"Clericalism"

[Tigg]

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.

This is a very interesting topic. I’m still not certain I understand the true meaning of the term. Would your comment above relate to the pastor of a parish? If so and my understanding is correct, I would say I have seen it in more than one parish when the pastor keeps the laity, his parish council and finance committee in the dark.

 

[Tigg]

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-

I like your response. It reminds me of something I recently read which stated that we are all Church and the gift(s) made to the Spouse of Christ is for the whole.

 

[CB_Catholic]

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.

Since you were not around pre-Vatican II, you probably were not exposed much to clericalism. Not that it does not exist today, but in a much lesser degree than it did before. It is not overblown, you just don’t have experience with it.

As a small example of one facet of it affecting the laity–in the eyes of many Catholics, the parish priest was seen almost as a demi-God, and expected such treatment from the parishoners. The “in persona Christi” idea was misunderstood by the laity and taken too far. To them, their priest was God’s representative on earth, and what he said was the rule. You did not question the priest for fear of mortal sin. Now this didn’t happen everywhere with all priests in all parishes, but it happened often enough and was widespread enough to be considered a problem.

I might add that my red-haired, hot tempered Italian grandmother did not buy into this and had her share of words with the priest. She was considered a rebel.

That is only one facet. I am not as familiar with it among the hierarchy or other forms that it took,but I do remember that the line between clergy and laity was so sharp that many people did not believe they could achieve any degree of holiness because they were only laity–only those in religious life (including secular clergy) could. We were only second class citizens when it came to the Church.

You don’t run into this type of thinking much today, so I am not surprised you haven’t seen it.

 

[Rich_C]

Since you were not around pre-Vatican II, you probably were not exposed much to clericalism. Not that it does not exist today, but in a much lesser degree than it did before. It is not overblown, you just don’t have experience with it.

As a small example of one facet of it affecting the laity–in the eyes of many Catholics, the parish priest was seen almost as a demi-God, and expected such treatment from the parishoners. The “in persona Christi” idea was misunderstood by the laity and taken too far. To them, their priest was God’s representative on earth, and what he said was the rule. You did not question the priest for fear of mortal sin. Now this didn’t happen everywhere with all priests in all parishes, but it happened often enough and was widespread enough to be considered a problem.

I might add that my red-haired, hot tempered Italian grandmother did not buy into this and had her share of words with the priest. She was considered a rebel.

That is only one facet. I am not as familiar with it among the hierarchy or other forms that it took,but I do remember that the line between clergy and laity was so sharp that many people did not believe they could achieve any degree of holiness because they were only laity–only those in religious life (including secular clergy) could. We were only second class citizens when it came to the Church.

You don’t run into this type of thinking much today, so I am not surprised you haven’t seen it.

If that’s what clericalism means then I’m sure it will come around again. I have read saints books from over the centuries and several of them combated this notion, but it eventually came back.

That said, there is a wise saying the gist of which is that the mass of parishioners will generally be a step behind father in holiness, so our priests need to be holiness more than anyone.

 

[CB_Catholic]

If that’s what clericalism means then I’m sure it will come around again. I have read saints books from over the centuries and several of them combated this notion, but it eventually came back.

That said, there is a wise saying the gist of which is that the mass of parishioners will generally be a step behind father in holiness, so our priests need to be holiness more than anyone.

I am not saying that is all of it, only a small example involving the laity. Yes, our priests need to be holy, but they also have the job of teaching us how to be holy and recognizing that holiness is a universal call, not limited to the clerical state. And nobody is going to really be holy thinking he is holier than others now, is he?

 

[QuestingKnight]

Unless he is justified in thinking he IS holier than others. Others, like, a murderer. Or a fornicator, for example. Or Joe Slob who thinks Communion + Mortal Sin is A-OK, now.

The problem today is not clericalism. It’s a-clericalism. As in the absence of clergy. And anti-clericalism. As in people getting a real bee in their bonnet about priests in a way they wouldn’t do about, say, teachers. We need to be careful this antipathy is not drawing energy from The Enemy.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I would agree about understanding the “true meaning” of the word.

To answer your question, I would say your example "could be" an example of clericalism.

A Pastor of a parish has certain rights, duties & obligations according to Canon Law. I believe that parish councils, (pastoral and financial) are consultive bodies only, and that it is up to the pastor how much “weight” he gives their recommendations. The problem, I believe, comes in when a Pastor puts his needs/wants/desires above what is actually best for his flock at the time.

I am not saying that a Pastor should not fix things that are broken, but I have seen too many cases where a new Pastor comes in with a “bulldozer” mentality and starts un-doing long standing traditions of a parish just because they don’t fit in with his ideal. This is not service, but control, and what I think “clericalism” is all about.

This is a very interesting topic. I’m still not certain I understand the true meaning of the term. Would your comment above relate to the pastor of a parish? If so and my understanding is correct, I would say I have seen it in more than one parish when the pastor keeps the laity, his parish council and finance committee in the dark.

 

[powerofk]

Another example of clericalism by the laity is when women (usu. women religious) state that it is sexist that they cannot become priests. Some of these women even excommunicate themselves by receiving fake holy orders (meant to look like the real thing) outside of the church. Their thinking is along the lines of the church as a hierarchy of holiness, and since only men are allowed to “climb the hierarchy”, this means that the church sees women as inferior to men. Of course, this is not the case - the Church believes that women and men are equal to each other, but not the same as each other (and thus not interchangeable). Since only men can be physical fathers, then only men can be spiritual fathers.

But I digress. As I stated before, clericalism takes many forms - and even so-called “anti-clericalism” is really a form of clericalism, as it is an attack on the authority that priests have - and an envy that “the people” believe they can only attain if they overthrow it.

 

[Zekariya]

Unless he is justified in thinking he IS holier than others. Others, like, a murderer. Or a fornicator, for example. Or Joe Slob who thinks Communion + Mortal Sin is A-OK, now.

A truly, holy person (priest or lay) considers themselves to be the greatest of sinners. If a man considers himself to be holier than anyone, he has committed the sin of pride. The holy Saints considered themselves to be great sinners.

Here is the opening of a well known prayer of St John Chrysostom:
“I believe, O Lord and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”

 

[QuestingKnight]

A truly, holy person (priest or lay) considers themselves to be the greatest of sinners. If a man considers himself to be holier than anyone, he has committed the sin of pride. The holy Saints considered themselves to be great sinners.

Here is the opening of a well known prayer of St John Chrysostom:
“I believe, O Lord and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”

St. J. is not saying he is literally the greatest of sinners. It’s a figure of speech. He is saying “I am a big sinner”. As a holy man, he detests sin which places a barrier between him and union with God; he knows the repercussions. He has an idea of his own ghastliness compared to Heavenly perfection. He can feel the effects and has an understanding of God’s reactions.

If he IS the greatest of sinners, where does that leave the rest of us?

No. It’s one thing to abhor one’s own sinfulness. It’s another to try to take a priest down to one’s own level because one confuses the man with the office. That’s anti-clericalism.

There is something, I think, about a priest that makes people uncomfortable. Maybe it’s just like having a cop in the room. Or maybe it’s more: our demons, stirring in discomfort.

 

[Zekariya]

St. J. is not saying he is literally the greatest of sinners. It’s a figure of speech. He is saying “I am a big sinner”. As a holy man, he detests sin which places a barrier between him and union with God; he knows the repercussions. He has an idea of his own ghastliness compared to Heavenly perfection. He can feel the effects and has an understanding of God’s reactions.

If he IS the greatest of sinners, where does that leave the rest of us?

You are judging the state of St John Chrysostom’s sins which is impossible for anyone to do besides God and St John himself. It is certainly the sin of pride to think one’s self to be holier than others. One is supposed to see one’s self as the greatest sinner. Here is a story about St Moses the Black that illustrates this:

A certain brother committed an offense in Scete, the camp of the monks, and when a congregation was assembled on this matter, they sent after Abba Moses, but he refused to come; then they sent the priest of the church to him, saying, “Come, for all the people are expecting you.” And he rose up and came, and he took a basket with a hole in it and filled it with sand, and carried it upon his shoulders, and those who went out to meet him, said to him, “What does this mean, O father?” And he said to them, “The sands are my sins which are running down behind me and I cannot see them, and I, even I, have come this day to judge shortcomings which are not mine.” Ad when they heard this, they set free that brother and said nothing further to him.

 

[QuestingKnight]

Welp, I think that is a warped interpretation of “Not judging”. Someone has to judge. We have to too. I judge people. We judge their actions. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t last a month in the city. Christ’s teaching was a warning about hypocrisy. What’s missing in your story is:

1. What sin exactly the man was accused of;
2. What punishment the assembly was hoping for;
3. What Abba Moses opinion was of those who wanted him judged;
4. Whether Abba Moses thought one of these was the better outcome: a legal judgement or a spiritual lesson.

Personally, I can’t stand the modern “musn’t judge” attititude. We’re confusing niceness, mere etiquette, with Christian charity.

So St. John C. was the greatest sinner of his time? Then how is he a saint? He must have been mistaken. And so were those who canonised him; their judgement was poor.

 

[Zekariya]

Personally, I can’t stand the modern “musn’t judge” attititude. We’re confusing niceness, mere etiquette, with Christian charity.

So St. John C. was the greatest sinner of his time? Then how is he a saint? He must have been mistaken. And so were those who canonised him; their judgement was poor.

Yes, we must judge between good and evil. I am also against the modern “don’t judge” attitude. The judgement that I am speaking of is judging someone’s holiness or lack thereof.

I cannot judge someone’s holiness. I can judge that fornication is a serious offense and that one must repent of the sin. I cannot judge myself to be holier than anyone else. If I consider myself holier than the fornicator, I am judging something that God alone knows. The moment that I see myself as being less sinful than they are, I am committing the sin of pride. If I think that I am not the greatest sinner, it is because I am judging someone else’s holiness (ie They’re sins are worse than mine, God). I am to judge the immorality of peoples’ actions and even speak against such actions but, I can never judge their holiness since that is for God alone to judge.

 

[JReducation]

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.

That’s a beautiful sentiment, but it’s not always appropriate.

Let’s take for example a monk or a friar. Many monks and friars are both, religious and priests. However, the theology there is that they are religious who serve their brothers (includes laity as well) through their priestly ministry. Notice where the stress is placed. Is equally distributed over religious and priestly ministry. It’s not one over the other.

In that situation, kissing the hand of a brother priest who is a monk or a friar is inappropriate. When he steps off the altar or out of the confessional, he is a monk or a friar, like all of his brothers. Unless you’re going to kiss all the hands in a monastery or friary. But if you do this only for the ordained monks and friars, what are you doing?

In reality you’re acting contrary to the mind of the founder and the mind of the Church. Because you’re setting one man apart from his brothers, which is not allowed by the founder or the Church. You could potentially be making the man feel very uncomfortable, not because he wants to be your poker buddy, but because he wants to be just another brother. Had we wanted to stand out as a priest he would have joined a diocese or a clerical order.

I should mention that there are some monastic orders and mendicant orders that are clerical. The Carthusians and the Dominicans come to mind. Only priests can govern.

For everyone’s benefit, clerical and clericalism are not the same thing. For example, the Dominicans have always been a clerical order. St. Dominic founded them as such. The Franciscans were not founded as such. Yet, St. Dominic commanded his friars to venerate, respect, protect and never think badly about a Franciscan. Observe that Dominic does not say that they should act with such reverence toward the ordained Franciscans. It was toward all Franciscans. While Dominic founded a clerical order, he did not fall into clericalism. I can walk into a Dominican house and take my place along with the ordained Dominicans, even though I’m not ordained. There is a respect for the consecrated person. A Lay Dominican who is married with a few children is just as much as Dominican as a Dominican priest. They are clerical, because the clergy governs, but there is no clericalism. There is no cast system.

Clericalism is a cast system. It was a horrible cast system that nearly destroyed religious life and man dioceses around the world. It was part of the cause of anti clericalism in France and Mexico. Not everything was the fault of the revolutionaries. The rebels had some valid complaints against the priests of the time. Some were arrogant, despotic, distant, unfaithful to their way of life and greedy for power and prestige.

Today, we don’t have the same kind of clericalism, but there is still some of that attitude out there among some priests and lay people who still hold to the idea of priest as aristocrat, rather than servant. I really like Pope Francis’ comment about priests need to smell like sheep. That would be the opposite of clericalism.

You can be clerical, as we see among the Dominicans, without being aristocratic.

 

[Alindawyl]

Clericalism is present whenever a priest thinks that because he is a priest, he is a better person to consult regarding parish financial records than an accountant, a better person to consult regarding building design than an architect, a better person to consult regarding composition than a musician. It results in a strong us vs them mentality, a desire to control and look down on those not a part of the “elite”, rather than the trust and cooperation and respect for the station and vocation of the other that should be present for all of us.

It used to show itself predominately as, like Brother J just said, a caste system. These days it tends to look a bit different. It may be shown by a priest who disregards the advice of his parish council on a building project even when it’s good advice and they’re experts on the matter, because he thinks priests are automatic experts on anything even remotely involving a parish. The sex abuse scandal in this country last century was made worse by clericalism, as certain bishops had taken on themselves the role of civil authority by acting as a judge and jury in matters of civil law.

And it’s not limited to the clergy. The laity can also think they are worth less because they are not clergy. The layperson who insists on calling their apostolate a ministry because they think calling it a ministry means the work is more worthwhile is showing us an aspect of clericalism.

To stop clericalism does not mean ignoring what is special about a priest. It means not making Holy Orders out to be either more or less than it actually is.

 

[Nils]

I would never kiss the hand of a Priest to flatter him, but that does not mean that I would not kiss it. I kiss it because it gives me Christ…

To me clericalism has nothing to do with kneeling to Bishops or kissing the hands of the Priest, it is rather about treating them as if they were morally or intellectually superior to others.That must indeed be one of the reasons why the pedophile scandals went the way they did, and I believe I have seen this form of clericalism many times with my own eyes (in Europe).

There is nothing pious about not pointing out the obvious or following bad advice, but that does not mean you have to stop respecting the clergy for what they are…

 

[JReducation]

Clericalism can also come from the laity, not only from priests.

I remember my first assignment to a parish. I was listed on the parish bulletin “Fr Superior”. I was supposed to serve in the parish as a spiritual director, oversee sacramental preparation and religious education. I had just come back with a doctorate in theology. The other friars in the house were ordained. I was the only one who was not a priest. But I was the superior and the only one who had the doctorate. Basically, I was the pastor’s boss though I had no intentions in interfering in parish administration. Administration is something that I have done when I have had no choice, not something that I enjoy doing.

In any case, I experienced a lot of resistance from the laity. They wanted only a priest for spiritual direction. They did not like it when the pastor said, “I have to ask Father Superior” or “Father said that we have to be home for this or that, so I can’t be there.”

Their issue was that a brother “was doing things that priests should do”.

Obviously, I didn’t not stay parish work more than two years. I was not about to deal with that kind of silliness. I know other brothers who are guardians and have had the same experience. That’s clericalism from the bottom up.

 

[OraLabora]

To amplify on what Br. JR said, the specific example that comes to mind in the Benedictine order was the eventual separation of the monks into choir monks and lay brothers. The former did all the liturgical heavy lifting, the latter, well, all the heavy lifting period.

The Rule of St. Benedict never intended for a caste system of that nature. In fact the rule was quite specific:

If any ordained priest
should ask to be received into the monastery,
permission shall not be granted too readily.
But if he is quite persistent in his request,
let him know
that he will have to observe the whole discipline of the Rule
and that nothing will be relaxed in his favor,
that it may be as it is written:
“Friend, for what have you come (Matt. 26:50)?”

It shall be granted him, however, to stand next after the Abbot
and to give blessings and to celebrate Mass,
but only by order of the Abbot.
Without such order let him not make any exceptions for himself,
knowing that he is subject to the discipline of the Rule;
but rather let him give an example of humility to all.

If there happens to be question of an appointment
or of some business in the monastery,
let him expect the rank due him
according to the date of his entrance into the monastery,
and not the place granted him
out of reverence for the priesthood.

If any clerics, moved by the same desire,
should wish to join the monastery,
let them be placed in a middle rank.
But they too are to be admitted only if they promise
observance of the Rule and stability.

and

If an Abbot desire
to have a priest or a deacon ordained for his monastery,
let him choose one
who is worthy to exercise the priestly office.

But let the one who is ordained
beware of self-exaltation or pride;
and let him not presume to do anything
except what is commanded him by the Abbot,
knowing that he is so much the more subject
to the discipline of the Rule.
Nor should he by reason of his priesthood forget
the obedience and the discipline required by the Rule,
but make ever more and more progress towards God.

Let him always keep the place which he received
on entering the monastery,
except in his duties at the altar
or in case the choice of the community and the will of the Abbot
should promote him for the worthiness of his life.
Yet he must understand
that he is to observe the rules laid down by deans and Priors.

Should he presume to act otherwise,
let him be judged not as a priest but as a rebel.
And if he does not reform after repeated admonitions,
let even the Bishop be brought in as a witness.
If then he still fails to amend,
and his offenses are notorious,
let him be put out of the monastery,
but only if his contumacy is such
that he refuses to submit or to obey the Rule.

So other than service at the altar, the priest was to occupy an ordinary rank among the monks based on his seniority.

By the time Vatican II rolled around this was no longer true. The priests were all in choir; the only monks in choir were priests, transitional deacons, and monks chosen to become priests eventually. The lay brothers did most of the physical work of the monastery. They had no vote or voice in Chapter. The charism of the order was fairly gutted by this practice, and this practice had absolutely NO justification from the Rule of St. Benedict. At the abbey I’m associated with, the last of the lay brothers was finally accepted as a fully professed monk in 1978. The process took some 10 years first by abolishing separate liturgical offices and Masses, abolishing separate habits and tonsures, etc. Once fully professed, the former lay brothers gained a voice and a vote in Chapter.

So this is one area where Vatican II, rather than “innovating”, instead returned the Church to one of its most ancient traditions (in this case, a 1500 year old tradition, the oldest order in the Church). Clericalism was the notion that somehow clerical status conferred some kind of special character to a monk, while St. Benedict says a priest is fully equal to his brothers other than service at the altar. Clericalism was very hard on monastic life. One branch of the Benedictines ventured so far down that path that they’re now extinct: Cluny.

 

[Ohana]

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

Uh right. Not so much taking vows of obedience, poverty, etc among the laity. Among the clergy and consecrated it is quite different. I am so grateful for those called to those vocations. They have special attributes for which I have profound respect. That does not mean that if something is off-putting, I ignore it.

My vocation is a bit different. I have to contend with the world and do not have a group of, if not like-minded all the time, at least self-contained people to be with from day to day. As I get older however, I find some convergence. Somehow we get on the same page in working together to evangelize our world, whether it is the world of our family, culture, city, etc.

 

[Edward_H]

An odd sort of clericalism is the focus on women priests, as if the priesthood is all that important in the life of the Church. We need priests to give us the sacraments…to fuel us so that we can take on the heavy lifting of sanctifying the whole world.

Church issues…in other words is small ball.