Imagine There Is No Clergy: Two Views by Willam Shea and David Cloutier is the topic for April's meeting of the Cleveland Commonweal Local Community.
I want to avoid a discussion in which everyone projects their gripes about aspects of Catholicism unto the "clergy" and "clericalism', and so I have also sent everybody these two links to help center the discussion upon what Francis means when he criticizes clericalism. I am interested in your reaction to these two talks and my interpretation of them?. Do you have a different take upon what he means? Do you have better examples either in terms of talks, quotes, or actions that could help define what Francis means by clericalism?
Pope Francis has been particularly critical of clericalism in Latin America. His talk to the bishops of Chile is a recent example. This example as well as the next indicate that for Francis, "elitism" of all kinds including a non-ordained elite of men and women religious is at the center of clericalism. Pope reminds bishops they are part of God's people
Church is not, nor will it ever be, an élite of consecrated men and women, priests, and bishops.
Clericalism is the lack of consciousness of belonging to God’s people as servants, and not masters.
Mission belongs to the entire Church, and not to the individual priest or bishop,
Let us be clear about this. The laypersons are not our peons, or our employees. They don’t have to parrot back whatever we say.
Clericalism gradually extinguishes the prophetic flame to which the entire Church is called to bear witness. Implore from the Holy Spirit the gift of dreaming and working for a missionary and prophetic option capable of transforming everything, so that our customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and ecclesial structures can be suitably channeled for evangelization rather than for ecclesiastical self-preservation. Let us not be afraid to strip ourselves of everything that separates us from the missionary mandate.
In some of
his critiques Francis has stated that the laity are part of the problem, that
they enable clericalism. So he obviously does not think that it is the clergy
alone who must change. Some of this viewpoint is evident in the following criticism of the lay elite of pastoral workers.
Letter to the Pontifical Commission on Latin America
More beyond the break....
"We cannot reflect on the theme of the laity while ignoring one of the greatest distortions that Latin America has to confront — and to which I ask you to devote special attention — clericalism. This approach not only nullifies the character of Christians, but also tends to diminish and undervalue the baptismal grace that the Holy Spirit has placed in the heart of our people. Clericalism leads to homologization of the laity; treating the laity as “representative” limits the diverse initiatives and efforts and, dare I say, the necessary boldness to enable the Good News of the Gospel to be brought to all areas of the social and above all political sphere.
It means finding a way to be able to encourage, accompany and
inspire all attempts and efforts that are being made today in order to keep
hope and faith alive in a world full of contradictions, especially for the
poor, especially with the poorest. It means, as pastors, committing ourselves
among our people and, with our people, supporting their faith and hope. Opening
doors, working with them, dreaming with them, reflecting and above all praying
with them. “We need to look at our cities” — and thus all areas where the life
of our people unfolds — “with a contemplative gaze, a gaze of faith which sees
God dwelling in their homes, in their streets and squares.... He dwells among
them, fostering solidarity, fraternity, and the desire for goodness, truth and
justice. This presence must not be contrived but found, uncovered. God does not
hide himself from those who seek him with a sincere heart.
It is not the pastor to tell lay people what they must do and
say, they know this better than we do. It is not the pastor to establish what
the faithful must say in various settings. As pastors, united with our people,
it does us good to ask ourselves how we are encouraging and promoting charity
and fraternity, the desire for good, for truth and for justice; how we can ensure
that corruption does not settle in our hearts.
Often we have given in to the temptation of thinking that
committed lay people are those dedicated to the works of the Church and/or the
matters of the parish or the diocese, and we have reflected little on how to
accompany baptized people in their public and daily life; on how in their daily
activities, with the responsibilities they have, they are committed as
Christians in public life. Without realizing it, we have generated a lay elite,
believing that committed lay people are only those who work in the matters “of
priests”, and we have forgotten, overlooked, the believers who very often burn
out their hope in the daily struggle to live the faith. These are the
situations that clericalism fails to notice, because it is more concerned with
dominating spaces than with generating initiatives. Therefore we must recognize
that lay people — through their reality, through their identity, for they are
immersed in the heart of social, public and political life, participate in
cultural forms that are constantly generated — need new forms of organization
and of celebration of the faith.
We cannot give
general directives in order to organize the People of God within its public
life. Inculturation is a process that we pastors are called to inspire,
encouraging people to live their faith where and with whom they are.
Inculturation is learning to discover how a determinate portion of the people
today, in the historical here and now, live, celebrate and proclaim their
faith. With a particular identity and on the basis of the problems that must be
faced, as well as with all the reasons they have to rejoice. Inculturation is
the work of artisans and not of a factory with a production line dedicated to
“manufacturing Christian worlds or spaces”.
My interpretation:
For Francis the central problem of clericalism seems to be elitism, i.e. when certain members remove themselves from the people rather than considering themselves as part of the people and servants of the people. Elitism is not limited to the clergy. Francis includes consecrated men and women as among those who can view themselves or be viewed as elite.
Committed lay people can also form an elite when
lay people who are committed to the works of the Church, the parish and the diocese are
considered superior to those (especially the poor) who struggle in their
families, neighbors, workplaces and public life for goodness, truth, justice,
and charity.
From the perspective of a social psychologist it is important to view this not as simply as a personal problem of elitist attitudes upon the part of some persons (clergy, religious, lay leaders) but also a structural problem, i.e. certain structures and practices encourage everyone to view themselves or others people as an elite.
For example the deaconate: Francis himself has frequently asked the question "why would you ordain an outstanding lay leader as a deacon and deprive the Church of an example of lay leadership?" Now if the person is being ordained for the purpose of preaching at Mass, the person clearly needs ordination under our present rules. But in my area few people are being ordained deacons to preach, and most deacons who do preach do a poor job of preaching just as most young priests do a poor job. Expanding the deaconate to women who are paid ecclesial ministers will demonstrate how "clerical" our parish lay leadership has become.
For example paid lay ecclesial ministers: Back in the 1980s before lay ecclesial ministers became prevalent I was a member of a voluntary pastoral staff. All the diversity of that voluntary staff provided far more spiritual and secular talent into parish leadership than could ever be provided by either training in lay ecclesial ministry program or prior experience in ministry. Both of those provide a far narrower range of talent. Because lay ecclesial ministers form an elite that have actually promoted clericalism despite the "lay" label.
For example voluntary parish ministers: In our large suburban parish, both paid lay ecclesial ministers and lay volunteers constantly complain of the doing all the work and not being able to recruit more volunteers. During my four years on pastoral council, I observed many people who were interested in volunteering but once they saw that the "same people, paid or volunteer" were going to provide all the leadership, they lost interest. There are many talented people who would gladly volunteer their time, but they simply are not interested in doing things that require little talent or autonomy. They are interested in being leaders not followers.
My proposal for a non-elitist "poor church for the poor" is to have most ministry be voluntary and part time, including the priesthood and deaconate, and most roles in the parish time limited. The experience I had in the 1980s was term limited, i.e. most of us after a few years were grateful for the experience and glad to move on. I found the pastoral staff experience gave me renewed energy, and greater perspective for my day job in the mental health system. I think the ideal life of Christian service and leadership involves family, work, community as well as church. Not all done simultaneously but in well discerned changes of focus. The ideal parish community is one where there is a constant circulation into and out of parish ministries so that everyone shares the work and elites do not develop. The only paid roles would be celibate including bishops, some priests and some religious.
From the perspective of a social psychologist it is important to view this not as simply as a personal problem of elitist attitudes upon the part of some persons (clergy, religious, lay leaders) but also a structural problem, i.e. certain structures and practices encourage everyone to view themselves or others people as an elite.
For example the deaconate: Francis himself has frequently asked the question "why would you ordain an outstanding lay leader as a deacon and deprive the Church of an example of lay leadership?" Now if the person is being ordained for the purpose of preaching at Mass, the person clearly needs ordination under our present rules. But in my area few people are being ordained deacons to preach, and most deacons who do preach do a poor job of preaching just as most young priests do a poor job. Expanding the deaconate to women who are paid ecclesial ministers will demonstrate how "clerical" our parish lay leadership has become.
For example paid lay ecclesial ministers: Back in the 1980s before lay ecclesial ministers became prevalent I was a member of a voluntary pastoral staff. All the diversity of that voluntary staff provided far more spiritual and secular talent into parish leadership than could ever be provided by either training in lay ecclesial ministry program or prior experience in ministry. Both of those provide a far narrower range of talent. Because lay ecclesial ministers form an elite that have actually promoted clericalism despite the "lay" label.
For example voluntary parish ministers: In our large suburban parish, both paid lay ecclesial ministers and lay volunteers constantly complain of the doing all the work and not being able to recruit more volunteers. During my four years on pastoral council, I observed many people who were interested in volunteering but once they saw that the "same people, paid or volunteer" were going to provide all the leadership, they lost interest. There are many talented people who would gladly volunteer their time, but they simply are not interested in doing things that require little talent or autonomy. They are interested in being leaders not followers.
My proposal for a non-elitist "poor church for the poor" is to have most ministry be voluntary and part time, including the priesthood and deaconate, and most roles in the parish time limited. The experience I had in the 1980s was term limited, i.e. most of us after a few years were grateful for the experience and glad to move on. I found the pastoral staff experience gave me renewed energy, and greater perspective for my day job in the mental health system. I think the ideal life of Christian service and leadership involves family, work, community as well as church. Not all done simultaneously but in well discerned changes of focus. The ideal parish community is one where there is a constant circulation into and out of parish ministries so that everyone shares the work and elites do not develop. The only paid roles would be celibate including bishops, some priests and some religious.
Clericalism: believing that clergy are superior are the laity.
ReplyDeleteSigns of clericalism: privileges reserved to the clergy, for no compelling reason.
Examples:
- reserving access to communion of the cup to clergy
- on Good Friday, reserving the possibility of touching the cross to the clergy, asking the laity to staying at least 3 feet away
- on the opening of the door of Mercy for the Year of Mercy, having all priests and deacons go through the door, then blocking it and asking all the lay people to take a detour and go in through the regular door instead, because "they are not ready" and "will go through it later during the year"
- declaring the space around the altar to be "sacred" and asking the laity to refrain from going there, reserving access to clergy.
The best counter to clericalism: excluding women from all clerical functions. This forces half of the church to find fulfillment in only what the laity does, and as women are coming to see that they are not inferior to men by virtue of their gender, logically infer that the laity has all that is needed and that lay people are not inferior to clergy.
Claire, just wondering, how do they do veneration of the cross on Good Friday if no one can touch it but the clergy? Here everyone comes forward and either touches or kisses it.
DeleteOne of the beauties of the veneration of the Cross at my favorite parish is that you have a lot of choices and are encourage to invent your own, e.g. bowing, genuflecting, touching, kissing.
DeleteSince I now use a walking stick, I touch my walking stick to the cross while bowing profoundly.
People come forward and bow or kneel in front of the cross.
DeleteTwo to consider:
Delete“The only choice for the Church is another radical Reformation. The deeply ingrained evil of clericalism destroyed the credibility of our beautiful Church. Because of it, one important point has been missed – the Church will be saved by its laity, or it will not be saved at all.” (Fr. Brian D.Arcy, “A Different Journey”) http://www.thetablet.co.uk/features/2/5736/set-the-rule-book-aside-for-once
“By clericalism I mean an elitist mindset, together with structures and patterns of behavior corresponding to it, which takes it for granted that clerics—in the Catholic context, mainly bishops and priests—are intrinsically superior to the other members of the Church and deserve automatic deference. Passivity and dependence are the laity’s lot.
By no means is clericalism confined to clerics themselves. The clericalist mindset is widely shared by Catholic lay people.”
Russell Shaw, “Nothing to Hide. Secrecy, Communication and Communion in the Catholic Church”
http://www.thesestonewalls.com/Files/The%20Public%20Square.pdf, pg 57.
The Dioceses of Madison, WI and Rockford, Il have reserved the cup ONLY for the clergy. The sheep, of course, rolled over and went along with it.
DeleteA part of clericalism is an insistence of rank and pecking order, even within the clergy, in situations where there is no need for it. An example: previously the deacons were able to purify the Communion vessels at the altar. However, a few years ago the directive came out that only the priest could purify the vessels at the altar. If the deacons were doing it they had to do it off to the side, or back in the sacristy after Mass. I don't know where this directive came from, if it is part of the GIRM, or something diocesan. What it means in our parish is that the deacons are doing this task on a credence table which is of a height for the grade school altar servers. It is a little thing and the deacons don't complain. But I see it as disrespectful to them.
ReplyDeleteAnd previously lay people were allowed to purify the vessels in the sacristy. A lot of these rubrics make no sense in the modern church in which laity regularly receive the Eucharist. They might have made sense in earlier centuries when communion occurred only several times a year.
DeleteIn the pre-Vatican II church only church sacristans were allowed to touch the sacred vessels besides those who were ordained.
Now that I have the balance problem, I consider the deacons washing of the dishes as the time to leave the assembly and get a head start on the parking lot.
When I was in the Air Force and ran an officers' club, the wives of the senior officers had their pecking order down-pat vis-à-vis their husbands' rank and date of rank. A harbinger of possible problems with wives of priests of the monsignori ranks?
DeleteJack, I can't thank you enough for those quotes from Francis. They're among the best things I've seen from him.
ReplyDeleteWhat excites me about these words is that he positions clericalism as a sin against mission. To the extent that the church pursues clericalism, it's not pursuing its mission. Perhaps the whole thing is summed up in a line that Francis once wrote, but which unfortunately I am not able to find at the moment, the gist of which is, 'an inward-facing church is not healthy.'
I suppose an example that comes to mind of "liturgical clericalism" is the prescription, which frankly I see violated more than followed in the US (but am not losing any sleep over it) is the one that states that priests should give communion, and extraordinary eucharistic ministers should be utilized only if there are not enough priests for the task. (cf GIRM 162).
ReplyDeleteA similar one is the requirement that, if a priest or deacon is present for a celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, the cleric should preside.
Katherine - you're right that the GIRM says, in no. 183, that "[w]hen the distribution of Communion is over, the Deacon returns to the altar with the Priest, collects the fragments, should any remain, and then carries the chalice and other sacred vessels to the credence table, where he purifies them and arranges them as usual, while the Priest returns to the chair." It adds that the vessels can be left covered on the credence table and then purified after mass.
Jim, I don't actually see those as examples of clericalism. I think that the priest is there to lead people in prayer and more generally to help them encounter God and build a Christian community, each person in their own way. Distributing communion or presiding the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours are fitting activities: they're about bringing people together and towards God, not about separating the priest from lay people.
DeleteI have no problem with the priest being in a spiritual leadership position, after all that's his job. I do have a problem with micromanagement, of which the length and specificity of the GIRM is a prime example. I realize that there has to be some guidelines. But I wish there was more of a spirit of subsidiarity in these things; giving the faith community an opportunity to apply the principles to their own needs.
DeleteA number of years ago, Cardinal George sent word out to the deacons of the Chicago archdiocese that, during the consecration of the body and blood, after the elements have been raised upward, we were not to bow when the priest bows. That is because he considered the bow to be something that is proper to the presider.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one could conclude that the rule of thumb "only the presider may bow to the Eucharistic elements" is an example of clericalism. I would wish to take a closer look at the meaning and history of the movement before reaching a conclusion. If we accept that there are such things as priests, laypersons, deacons and so on, then it seems that there should be *some* things that distinguish the one state from the others. Something like bowing the elements during the consecration may actually be something that is *proper* to the priest, in the sense that it's particularly fitting for a priest to do this.
Even if that's what we concluded, I suspect that Francis would point to something that Jack quoted from him in the original post:
"It is not [for] the pastor to tell lay people what they must do and say, they know this better than we do."
Rules, glorious rules!
DeleteWhat wouldn't we give for
That extra bit more --
That's all that we live for
Why should we be fated to
Do nothing but brood
On rules,
Magical rules,
Wonderful rules,
Marvelous rules,
Fabulous rules.
Jack - re: Francis and the diaconate: if you haven't seen this before, you may wish to check it out.
ReplyDeletehttps://aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/pope-francis-writes-prologue-for-new-book-on-the-diaconate/
Francis's prologue at this link may actually a nice "companion piece" for the documents you quoted in your original post. Those documents are profoundly rooted in diakonia; Francis pretty clearly sees the church as a servant, entrusted by the master with a mission, and clericalism is contrary to that service.
If the restored permanent diaconate serves to remind bishops and priests that they share the same ordained commitment to diakonia, then the restoration was worthwhile for that reason alone. Surely the cure for clericalism is diakonia.
Thanks Jim for reminding me of my post here which covered the Pope's Christmas message to the Curia. I think that if we get women deacons, it will be with a papal document on diakonia which treats it broadly like he does in this message as a mark of the Church applicable to everyone.
ReplyDeleteThis prologue was likely written by a staffer who has been charged with developing these positive ideas.
On Monday the Vatican will release a Papal Exhortation on the Universal Call to Holiness which I see as another part of the thinking that is going on behind the scenes to flesh out a positive antidote to clericalism.
The Catholic church teaches, according to the "Catholic Encyclopedia" called New Advent, that the ordained are superior to laity. This teaching leads to clericalism - the outward manifestation of this notion by those who believe themselves to belong to a superior class of Catholic. It will be tough to get rid of clericalism as long as the ordained class considers itself to be superior, and with a more "special" call to "holiness" than everyone else. Claire offered several examples of how this manifests itself in everyday church life.
ReplyDeleteNew Advent: The laity and clergy, or clerics, belong to the same society, but do not occupy the same rank. The laity are the members of this society who remain where they were placed by baptism, while the clergy, even if only tonsured, have been raised by ordination to a higher class, and placed in the sacred hierarchy.
John Paul II: Vita Consecrata, no. 32: “As a way of showing forth the Church's holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ's own way of life, has an objective superiority.
Saint Thomas Aquinas: ST II-II.152.4: "Virginity is more excellent than marriage, which can be seen by both faith and reason. Faith sees virginity as imitating the example of Christ and the counsel of St. Paul. Reason sees virginity as rightly ordering goods, preferring a Divine good to human goods, the good of the soul to the good of the body, and the good of the contemplative life to that of the active life."
John Paul II: While the Second Vatican Council speaks of the universal call to holiness, in the case of the priest we must speak of a special call to holiness
etc. etc.
This harmful teaching about the "superiority" of virginity to marriage and the superiority of those in the "hierarchy" (even the lowest of the low in the hierarchy - "only tonsured") - with their "special" call to holiness - has also led to distorted church teachings on women, on human sexuality in general, and on married sexuality in particular.
I agreed with a lot that Shea said. Cloutier just restated the same old, same old without improving on the age-old rationalizations that have been put forth to justify requiring ordained clerics in special clothes in order for christians to come together and share bread and wine. Garry Will's book Why Priests also presents interesting history and arguments about why the current "class" system in the Catholic church should be changed. Of course, the clerics had a collective heart attack with Will's book, but that doesn't mean he failed to present some valid observations.
The Catholic Encyclopedia which New Advent originally shared on their site was the 1913 edition. I don't know if they have a more current version on there now.
DeleteAnne - I see several strands being mixed here.
DeleteVirginity is not the same as the clerical state. Many laypersons are called to virginity, and at least some clergy (including yours truly) are called to the married life.
Personally, I don't have an issue with the idea that the way of life of a priest or a religious sister is spiritually "superior" in some ways to the way of having a married life and a family. That view needs to be coupled with the understanding that not all of us are called to those particular ways of life, and that those ways of life also are more demanding than ours. But all of those ways of life are pathways to God.
And the ordained or consecrated life, per se, is not the same as clericalism. We need a better definition of clericalism than "everyone who is clergy". I don't know that we'll ever be able to eradicate clericalism completely on our own - any more than racism, sexism or any other "ism" sin that we could name - but we can certainly work to mitigate its worst effects, both among clergy and laypersons (one of Francis's good insights in the original post is that laypersons also are susceptible to clericalism).
Jim, I realize that virginity and being a cleric are not one and the same things. But too many, like John Paul II and clerics, seem to think that virginity is a superior state to non-virginity, including within marriage. This dates back to Paul and Augustine and a lot of the other early church fathers. This notion is one of my objections to the teaching that Mary was "forever virgin". Not only is this teaching un-supported in scripture, it effectively denigrates marital love, including the physical part of marital love. (Joseph could have easily gotten an annulment in the RCC under these circumstances.)
DeleteIn my personal experience, the most 'holy" people I have known have been married people with children. I have known one or two women religious who were "holy" IMHO, but women religious don't have the "prestige" and "power" and "authority" that male priests have. Sometimes they are infected with the clericalism of the priests, and sometimes they contribute to the clericalism of priests, but I would say that they are less prone to clericalism than are the ordained.
I think that marriage, and especially parenthood, often require more of people in growing in "unselfishness" and self-sacrifice, patience, humility and a whole lot of other virtues, than does the priesthood.
Of course, there are "holy" and very "spiritual" people in all vocations, and people who don't measure up in all vocations, but I think that claiming that priests and sisters are "spiritually" superior is not only a mistaken notion, but it contributes to clericalism - the notion that priests and religious are superior, leading too many to act that way towards the laity, including towards laity who are vowed religious women.
John Paul II often reinforced the message of the "specialness" and "ontological" separateness of the priesthood. The studies by Hoge et al of the self-perceptions of priests, and their preferences for the "cultic" or "servant leader" models of priesthood indicate that the "superiority" emphasized by the "Catholic Encyclopedia" of a century ago are still impacting how priests see themselves, and how they conduct themselves with the laity. Apparently Shea wrote about some of this long ago, long before the Commonweal article.
See the following links
http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/summer_2005/c21_hoge.html
http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/summer_2005/c21_priests.html
Being married and being celibate both have their demands. One is not superior to the other.
DeleteTonsure was the rite of entrance into the clerical state at the time the Catholic Encyclopedia was written. However after Vatican II, ordination to the deaconate defines entrance into the clergy for the Roman Rite at least (Eastern Canon law may be different).
ReplyDeleteI guess, in this discussion, my views are as follows:
ReplyDelete* Christianity requires clergy. I don't support any suggestions to get rid of clergy.
* Clericalism is bad. It's a distortion of what clerical service should be.
* There is much that is good about clerical culture. One of my worries is that, in the desire to stamp out clericalism, those things that are good about clerical culture would be eradicated, too.
* Do clergy need to be in charge of a parish, or a diocese, or the universal church? Or do they have a role more corresponding to prayer, liturgy, spiritual advice, service and so on, with administration being done by talented administrators from all different walks of life?
"Christianity requires clergy. I don't support any suggestions to get rid of clergy."
DeleteI have to agree, from the experience of seeing the diminishment of parishes when they are without a priest. That's what priests are for: to enable Christians to form a lively Christian community, by gathering them around the Eucharist, helping each develop their talents, encouraging initiatives, and letting, by small touches and gentler counseling, the community take shape and be oriented towards Christ. The fruit of the life of a priest who fulfills his vocation is a lively community of lay Christians.
At least that's how I think of it: first think of what it means to be a Christian community building the Kingdom of God, then consider how a priest could help that community towards that goal: that will define the vocation of the priest. In that sense the vocation of a priest is ordered to the vocation of the laity: understanding the vocation of the laity comes first, and the vocation of the priest can then be deduced from it.
Priestly celibacy is completely marginal to that view. It has no intrinsic value. It would only have value if it helped the priest fulfill his vocation. It is not important. I tend to think that it can stand in the way and is detrimental overall.
Claire: Priestly celibacy is completely marginal to that view. It has no intrinsic value. It would only have value if it helped the priest fulfill his vocation. It is not important. I tend to think that it can stand in the way and is detrimental overall.
DeleteI agree with most of what you say. If one looks at the clergy as one looks at the leadership of many vocations, they are necessary in order for the community to function well. But mandatory celibacy is very often detrimental. I have become especially aware of this during the last several years, because I began attending an Episcopal parish with my Protestant husband, after 30+ years of both of us attending a Catholic parish. What an eye-opener - and what a gift- to experience a non-celibate, not exclusively male, priesthood.
There is much that is good about clerical culture.
ReplyDeleteJim, could you elaborate? How do you define "clerical culture"?
What is "good" about clerical culture that is unique to "clerical culture"?
I don't pretend to be able to give a definition or description of clerical culture. But I don't think it's far-fetched if we consider other professional cultures: if there is such a thing as a legal culture, a medical culture, an engineering culture, and so on, then it seems likely enough that there is a clerical culture.
DeleteCloser to the church, I think any of us who have spent time with women religious understand that a religious order has a particular and distinctive culture. Again, the comparison with priests seems reasonable.
All of these professional cultures probably find their roots in the shared school/training experience, and then the shared experience of pursuing their vocations. Priests, as much as doctors or military officers, are "brothers in arms".
Some of the distinctive traits of a healthy clerical culture would include kindness, patience, piety, responsiveness to those under their pastoral care, and a willingness of the more experienced to mentor those who are younger. There is also an undefinable sense of joy and/or peace that seems to radiate from good priests.
The clerical culture includes distinctive customs as well. A simple example: in Chicago, whenever the priests come together to pray, as at the funeral of a priest, they sing a Marian hymn in Latin - I'm sorry I can't remember which one it is. Even the younger priests, who presumably know as little or even less Latin than I do, sing along.
Another mark of culture, and one that I would argue can be healthy, is loyalty to other members of the group. Obviously, this can go too far or can be misplaced. The duty to loyalty has its limits; surely the well-being of those under pastoral care takes precedence. But if someone criticizes a deacon or priest or staff member in my parish, I'll defend them to the extent that I think whatever they said or did is defensible. If that makes me part of the clerical culture, then I guess I'm in it, too.
Jim, bet that Latin hymn is Salve Regina.
DeleteI agree that most definitely religious sisters have their own culture. They speak of their order's "charisma". I don't know if that is the same thing, though it is related to their mission. Another example that springs to mind is the volunteer fire and rescue squad that my brother in law belongs to. It is a brotherhood of sorts; they help others, but they also help each other. I think that kind of esprit de corps is a good thing. Where it would become problematic is if members of a group cover up wrongdoing by one of their number. But we don't want to throw out what is basically a support system, everyone needs that.
Well there are likely multiple clerical cultures in different countries and different dioceses.
DeleteIt is widely admitted that there is a clerical culture of those who have been educated in Rome. It bonds priests who have been educated there, even across dioceses and nations. However it is often viewed as elitist by those who were not educated there.
Being educated in seminaries in this country can also produce similar bonds. Lay men who have gone to seminaries or belonged to religious orders sometimes go to reunions even if they have left the priesthood or were never ordained.
When I lived in the diocese of Toledo in the eighties priests where encouraged to join priest support groups. When I was growing up 40 hours devotions was concluded solemnly when many priest came to sing the litanies, etc. followed by much alcohol.
From my observations here some priests do have priest friends but many, especially young ones, seem to be loners. A lot of diocesan priests find their support in their families. Traditionally those have been strong faith families, but more and more vocations are coming from broken families who many not be able to give the traditional support.
Some dioceses have very strong clerical cultures that promote elitist attitude such as in Philadelphia.
Katherine - yes, I believe you're right, it is Salve Regina. And it's a good insight regarding religious orders; founders are generally considered to be critical to each order's culture. No doubt that is rooted in the practicalities of the personality and personal spirituality of the founder, as well as the personal relationship between the founder and the first followers whom s/he attracted. This is one of the reason that the Legionnaires of Christ are in crisis.
DeleteJack - my impression is that some dioceses, and probably some religious orders, pretty overtly cultivated an aura of elitism; to be admitted to a diocese's seminary was itself a mark that one had the right stuff. I have somewhat mixed feelings about that. My family happens to have a devotion to Blessed Solanus Casey, who was deemed not bright enough to be ordained to the priesthood, but whose spiritual gifts were (and continue to be) plentiful.
Jim, most of the "virtues" you list for priests are not exclusive to priests, to the clerical culture. Very often the other professional cultures you cite are also problematic. They can have their positives for one another, but often those positives are negatives for those who aren't members of the club.
DeleteIt is one thing to bond with former classmates, work colleagues, those in one's highly specialized profession etc - due to shared experiences and interests - and another to create exclusive clubs of those with these shared interests, professions, and experiences, especially if those "clubs" have power and authority over others - including "spiritual" power and authority, which often translates into psychological and emotional power over others.
How much harm is done by police who see a colleague use “excessive” force, or even “excessive” bullets (in the back) and don’t report it? How much harm is done in the medical profession when members become aware that one of their colleagues is now unable to practice with the care needed – perhaps due to an addiction to alcohol or drugs, or even something as commonplace as old age interfering with surgical abilities - and don’t do something about it before another patient is harmed? Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US. [https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/] Obviously, the medical profession needs to clean up its own act as much as the RCC does – but “loyalty” seems to stop the needed corrections from being implemented.
In the case of the clerical culture, the people in the pews mostly accept the "authority" of the priest, whether or not he is kind, or patient or any of the other virtues you mention that are not found exclusively among clerics. My experience of priests if far more limited than yours is. We all tend to generalize based on our personal experiences. I have never met a priest who is especially kind or patient or responsive to "those under their care" - not any more than any other random group of people I have known. I have met more than one autocrat in the priesthood, petty dictators in their parishes. The "best" priests I have known were theology professors, not parish priests – good teachers. Piety is another problematic "virtue" in my experience. Too often public piety is a sign of a closed heart. Those who don't wear their "piety" on their sleeves are usually better examples of followers of Christ than are those who emphasize their own "piety". Piety and spirituality and "holiness" are not the same things, and very often those who are the most publicly "pious" are the least spiritual, in a real sense.
The clerical culture is even worse than other professional cultures such as the military, the police, firefighters etc. in its exclusivity. The bonding that goes on is mostly "male bonding" - and women are often made to feel very unwelcome in these male-dominated professions. Of course, the Catholic church is the most male-dominated culture in the world overall - no women, ever! - , and that is one of the biggest problems with the RC's clerical culture. It creates an internalized misogny that is intrinsic to its doctrines and governance and which causes much harm to those in their "pastoral care". “Loyalty" can also be problematic, as it too often becomes a form of tribalism. This is often seen in the Catholic clerical culture - rooted in the sense of ontological superiority that too many priests believe became theirs because another male human being laid hands on him one day.
"It is one thing to bond with former classmates, work colleagues, those in one's highly specialized profession etc - due to shared experiences and interests - and another to create exclusive clubs of those with these shared interests, professions, and experiences, especially if those "clubs" have power and authority over others - including "spiritual" power and authority, which often translates into psychological and emotional power over others. "
DeleteRight. Let's agree that everything that comes before "... and another ..." in this paragraph constitutes good, or at least acceptable, aspects of the clerical culture. And everything after "... and another ... " - let's call those symptoms "clericalism", or at least that they run the risk of lapsing into clericalism, and agree that it's not a good thing.
Jim said: * Do clergy need to be in charge of a parish, or a diocese, or the universal church? Or do they have a role more corresponding to prayer, liturgy, spiritual advice, service and so on, with administration being done by talented administrators from all different walks of life?
ReplyDeleteThis would indeed be a large step toward lay leadership in the church. I think schools, healthcare, and social service agencies should all be run lay people without clerical supervision.
When some of us talked to priests during the sexual abuse crises many of them saw both the bishop and themselves as too involved in administration. They felt laity were telling them to be CEOs of their parishes when management and administration was not their calling.
We have always had large organizations of non-ordained women religious running complex and varied Catholic institutions with priests as chaplains, and with only a distant relationship to the local bishop if they were pontifical institutions.
Jack - admittedly, my point of view on this comes from the corporate culture where I've spent my adult life, but I'd be in favor of putting the best and brightest in charge of running the organization. Often, that will be a layperson. Sometimes it could be a religious or a priest. I would say that being ordained to the priesthood doesn't thereby make one more competent as a leader or administrator. At the same time, dioceses and seminaries have developed leadership curricula over the years to prepare priests for leadership, and that training probably has some value.
DeletePerhaps a special category would be colleges, high schools, hospitals, nursing homes and so on that have a religious order heritage. Personally, I think it's important that the orders maintain concrete presence in these institutions, even if a member of the order is not in charge. I think it's fair to ask what it means to describe a college as Jesuit if there are no actual Jesuits there. I don't know if there is such a case in the US, but it doesn't seem that far-fetched, given the reality of dwindling numbers of vocations to priestly and religious life.
Most of the early monks were not ordained; in fact the ordained were discouraged from becoming monks. This was the case when the Rule of Benedict was written. That Rule makes it clear the seniority in the monastery is determined by the date of entry. If an ordained person enters they are given no special status unless the Abbot appoints them to it. They line up and take their place in the choir with the lay monks who entered at the same time. The abbot as a lay person presides at the office, and gives the blessing. Whether the ordained person is the weekly choir leader or one of the cantors, or readers, etc. is all up to the abbot based upon seniority and talent.
ReplyDeleteAnother take on the Shea-Cloutier debate in Commonweal today.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.commonwealmagazine.org/get-rid-clergy
Also an interesting report in NCR online - it seems this priests' group is trying to fight clericalism within the ranks.
Among comments and suggestions within the document are:
Insistence that first and foremost priests "need to see themselves as servants of God and of God's people"
A strong call that women play a much larger role in pastoral formation, in discerning seminarians' "suitability for ordination," and as theological faculty and spiritual directors
Description of "the typical seminary community" as "significantly buffered if not larger isolated from the larger world and parish-level," and arguing that "the diocesan presbyterate and parish communities" provide "better community contexts for forming a candidate for servant priesthood"
Criticism of the current Program of Priestly Formation as "overly focused on spiritual, philosophical and theological abstractions" and in effect training "candidates for priesthood … to be theologians rather than 'pastors' "
Extensive observations on the "psychosexual development" of priest candidates in areas including celibacy, sexual orientation and relating to future pastoral work, and a summation that "human sexuality is too complex for the priestly formation system alone to assure healthy and mature celibate priests"
Concern "that the way the current Program of Priestly Formation has been implemented in many seminaries has more often than not resulted in priests who do not see themselves as Christ-like servants of God's people" in ways "contrary to a Vatican II understanding of the call to pastoral service" which, in turn, fosters "a sense of distance, separation, elitism, clericalism, insensitivity and superiority, all of which have been critiqued by Pope Francis"
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/priests-group-wants-significant-change-priest-formation-process
The NCR article is interesting. I wish the group luck in what they are trying to accomplish, especially with regard to priestly formation.
DeleteThis part caught my attention; "Extensive observations on the "psychosexual development" of priest candidates in areas including celibacy, sexual orientation and relating to future pastoral work, and a summation that "human sexuality is too complex for the priestly formation system alone to assure healthy and mature celibate priests." Maybe, as some others have said here, it is time to quit doubling down on celibacy as a requirement. Aside from the sexuality aspect, in our world today it is really hard for priests to have an emotional support system when they are not able to have their own families. In some regards it is a lonely life despite the brotherhood and esprit de corps with other priests.