Clericalism among OF Catholics

[eelpis]

Is clericalism more common among OF Catholics than among EF Catholics? I thought it was the other way around but on further thought I think it is actually more common among OF Catholics.
Another poster put it like this “Concerning clericalism, we weren’t like the Catholics that I see in these forums saying, “Right or wrong, I’ll do as my Bishop says”.”

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[snhs]

Is clericalism more common among OF Catholics than among EF Catholics? I thought it was the other way around but on further thought I think it is actually more common among OF Catholics.
Another poster put it like this “Concerning clericalism, we weren’t like the Catholics that I see in these forums saying, “Right or wrong, I’ll do as my Bishop says”.”

What are your thoughts on this?

I think to a large extent it’s correct. The fact is traditional/EF Catholics have to a large extent been marginalised in the vast majority of Parishes so in order to hold to their views as traditional/EF Catholics they are hence forced to become more dependent on higher authorities and other sources than their local Parish Priest/Bishop etc. They need to be aware of what they have the ‘right’ to expect when it comes to the Liturgy because otherwise in a lot of places they won’t get even the bare minimal.

We can contrast this with less traditional Catholics who are more than happy to defer to their PP/Bishop, who will nine times out of ten hold a similar view to them. In doing so their prone to attributing to them more authority than they truly possess, sometimes even to the point of trying to change Church teaching e.g. Fr X said it was fine etc.

Whether it’s something that will swing back to the other side as traditional practices become mainstream I don’t know. But I think the liberal/modernistic mindset is probably more prone to it than a more traditional one which takes into account what has been done in the past etc.

 

[Joannm]

I think the OP needs to define what they mean by “clericalism” since what they are describing in the last post doesn’t seem to fit the description that I am familiar with.

 

[LilyM]

I think to a large extent it’s correct. The fact is traditional/EF Catholics have to a large extent been marginalised in the vast majority of Parishes so in order to hold to their views as traditional/EF Catholics they are hence forced to become more dependent on higher authorities and other sources than their local Parish Priest/Bishop etc. They need to be aware of what they have the ‘right’ to expect when it comes to the Liturgy because otherwise in a lot of places they won’t get even the bare minimal.

We can contrast this with less traditional Catholics who are more than happy to defer to their PP/Bishop, who will nine times out of ten hold a similar view to them. In doing so their prone to attributing to them more authority than they truly possess, sometimes even to the point of trying to change Church teaching e.g. Fr X said it was fine etc.

Whether it’s something that will swing back to the other side as traditional practices become mainstream I don’t know. But I think the liberal/modernistic mindset is probably more prone to it than a more traditional one which takes into account what has been done in the past etc.

I don’t know that your analysis is accurate. In my experience, the people who will cheerfully quote Fr X as an authority ONLY do so because he agrees with what they would want him to say, and not because there is any particular ideology of loyalty either to Fr X or clerics in general.

I would be willing to bet that those very same people will cheerfully ignore Fr X on matters on which they do NOT agree with him - and will naturally disagree with other priests, however holy, authoritative or well-reasoned their arguments, who take a different view on that particular matter to Fr X’s.

One question - when Our Lord said to the Apostles to whom our bishops are successors ‘whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’ and ‘who hears you hears me’, exactly how much attributed authority do you think is too much in regard to the Bishops?

 

[snhs]

I don’t know that your analysis is accurate. In my experience, the people who will cheerfully quote Fr X as an authority ONLY do so because he agrees with what they would want him to say, and not because there is any particular ideology of loyalty either to Fr X or clerics in general.

I would be willing to bet that those very same people will cheerfully ignore Fr X on matters on which they do NOT agree with him - and will naturally disagree with other priests, however holy, authoritative or well-reasoned their arguments, who take a different view on that particular matter to Fr X’s.

One question - when Our Lord said to the Apostles to whom our bishops are successors ‘whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’ and ‘who hears you hears me’, exactly how much attributed authority do you think is too much in regard to the Bishops?

Well I think that was part of my point. Whereas 50-60+ years ago virtually all Priests were at least on the face of things supportive of tradition/EF etc, now that they are less so in many places more liberal/less traditional people can and often do call upon their authority whereas more traditional Catholics are unable/unwilling to do it as often.

Wikipedia provides the definition that “Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and sociocultural import.”. Because of the relatively small numbers of traditionally minded clergy there has naturally been a drifting away from it by more traditional groups, and a growth of clericalism among less traditional groups. And yes they’re only likely to call upon that authority when they agree on a point, but I don’t think clericalism necessarily means you need to agree with any cleric you quote on every conceivable point.

If you find anyone to take that bet I think I’d back you to win it.

Bishops, as a group, have a very important role in the Church and collectively they have a lot of authority. But most of them do not have anything even remotely resembling absolute authority, even within their own Diocese. They can also get things wrong, and at times make decisions and orders which they do not have the authority, as defined in the laws of the Church, to make. I think the Bishop has that authority which has been bestowed upon him according to the laws of the Church, no more and no less.

 

[LilyM]

Well I think that was part of my point. Whereas 50-60+ years ago virtually all Priests were at least on the face of things supportive of tradition/EF etc, now that they are less so in many places more liberal/less traditional people can and often do call upon their authority whereas more traditional Catholics are unable/unwilling to do it as often.

Wikipedia provides the definition that “Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and sociocultural import.”. Because of the relatively small numbers of traditionally minded clergy there has naturally been a drifting away from it by more traditional groups, and a growth of clericalism among less traditional groups. And yes they’re only likely to call upon that authority when they agree on a point, but I don’t think clericalism necessarily means you need to agree with any cleric you quote on every conceivable point.

If you find anyone to take that bet I think I’d back you to win it.

Bishops, as a group, have a very important role in the Church and collectively they have a lot of authority. But most of them do not have anything even remotely resembling absolute authority, even within their own Diocese. They can also get things wrong, and at times make decisions and orders which they do not have the authority, as defined in the laws of the Church, to make. I think the Bishop has that authority which has been bestowed upon him according to the laws of the Church, no more and no less.

Hmmm. If clericalism refers to an appeal to FORMAL authority - then the mere opinion, informally expressed, of a single priest in most cases wouldn’t fit into that definition, in my opinion.

‘Fr X said abc as private and unofficial advice in the confessional/over dinner/when I asked him after Mass …’ which is probably the most common way such things are stated, to me really doesn’t cut it in terms of being an appeal to FORMAL authority.

And I’d say someone who cheerfully ignores half of what their priest says in his role as a priest, and cheerfully ignores most of what other priests say, isn’t really even appealing to Fr X as a priest per se - so how much authority are they really attributing to Fr X?

 

[ncjohn]

I guess I see things a bit differently here. My encounters with clericalism, mostly pre-Vatican II, dealt with the belief by the ordained that they were “special” and that the people in the pews were there to just “pray, pay, and obey”. In using the term “special”, I am referring to the idea that they were considered to be in a position of not being questioned and totally in charge. That consideratioin though almost always came from above, not from the people in the pews, though I tend to believe that those in the pews were more than happy to have someone else responsible for everything so they didn’t have to be responsible themselves.

The clergy are indeed special by virtue of their ordination, but in this age of much greater education and involvement by the laity, the clergy is no longer considered with the air of infallibility that they seemed to have prior to V2. I don’t think that that is exclusive to which type of Mass one attends. I think it’s pretty much a function of just questioning in general, especially those whose opinions differ from one’s own. I think the “right or wrong, I’ll do what my bishop says” is pretty much strictly a function of how you regard your bishop, and may vary by topic.

Blind loyalty to fallible humans is pretty much a thing of the past in this information age. That is good to the extent that it causes us to be more critical and give more thought to what we believe and why we believe it–working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. It is maybe not so good to the extent that we have far too many people who think they understand a lot more than they do and that they then have a right to dictate what the Church should look like, to the exclusion of any and all other views.

Peace,

 

[snhs]

Hmmm. If clericalism refers to an appeal to FORMAL authority - then the mere opinion, informally expressed, of a single priest in most cases wouldn’t fit into that definition, in my opinion.

‘Fr X said abc as private and unofficial advice in the confessional/over dinner/when I asked him after Mass …’ which is probably the most common way such things are stated, to me really doesn’t cut it in terms of being an appeal to FORMAL authority.

And I’d say someone who cheerfully ignores half of what their priest says in his role as a priest, and cheerfully ignores most of what other priests say, isn’t really even appealing to Fr X as a priest per se - so how much authority are they really attributing to Fr X?

You neglected to read the definition in full, I’ll highlight the relevant part for you this time:

“Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and sociocultural import.”

It is either the application of formal, church based, leadership OR the opinion of ordained clergy, which includes Priests like Fr X.

Certainly if they are appealing to a view of a Priest on a matter of the Catholic Faith, then I’d say it did, e.g. ‘Fr X said women Priest were ok, so I want to be one’, that would be an example of clericalism. Now Fr X may also say that he hates the Alleluia and thinks it should be removed, maybe the person doesn’t necessarily agree with that, so she may say ‘When I’m a Priest we’re going to have lots of Alleluias during the Homily, Fr Y does that for his, and says the Church allows it’. Now that is a second appeal to clericalism, she invokes another Priest, who happens to take a different view to the first, but is still a member of the clergy and hence covered by the definition. She also mentions the Priest’s appeal to the authority of the ‘formal, church based, leadership’, so if you like that’s a double appeal to clericalism albeit of slightly different kinds.

 

[Joannm]

I guess I see things a bit differently here. My encounters with clericalism, mostly pre-Vatican II, dealt with the belief by the ordained that they were “special” and that the people in the pews were there to just “pray, pay, and obey”. In using the term “special”, I am referring to the idea that they were considered to be in a position of not being questioned and totally in charge. That consideratioin though almost always came from above, not from the people in the pews, though I tend to believe that those in the pews were more than happy to have someone else responsible for everything so they didn’t have to be responsible themselves.

The clergy are indeed special by virtue of their ordination, but in this age of much greater education and involvement by the laity, the clergy is no longer considered with the air of infallibility that they seemed to have prior to V2. I don’t think that that is exclusive to which type of Mass one attends. I think it’s pretty much a function of just questioning in general, especially those whose opinions differ from one’s own. I think the “right or wrong, I’ll do what my bishop says” is pretty much strictly a function of how you regard your bishop, and may vary by topic.

Blind loyalty to fallible humans is pretty much a thing of the past in this information age. That is good to the extent that it causes us to be more critical and give more thought to what we believe and why we believe it–working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. It is maybe not so good to the extent that we have far too many people who think they understand a lot more than they do and that they then have a right to dictate what the Church should look like, to the exclusion of any and all other views.

Peace,

This is how I understand clericalism, thinking that they have all the answers and are not willing to listen to anyone else. Clergy are not the only ones that this applies to however. Some religious and lay people given a bit of power in the Church can exhibit their own form of clericalism.

 

[pnewton]

I have seen the term thrown around quite a bit, then some of the same people complain about the blurring of the lay and the clergy. I do not think I have ever seen the term used in any other way than to criticize without logical support. My opinion is that it is used in the same manner that Protestants use “Mariolatry” as an insult, more than an argument, or at the ver least, an avoiding of facts. It is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

 

[pnewton]

Wikipedia provides the definition that “Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and sociocultural import.”. .

I just have to link this. I was wondering if there was anything to it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clericalism

A perjorative, no references. No wonder most of the first few google links were all blogs. It is a non-word, or perhaps I should say a new buzz word.

The Church does have an established authority structure. It has been a party of God’s work on Earth for 2000 years. Anti-clericalism is an established word. It is a Protestant movement critical of the Catholic authority structure. Which camp would you rather be in?

 

[Genesis315]

My opinion is that it is used in the same manner that Protestants use “Mariolatry” as an insult, more than an argument, or at the ver least, an avoiding of facts.

That’s about right. Anticlericalism was a rallying cry of liberals of the French Revolution and afterward who wanted to usher in the age of reason and their version of equality by banning faith from public life, discrediting institutional religion, and eliminating hierarchies…

 

[snhs]

A perjorative, no references. No wonder most of the first few google links were all blogs. It is a non-word, or perhaps I should say a new buzz word.

The Church does have an established authority structure. It has been a party of God’s work on Earth for 2000 years. Anti-clericalism is an established word. It is a Protestant movement critical of the Catholic authority structure. Which camp would you rather be in?

It’s not a question of camps as far as I’m concerned. Where the Priest is expressing the view of the Church, or views which are acceptable within Church teaching, it’s certainly legitimate to discuss them.

I think part of the problem may be that it doesn’t have the definitive definition which would allow more detailed discussion of it. If the OP, or you, have a better definition of clericalism you’d like to use then fine.

 

[LilyM]

You neglected to read the definition in full, I’ll highlight the relevant part for you this time:

“Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and sociocultural import.”

It is either the application of formal, church based, leadership OR the opinion of ordained clergy, which includes Priests like Fr X.

I read it, I just didn’t read it to mean that any and every opinion of ordained clergy counts - clearly Fr X’s opinion on who should be the next Pope or on the civil government’s policy on impounding stray dogs matters not a jot.

And to listen to such because one happens to agree with them, as one would to anyone else who shares said opinion, is clearly not an instance of clericalism. Even though those opinions, by your logic, fit in the definition - they ARE matters of the church or broader political/sociocultural import.

Rather I read it to only apply to reliance on FORMAL, CHURCH-BASED opinion.

 

[snhs]

I read it, I just didn’t read it to mean that any and every opinion of ordained clergy counts - clearly Fr X’s opinion on who should be the next Pope or on the civil government’s policy on impounding stray dogs matters not a jot.

And to listen to such because one happens to agree with them, as one would to anyone else who shares said opinion, is clearly not an instance of clericalism. Even though those opinions, by your logic, fit in the definition - they ARE matters of the church or broader political/sociocultural import.

Rather I read it to only apply to reliance on FORMAL, CHURCH-BASED opinion.

Do you have a problem reading ?

To begin with I’m not aware of many Priests who go around saying to parishioners who they think the next Pope will be. Lets suppose though that Fr X tells someone he thinks the next Pope will be an African, his opinion will obviously not determine that the next Pope will be from Africa, but if that someone were to go through to the Parish coffee morning and start saying how Fr X said the next Pope will probably be from Africa, then that would be an example of clericalism according to the definition.

According to that definition it’s not a question of just listening to them it is the “application”, so they need to apply the view in some way either in discussion, by their actions, maybe by changing their mind on something etc. They do fit that definition, and as far as I’m concerned if someone were to apply the Priest’s view on it in some way, either in conversation/actions/changing their mind etc then it would be an example of clericalism.

Well I don’t think you’ve read it very well. I really don’t see why you’re getting so hung up on this, if you disagree with the definition then by all means present your own definition of it. Perhaps you could maybe try answering the OP as well, I know that might be a bit too radical though.

 

[LilyM]

Do you have a problem reading ?

To begin with I’m not aware of many Priests who go around saying to parishioners who they think the next Pope will be. Lets suppose though that Fr X tells someone he thinks the next Pope will be an African, his opinion will obviously not determine that the next Pope will be from Africa, but if that someone were to go through to the Parish coffee morning and start saying how Fr X said the next Pope will probably be from Africa, then that would be an example of clericalism according to the definition.

According to that definition it’s not a question of just listening to them it is the “application”, so they need to apply the view in some way either in discussion, by their actions, maybe by changing their mind on something etc. They do fit that definition, and as far as I’m concerned if someone were to apply the Priest’s view on it in some way, either in conversation/actions/changing their mind etc then it would be an example of clericalism.

Well I don’t think you’ve read it very well. I really don’t see why you’re getting so hung up on this, if you disagree with the definition then by all means present your own definition of it. Perhaps you could maybe try answering the OP as well, I know that might be a bit too radical though.

Let’s think about this for a second.

Imagine that I say to you ‘I’m going to invite only my Sydney-based family or friends to my birthday party, since that’s where I live and where the party will be.’

Would it be logical to interpret that to mean that I’ll restrict myself to inviting Sydney based family but extend the invitation to all my friends even if they live interstate or overseas? No, on the contrary it would be illogical. There’s nothing in what I’ve said to indicate that the restriction won’t apply to BOTH groups equally, and every logical reason to believe that it DOES apply equally to both groups.

Similarly with the definition of clericalism - there’s no reason that I can see to assume it applies to only SOME (‘formal church-based’) leadership but applies to ALL opinion, even the informal and non-church based.

I’m not saying that my interpretation is necessarily the right one, but it’s not an off-the-wall one either, so can the attitude and don’t tell me I can’t read.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m going to throw my 2 cents in here.

I’ve always seen clericalism as an obsession with the external appearances of being “clergy” whether that’s something tangible like clerical garb, or something interior like an attitude of “I’m the priest so I must be right.”

The kind of clericalism that I see today has taken a new form.

I see priests who practice clericalism by using their office as a way of calling attention to themselves in the Liturgy by composing their own prayers, trying to be comedians in the Mass, or being obsessed with the idea that people have to see the personality of the individual show-through within the Mass. I also see priests who are more concerned with calling attention to themselves with expensive vestments, sacred vessels, and liturgical precision, but have no interior orientation toward the Mass itself.

There is also a clericalism among the laity today which we haven’t seen before. There is a growing attitude that “full and active participation” means that the laity must necessarily be doing and saying the clergy’s parts of the Mass or they are not participating; this diminishes the true value of the laity’s role in the Mass. I see clericalism when I meet a stranger and that person introduces himself as “a Eucharistic Minister in such-and-such parish” treating this temporary function as if it were some kind of title or office to be recognized. I see lay people who seem to make it a point to “dress up” like clergy or religious; adopting a style of dress that is obviously meant to make someone else think that they are clergy or religious, without being outright clerical garb (the woman who always in public wears the black pants suit with the mock turtleneck collar and small “pectoral cross” for example). I see clericalism when laity go around “blessing” people and things. I see clericalism when laity insist that it is “my ministry” to take Communion to the sick, and the priest shouldn’t interfere in “my ministry.” I see clericalism when lay people insist on performing the priest’s gestures like the laying-on of hands during the Anointing of the Sick; ignoring their positive contribution to the rite and instead assuming the role of the priest because that’s the only way to be active and “recognized.” It’s clericalism when we have people taking a visible part in the Mass with no purpose–like those who serve as “acolytes” for the sole purpose of putting on an alb and being seen to walk in the procession or stand in the sanctuary.

It’s clericalism when priests insist that by virtue of ordination (rather than their education and experience or the teaching of the Church) they know what’s right or wrong in liturgy, faith, or morals. But it’s also clericalism when lay people think that because they attended a workshop or read a magazine article, they have a right to overrule the pastor in liturgical matters; it’s clericalism because they assume the role of the bishop.

Clericalism takes many forms.

That’s my 2-cents, my widow’s mite. Caveat lector, you got what you paid for.

 

[Digitonomy]

It is a non-word, or perhaps I should say a new buzz word.

Merriam-Webster dates the first use of the word to 1864, and gives a rather broad definition:

a policy of maintaining or increasing the power of a religious hierarchy

 

[pnewton]

Merriam-Webster dates the first use of the word to 1864, and gives a rather broad definition:

Odd that anticlericalism appears centuries before clericalism. I don’t think means anything, just odd.

 

[benedictgal]

I think that Archbishop Malcolm Rajith, the Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was casting a wide dragnet in his address two weeks ago during the Gateway Liturgical Conference. He talked about clericalism:

We know that in many places this (activism) led to the amalgamation of the Sanctuary with the Assembly, the clericalization of the laity and the filling up of the Sanctuary with the noisy and distracting presence of a large number of people; one could say that virtually Wall Street moved into the Sanctuary. But, was that what the Conciliar Fathers advocated? Cardinal Ratzinger does not think so. For him “the real ‘action’ in the Liturgy in which we are all supposed to participate is the action of God himself. This is what is new and distinctive about Christian Liturgy. God himself acts and does what is essential.” THis kind of participation in the very action of Christ, the high priest, requires from us nothing less than an attitude of being totally absorbed in Him.

This ties into Fr. David’s highly insightful observation and further makes the valid points that he raised.