"Clericalism"

[YoungTradCath]

What are some examples of real clericalism? And what is a real definition of it?

The reasons I ask are several. I have always accepted as a remote possibility that there exists behavior so haughty and removed from any respect/appreciation for lay people on the part of clerics that it needs a name, called clericalism. That is reasonable to me and its existence somewhere seems plausible. However, I have never experienced, seen, or read about any credible example of what I can call clericalism. Most of the time (like 99.999% of the time) the people who cry “clericalism” with what I imagine to be blood-curdling screams or violent stabs of the keyboard are writers for the National Catholic Reporter, their commenters, and some blog writers towards the more left of center, pardon me for using that inaccurate yet convenient term. It is not just that these people, again pardon the term, use the word. It is that they use it as a convenient catch-all or semi-insult to hurl at a cleric who says something they don’t like, usually about the moral teaching of the Church. So forgive me if I associate it with incredibility.

I have never heard someone in real life complain about clericalism, not once. I have never heard the term in a homily. This doesn’t mean I think it doesn’t exist, see above, just that it is much rarer than is often said. So the association of the term with people of a certain persuasion and the lack of use of the term in (what I deem to be) legitimate and/or relatively credible circumstances leads me to immediately have a negative reaction when I see it, a sort of verbal guilt-by-association. It’s just one of those little cringe-inducing things that alerts me that the credibility of the person who uses the term might be compromised, if he is using it in a manner of flinging it at a cleric and not just talking about it in a vague academic-possibilities sense.

Yet, Pope Francis has used the term several times. This is foreign to me, quite odd. I am struggling to understand what exactly he means by it. Is there really some clericalism conspiracy I don’t know about? Or are things so bad in South America that that is what he is referring to? Help me understand, because I don’t see it. I am not determined to see Pope Francis as a NCReporter liberal as they are wont to portray him. So what is the deal? What is this real clericalism in real, concrete examples? Credible outward attitudes and tendencies count, too. Please, share.

 

[Rich_C]

I’ve never seen any, that I could tell.

I only see it in history books about governments that gave priests legal privileges not given to laity (which seems justified to me, actually).

 

[McCall1981]

I would agree that “clericalism” (at least as I understand the term) is something that I have never seen in real life. In fact, almost everything I see (again, as I understand it) tends the other way, towards “lay-ism” or something like that.

As far as Pope Francis uses the term, I’ve thought that maybe he is connecting it with the “careerism” that he has mentioned, ie. using the Priesthood and Church structure as a way to have a successful career or job, rather than as a vocation/life. So it would be connected to the idea of using one’s clerical status to exert power, rather than to serve.

This is just a guess though, I have don’t exactly know and have wondered the same thing.

 

[Ohana]

I have not either, much, in the United States. I think it is different in some other countries.

We had a priest at one place, new to the US. This was a meeting looking at blending some of the ministries within the Deanery. I asked a question, one of those that I was used to getting an answer or"don’t know, I’ll check" from our local priests. That priest suggested I should not even ask, that all of whatever, was to be referred to the Bishop, etc. This in spite of the fact the it was the Bishop who had initiated this meeting and had sent a person from the diocesan office to moderate. She was taken aback as was I. I think that is an example of clericalism. The message was “don’t think, take orders and obey”.

This is now speculation on my part, but from the example above, I think there is inherent in clericalism an assumption of ignorance on the part of the laity. Perhaps even a tendency to evil. We simply do not see that so much in the US, probably not in Canada either. Some of that came from the middle ages when most people were indeed uneducated. I can remember as a child being discouraged from reading the Bible - absolutely not true now!

On the other hand, we really must look at stepping up our Catholic Education. Catch the trailer for Fr. Barrons, Evangelization series.

The other kind of “clericalism” that I see in the Church is the appearance of concentration of power in the Vatican/Curia. I am not so sure that is power as it is inertia and an overwhelming amount of work needed to be done. I think we will see as time goes on.

Good question! Hope we have a good discussion on this.

 

[JReducation]

None of you have been in a religious order have you?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

None of you have been in a religious order have you?

Or, I am gussing, a Permanant Deacon?!

I have many friends who are PD’s and “clericalism” is one of the things they talk about.
There are quite a few priests, unfortunately, IMHO, who neither want, not think their parishes need them.

For me, “clericalism” is forgetting that service to the people of God is what a priest’s job is, not using his power to run things they way he sees fit, and to heck with his flock. Sadly, I do believe that thre is still way too much of this in the US.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Pope Francis had some interesting remarks on this topic back in April, to wit:

“We priests tend to clericalize the laity,” Francis said. “[We]
focus on things of the clergy, more specifically, the sanctuary, rather than bringing the Gospel to the world… A Church that limits herself to administering parish work experiences what someone in prison does: physical and mental atrophy.

“We infect lay people with our own disease. And some begin to believe the fundamental service God asks of them is to become greeters, lectors or extraordinary ministers of holy communion at Church. Rather, [the call is] to live and spread the faith in their families, workplaces, schools, neighborhoods and beyond.”

The reform that’s needed is “neither to clericalize nor ask to be clericalized. The layperson is a layperson. He has to live as a layperson… to be a leaven of the love of God in society itself…. [He] is to create and sow hope, to proclaim the faith, not from a pulpit but from his everyday life. And like all of us, the layperson is called to carry his daily cross—the cross of the layperson, not of the priest.” - Pope Francis

 

[Mike30]

Clericalism is put simply the elevation of the ordained Priesthood and all things related to that office above all others. For instance and over concern with vestments and Liturgy could ve viewed as modest examples of clericalism. It happened extensively in numerous religious orders over the centuries and to a great part was at least, until after Vatican II, fairly widespread at the Diocesan level as well. Priests had privileges and in many cases and were treated quite differently. In fact in many cases they were treated extremely differently and often came to expect it as their due. In essence they became separated from their flocks. There was, it appeared a strict and rigid hierarchy, the Pope at the head of the line, Bishops followed him, Priests followed Bishops, religious Brothers and Sisters followed the Priests and we the laity, brought up the rear.

Vatican II tried to remedy that situation.

 

[Rich_C]

Pope Francis had some interesting remarks on this topic back in April, to wit:

That is very different from the OP’s point, I think.

But I agree with Pope Francis and I’ve always avoided this sort of thing. I’ve seen too many “lay ministries” go that way. I’ve tended to avoid them for that reason. They wanted to be somebodies because of their new roles in the parish. Seems like laypeople are supposed to be nobodies to me. Cheerful nobodies, of course.

Actually, the Internet can have this affect on us laypeople, too. But now I’m really getting off topic.

 

[Rich_C]

There was, it appeared a strict and rigid hierarchy, the Pope at the head of the line, Bishops followed him, Priests followed Bishops, religious Brothers and Sisters followed the Priests and we the laity, brought up the rear.

Vatican II tried to remedy that situation.

I always figured “remedying” this was a “spirit of…” thing. The hierarchy always seemed like an obviously good structure to me.

 

[GloriaMaria]

I have seen what I* think* is clericalism in our many years in the chapels of the SSPX.

If a priest gives advice - it is considered a SIN not to act on it.

When there is a debate in a family, for instance re: the education of the children (not a personal example) the priest is considered the final word and decider even where the husband and wife are opposed.

In a situation where there is a request by a priest, for instance, he needs someone to accompany him travelling - the answer could well be, “I don’t really want to, but Father if you are asking me to, I will”.

As a woman, I was not invited to sit at a table with a priest when dining as a group. Only the men sat with the priest. The women sat elsewhere. At least at a separate table in the same room.

Father doesn’t cook or clean for himself.

I saw these things as some examples of clericalism. Perhaps there were other explanations for these things, but especially in the “last word” of Father in the raising of children and items pertaining to family life (not objectively matters of sin) it seemed almost a cult of the priest. Is this clericalism?

 

[powerofk]

IIRC, Pope Francis actually blamed the church’s sex abuse scandal on clericalism.

Clericalism takes many forms:

(a) thinking (or implying) that the only worthwhile vocation is that of the priesthood and/or religious life (this comes from constant asking of vocations toward the priesthood and religious life in the prayers of the faithful while forgetting to ask that those called to marriage and the single life be strengthened in their own vocations)

(b) Looking up to priests as semi-divine, who can do no wrong, instead of simply spiritual fathers who are human and just as prone to sin (this is part of the reason why the sex abuse scandal went on for a long time - many children were not believed by their own parishes)

(c) Priests, thinking that because of their education in the seminary and their experience, they can do no wrong and cannot be questioned (this is another reason why the sex abuse scandal went on - the priests became too prideful)

 

[TimothyH]

Clericalism was one of the reasons why Opus Dei was founded by St. Josemaria Escria, the idea that holiness (decrase in sin and an increase in virtue) was reserved only for or could only be achieved by priests and the religious.

That is my understanding of “Clericalism”, that people engaged fully in secular life can never truly be holy.

-Tim-

 

[GloriaMaria]

IIRC, Pope Francis actually blamed the church’s sex abuse scandal on clericalism.

Clericalism takes many forms:

(a) thinking (or implying) that the only worthwhile vocation is that of the priesthood and/or religious life (this comes from constant asking of vocations toward the priesthood and religious life in the prayers of the faithful while forgetting to ask that those called to marriage and the single life be strengthened in their own vocations)

(b) Looking up to priests as semi-divine, who can do no wrong, instead of simply spiritual fathers who are human and just as prone to sin (this is part of the reason why the sex abuse scandal went on for a long time - many children were not believed by their own parishes)

(c) Priests, thinking that because of their education in the seminary and their experience, they can do no wrong and cannot be questioned (this is another reason why the sex abuse scandal went on - the priests became too prideful)

YES! We definitely saw these things. I remember hearing about a young man we knew who was “denied” a priestly vocation and told he could “only” be a religious brother! This was supposed to be a sorrowful thing!

Anyway, not to derail the thread and make it about the SSPX. That is just where we happened to see it. I think it definitely exists.

 

[YoungTradCath]

These are all good definitions so far. Does anyone have any real examples? You don’t have to be specific. All I am wondering is if this clericalism thing is overblown or if, in fact, I am just oblivious. Br. JR mentions clericalism in the context of religious groups. I can see the implication re the Franciscans. However, I am wondering exactly how clericalism could possibly work within a group such as the SJ, which is a clerical society. I assume the Pope is speaking from that perspective.

 

[Literalman]

Some years ago I was in a parish where the pastor was having some major problems and was removed. I didn’t expect the laity to be told what his personal problems were, but one week he was there, and the next week he was not. If somebody had told us, “Father so-and-so is having some problems, and the bishop has relieved him of the job as pastor here; please pray for him,” that would have been enough. But I don’t remember anybody telling us anything. When the father of the “parish family” vanishes, are we supposed to not notice? There seems to sometimes be an attitude that the laity don’t need to be told anything except what to do. Maybe that’s clericalism.

 

[TimothyH]

I always figured “remedying” this was a “spirit of…” thing. The hierarchy always seemed like an obviously good structure to me.

The effectiveness of the hierarchy for governance and day to day functioning is not at question. What was at question was the thought that the higher you moved up the food chain, the better chance you had at getting to heaven.

The hierarchy with the Holy Father at the top is not how the Church actually looks at the structure of Christ’s body, not how the Church understands herself as having been established by Christ. The Pope is at the top for governance but that he calls himself the “Servant of the Servants of God” should give us a clue as to how the Church views herself.

At the top of the church is Christ. Just below Christ are the poor, whom Christ had a particualar affinity with. Below the poor are the laity, then the priests, bishops, the Holy Father, and lastly the deacons, who are the servants of the entire Church.

The hierarchical structure of the Church where one “Rises through the ranks” was not how the early church was constructed but rather an application of cursus honorum which was adapted from Roman politics and the Roman military. The early Church did not function that way to the extent that it does now.

We honor the Holy Father, and the Bishops, and love our priest, but the structure of the church in terms of Christ’s body is different from the hierarchical structure of the Church established for practical matters of running the worlds largest religious organization. The poor, martyrs, those who are persecuted, those who are ill and those who suffer - these are at the top of Christ’s body because Crist himself loved these and ministered to these, and the Church continues the work of Christ on earth. That is what the Book of Acts is about, the Church continuing the work of Christ on earth. The first line of the Book of Acts talks about what Jesus “Began” to do. The Church now continues this work, ministering to and serving sinners, the poor and those who suffer.

The prodigal son got a feast. The faithful son was expected to keep working. The 72 who were sent out were told not to bring a money bag, that they should expect nothing but hard work. The Auxilliary Bishop in Atlanta was given a car and driver and he said, “No thanks. I’ll take my Honda.”

Clericalism says that the laity exists for the priests. Christ set it up the other way, telling the Apostles that they must not “Lord it over” others and must put themselves last.

-Tim-

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Or, I am gussing, a Permanant Deacon?!

I have many friends who are PD’s and “clericalism” is one of the things they talk about.
There are quite a few priests, unfortunately, IMHO, who neither want, not think their parishes need them.

For me, “clericalism” is forgetting that service to the people of God is what a priest’s job is, not using his power to run things they way he sees fit, and to heck with his flock. Sadly, I do believe that thre is still way too much of this in the US.

Along that line, I would argue that an example of clericalism is when the local bishop denies his permanent deacons the right to wear the collar in specific ministerial settings such as wake services, hospital visits, cemetery committals - because he feels the collar should be reserved to priests only, despite what Canon Law says on this point.

I would also argue that clericalism is to be found whenever a priests talks down to, and treats like dirt, the parish secretary, because HE’S the priest and she is just a lay person - and a woman to boot.

 

[Mike30]

I always figured “remedying” this was a “spirit of…” thing. The hierarchy always seemed like an obviously good structure to me.

It did and still does to me as well. I think at the Clerical level the remedy had to do more with an increased spirit of collegiality amongst the Bishops and the Holy Father more than anything else.

And in all honesty, I don’t think that has truly been obtained as yet.

 

[QuestingKnight]

A priest is in Holy Orders and acts "In Persona Christi " at mass. He is a different being and is worthy of respect. He’s given up normal family life and commerce for the sake of saving souls.

So if people went OTT over deference I think it’s to be preferred to “Father Joe” trying to be one of the guys and people treating him as such. He isn’t. He can’t be. It’s embarassing for the people around him because they know he isn’t.

It’s good for one’s own humilty to seek his blessing and kneel for it, for example. Or kiss his hand. The bishops and priests who pull their hand away or are embarassed don’t understand that we are saluting He who he represents and the office, not the man. It’s false humility to want to stop this.

Lastly, priests, bishops and religious will be called to a harsher account than we laity by God. They’ve sworn into His service. They can’t then be casual about it. We laity shouldn’t be either.