I am most interested in JReducation’s response to this, but everyone is welcome to comment and help me out as well!
JR,
Your posts are unfailingly well thought-out, educated, and clear. I have been particularly interested in the posts where you outline how you believe the laity are being clericaliszed; that is, how the laity has let themselves be too free when rebuking clergy, or publicly criticizing them.
In previous posts you have asserted that if one has a problem with a Priest, one approach that priest in all humility, and then, only if needed, approach the Bishop. You have insisted that at no time is it correct for the laity to openly criticize clergy or to rebuke them, privately or publicly.
I am inclined to agree with your views. However, since I’m still a relatively new Catholic I have been doing my best to orient myself with the Church’s teachings and really don’t know my “way around” all that well yet. So my question for you, is what is the origin of the view of Church authority and the position of the laity you have previously outlined? It would seem to me that it is based on the Scriptural injunction on how to handle conflicts (in 1st Peter, is it?) and also the command to “rebuke not an elder.” Are there extra-Scriptural Church documents which support your view? Or is this view of things more something one learns when working in the Church?
Thanks in advance,
CC
One certainly has to look at scripture passages such as the one that you quoted fromr St. Peter to see that from the early Church there was a tradition of respect toward the Apostles, presbyters and deacons. These would have been the elders. Though we have replaced this word with terms such as hierarchy, the concept of respect for those who lead the faithful remains the same.
I would also encourage you to read the Acts of the Apostles. At the first council of the Church, the Council of Jerusalem, the case of the Gentiles is taken up. What is clear in this narrative that Luke so beautifully paints for us is that it was a question that deeply affected all the believers, Jewish Christians as well as Gentile Christians. Nonetheless. we see that the dialogue and the debate, if one may choose to call it so, takes place between those who are in positions of authority. The names most mentioned are Peter, James and Paul. You do no see any intervention of the laity in this polemic, even though it deeply affected them. They do not take it upon themselves challenge Peter. It is Paul who does this in the name of the Gentile laity.
What we see is that the Pastors of the early Church had already established a protocol with dealing with issues that concerned the clergy and the laity. It is very clear from the first century that the laity is not part of the decision making body, nor is it part of the leadership or authoritative body of the Church. Issues that require authoritative decisions are discussed and decided by those in authority and the laity accepts them in faith and with great love and trust that the Holy Spirit will work through the Pastors.
Another interesting source are the saints themselves. If you look at a saint like Francis of Assisi. He speaks of the love that we should have for priests. He tells his Brothers that even if a priest were the greatest sinner in the world, he would still kneel before him, rather than an angel, because only through the priest does he see any visible sign of Jesus Christ in this world, because the priest makes the Eucharist possible.
If you look at St. John Baptiste de La Salle, he started the first religious community of men without priests. These were later known as the De La Salle Christian Brothers. Their mission is to educate. He never allowed his religious to be ordained, because he believed that Christian education was a ministry that was more appropriate for the laity than for priests. He made it clear in his constitutions to the Brothers that they must remain out of the domain of the clergy. They were to educate and practice the coroporal works of mercy and leave the running of the Church to the clergy. Like these there are many saints. Who protected the two states, the lay state and the clerical state by keeping them separate so that each would take care of the needs that were appropriate to them.
It was never the idea of the saints or the Church that the laity not conribute to the holiness of the Body, but that they laity take up those duties that were not appropriatae for the clergy or that the clergy could not cover.
If we look at history, the laity has always taken care of infusing the secular world with the spirit of the Gospel. That’s how so many religious communities were founded by lay people. Also such organizations as the Legion of Mary, St. Vincent de Paul Society, Knights of Columbus, just to name a few.
You also see it in the liturgy of the Church. There are specific roles for the ordained and for the laity. The idea of separate roles and different arenas of ministry has been part of Church history since the beginning.
When the Of was created, the role of lector, which had previously been a minor order on the path to the priesthood and acolyte (alter server) were reduced to lay ministries. This was the Church’s way of giving the laity an active role in the liturgy, without clericalizing them or making them clergymen or clergywomen.
Now we want back the Tridentine mass with the priest on one side and the laity on the other, no females in the sanctuary, no extraordinary ministers of holy communion, and altar rails to keep the laity and the priest separate. We don’t want the priest out in the congregation preaching or shaking hands. However, we want to have the authority to correct deacons, priests and bishops.
You can’t have it both ways. You are putting the lines of separation in the wrong places. It is not the role of a lay man or woman to correct a cleric. Every cleric has his supeior. You can express your concerns to a cleric and even disagree. But you cannot assume to have the authority to correct him or to teach him. That job belongs to his superior. The same applies to religious. They have superiors for that.
If you speak with a cleric or a religious about something that concerns you and you do not like what you hear in return or do not understand, you may present your concern to the next person up on the chain of command. You cannot assume the role of pastor, bishop or religious superior and decided that you’re going to show this person why you’re right and he is wrong.
This is not the job of the lay person. This is the job of a pastor, bishop or major religious superior.
Even among the clergy and religious, there is something called fraternal correction. But when that does not work, the concern is taken to the proper authority. The individual cleric or religioius does not try to tell the other what is wrong or what he believes he should know and doesn’t know.
Bishops and religious superiors do not allow their clerics or religious to do that to each other. This causes conflicts and people’s feelings are involved, as well as their reputatons. Also, in justice, people have authorities over them who have that right. They don’t need more figures of authority.
That’s like a child having too many parents.
When you take on the role of a pastor, bishop or religious superior, that is what is referred to a clericalization of the laity. That’s like the laity giving out communion at mass while the priest and deacon sit and watch. The laity has been clericalized. This is wrong.
The laity scolding clerics or religious is just as wrong.
Hope this helps. Feel free to ask more questions and I’ll try to answer.
JR
