Democratization of the Church

[Iotaunum]

As all well informed Catholics know, the Church is not a democracy. Not in the past, now, nor will it ever be. Its divine constitution came from Christ who instituted a hierarchy.

The line of authority is; Pope, Bishop, Priest and Laity. Now the Church is free to institute/change things like; minor orders, cardinals, commissions, assistants, secretariats, advisory bodies etc. However, I think some of these in modern times have tried to assume a power they don’t have.

Bishops conferences have removed the power of individual Bishops in some areas. For example at a conference they will vote and all bishops will usually follow the majority vote - even if they disagree or voted against on certain matters. I have spoken to one bishop who told me that a change, for example, in his diocese he personally did not want to institute, but he was pressurized by his fellow bishops’ majority vote.

Bishops oftentimes will not make a decision without the advice of lay advisory groups. The same with parish priests who are sometime pressured by the “parish council” of lay men and women.

Seeing the bishops conferences, some priests with (and mostly without) approval have organized priests Councils (with a Capital C). They further restrict the bishop to make decisions in his own diocese. I have witnessed the influence of this first hand several times.

My question is this: Firstly I recognize the authority of the Church to institute/dissolve these advisory bodies, but is it time to do away with or restrict at least priests councils and parish lay councils? Are they actually making it harder for the Church to be true to its hierarchical constitution?

I ask this in the traditional section of the forum because I already know the progressiveness/liberal answer. They want more democracy and more lay influence no matter how Christ established the Church. I have had this conversation with them. I also recognize that some of these bodies may be a good influence - eg if a priest was too liberal or trying to change a parish outside the bounds of Church teaching/law the laity could put pressure on him etc. However, in a “cost-benefit” type analysis, is it time to remove the power of the growing “democracy” movement in the Church? What could be changed? I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this no matter what side your coming from.

 

[corsair]

Sometime ago I approached our local parish priest and asked permission to pursue getting the TLM in our church. He asked me to present the idea to the parish council. So when I showed up he introduced me to the council and told them what my idea was and that he had already approved it. He then reminded the council that they were “advisory only” and served at his pleasure.

With the ground work laid out I proceeded to present my plan to the sourest faced looking bunch of folks that I have ever seen. They asked a few questions but for the most part were silent.

Our priest displayed real leadership and courage. He has since been promoted to Vicar of Clergy in the Archdiocese.

And that it is the problem with councils, committee’s, or other panels. They will assume power unless it is held tightly by the priest/Bishop, etc.

 

[OraLabora]

Bishops oftentimes will not make a decision without the advice of lay advisory groups. The same with parish priests who are sometime pressured by the “parish council” of lay men and women.

To the extent that many decisions are of a practical nature and may have unforeseen impacts on people, there’s nothing inherently wrong with consulting the laity. There’s a precedent for this in the Rule of Saint Benedict where the abbot (effectively the “ordinary” for his abbey, in fact abbots share the almost same faculties as bishops when it comes to their flocks except that they can’t ordain), when having to decide on important matters, is to call all monks into meeting for their counsel. The ultimate decision rests with the abbot, but he would in fact be acting against the Rule if he did not first seek the advice of his monks. This is a 1500 year-old rule. For the record, here it is:

Whenever any important business has to be done
in the monastery,
let the Abbot call together the whole community
and state the matter to be acted upon.
Then, having heard the brethren’s advice,
let him turn the matter over in his own mind
and do what he shall judge to be most expedient.
The reason we have said that all should be called for counsel
is that the Lord often reveals to the younger what is best.

Let the brethren give their advice
with all the deference required by humility,
and not presume stubbornly to defend their opinions;
but let the decision rather depend on the Abbot’s judgment,
and all submit to whatever he shall decide for their welfare.

However, just as it is proper
for the disciples to obey their master,
so also it is his function
to dispose all things with prudence and justice.

 

[babochka]

Bishops conferences have removed the power of individual Bishops in some areas. For example at a conference they will vote and all bishops will usually follow the majority vote - even if they disagree or voted against on certain matters. I have spoken to one bishop who told me that a change, for example, in his diocese he personally did not want to institute, but he was pressurized by his fellow bishops’ majority vote.

Perhaps what we need is strong bishops and priests who will not give in to undue pressure.

Bishops oftentimes will not make a decision without the advice of lay advisory groups. The same with parish priests who are sometime pressured by the “parish council” of lay men and women.

A wise leader will always seek the advice of those who can offer constructive advice. It would be foolish and proud to do otherwise. No man can be competent in every area and he should consult with those who he leads, as well as experts in whatever field he is called to make a decision. Sometimes good leadership calls for standing up and going against the grain, but most of time, it requires a combination of humbly listening and good teaching.

Seeing the bishops conferences, some priests with (and mostly without) approval have organized priests Councils (with a Capital C). They further restrict the bishop to make decisions in his own diocese. I have witnessed the influence of this first hand several times.

The bishop is only restricted in this if he chooses to be restricted. If priests have formed a council and brought legitimate concerns to the bishop, then a good shepherd will listen with openness and humility to those under his leadership, priests and laity alike.

but is it time to do away with or restrict at least priests councils and parish lay councils? Are they actually making it harder for the Church to be true to its hierarchical constitution?

These councils are advisory only. Why should the Church do away with an organized structure to advise the priest and/or bishops. I think it is a very good thing that they do not exist in an ivory tower, isolated from the laity.

I’m on the advisory board of my parish. The most recent occasion that we were called upon for advice was when our priest wanted to change the time of the liturgy. He asked us what we thought. We gave him our opinions, explained our reasoning; he respectfully listened, asked his own questions, then made his decision. We are appointed by the priest and approved by the bishop. We can be removed in the same way. I have no doubt that our priest would remove anyone who regularly pressured him to act against the teachings of the church, his conscience, or good sense.

Why not just trust our priests and bishops to exercise appropriate leadership?

 

[Book_Worm]

Sometime ago I approached our local parish priest and asked permission to pursue getting the TLM in our church. He asked me to present the idea to the parish council. So when I showed up he introduced me to the council and told them what my idea was and that he had already approved it. He then reminded the council that they were “advisory only” and served at his pleasure.

With the ground work laid out I proceeded to present my plan to the sourest faced looking bunch of folks that I have ever seen. They asked a few questions but for the most part were silent.

Our priest displayed real leadership and courage. He has since been promoted to Vicar of Clergy in the Archdiocese.

And that it is the problem with councils, committee’s, or other panels. They will assume power unless it is held tightly by the priest/Bishop, etc.

In other words, he had made his decision without any advice from the Advisory Council? Then why bother wasting their time? What’s the point of having such a group if you only intend to rub their noses in the fact that you have no intention of even giving them the courtesy of listening to what they have to say? That would make me pretty sour-faced as well.

Now, if he presented it as “I’ve/we’ve decided to have a TLM Mass. What would you think would be the best way to introduce and implement it,” that would be, of course, perfectly within his authority AND courteous to those who give of their time and talents to help the parish run smoothly. But his comment that they serve at his pleasure reads to me that he doesn’t really want their advice and only wants to give the illusion of accepting advice but if it’s not the advice he wants to hear, you’ll be replaced by someone who will tell him that. Just call it a Sycophantic Council and be done with it.

Please don’t take this to mean that a priest has to act on any of the advice he receives, but if the parish has such a group, it’s only basic good manners to at least give the illusion that its function is meaningful.

 

[phil19034]

One thing to keep in mind regarding Bishop Conferences… There are some Canons which are delegated to the national Bishop Conferences. So for example: Holy Days of Obligation… each Bishop cannot select and chose which Holy Days they want to adhere to. That decision is made at the Bishop Conference level (in communication with the Vatican). Sometimes (like in the United States), the Bishop Conference may allow some differences (like the USCCB has allowed a few Northeast Provinces and the diocese in Nebraska) to differ from the rest of the nation. Plus, they have allowed Hawaii to follow the Holy Days used in Pacific by other island nations.) But that decision was delegated by the Vatican to the National Conferences, not to the individual Bishops.

So basically, most binding decisions made at the Conference level were delegated down to the Conferences from the Vatican. There are also some other decisions where the Bishops have generally decided to adhere to the majority to allow for national unity. The last thing we want are major differences from Diocese to Diocese and from Bishop to Bishop.

I think democratization of the Church started happening, when Bishops started using priest councils, which lead to pastors using lay councils more. Plus there was the whole spirit of democracy which was spreading though Europe and Latin America thanks to the founding of the United States. I’m also sure that the whole democracy vs. communism thing during the 50s, 60s, 70s & 80s played are part too.

Good leaders as for council, but also have the confidence to act on their own. Not all bishops or priests are natural born leaders, and they all have different leadership skill levels.

Hope this helps.

 

[AnnArbor]

Sometime ago I approached our local parish priest and asked permission to pursue getting the TLM in our church. He asked me to present the idea to the parish council. So when I showed up he introduced me to the council and told them what my idea was and that he had already approved it. He then reminded the council that they were “advisory only” and served at his pleasure.

With the ground work laid out I proceeded to present my plan to the sourest faced looking bunch of folks that I have ever seen. They asked a few questions but for the most part were silent.

Our priest displayed real leadership and courage. He has since been promoted to Vicar of Clergy in the Archdiocese.

And that it is the problem with councils, committee’s, or other panels. They will assume power unless it is held tightly by the priest/Bishop, etc.

That doesn’t sound like leadership and courage; it sounds like good old-fashioned rudeness. Perhaps they were ‘sour-faced’ after being told that their advice was not needed because the decision was already made, and that if their advice disagreed with the pastor’s, he’d fire them. In other words, “I’ve called you all here for a meeting to waste the time you could be spending with your families.”

 

[Cat]

I think that, considering the difficulties that the parishes in the U.S. have had with sexual scandals, it would be foolish to get rid of lay advisory councils. Perhaps had they been stronger back in the day, with more power, some of the offenders might have been detected and called out before they inflicted damage on the innocent.

If nothing else, the parish councils assure the non-Catholic public (including the critical media) that the Catholic Church does listen to its people and encourage them to participate in parish life. If there were no parish councils, the public perception (and the actual daily reality ) would be a dictatorship in which priests rule supreme and the laity are required to submit to everything.

 

[Cat]

Perhaps what we need is strong bishops and priests who will not give in to undue pressure.

A wise leader will always seek the advice of those who can offer constructive advice. It would be foolish and proud to do otherwise. No man can be competent in every area and he should consult with those who he leads, as well as experts in whatever field he is called to make a decision. Sometimes good leadership calls for standing up and going against the grain, but most of time, it requires a combination of humbly listening and good teaching.

The bishop is only restricted in this if he chooses to be restricted. If priests have formed a council and brought legitimate concerns to the bishop, then a good shepherd will listen with openness and humility to those under his leadership, priests and laity alike.

These councils are advisory only. Why should the Church do away with an organized structure to advise the priest and/or bishops. I think it is a very good thing that they do not exist in an ivory tower, isolated from the laity.

I’m on the advisory board of my parish. The most recent occasion that we were called upon for advice was when our priest wanted to change the time of the liturgy. He asked us what we thought. We gave him our opinions, explained our reasoning; he respectfully listened, asked his own questions, then made his decision. We are appointed by the priest and approved by the bishop. We can be removed in the same way. I have no doubt that our priest would remove anyone who regularly pressured him to act against the teachings of the church, his conscience, or good sense.

Why not just trust our priests and bishops to exercise appropriate leadership?

Very good post.

I want to comment on the statement above that “no man can be competent in every area.”

This is such a wise statement, and I would like to apply it to music.

Let’s just say that the priest “ruled” that all music in the Mass in his parish would be played on a pipe organ and that the piano would be closed, locked, and sold.

First, what if the parish doesn’t have a pipe organ? (Some churches have electronic organs–much cheaper to build and maintain, and to most people, they sound like a pipe organ.)

So the parish would have to put out the half a million dollars for a pipe organ to be in obedience to the priest.

But let’s give the priest the benefit of the doubt and assume that the parish really does have a pipe organ.

Chances are good that the reason it is not played is that there is no one to play it.

So again, the priest is telling the people to do the impossible. Certainly the parish could embark on a search for an organist, but wanting isn’t having.

Let’s use another example. Let’s say that the priest “requires” that the “4 hymn sandwich” Mass will no longer be used, and that all music will henceforth be Gregorian chant or sacred polyphony.

Well, I think the result of this would be no music at all in that parish, since again, wanting isn’t having. A parish cannot just switch over from singing hymns with notation (melody line only) to chant and polyphony! Most people in the U.S. can barely sing in their shower! And what happens if there is no one in the parish who knows anything about chant or polyphony? And where does the actual paper (or online) music come from? How much parish budget money will be allocated to pay for all this?!

And finally, what happens if the people of the parish are so upset by the change in Mass music that they depart in droves to attend another parish? Yes, the priest can hold his head up high and say, “I am sticking to my convictions and trying to restore tradition to this parish.” That’s fine, but if there are not enough people in the parish to pay the light bills, the parish will inevitably close down.

So when it comes to Mass music, it seems to me that the majority of priests probably appreciate having a parish council to keep them grounded in reality.

 

[babochka]

I think democratization of the Church started happening, when Bishops started using priest councils, which lead to pastors using lay councils more.

I think democracy has existed in some form or another in the Church for 2,000 years. Many of the things that we view as top-down decisions were not always handled in this manner. History tells us of a good number of bishops who were chosen by popular acclaim, chosen by the people whom he would lead.

 

[Iotaunum]

I think that, considering the difficulties that the parishes in the U.S. have had with sexual scandals, it would be foolish to get rid of lay advisory councils. Perhaps had they been stronger back in the day, with more power, some of the offenders might have been detected and called out before they inflicted damage on the innocent.

I get what you are saying - however I don’t think giving lay councils more power would have stopped the abuse scandals. I think more stringent selection and Seminary training is the real remedy for this. It is also worth noting that most of the parishes who had homosexual/pedophile priests also had strong lay involvement in parish councils. Im not connecting the two of course, I just don’t think the remedy lies in giving the lay advisers more power - in this matter anyway.

 

[Iotaunum]

Sometime ago I approached our local parish priest and asked permission to pursue getting the TLM in our church. He asked me to present the idea to the parish council. So when I showed up he introduced me to the council and told them what my idea was and that he had already approved it. He then reminded the council that they were “advisory only” and served at his pleasure.

With the ground work laid out I proceeded to present my plan to the sourest faced looking bunch of folks that I have ever seen. They asked a few questions but for the most part were silent.

Our priest displayed real leadership and courage. He has since been promoted to Vicar of Clergy in the Archdiocese.

And that it is the problem with councils, committee’s, or other panels. They will assume power unless it is held tightly by the priest/Bishop, etc.

You make a good point. Unless those with the authority of the Church actually exercise it, then it is not much use. I think one of the problems is that all too often priests and bishops are willingly giving too much power to lay groups to make decisions.

To be clear, I think there is definitely a role for lay involvement (advisory groups etc),* in its proper place.* But in some places, my local parish for example the priest cannot make a move without a new committee being formed. In some cases they think this democracy means they can vote to change doctrine. For example I know of one person who is head of the parish council in a diocese near mine and he openly rejects Church teaching on Confessions, wants women priests / gay masses etc but the worst part is that the last time i was speaking to him he seemed to think that eventually these lay councils would be able to make real changes in these areas (which is never gonna happen as long as the Church is the Church. You see the kind of rebellious spirit this breeds.

I am not saying lay councils etc do not have their place, but I do think they need their wings clipped a bit and the bishops etc need to start exercising their authority more.

 

[Iotaunum]

That doesn’t sound like leadership and courage; it sounds like good old-fashioned rudeness. Perhaps they were ‘sour-faced’ after being told that their advice was not needed because the decision was already made, and that if their advice disagreed with the pastor’s, he’d fire them. In other words, “I’ve called you all here for a meeting to waste the time you could be spending with your families.”

I don’t think this is rudeness. If the Priest who has authority in the parish has decided something then they are only being asked how to organize its implementation and give ideas etc. Many in such lay councils think that every decision should be put to a vote making the priest a mere figure head role who signs on the dotted line after a majority vote.

 

[phil19034]

I think democracy has existed in some form or another in the Church for 2,000 years. Many of the things that we view as top-down decisions were not always handled in this manner. History tells us of a good number of bishops who were chosen by popular acclaim, chosen by the people whom he would lead.

True

 

[ProVobis]

I think democracy has existed in some form or another in the Church for 2,000 years. Many of the things that we view as top-down decisions were not always handled in this manner. History tells us of a good number of bishops who were chosen by popular acclaim, chosen by the people whom he would lead.

I would agree with this. Even though liturgical committees might have been sparse prior to VII, people have always approved or disapproved with their feet.

 

[Book_Worm]

I don’t think this is rudeness. If the Priest who has authority in the parish has decided something then they are only being asked how to organize its implementation and give ideas etc. Many in such lay councils think that every decision should be put to a vote making the priest a mere figure head role who signs on the dotted line after a majority vote.

That’s not what the poster said happened. He did not say that the priest asked for their ideas on implementation. He said the priest asked him to inform the Council of what had been decided and told them that if they didn’t like it, he’d remove them.

Why have an advisory council if you don’t want their advice? You don’t have to follow it, but at least give them the courtesy of listening to it or don’t waste their time holding meaningless meetings.

 

[AnnArbor]

That’s not what the poster said happened. He did not say that the priest asked for their ideas on implementation. He said the priest asked him to inform the Council of what had been decided and told them that if they didn’t like it, he’d remove them.

Why have an advisory council if you don’t want their advice? You don’t have to follow it, but at least give them the courtesy of listening to it or don’t waste their time holding meaningless meetings.

This. These people sacrifice personal time to serve on councils–if you don’t want them to fulfill their function, cancel the meeting so they can stay home.

 

[abucs]

It is interesting that Popes were being elected when kings and queens were being born.

That being said, there are some who want a full modern day understanding of democratization for the church in order to have a better chance of changing things to the way they personally would prefer.

Of course the end result would be like any other democratic governance around the world. You would get splits of at least two main groups who are intrinsically opposed to eachother and who then create a widening gulf of philosophy and blame the other side for all that was wrong with the world. You’d get a disintegration of a common identity and a government system that was seen as something to fight over rather than facilitate community.

The Church of course is an invitation from God, not a show of hands for His removal.

 

[sirach2v4]

Didn’t pope Francis say that he wanted to see an end to clericalism in the Church?

I said this here before, I’d like to see each priest’s statement of what clericalism means to them and how he is going to end it, that is, specific measures that we can see, that will demonstrate the end of arbitrary clerical oversight.

In the late 80’s, my uncle told me the ushers reported that the door knob of the men’s room was broken and ought to be repaired. The pastor told them that the matter had to be submitted for approval to a diocesan office. This is what stinks in the church – the petty use of power.

I think lay people OUGHT to seek the advice of the priest / pastor and find out what is the total picture, before they get steamed up about something or other.

I joined a parish (rejoined my home parish, when I moved back from out of state) and told the priest I wanted a Bible study. He (as well as other priests say) that people SAY they want parish Bible study but that they don’t really support it.

I have found that parish Bible study usually comes down to a devoted group of 5 to 10 people who, year in and out, will attend, but that’s about it. I say, so be it, let it happen, but the priests don’t see it this way. (I’m on the verge of joining a non-Catholic Bible study group, just to keep my mind active.)

When Fr. Corapi was still in good graces on EWTN, he, too, was against Bible study, where people sit around discussing what they think some scripture passage means. But, he didn’t, as I recall, mention what the appropriate purpose or conduct of parish Bible should be.

I was on a committee where the priest brought to the table, for a rubber stamp approval, some resolution (which he had already decided) about the uses of the American Flag in church (one way or the other). The group’s opinion really didn’t make a difference.

I’d say, when the people can make a decision, then let them. Make sure they have a chance to say something at least twice a year.

 

[YoungTradCath]

To the extent that a bishop feels obligated to act upon the recommendations of his priest councils, or that a priest feels the same way towards the recommendations of a pastoral council, these are individual issues. Perhaps modern culture places an expectation upon priests and bishops that they will–even if they don’t have to–approve whatever their councils come up with, but this is never necessary.

Personally I think liturgical committees are some of the worst and potentially most harmful groups. They can wreak havoc on liturgy when a priest is hesitant to rein them in.

However, as long as a bishop or priest regularly (like more than once a year) says what each group/council/body is for, and as long as said bishop or priest is self-confident (in a humble way ), then I see no issue.