subjection' of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a 'mutual subjection' of both."⁹⁶ Nor was 1988 the first word. Six years earlier, in the Wednesday catecheses now known as the theology of the body, he had said it more sharply still: the apostle "does not intend to say that the husband is the 'master' of the wife and that the interpersonal covenant proper to marriage is a contract of domination"; the relationship "is nevertheless not one-sided submission"; husband and wife are "'subject to one another,' mutually subordinated to one another"; and "Love excludes every kind of submission by which the wife would become a servant or slave of the husband… Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and subject in this to the Lord himself, as the wife is to the husband."⁹⁷ Headship, in the Church's mature teaching, is a vocation to self-donation, not a seat of governance; the word "obedience" appears in neither text. That is the teaching the covenant community's courses would have to meet — and the movement's architect met it by rejecting it. Man and Woman in Christ considers the mutual-subordination reading of Ephesians 5:21 in a footnote, concedes that it "is in basic harmony with the main point of the text," and then declines it: "I do not, however, think that Ephesians 5:21 is urging mutual subordination." Thirty-six years later, in a Catholic theological journal, Clark, with a co-author, defended the refusal at length — tracing "mutual subordination" to "Origen's interpretation," the Pope having written "mutually subordinated to one another" in 1982, and insisting that the verb "expresses an ordered, and therefore asymmetrical, relationship" — in an article that engages the Fathers and the exegetes and does not cite the Pope who had, twenty-eight years earlier, made the mutual reading the Church's own. The book was re-released, unamended, in 2021.⁹⁸

Step back, then, and ask where in Catholic life any authority of this reach may lawfully exist. Obedience is owed in the Church — but always inside a vocation, always constituted by a public canonical act, always accountable, and always scoped. The religious who vows obedience does so in a canonically erected institute, under approved constitutions, with a right of recourse — and, having embraced the counsels, has left the domestic sphere behind entirely: there is no wife in the cloister for the superior to reach. Even the soldier's obedience, the strongest civil parallel, is created by public law and stops at the door of his marriage. And when the Church herself proposes to accept a married man's promise of obedience — the permanent deacon, who at ordination answers the question "Do you promise respect and obedience to me and to my successors?" — she refuses to accept it without his wife's written consent: canon law bars a married man from the diaconate absent "the consent of his wife," and the formation norms require that consent in writing, in the file, before anything proceeds.⁹⁹ Weigh that against the covenant community. If the Church will not bind a married man in obedience to his own bishop without his wife's written consent, by what conceivable authority does a private association — canonically unerected, its constitutions approved by no one, with no tribunal of recourse — bind both spouses to the "directive input" of its officers over residence, budget, schooling, and the interior order of the marriage itself? Nor can the couple's own consent supply the defect. Parents hold "the most grave duty and the primary right" over their children's formation; a right may be waived, but a grave duty cannot be transferred to a body that bears no accountability for its discharge — the principle the Church calls subsidiarity, which forbids a higher association to absorb the functions of a lower.¹⁰⁰ The covenant community system itself, remember, holds that mutual consent cannot move a responsibility between the spouses. Then neither can mutual consent move the household's governance outside the marriage altogether. Their own axiom, applied one step up, closes the door on their central claim.

All of which arrives at the deepest question in our discussion today: who could hold authority over a marriage? The Catholic answer is breathtaking in its simplicity, and fatal to the whole covenant community arrangement. In the Latin Church, "the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony"; and the law states the corollary without qualification: "The consent of the parties… makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent."¹⁰¹ The priest at the wedding is the Church's official witness — not the minister. No one stands above the two of them with respect to the thing they make, because no one can: a power entitled to govern the marriage would have to be a power that could have made it, and no such power exists on earth.¹⁰² This is also why "husband," in the Church's books, is not an office. Canon law knows precisely what an office is — "any function constituted in a stable manner by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance," whose "obligations and rights… are defined either in the law by which the office is constituted or in the decree of the competent authority"¹⁰³ — and it has never constituted "husband" as one: no appointment, no removal, no defined jurisdiction, no recourse. What the Church recognizes being constituted in marriage is a state, entered by both spouses in one and the same act, each conferring it upon the other. Now reread the 1988 policy with canon 145 open beside it. It establishes a function: head of the family. It defines the function's obligations and rights, article by numbered article. It assigns a jurisdiction: "all decisions." It grants a corrective power: "governs and corrects." And it places a superior above the office-holder: the coordinator, who "can correct/direct him." That is not a meditation on Ephesians. It is an instrument constituting an office — and it was issued by a policy notebook. The covenant community has done in the domestic sphere exactly what Ecclesiae de mysterio condemns in the ecclesial one: erected a governing office on no authority but its own, and installed a man in it. Twice over, then — once for the "pastoral leader," once for the "head of the family" — the community has constituted an office the Church has not — and could not without unsaying what she teaches marriage to be.

One test confirms the diagnosis, and I commend it to any reader still weighing the matter. Ask the system's question back to it: who decides who decides? If husband and wife cannot agree on how their decisions are to be made, the Church has no answer to hand them — deliberately. Equal duty and right; no arbiter; no forum. A partnership whose disagreements are settled by a third party is not the partnership the sacrament creates, so the couple must find their own way: persuade, defer, compromise, forbear. If they settle that in this matter or that one of them shall have the last word, it is they who have settled it — for competence, not for sex — and they who may unsettle it. The couple remains the decider of who decides. And the community's own marriage course, in its unguarded moments, knows it. "We may need to act without agreement," Talk 2 tells couples: "we may do things your way, we may do them my way, we may compromise, or I/you may need to forbear. A couple can be united in heart, mind, and purpose even though they disagree on some points."¹⁰⁴ Four options — and not one of them is the husband decides. Where the course describes real married life, it speaks the Church's language. Only where it recites the doctrine does the tie-breaker appear.

So the offices of Part III stand exposed, both of them. The "pastoral leader" — the man the covenant community authorized to give a married couple "directive input" on their major life decisions, the man to whom a wife's complaint about her husband is routed, the man whose approval advances a courtship — holds his office by a chain that runs through no bishop, no sacrament, no canonical mission, and no Vatican recognition, under a title the Holy See has declared unlawful for laymen precisely because it usurps the shepherd's name. And the "head of the family," in the strong constituted sense the 1988 policy gives that phrase, holds an office that does not exist — could not exist — in the Church's law: erected by that same community, enforced through the same chain, over the one human relationship whose sole earthly ministers are the two people inside it. The bishops who eventually investigated these communities saw the system whole. It is time to hear from them.

Part VI What the Bishops Found

South Bend, 1975. The first collapse came not in Ann Arbor's network but at the charismatic renewal's national centre. True House, a covenant community at Notre Dame, disintegrated amid allegations of spiritual abuse — including a coercive "breakthrough ministry" of planned, coordinated confrontation sessions run on unsuspecting members. When the National Catholic Reporter's six-part investigation reached the local ordinary, Bishop Leo Pursley of Fort Wayne–South Bend, his response deserves to be remembered: "It was never reported to me. How do you stop a horse from running away when you don't know the horse is running away?" He endorsed a national investigation — while observing, presciently, that "this is not simply a diocesan matter… It's an international thing."¹⁰⁵ His auxiliary, Bishop Joseph Crowley, was blunter about the technique: "I think that was a concerted effort to shape the will. I know there is some of that going on still. That's what ought to be investigated."¹⁰⁶ The national investigation never happened; the bishops' committee said such matters were "the responsibility of local bishops," the local bishop said the thing was international, and the movement passed through the gap between them. Remember that gap. It is still open, and the horses are still running through it.

Newark, 1986. A decade later, in suburban New Jersey, parishioners at a parish in the Archdiocese of Newark discovered that a covenant community called the People of Hope was, in their words, taking over the parish and its school. Ex-members described a community whose leaders "demanded strict obedience," in which "women are kept in a subservient role and young people are not allowed to date, unless their marriage has already been arranged." Archbishop Peter Gerety ordered the community's members "to end their affiliation with… the Sword of the Spirit," declared its teachings "not in accord with the Archdiocese of Newark," and removed some seventy-five of its members from the parish council and school posts; three teachers who had taken private vows for the community, including the school principal, were asked to resign.¹⁰⁷ One detail from that coverage belongs in this Question's ledger of marriages: a former "handmaiden" recounted that when she sought help from the group for a marital problem, she "was told to see her pastoral leader rather than a marriage counselor."¹⁰⁸

Cleveland, 1984–1990. In Akron, complaints about the Bread of Life covenant community reached Bishop Anthony Pilla — forty to fifty of them, by the diocesan paper's count. A diocesan investigation under Bishop Gilbert Sheldon issued directives; when the community's leadership refused to comply, "the diocese's recognition of the group was withdrawn." The testimony gathered by the diocesan press is of a piece with everything above: a schoolteacher whose pastoral leader "wrote her frequent notes on whom she should date and how she should act when she did so"; members "pushed toward marriage with a spouse of the leaders' choosing"; wives encouraged "not to be afraid to let their husbands make a mistake with their (the wives') lives."¹⁰⁹

Steubenville, 1991. And then the fullest examination any covenant community has ever received — the one this Question opened with. Allegations against the Servants of Christ the King, a covenant community affiliated since 1982 with the Sword of the Spirit, reached Bishop Albert Ottenweller in December 1990. He had heard complaints before, his diocesan paper reported, and had "dismissed them as inconsequential." This time he interviewed members — and then called a meeting at which thirty-five people told stories of the injuries they and their families had suffered. "What I heard that night was a shocking revelation," the bishop said, "so at variance with what I knew of the Servants and what had been reported to me by the coordinators."¹¹⁰ He refused to renew the community's diocesan agreement, conditioned even its interim approval on immediate severance from the Sword of the Spirit, and then did what no bishop before him had done: he appointed a canonical visitation under canon 396, with a team headed by the Archdiocese of New York's director of cult awareness — and then he acted on what it found. The visitation's report to the bishop — the most important single document in this Question — found that all eight of the bishop's complaints "have been found to be true."¹¹¹

Hear the report's own language, because no paraphrase of mine could sharpen it. On the system: the community's practice of "'pastoral leadership'… has no foundation in Church law or practice," and "developed into a system of manipulation and mind control that can best be described as devastating. It was as if the individual had surrendered his/her conscience to the community. It not only controlled the lives of the people but it also directed their way of thinking, their family and other personal relationships, and often times was in direct conflict with the teaching of the Church."¹¹² On marriage: "Members must be in complete submission to their leaders. They must seek guidance and advice from their pastoral leaders in every facet of their lives. That would include dating practices, the choice of a marriage partner, their child-rearing practices, family life, marital relationships, job considerations, the buying and selling of real estate, home location, educational pursuits, how to dress, and any other life decision. Members are expected to share information about even the most personal aspects of their lives, including intimate sexual details of the marriage relationship."¹¹³ On marital privacy, violated in both directions: "Some wives complained that things said in confidence to their 'pastoral leader' were eventually conveyed to husbands"¹¹⁴ — and, from the other side, "One woman reported that her husband told intimate details of their marriage to his pastoral head. She was called in and reprimanded. She became angry and was called rebellious. Her husband was told to keep a tighter control on his wife."¹¹⁵ On women: "the women have a double burden to bear: they must be under the headship of their pastoral leader, and also under the headship of their husband… Single women are told they should marry, but when they may date, who they may date and often times, who they can marry. The dating and marriage of any couple in SOCK [the Servants of Christ the King] is under severe scrutiny of the leadership."¹¹⁶ On children: children "cannot enjoy friendships outside the group"; they are "devastated by the shunning they experience when their parents leave"; some "were given only bread and water for all three meals on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent."¹¹⁷ On conscience: "Community members learn to equate obeying the leadership with obeying God and disobeying the leadership as disobeying God. Many yearn to depart but are held in bondage by that belief."¹¹⁸ One woman's testimony, preserved in the report: "You don't have a right to your own life. If you act on your own, you're disobedient."¹¹⁹ And a former pastoral-leader couple, examining their own conduct: "Leading others, we coerced them. We forced them. It was not a free atmosphere. We were taught, 'You have to make them conform!'"¹²⁰

Two findings deserve special weight in a Catholic inquiry. First, the confessional: "more than one person related that, when going to confession in a community setting, they were told by the priest to take certain matters to 'pastoral leaders' in the community" — a practice the report calls an "abdication of pastoral responsibility in the confessional… appalling."¹²¹ The one forum of absolute privacy the Church guarantees a married penitent was being drained into the community's unprotected disclosure system. Second, the chain of command: "Since the association with SOS, coordinators are responsible to Father Scanlan, Ralph Martin and Steve Clark. This pastoral system is the primary cause of the problems surfacing in the community."¹²² The visitors did not find a few bad local leaders. They found a system, named its architects' offices, and traced the harm to the design. They also named its instrument. Among the report's findings stands this sentence: "The Statement of Community Order calls for complete submission of members to their community leaders."¹²³ The reader has met that instrument three times already in these pages — as the place where the federation's core covenant is kept, as the source from which the federation's membership norms are drawn, and as the authority under whose guidelines a coordinator may correct a husband in his conduct toward his wife. The document that grants the corrector his power is the document an episcopal visitation weighed, and found wanting, in 1991.

And before the reader files these findings under ancient history, set four of them beside the community documents this Question drew on in Part III — documents in service today, dated 2019 and later. The visitors found direction extending to "the buying and selling of real estate, home location"; one community's current clustering paper asks a member to take a housing decision to the district coordinator "even when you are simply toying with the idea." The visitors found members "told how to dress, which spouse should do various household chores, how to schedule their family life, and how to control their children"; the current course prescribes the weekly meeting, supplies the agenda, and attaches the scheduling forms. The visitors found members "pressured to pay their tithe to the community before meeting any other financial obligations"; the current course lists the tithe among the fixed "previous commitments" against which a family's mortgage must be measured. The visitors found wives' confidences to pastoral leaders "eventually conveyed to husbands"; the current course instructs members to be "open with your pastoral leader about problems handling emotions." Four findings from 1991; four instruments from 2019. The reader may draw the line between them without my help.¹²⁴

Bishop Ottenweller acted, and he had been acting since the winter. His order was in writing by January: "I must require that you disaffiliate yourselves from the Sword of the Spirit." In March, with the visitation under way, he suspended the system itself — "Since pastoral care has been the cause of much debate, I am directing that all pastoral care be suspended until such time as this pastoral visitation is complete" — and, in the same letter, refused the coordinators' offer to resign, "directing the leaders to remain in office" until the visitation was done. They did not remain. By the time he delivered his findings in June, he was addressing "four former coordinators" and a "newly-elected interim leadership."¹²⁵ His own summary to his diocese stands as the most authoritative episcopal statement ever made on the covenant model's treatment of families: "Excessive emphasis was put on obedience and submission, even if the pastoral leader was wrong… There was misuse of confidential information, and invasion of privacy… Pastoral leaders were allowed to go too far in giving direction in family matters, dating, etc." And on the parallel magisterium: "Your vision, your teachings, your formation was from Ann Arbor… The authority came from Sword of the Spirit. As bishop I had responsibility for oversight, but there really was no link between me and the Servants of Christ the King."¹²⁶ To those inclined to dismiss the injured, he left an answer: "We cannot dismiss the emotional damage by saying that members who were hurt were weak and dysfunctional. Such a charge is simply a form of denial."¹²⁷ The visitation team, for its part, recommended that its report "be available to every bishop in the country, particularly those who have covenant communities within their territory."¹²⁸ One image from that autumn completes the account, recalled by a former member who was present and later assembled the documentary archive on which parts of this Question draw: at a healing liturgy for ex-members on the Feast of Christ the King, November 1991, the bishop took a copy of the Sword of the Spirit covenant and tore it to pieces before the congregation.¹²⁹

Ann Arbor itself, 1990–91. While Ottenweller's visitation was underway in Ohio, the mother community was collapsing under the same weight. The Word of God — some three thousand members strong — split, and co-founder Ralph Martin publicly recanted the formation system he had helped build. His evaluation, delivered to the membership and reported in the Catholic press, is the movement's own verdict on itself: the training was "an ill-advised venture that led to considerable confusion, turmoil, spiritual distress," it "fostered elitism," it "attempted to build a comprehensive Christian culture by fiat" — and, in the two phrases that matter most for this Question, it "had a negative impact on many marriages and placed undue stress on many families" and was "especially harmful to women."¹³⁰ He and other leaders, the press reported at the time, "begged forgiveness for misusing their authority in the community."¹³¹ A senior women's leader, Barbara Morgan, stood before the community and repented "for teaching authoritatively the community policy on subordination and obedience… It caused women to lose confidence and strength and I want to repent for betraying women by teaching it." An internal community investigation estimated that at least 20 percent of the community's women were seeking help from counselors or support groups — "and many others who wanted counseling had been forbidden by their husbands to seek it."¹³² Another leader publicly repented for asking "the whole community to avoid her and to have nothing to do with her" — shunning, confessed as such.¹³³ Let the scale of that settle: the community that wrote the covenant, invented the households, and exported the courtship system examined its own fruit and found betrayed women, damaged marriages, and forbidden counseling.

And since? The pattern, sadly, is not archival. In 2023 an independent professional safeguarding body, the British charity Thirtyone:eight, investigating a Sword of the Spirit community in London, recommended that its leadership "address a perceived cultural deficit that renders some women feeling unsafe and the victims of coercive control," and recommended a further investigation into "the possibilities of spiritual abusive practices and teachings" — findings the Sword of the Spirit's own review team ruled "beyond the scope" of its mandate and referred to an internal "appropriate use of authority workgroup" for which no terms of reference, membership, or output can be found anywhere in the movement's voluminous publishing.¹³⁴ In 2024 an American law firm's safeguarding review, commissioned by the Sword of the Spirit's own international leadership, found, among other things, "a culture that at times creates an environment that discourages reporting of concerns related to child safety."¹³⁵ And the two independent reviews of the London community — Thirtyone:eight's, and a second, on child safeguarding, by the Christian Safeguarding Service — published on that community's website (their publication attested in its trustees' statutory filings), were subsequently removed — the section deleted and the document links revoked at source between June and December 2025.¹³⁶ The law firm's review has gone the same way: the page on the Sword of the Spirit's own site that carried it until at least December 2025 now redirects to the 2026 review team's material, where the report itself is not to be found.¹³⁷ I state the sequence and the dates because they are provable; I make no claim about motive. But a movement whose independent examinations keep vanishing from its websites has, at minimum, not made the historian's task easier.

To its credit — and I mean that without irony — the Sword of the Spirit's North American leadership published in 2023 the frankest apology in its history: "there were also pastoral practices and mistakes made that hurt members in some of our communities. These included an approach to pastoral care that was overreaching at times, an overemphasis on pastoral authority, a certain elitism, a lack of understanding of how peer pressure worked, an insufficient focus on integrating with our local parishes or congregations, and an overly prescriptive approach to men's and women's roles… To any current and former members who were hurt by any of these practices, we want to express our sorrow and ask your forgiveness."¹³⁸ The same letter announces, as a reform, "deeper respect for the primacy and sanctity of the marriage bond and the freedom of the husband and wife to make decisions for the good of their family over and above what they have agreed to in our covenant."¹³⁹ Read that reform clause twice. A movement does not announce, as new, the freedom of husband and wife to make family decisions "over and above" what its covenant asks unless, until then, that freedom had been interfered with. The apology is the admission.

And here is the fact that, once seen, organizes all the others. The movement's leaders have apologized repeatedly — 1991, 2023 — and the movement has reformed its governance repeatedly. What it has never done is renounce the teaching. Its own official history says of the internal review that followed the crisis of 1990–91: the examination "included an examination of the teachings given in the communities… In the end, the content of the teaching was reaffirmed, but the communities and the individuals within communities were encouraged to take more responsibility for their own lives."¹⁴⁰ The same history concedes that the program "sought to regulate the lives of members… too strictly and too intrusively, especially the lives of families," that "in more than a few cases, imprudent advice or direction given by pastoral leaders caused real suffering" — and then reaffirms the principles that produced it.¹⁴¹ Across fifty years the pattern holds with the regularity of a law: apology for effects; reform of governance; reaffirmation of content. The headship doctrine, the household structure, the courtship oversight, the disclosure discipline — all of it survives every apology, and Clark's books teaching it are republished in the movement's public library to this day. That is why this Question has been able to quote 2015 manuals and 2020s formation documents alongside 1975 reporting and 1991 findings, and why the reader has perhaps noticed that they all describe the same machine.

Part VII The Case for the Defense

Let me now state the communities' defense as strongly as I can, because it deserves an honest hearing and because my argument is only finished when it survives.

The covenant is not a vow; it says so; the Church was deliberately consulted in its phrasing. There is an exit clause. There is a churches clause. The formal authority of leaders is enumerated and narrow — keep the covenant, don't sin, cooperate with community activities — and members are told they may make "a contrary decision" outside community basics, with a route of appeal to the senior coordinator.¹⁴² The manual itself warns leaders against acting as though members were "in formation" forever, tells them to give covenanted members "less input and little of that authoritatively," and the courtship input is expressly "not obligated to follow."¹⁴³ The movement has apologized, reformed, decentralized, added age limits and appeal processes. Its 2023 letter claims a marriage success rate of about 97 percent,¹⁴⁴ and its own writers argue that covenant-keeping strengthens marriage — "covenant communities have divorce rates far below that of most churches."¹⁴⁵ The headship teaching itself is defended with limits stated plainly: the wife's submission is "not necessarily absolute," she "may not [be] expect[ed]… to obey unrighteous direction," the husband "should never lord it over his wife and children," and the order exists so that "the marriage and important decisions are not held hostage to power struggles and disagreements."⁹² And the courtship system has been softened in the current generation: the campus teaching now describes an approach that "puts the young man and young woman in charge of the process from beginning to end," with stages that are "not strict categories" and expressly "not a formula."¹⁴⁶ Most members are happy. Some families flourish. Judge us by our fruits.

Even if all of that is true — I have quoted it in its own words — here is why it does not save the model:

First, the limited commitment with unlimited concern problem does not go away because the limits are sincere. The formal authority is narrow; the formation is total. A member who has spent years being trained to "living in the light," to submitting "major life questions to pastoral oversight," and to Clark's teaching that God's guidance flows only through subordination does not experience the hedges as freedom. The system's own leaders admitted as much in the one era we can check: "The general principles had been transformed by some pastoral leaders into rules,"¹⁴⁷ the official history concedes — and the Steubenville visitors found the "hedged" system operating, in practice, as "complete submission… in every facet of their lives." The paper disclaimer and the lived practice have been measured against each other exactly once by a canonical visitation, and the practice won.

Second, the exit clause is real, but examine its terms: departure is to be undertaken "only with serious prayer and counsel" — counsel with whom? The document does not say; structurally, with the very leaders one would be leaving, inside a theology in which leaving one's place of subordination cuts one off from God's guidance, and inside a social world that is also one's neighborhood, friendships, and often livelihood. The Steubenville report described members who "yearn to depart but are held in bondage" by the equation of leadership with God. An unlocked door at the end of a corridor built to make walking down it unthinkable is not an exit in any sense that matters to the person inside.

Third, the fruits. I do not doubt happy families; I have no wish to argue them out of their happiness. But a 97-percent marriage-survival statistic, offered by the institution itself without methodology — and counted among those still present, so unable to see the marriages that left before it was taken — cannot be weighed against what the record actually contains: an episcopal visitation finding intimate marital details extracted through mandatory disclosure; a co-founder's public verdict of "negative impact on many marriages" and "especially harmful to women"; a women's leader repenting for "betraying women"; 20 percent of one community's women in counseling and others forbidden by their husbands to seek it; and an independent safeguarding body, in 2023, recommending action on "a perceived cultural deficit that renders some women feeling unsafe and the victims of coercive control." Marriages that endure under a system with those findings are not evidence the system is safe. Endurance under pressure is what the system trains.

Fourth, the modern softening is real, and I have stated it in the defense's own words because it deserves some credit. But weigh exactly what softened and what did not. Gone from the current campus teaching is 1987's brother-led process. What survives is more instructive than what went. The overseeing office survives, renamed: the current course directs the couple to stay "in discussion with a mentor (what we often call a pastoral leader)" — the parenthesis doing quietly in this generation what "coordinator" did in the last, for recall that in 1975 the leaders described their own vocabulary to a reporter as one that "means the same as 'elders,' but avoids the implication."⁸⁴ The gate survives, in the single women's handout, where the couple's advance still comes "(with their pastoral leader's input)."²⁷ The physical rules survive as well — as a row in a table. The same handout carries a line headed "Physical Affection Limits": through the three to five years of pre-courtship and on through the first dates, "all forms of physical affection beyond a normal greeting" are to be avoided; once a relationship is declared marriage-oriented, "some special affection is appropriate (e.g. holding hands, a short affectionate hug, and a short kiss)" — and the same line even governs the engagement.²⁷ And the environment survives by design: "our UCO [University Christian Outreach] environments," the modern course notes of the pre-courtship years, "are really shaped with this goal in mind."¹⁴⁶ The vocabulary is revised for each generation's ear; the structure it names persists.

And there is a reason the current text insists the stages are "not a formula." A formula is exactly what the system produced in the generation before, on the testimony of a man who was administering it. On 14 August 1991 — two months after the bishop's report — Tom Kneier, until that spring the junior head coordinator of the Servants of Christ the King, gave a talk to the community on what had gone wrong. Of the courtship process he said: "the approach has these parts to it and these steps to it, and you start getting the feeling when you're coming into the community, well gee, if I just follow this approach I'll have this great marriage and I'll be protected from mistakes and I won't sin in courtship… you get this feeling like, well, just follow the pastoral approach — and we contributed to that by the confidence with which we came across." He spoke, in the same passage, of "the failures of the dating system," and of members who "felt like they were part of a momentum and not so much going through a process of just discernment on God's call in their life," adding: "I think in the marriage area, this came out a lot." And of the system entire: "our pastoral care system, the whole way we were set up, overemphasized that role in all of Christian growth."¹⁴⁸ That is not a critic's characterization of what the courtship system did to people's expectations. It is the man who ran it, describing the effect and accepting the authorship. Nor did he speak alone. Within months of the visitation's findings, the man who had been the community's senior head coordinator put the same admission in print. "I see now," Fr. Michael Scanlan wrote in New Covenant that autumn, "that our teachings and pastoral practices were overly focused on correcting harmful trends in family life and, when taken as absolutes rather than corrections, they were too intensive and controlling in courtships and marriages."¹⁴⁹ The former junior head coordinator on tape; the former senior head coordinator in print; the same sentence in substance. As for the practical defense — that without the husband's casting vote the marriage is "held hostage to power struggles" — the Church has weighed that very risk for two thousand years and has still declined to appoint an arbiter over the spouses, in law or in liturgy. The decision is the couple's — even the decision of who shall decide. The Church prefers the risk of deadlock to the certainty of subordination, and Part V has shown why: there is no one who could hold the office.

Fifth and decisively: every apology has been for application; the content was "reaffirmed." A model that, after fifty years, three episcopal interventions, a founder's recantation, and its own members' testimony, keeps the headship obedience doctrine, the households, the courtship oversight, and the disclosure discipline — while republishing its architect's books — has told us what it believes the problem was. The problem, on its own account, was never the machine. It was the operators. The bishops found otherwise: "This pastoral system is the primary cause of the problems." But, if you removed the pastoral authority system from the covenant community, what would remain? Nothing, for that is the covenant community system. And that is why it is never yielded.

And notice, running beneath all five replies, the asymmetry that has followed us through this Question. The corpus is full of limits, and I have quoted them generously: the husband must not lord it over his wife; he does not always get his way; abuse is forbidden in plain words. Every one of those limits constrains the husband, or the member. Find me the sentence that constrains the community. There is none — and in a system of concentric authorities, the level that no document limits is the level that rules.

Part VIII Columbus

All of which brings this Question home, because the model just described is not a historical exhibit. It is operating in Columbus, Ohio, and it is recruiting.

The covenant community in question presents itself today as Christ the Cornerstone Community. Behind that name stands one continuous Ohio nonprofit corporation, charter number 469158, incorporated on 15 July 1975 — the very year the National Catholic Reporter was documenting the households of Ann Arbor — under a name it no longer uses: Christ the King Prayer Community, Inc. It became People of God's Love Community in 1989; traded as Christ the King Fellowship from 1992; registered the trade names Columbus Community Group in 2013 and Greater Columbus Covenant Community in 2014; and became Christ the Cornerstone by an amendment to its articles adopted at a members' meeting on 31 December 2022 and filed with the State of Ohio in 2023. Six public names, one corporation, fifty-one years.¹⁵⁰ A prospective member searching that name will find nothing before 2023. That it is a Sword of the Spirit community is not an inference: the Sword of the Spirit's own North American directory lists "Christ the Cornerstone — Columbus, OH," and the map on that directory page recorded the community's membership level, when it was last displayed in July 2025, as "Underway A" on the movement's formation ladder; its international community map carries the same listing; and its 50th-anniversary history maps "Greater Columbus Covenant Community, Columbus OH" among its United States communities.¹⁵¹ Nor is the membership a matter of listings only: when the Sword of the Spirit's North American communities gathered online in February 2021, the Columbus senior coordinator was among those invited to address the region, and the movement published both a recording of his talk and a written summary of it.¹⁵² The movement's own magazine closes whatever daylight remains: its author directory states that "Mike Heskamp is the senior coordinator of the Greater Columbus Covenant Community in Ohio, USA" — the same man the community's most recent public tax filing lists as its president — and, in five separate issues, it identified another endorser as "Bill Durrant, Founder, People of God's Love Community, Columbus, Ohio, USA," lending his name, fittingly, to a promotion of Stephen Clark's book on discipleship.¹⁵³ The Sword of the Spirit's own title for the community's chief officer, note well, is senior coordinator — the office this Question has been examining for seven parts, under the name the Holy See ruled unlawful.

What does this community tell the public about itself? Almost nothing. Its website offers a homepage, a calendar, a donations page, and a members-only section; its "About" page returns an error; the words "Catholic," "bishop," and "diocese" appear nowhere on its public site; and the site's one glimpse of internal governance is a donations instruction that "any unbudgeted purchases must first be approved by a Coordinator."¹⁵⁴ It tells the federal government somewhat more: its tax filings describe an organization whose officers "give spiritual and moral direction, visit the sick, and consult and discern spiritual matters with the members," providing "instruction and worship for the members" and "retreats for occasions of spiritual reflection and seclusion."¹⁵⁵ Spiritual direction, moral direction, discernment of members' spiritual matters, instruction — performed by the officers of a lay corporation, described to the IRS in the plain vocabulary of the pastoral system this Question has documented, and described to the public not at all. As for the covenant a prospective Columbus member would actually sign: it is not published anywhere. A couple discerning whether to join cannot read the terms in advance from any public source. They can, however, read the Sword of the Spirit's Core Covenant template — which the movement itself declares representative: "Local covenants vary in their expression, but in essential matters they express the same understanding"¹⁵⁶ — and they can read this Question's Parts II and III, which is what the essential matters are.

Two further Columbus facts deserve the reader's attention. First, the pipeline. As I documented in a previous Question, the covenant community shares leadership and money with St. Paul's Outreach, the campus apostolate operating at Ohio State — the community's vice-president has served as SPO's Ohio senior mission director, and his own public profile records the whole trajectory: recruited as a student missionary with St. Paul's Outreach while an undergraduate at Ohio State, a small group leader in the community from 2009 — which is to say in the very unit of pastoral care described in Part II — and now director of the campus operation that recruits students and an officer of the community that funds it — and in each of the last four fiscal years — after reporting no grants of any kind before — the community's sole grantee has been SPO — $28,649 in all.¹⁵⁷ The destination discloses less than the source: St. Paul's Outreach files no public Form 990 at all — treated as a church for filing purposes, it is not required to — so the receiving end of that pipeline has no public financial record.¹⁵⁸ What I can now add, from the Sword of the Spirit's own publications, is what that pipeline is for. The movement's anniversary history names "St. Paul's Outreach (SPO), a Catholic university outreach originating from Christ the Redeemer Community in St. Paul Minnesota (USA)" among its university outreaches — and states the purpose of the category in one sentence: these outreaches "carry on our call and mission in the Sword of the Spirit by raising up zealous young men and women as disciples of Jesus Christ, to strengthen and extend our communities."¹⁵⁹ It describes the mechanism outright — "the Sword of the Spirit has been expanding by establishing university and young professional outreaches and then working with those evangelized to develop into" communities — and names SPO as one of the vehicles by which the network has "grown."¹⁶⁰ The president of the movement's North American region has said the same of this city by name. Laying out his priorities in 2017, he described "exciting efforts underway to strengthen and expand our work by building new communities in places where we have university outreaches. There are some promising efforts already well underway — places like Grand Rapids, Kansas City, Columbus, Tallahassee."¹⁶¹ The order of operations is the point: the campus outreach comes first, and the covenant community is built where the outreach already stands. All four of the cities he named now appear on the movement's own map of its communities. In Columbus the corporation is old and the project is new: the charter of a 1975 prayer community now carries a Sword of the Spirit community that took the name "Greater Columbus Covenant Community" only in 2014, that the region's president counted in 2017 among those being built, and that the region's own map still ranked, in 2025, as "Underway." SPO's own formation history acknowledges the lineage: it places its birth in the same charismatic milieu that produced "the Community of Christ the Redeemer: a Catholic covenant community," under the Ann Arbor community "uniquely instrumental in establishing… the Sword of the Spirit."¹⁶² And Christ the Redeemer's ties to Columbus are not merely genealogical: its own anniversary self-report in the movement's magazine records that a member "moved to help with the work of outreach and community formation for three years in Columbus Ohio" — community-planting, in the movement's own words, in this city.¹⁶³ Meanwhile, at Ohio State, the diocesan newspaper reports approvingly that SPO "has around 40 college-aged students living in their households" and "provides men's and women's formation, organizes student households and sponsors an annual retreat"¹⁶⁴ — households, sex-separated formation, staged retreats: the reader now knows this inventory by heart. SPO's own Ohio formation page invites students into "a new way of life" with commitments to prayer, content nights, small groups, and mission, complete with a "Household fee"; its Ohio course list includes "Life in the Spirit" — the covenant community movement's initiation seminar — alongside course titles matching Sword of the Spirit formation series.¹⁶⁵ What those households form their students in is on SPO's own website. Residents — Ohio State's among them — commit to "engaging in romantic relationships according to SPO's pastoral approach," and to "a life of accountability": "We will live our life in the light and be open to have others speak into our life."¹⁶⁶ The vocabulary of Part II and the courtship discipline of Part III, offered to undergraduates under a Catholic name. A student moves from campus retreat to household to formation to young-adult chapter; the movement's own literature says where that ladder was built to lead: into the covenant communities. The recruits are university students and young professionals at the threshold of courtship and marriage — the precise population over whose marriages this system, wherever bishops have examined it, was found to have extended its controlling hand.

Second, the children. The Sword of the Spirit's 2018 Child Protection Framework provides that "every Underway B and Full Member community… must have a Child Protection Policy (CPP) in place and functioning," and that a CPP "must be completed and demonstrated to be well-functioning for a community to become a formed (Underway B) member."¹⁶⁷ The Columbus community was listed, when its tier was last displayed, at Underway A. On the face of the movement's own framework, then, the community sits in the one tier its child-protection mandate does not yet reach — even as the same webpage's prose promises that "we require each region and each local community… to have a Child Protection Policy." I state this carefully, as a question and not an accusation: whether Christ the Cornerstone has a functioning child protection policy, no public document shows — its website shows no policy of any kind. But a community of families, in formation toward full membership in a movement with the safeguarding history recounted above, whose own tier is outside the written mandate, is a question a diocese should want answered in writing and subject to verification.

And so we arrive back at the parish webpage where we began: a men's ministry, grown from this covenant community's network, that was installed in a Columbus parish and promised to form "better men for future wives and families rooted in Christ." The reader is now in a position to translate. The model behind that promise, wherever it has been examined — by the National Catholic Reporter in 1975, by Archbishop Gerety in 1986, by the Diocese of Cleveland in 1990, by Bishop Ottenweller's canonical visitation in 1991, by the movement's own leaders in their apologies of 1991 and 2023, and by an independent safeguarding body in 2023 — has been found, by one or another of them, to enter marriages, govern courtships, dissolve marital privacy, subordinate wives twice over, and instruct families under the color of a "pastoral authority" that the Church's own law says laymen cannot hold, in a movement whose Catholic association the Vatican declined to recognize. The wives and families of Columbus deserve to know that history before their men are formed by its heirs.

Part IX Conclusions

Return, one last time, to the kitchen. A wife rearranges a cabinet under her husband's correction, under a pastoral leader's discipline, inside a community that calls the arrangement God's order. Everything false about the covenant community model is present in that scene, and everything the Church actually teaches about marriage is absent from it.

For what does the Church teach? That marriage is a covenant already — "the matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life," as her law defines it.¹⁶⁸ That its consent must be free of coercion and even of parental pressure. That husband and wife are subject to one another "out of reverence for Christ" — a mutual subjection, not a chain of command.¹⁶⁹ That the family is the domestic church, whose parents hold their authority from God and answer to Him for it. That the shepherd of souls "is always a Bishop or Priest," that lay communities cannot grant themselves the pastoral mission, and that the faithful's right to privacy — even from religious superiors, even in religious life — is protected by the Church's own law. A married couple already possesses, in their sacrament, the whole covenant the community offers them a counterfeit of. They do not need a second covenant to bind them to a "new family"; the covenant they have is the family that God joined and no man may govern from without.

The covenant communities offer marriage a rival: a second covenant with a rival tribunal, a rival disclosure discipline, a rival hierarchy, and a rival claim on precisely the decisions — spouse, home, children, work — that God assigned to the couple alone. The offer is made warmly, by sincere people, in the vocabulary of renewal, and its early stages feel like friendship and prayer, which is why it works. But the model has been weighed — not by hostile secularists but by its own founders, its own members' testimony, the bishops of the Catholic Church, and an independent safeguarding body — and the verdicts, across fifty years, agree. A system of lay "pastoral authority" with "no foundation in Church law or practice." "Manipulation and mind control." "Especially harmful to women." "A negative impact on many marriages." "Some women feeling unsafe and the victims of coercive control." And crucially, "this pastoral system is the primary cause."

A word, before closing, to the reader this Question most hopes to reach: the wife, or the husband, inside such a system now. Let me be exact about what is and is not being said. The communities' own courses forbid abuse in the plainest terms — "physical and emotional abuse is never appropriate in a Christian marriage" — and nothing in this Question accuses them of teaching otherwise.¹⁷⁰ The concern is different, and subtler: compulsion short of any blow, applied through an office. A husband who reports his wife's non-compliance so that a pastoral leader will "correct" her has not struck her; he has recruited a jurisdiction. And the recruitment does something to the marriage that no single quarrel does — for authority exercised beyond its right does not merely misfire; it changes the relation in that act, as every tradition of ordered authority recognizes. Worse, inside the system the change has nowhere to appeal: the officer to whom a wronged wife would naturally turn is the officer of the very structure applying the pressure — her pastoral leader answers up the same chain as her husband's, and the Steubenville visitors recorded how that chain carries what it is told: "Pastoral leaders pass information garnered through this interaction to the district leaders, who inform the coordinators. Frequently, information is passed down through the pastoral system to a spouse in regard to information conveyed, indicating a betrayal of confidence."¹¹³ The report saw the consequence and gave it a name: members who "yearn to depart but are held in bondage."¹¹⁸

To that wife, the Church's own law says something the system will never read aloud to her, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay."¹⁷¹ Read it slowly. Mental danger, not only physical — the Church made the extension from blows to pressure long ago. "Renders common life too difficult" — a threshold below catastrophe. And "on his or her own authority" — hers, without permission, when delay is dangerous. The Church grants her a remedy she may exercise on her own authority. The system forms her in the belief that acting on her own authority is the very definition of disobedience — "You don't have a right to your own life. If you act on your own, you're disobedient."¹¹⁹ A community that teaches that sentence has not merely burdened a marriage. It has hidden from a suffering wife the key the Church put in her hand.

So let it be said plainly here, in case no one has said it to her. You do not need your husband's permission to seek help, and you do not need the permission of anyone in your community's pastoral structure. You are free to seek it outside the community's own referral network, from a professional of your own choosing, whatever you may once have agreed about keeping such matters inside the community. No promise made to a community can oblige you to endure what the Church's own law says you need not endure — and that law, as we have just read, does not send you first for anyone's approval: it recognizes a legitimate cause for leaving "even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay." Seeking help is not a favor anyone grants you. It is yours by nature, and the law of the land and the law of the Church both say so. It is not disobedience, and it is not disloyalty. It is allowed, and it is right.

In 1975 a bishop endorsed a national investigation that never came, because the problem was "an international thing" and every authority pointed at another. In 1991 a visitation team recommended its report be placed in the hands of every bishop in the country with a covenant community in his territory — "at the spring meeting of the bishops, perhaps gathering those bishops with communities on the day prior."¹²⁸ That would be a long list today: a census compiled for this Question counts forty-eight covenant communities in the United States, in more than thirty dioceses and at least two dozen states from Massachusetts to Hawaii — and the figure is a floor, not a ceiling.¹⁷² No bishop can see that map from inside his own diocese; only the bishops together can. In 2026 the same model, under the same international federation, is forming young men and women toward courtship and marriage in Columbus, Ohio, behind a website that will not say the word "Catholic" and a covenant no recruit can read. What a single bishop may do about it is not in doubt, because one has done it: in 1991 Bishop Ottenweller, by letter and on his own authority, required the covenant community in his diocese to leave the Sword of the Spirit, and directed "that all pastoral care be suspended" until his visitation was complete.¹²⁵ What no single bishop can do is see the whole. The investigation Bishop Pursley endorsed, and the gathering of bishops that Bishop Ottenweller's visitors proposed, are long overdue — the first by fifty years, the second by thirty-five. Until the Church conducts that investigation — fully, publicly, and with the marriages and families of members at the center of its terms of reference — the question of how far the marital harm has reached, and of what the Church means to do about it, remains open.

The tradition divides a household into three relations and gives each its own rule: one over servants, one over children, and between husband and wife a third, which leaves her a sphere that is hers. Scripture keeps the words apart in the same way, asking obedience of children and of servants and never of wives. This covenant community system collapses the distinction. At its worst it governs a wife as a servant; at its best it forms her as a child. She is neither. She is a free woman who entered a partnership of the whole of life, and she holds that state inside the marriage exactly as her husband holds his — with, in the Church's own words, an equal duty and right to everything that belongs to it. The objection to the covenant community model was never that it is strict, and it was never that its people are insincere. It is that compulsion backed by an office cannot produce the thing marriage is for. A friendship cannot be commanded into being; a gift extracted is a payment. And the sacrament forecloses the whole arrangement at its root, because the spouses are its ministers: no power on earth can supply the consent that makes a marriage, and no power on earth may therefore govern what only those two could make.¹⁰²

One more thing should be said plainly, because it is the deepest thing this Question has to say. Christian marriage is a sign, and what it signifies is an exclusive union — Christ and his Church, joined so wholly that no one stands between. Interpose a governor between the spouses and the sign is made to say what is not true: that the union it figures admits a third who may direct it, correct it, and hear appeals from it. That is a spiritual adultery — one act, two infidelities: against the marriage, which admits no sharer, and against the Church, whose pastoral office no one may assume unless she confers it.

Is marriage compatible with a covenant community? No. Not because commitment is bad or community is bad or zeal is bad, but because marriage is already the covenant, the couple is already the community, and the family is already the little church — and what God has joined together, no coordinator may put asunder.

Postscript (22 September 2026)

Since the preparation of this Question began, it has been reported to me that Christ the Cornerstone Community (the People of God's Love Community) has been directed to disassociate from the Sword of the Spirit. I have not been able to confirm that report from any public source, and as of this writing the public record still points the other way: the Sword of the Spirit's international community map continues to carry Christ the Cornerstone as one of its communities, and its North American Region directory continues to list "Christ the Cornerstone — Columbus, OH."¹⁷³ What has changed is the community's own public face: its website has been taken down entirely, replaced by a maintenance notice — "Our site is coming soon" — and with it even the thin public self-description examined in Part VIII is no longer available to a prospective member. And St. Paul's Outreach's own Ohio page continues, as of this writing, to list the founder of the parish men's ministry documented in a previous Question as chapter leader of its "Columbus Young Adults" chapter.¹⁷⁴

If the reported disassociation is true, it is welcome news — and it would place Columbus in a line that runs through Newark in 1986 and Steubenville in 1991, where bishops ordered exactly that. But a formal disconnect in no wise goes to the heart of the matter. A community with fifty years behind it, formed by Sword of the Spirit teaching, remains organized by its pastoral-authority hierarchy the day after the paperwork changes — because that hierarchy is not a benefit of Sword of the Spirit membership but, as Part V showed, the thing that makes it a covenant community at all; and the leadership that has been formed and directed by Clark's teachings and by the Sword of the Spirit's organizational authority these many years remains, to my knowledge, in place. Steubenville teaches the lesson here too. The bishop ordered disassociation and suspended the pastoral system; his visitors went further still. They recommended that the community's standing as a quasi-parish be rescinded, that the coordinators "resign their office immediately, and not be eligible for office again for at least three years," and that the community be allowed to continue "only after a complete change of leadership, and an extensive education of its members on 'what went wrong.'"¹⁷⁵ When the bishop delivered his findings that June, he was addressing a "newly-elected interim leadership" and "four former coordinators," and he told them there "needs to be… a program of reeducation of the members."¹⁷⁶ Disassociation without the abolition of the pastoral authority system, a change of leadership, and a public accounting is a change of letterhead.

What is needed is a full, comprehensive, public, outside review of Christ the Cornerstone Community, together with its Ohio State St. Paul's Outreach partner — ideally in conjunction with a national review, authorized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, of every covenant community and every St. Paul's Outreach chapter in the United States. The two belong together by design: the movement's own literature, as we have seen, describes its campus outreaches as the means by which it builds its communities. Where the public record lets us check, the pattern shows: every one of the seven American campuses served by the movement's own University Christian Outreach has a Sword of the Spirit community in the same city, or one the movement says it is planting there; of St. Paul's Outreach's fifteen campus chapters, at least six do — Ohio State among them.¹⁷⁷ That is the review Bishop Pursley endorsed in 1975, and the gathering of bishops the Ottenweller visitors proposed in 1991. Columbus is as good a place as any to begin.

A note on the documentation. The 177 endnotes for this Question — recording every source quoted, every document cited, and the dates on which each live page was checked — are in the PDF edition, which may be downloaded at the beginning of this essay. The superscript numbers in the text above refer to those notes. The author will provide copies of cited materials to any bishop, canonical authority, or serious researcher on request.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Anthropic (whose owners bear no responsibility for any of the content of this Question) for the AI system Claude that proved invaluable to the data mining and preparation of this Question. I would also like to thank two supporters whose donations made possible my Claude subscription. Finally, I am indebted to John Flaherty for his dedication to the many covenant community survivors and his painstaking collection of primary source documents.