James Carroll's latest in the Atlantic has stirred up quite a bit of response. This is a long article filled with a lot of ideas that Carroll has expressed elsewhere. Below the break I have given what I take to be his core ideas about what "abolishing" and "detaching" would mean.
My response is that Christians who were repulsed by the Church of Constantine "detached" themselves by "withdrawing" i.e. (monks were literally "withdrawn ones") either into the desert in the case of men, or the inner rooms of houses in the case of women. They both focused upon scripture primarily the psalms plus readings which became their Divine Office in contrast to the incense and lights and ceremonies of morning and evening prayer in the new Cathedrals. In effect they continued practices or reading the scriptures which were common in the early house churches. They did not however attempt to celebrate the Eucharist on their own. Many of the males who lived as solitaries did not partake in the Eucharist for weeks, months, years or even decades (depending upon distance). Priests were not encouraged to become members of their communities, and when they did they were under the authority of the Abbot who of course was not ordained.(This would later be true of Benedict's rule). Christians, including the bishops, recognized their holy lives and did not judge them in terms of their participation in the cathedral liturgies (In fact some bishops even encouraged the virgins not to disturb these assemblies by coming to them).
The Divine Office has been center of my prayer life since about eighth grade. It has had many different expressions. I begin with the Short Breviary for nuns, graduated to the complete Office in English. When I was at Saint John's during Vatican II sometimes I chanted Latin Vespers with the monks upstairs, sometimes the Gelineau psalms with the brothers down stairs. For the last two decades I have often celebrated Vespers on Saturday evening with the local Orthodox parish (they consider me an associate member). A Benedictine monastery in Europe still celebrates the old Office in Latin; it is just like being back at Saint John's; I have a copy of the Monastic Antiphonal. I really do not feel the clergy are at the center of my prayer life .Saint Thomas in New York records their many Vespers services. Many times "celebration wise" the Sunday Mass is the liturgical low point of my week. But I see that as the clergy's problem not mine. I don't need the parish for music or education. I do participate in parish life and make my talents and interest available to others. I believe in voluntary (unpaid) ministry so I don't support anyone with money. I do however give generously to the poor. I believe in a poor church (unpaid ministry) for the poor.
For the first time in my life, and without making a conscious decision, I simply stopped going to Mass. I embarked on an unwilled version of the Catholic tradition of “fast and abstinence”—in this case, fasting from the Eucharist and abstaining from the overt practice of my faith. I am not deluding myself that this response of mine has significance for anyone else—Who cares? It’s about time!—but for me the moment is a life marker. I have not been to Mass in months. I carry an ocean of grief in my heart.
What if multitudes of the faithful, appalled by what the sex-abuse crisis has shown the Church leadership to have become, were to detach themselves from—and renounce—the cassock-ridden power structure of the Church and reclaim Vatican II’s insistence that that power structure is not the Church? The Church is the people of God. The Church is a community that transcends space and time. Catholics should not yield to clerical despots the final authority over our personal relationship to the Church. I refuse to let a predator priest or a complicit bishop rip my faith from me.
Replacing the diseased model of the Church with something healthy may involve, for a time, intentional absence from services or life on the margins—less in the pews than in the rearmost shadows. But it will always involve deliberate performance of the works of mercy: feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, visiting the sick, striving for justice.
These can be today’s chosen forms of the faith. It will involve, for many, unauthorized expressions of prayer and worship—egalitarian, authentic, ecumenical; having nothing to do with diocesan borders, parish boundaries, or the sacrament of holy orders. That may be especially true in so-called intentional communities that lift up the leadership of women. These already exist, everywhere. No matter who presides at whatever form the altar takes, such adaptations of Eucharistic observance return to the theological essence of the sacrament. Christ is experienced not through the officiant but through the faith of the whole community. “For where two or three are gathered in my name,” Jesus said, “there am I in the midst of them.”
In what way, one might ask, can such institutional detachment square with actual Catholic identity? Through devotions and prayers and rituals that perpetuate the Catholic tradition in diverse forms, undertaken by a wide range of commonsensical believers, all insisting on the Catholic character of what they are doing. Their ranks would include ad hoc organizers of priestless parishes; parents who band together for the sake of the religious instruction of youngsters; social activists who take on injustice in the name of Jesus; and even social-media wizards launching, say, #ChurchResist. As ever, the Church’s principal organizing event will be the communal experience of the Mass, the structure of which—reading the Word, breaking the bread—will remain universal; it will not need to be celebrated by a member of some sacerdotal caste. The gradual ascendance of lay leaders in the Church is in any case becoming a fact of life, driven by shortages of personnel and expertise. Now is the time to make this ascendance intentional, and to accelerate it. The pillars of Catholicism—gatherings around the book and the bread; traditional prayers and songs; retreats centered on the wisdom of the saints; an understanding of life as a form of discipleship—will be unshaken.
I found this response very interesting and on target:
Everybody Wants a Revolution, but Nobody Wants to Do the Dishes’
This recent article from Commonweal is also very relevant:
Why I Stayed and Why I am leaving
I came into the church that day to bury my daughter with “the ones who had known her all along,” and I left the church with them still beside me. I believe that Moy Moy remains in our midst and that Jesus is walking along with us. We are all in very good company.I do believe that if you are a saint you can walk away from the clergy, though they won't be the reason for your walking away.
I am a subscriber to the print version of Atlantic. My first reaction to pulling it out of the mailbox and seeing the cover (a cathedral in gold-colored relief against a dark background) and the lead article by James Carroll, was to be offended by what seemed a gratuitous pile-on. That was also pretty much my second, third, and fourth reaction. I am in agreement with Michael Sean Winters' take on the article, in which he called it "misguided and tiresome. James Carroll obviously has no lingering affection for the priesthood, having left it 45 years ago. Fine. People have to do what they have to do. The Reformation happened, and there are many churches which do what he wants, with a more democratic structure. There are "ecumenical communities in the Catholic tradition" as well as whatever Protestant flavor one wants. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
ReplyDeleteAlso in NCR was a good article by Thomas Reese,Abolishing the Priesthood Will Not Save the Catholic Church, in which he said, "...Clericalism was already present among the Twelve long before Constantine...Those who believe that democratic procedures will break this cycle have never been to a contentious parish meeting. Nor can they explain why democracy, which is working so badly today in the United States and the rest of the world, will magically work well in the church. Remember, half of Catholics voted for President Trump." Good point.
And as MSW pointed out, it is the season for ordinations. A young man from our parish is being ordained on June 1. The parish has been praying for him for 8 years. It is a day for rejoicing, not for second guessing his choice.
I wish James Carroll would get over his long-standing problem with authority. He was a good writer, back when I was reading him before I stopped because he stopped saying anything new.
ReplyDeleteVat II said we all are the Church. Pope Francis keeps saying clerics are no big deal and clericalism is holding the Church back from its mission. Those are comments from authority that I heard, believed and internalized. If Carroll missed the message and thinks he needs a priestless church, there are a lot of them. One of them had a preacher on TV the other day who was wearing a tee shirt with the message: "Selfie, because narcissist is too hard to spell." If that's where he needs to go, I'd suggest that preacher as one promising place to look.
But more democracy? Look where that's gotten Hungary, Turkey, Poland, The Philippines, India, Brexit Britain and the formerly United States.
As one here whose view of the RCC is closer to Mr. Carroll's than that of most here, I found the Reese article to be a bit disingenuous. Another article in NCR should also be considered.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/wounded-body-christ-response-carrolls-critics
Steidl makes some good points. I thought, for a frightening moment, that I agreed with Arroyo, but fortunately he over egged the pudding, as he always does, and so the fright passed.
DeleteBut Steidl, imo, is not talking about the whole Church when he writes:
"Whatever arguments church leaders use to defend themselves in this situation magnify the gap between the hurting laity and self-secure hierarchy."
There are a lot of laity hurting, but most of those who are hurting have problems other than Carroll's Symptom. And most of the laity is not hurting. Nor does most of the laity ever think very much about the hierarchy, which I suspect is not feeling as secure these days as Steidl thinks. His summary strikes me as projecting on everybody what it feels like on the upper West Side. (I could be wrong.)
I thought "tiresome" was apt. If this is what Carroll is about, I have no appetite to read more of it.
ReplyDeleteJack's ruminations on his prayer life, and the relatively marginal role of priests in it, may be the beginning of fruitful reflection. Let me suggest a couple of points for consideration:
Carroll's critics Winters and Martin agree with him that clericalism is the root cause of the crises of the sexual abuse of minors. But let's reflect a little bit on how clericalism manifests itself. Probably the way it manifests itself the least in the church is via liturgy. As Jack rightly notes, a priest isn't necessary for most prayer in the church. And it's quite possible for a priest to celebrate mass without behaving clericalistically. I make no bones about this: Carroll is utterly wrong to suggest that mass can be celebrated without priests. The church needs priests to celebrate mass and other sacraments.
But celebrating mass isn't all that priests do. Priests, like all the baptized, are supposed to exercise a threefold ministry: priest, prophet and king. It is the third of these, the kingly aspect, where the problem of clericalism is acute. Priests - and even more so cardinals and bishops - wield the essential authority in the church. It is here, in the loci of power, that the mischief happens, especially the mischief of covering up abuse. I believe this area, the kingly area, is that which is ripe for reform to eradicate, or at least mitigate, the problem of clericalism. Somehow, the munus of exercising governing authority by clergy needs to be checked and balanced.
It could happen at a parish level by appointing lay administrators to whom the priest reports. This is no longer hypothetical: with dioceses trying to figure out new administrative models, now that there is only one priest for every three or four parishes, the possibility that a priest could be accountable to a lay administrator, and/or a lay board (a parish council?) seems a real possibility.
It could happen in the Holy See by appointing competent laypersons to roles on dicasteries that today are held only by bishops.
"Priest, prophet, and king." I did not know that. Thank you for that explanation. As it relates to abuses arising from clericalism, it makes.perfect sense.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLaity can be just as clericalist as the clerics. Examples are the line-crashers who break into Communion lines, sometimes violently, to receive the Host from the sacred, consecrated hand of the priest, rather than the deacon who is at the head of their natural aisle. Or even worse, from the totally unconsecrated hand of an EM! I used to think line-crashers were of an age that they all will soon die out, but we have somehow developed some young ones.
ReplyDeleteWell I think we have to take Carroll article seriously because so many have responded to it.
ReplyDelete1. Sure all his criticisms are tiresome and in same cases true, e.g. the problem is clericalism. And of course they are self centered as has been a lot of his writing.
2. What I find remarkable is that he wants to abolish priests but not the Mass. That to me is extremely clerical. He does not seem to understand that there is Catholicism beyond the Mass, i.e. religious in the Church who have provided most of the energy for its reformation centered their lives on the Divine Office and serving others. They did not spend their time trying to reform bishops and diocesan clergy. Carroll seems to think we have to do that to reform and renew Catholicism. Historically that has not been true. The desert solitaries reformed the Church; the Benedictines reformed the Church as did the Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits etc. All this reform and renewal took place outside the diocesan structures.
3. Carroll does seem to understand that we have to walk away from existing structures. Historically new religious orders have been the way that we walked away from existing structures. Religious orders were once needed for reform because they were the only way to assemble sufficient resources outside the structures. However today with all out leisure time, internet resources we can form alternative structures very easily. Protestant churches form new sects constantly, but they are always fragmenting the church.
4. Catholic religious orders have not fragmented the church. Why not? Some have attributed this to a strong papacy and episcopacy, but that was not true for many long periods in our history. Some have attributed this to the Mass, but the Mass was not central to Benedict's Rule. My claim is the Divine Office has historically been the glue that kept religious bound to Catholicism. It provided what Law and others though could be done by the Catechism. There is an ancient principle which says the liturgy is the rule of faith, what you pray is what you believe. I have found that in my life. It is not founded on any Popes, or even Vatican II, or the Catechism or canon law, it is founded on the Divine Office both Byzantine and Roman.
The reason I think so many people have responded to this article negatively from both right and left, is that for many Catholics religion consists of the Mass. There is little beyond it. So for a lot of people reform and renewal means doing something about the Mass, e.g. women deacons, married priests, etc.
DeleteThe article has created a big stir because, for reasons best known to themselves (and in what I would consider a lapse of judgment), the editors of the Atlantic decided to make it the cover story for the June issue. But as a proposal, I don't think it's either serious or important. It's not going to happen. It adds nothing to any discussion. It's basically a long screed. I guess you can tell that I didn't find it edifying.
DeleteJim, I didn't find it edifying, either. It was a "stick a thumb in their eye" moment. As a Catholic, I didn't appreciate it, because we are going through a tough time, and like you said it didn't add anything to the discussion.
DeleteAnd yes, the Mass *is* important to us. Because of what Someone said about "this do in remembrance of me".
Yes, I think the Mass is considerably more important than Jack makes it out to be, just as the rosary is more important to most Catholics than the Divine Office. One gave us 150 psalms, the other gave us 150 Hail Marys (until a sainted pope, overlooking a sex scandal under his nose, gave us an additional but unneeded 50 Hail Marys).
DeleteThe Mass still needs reform, or the catechesis about it does, because too many people still look at it as punching the time clock for the week rather than the gathering of a faith community. And catechesis at Mass itself went out the window with slavish devotion to the homily as being not a sermon but a commentary on the readings.
But that is a whole nother subject.
One of my sisters had this to say: " All journalism is definitely "Made you look!" these days."
DeleteJack and Tom both make good points about Mass (not being the centerpiece of worship and needing reform). It seems to be a "get your magic food so you don't go to hell this week" occasion in the local parish, but part of me cringes when I say this because I am going on Church Lady exhortations vs. what might be in people's hearts. But no one ever talks about "why are we here."
ReplyDeleteI hear a lot of people say they "love the Mass" in the same way they seem to love their favorite book or movie. I am not sure how to interpret that, exactly, but I infer they are referring to the liturgical ritual and what it tells them about Christ's love for them personally more than the community of believers. But, again, I don't want to interpret what's in people's hearts.
I agree that the Atlantic article is just another Catholic-baiting piece.
About the "community of believers", the two parts of the Mass that make me feel most connected to them are the recitation of the Creed, and the Our Father (with or without the sign of peace). There is just something about hearing the voices joined, and knowing one is joined to all those who are saying the words now, and who ever said them in the past.
DeleteThe Our Father and the Creed are very meaningful for Raber, too. I think they tie his Protestant upbringing and Catholic conversion together, a road that led from Methodism to Anglicanism to Catholicism. He learned them as a small child and still leans on them.
DeleteFor about two years now I have "chaired" the Cleveland Commonweal Local Community. In this past year the group has become focused on the sexual abuse crisis, more particularly what we could do.
ReplyDeleteThis last meeting we moved on to discuss the Commonweal article on Warren's ideas about putting labor on corporate boards. This coming meeting we are going to talk about health care. I liked both topics because they have in common with the sexual abuse crisis the lack of accountability of large organizations.
I was surprised when one of our core members proposed in an e-mail the Carroll article. We have never yet discussed a non-Commonweal article! I guess he sees in the Carroll article some way forward to what we might do. I knew that the article had caused controversy, so I gave the group a few links and said I was open to discussing the article in July if the group thought it was worthy.
So I gave this post to try to find out why people hate or like this article. The guy that is proposing this article sees more to it than just unrealistic ranting. I haven't heard any objections from other members of the group but I have not heard any strong seconds. They have almost a month to respond.
Jack, the local Commonweal group (where the meetings always coincide with one of my or my wife's doctors, so I have never been to one) had the same thing: an email from one of its core members proposing a switch to Carroll's article. (I will make sure to see my urologist that afternoon.)
DeleteTom,
DeleteAbout half the people on my mailing list are like you. For a long time I tried to find times and places to accommodate them. I now have two lists an A “attenders” list and a B “backburners” list.
One of the strong traditions we have developed is that we accept people’s nominations for articles to read. In the first year we had 8 different people initiate articles. We have not turned down anyone’s suggestion yet. Of course, no one has proposed a non-Commonweal article until now.
Although we are a very intellectual and professional group, we have gotten to know each other, our family and work/retirement, and health situations. We have even buried one of our members.
Wayne developed cancer, attended meeting's off for a few months, and invited us to his home for his last meeting which happened to be the night before he died. As with many terminally ill people he gave a fine performance that night. I am sure that is how he wanted to be remembered. The next day he collapsed. Wayne was a retired academic, an admirer of Merton, and an associate member of some far away Trappist monastery. He prayed the Divine Office, so another member and I who also prays the Office led his family and academic friends in Evening Prayer for the Dead at his wake.
So Commonweal does have the capacity to generate community at least in my experience here. Since I have attended all the meetings, and corresponded by e-mail with all our members, I think it would be great if we were twice as large; we could then have two meetings a month with more times and places to accommodate people.
I do try to get the “B” members to come to the meeting by suggesting that if anyone wants to discuss a particular article, just come to any meeting and suggest it for the following meeting. I suspect that even if they wanted to discuss this article, I would welcome them and ask the group to welcome them.
Jack, I think the time the local (Boynton Beach) group has probably is the end result of trying to find one that would accommodate everybody. Who can have conflicts on Thursday afternoon? But, it turns out, we do. I know some of the regulars. One is a long-time agitator for liberal causes, and the guy who suggested the Carroll article is the quieter half of a couple who live in our parish whom I have done projects with. Good folks. I get the announcements and minutes, but I have had an uncanny ability to have Thursday afternoon conflicts.
DeleteI'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I dislike approaches to church reform that pit the laity against the clergy. As that catchy finale in "High School Musical" insists, we're all in this together.
ReplyDelete"We're all in this together", I agree with that. And I think any solutions which don't take that into account are going to fall short.
Delete