Democratization of the Church

[pnewton]

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)

I really do not see the conflict here. I think all the bishops understand enough of canon law to know their own authority and that of the USCCB, for example.

As to the use of the advisory boards, isn’t questioning the authority of the bishop to use these boards a contradiction? If the bishop believes he needs advice, who are the laity to question him. Whether the reasons are personal or legal, they are still his reasons and within the scope of his authority.

I see the greater problem with democratization having not so much to do with democracy, but excess information. Laity today have so much information, they feel empowered to question their priest, the bishop and even the Pope over every decision, as in the case of the Cardinal of New York who is taking part in a parade.

 

[Iotaunum]

I see the greater problem with democratization having not so much to do with democracy, but excess information. Laity today have so much information, they feel empowered to question their priest, the bishop and even the Pope over every decision, as in the case of the Cardinal of New York who is taking part in a parade.

Don’t know what parade the Cardinal is taking part in but I have a feeling I don’t want to know! I do see your point and I can understand how theses councils can sometimes be used in good ways to influence the clergy, but it is sort of a double edged sword and can have the opposite effect. I suppose the question is do the benefits outweigh the negatives?

 

[angelic06]

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.

Then there is no need to inform the council if he has already approved it, so that the council members can use their hour for something else. But the way it was put was that the priest called the council for the purpose of discussing the TLM, then tells them that their counsel is not needed. Why call them together at all? Let the priest exercise his rightful authority, but there is no need to rub it in people’s faces.

And for the record, I support clipping some of the Church’s councils’ wings a bit.

I also support the spread of the TLM and more traditional Novus Ordo Masses in Latin.

I do not support rudeness on the part of the priests in implementing them, which, from reading the posting concerned, sounds like it. Somebody correct me, please, if I am wrong----and in this case, I really want to be, for the post which was posted sounds terribly worded.

 

[phil19034]

I really do not see the conflict here. I think all the bishops understand enough of canon law to know their own authority and that of the USCCB, for example.

As to the use of the advisory boards, isn’t questioning the authority of the bishop to use these boards a contradiction? If the bishop believes he needs advice, who are the laity to question him. Whether the reasons are personal or legal, they are still his reasons and within the scope of his authority.

I see the greater problem with democratization having not so much to do with democracy, but excess information. Laity today have so much information, they feel empowered to question their priest, the bishop and even the Pope over every decision, as in the case of the Cardinal of New York who is taking part in a parade.

I wasn’t implying conflict. I don’t think there is any problem with Bishops using committees. I think where we sometimes have issues are with Parish committees, esp Liturgical Committees.

At my parish, the largest committee is the Liturgical Committee (not the evangelization, AFF, social, or fundraising) and they are still trying to figure out their mission statement… Sometimes I think about joining it, just to throw wrenches in their plans

 

[edwest2]

Here’s an article from Catholic Answers magazine that I hope will be helpful:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-to-talk-to-and-about-a-bishop

Peace,
Ed

 

[pnewton]

Don’t know what parade the Cardinal is taking part in but I have a feeling I don’t want to know! I do see your point and I can understand how theses councils can sometimes be used in good ways to influence the clergy, but it is sort of a double edged sword and can have the opposite effect. I suppose the question is do the benefits outweigh the negatives?

I would note that such a benefit analysis is something only the bishop (or priest) can evaluate. We too often evaluate such things based on our own opinions. If the advice helps support actions we think are the direction the Church needs to move, we view it as good. If it supports actions we do not think is where the Church needs to go, we view it as bad. Our own evaluation is too biased. We need to allow the authority to remain with the bishop, whether he uses a little lay involvement, or a lot.

 

[otjm]

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.

The old phrase “there is ore than one way to skin a ct” comes to mind.

I have absolutely no question in my mind but that he was not only really rude, but also very unwise.

The fact that he has the power to make the decision does not mean that simply making a decision which can have multiple years impact, and announcing it to the council/parish and etc. is an intelligent and well-though out way to approach the matter.

There has been more than one parish torn asunder both in terms of people leaving, and the financial impact that entails, because the priest decided he was going to tell everyone “how it is”.

In this specific instance, the priest is responsible for the spiritual welfare of all under his care. We simply do not know the facts of the parish, and there are a number of facts which would come into play in such a decision. There are any number of ways he could have approached the matter which would have encouraged collaboration. Instead, it appears he “ruled by fiat” and that has been shown throughout history to be a poor way of handling matters, at best.

My parish went through a major decision, and it was interesting to watch the process. In any major decision, getting as many people on board as possible is critical - critical for the parish as a whole, and potentially critical for the individuals involved.

The pastor (hint - a Jesuit) definitely wanted to build a grade school (and it is fairly clear that this was instigated by some parishioners). He fully backed it, but the mistake that was made was that one of the individuals who wanted the school was passionate about it, but didn’t have enough sense to understand how to go about getting everyone on board.

After a number of months of uproar (it will break us financially! It will destroy our social action work with migrant laborers! It will take money away from our work with the poor!), finally - finally - my brother managed to convince the pastor to let him address the parish. Math wise, it worked out to a commitment of an increase in the weekly collection of $5.00 per person (not family - per adult) per week over they years of the loan.

The school got built (and is doing extremely well) and is the first Catholic grade school to be opened in 40 years in our diocese.

Sadly, before the financial aspects could be worked out, a goodly number of parishioners left the parish.

The bottom line - this never would have seen daylight had the pastor imposed it. And it was floundering because the initial group did not have a clue as to how to present the matter financially. Neither the pastor nor the original group understood what the problem was initially, nor, once the problem manifested itself, how to deal with it.

Simply assuming that Father knows best presumes that Father knows everything, There is a tremendous amount of things going on in a parish that have nothing to do with sacraments or theology, and a number of things having to do with sacraments and theology all of which can benefit from the people in the pews. None of that implies a carte blanche approach to “parishioners rule”.

Back to the comment about the priest (and the OP); it appears the priest may now be in the chancery, which would imply that he is no longer in the parish. No mention of what chaos his decision making did to the parish; but if it did create problems , oh well, it is someone else’s difficulty. Let them figure it out.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t mean to be rude or to interrupt. I was just passing through to read some threads and I saw this one. It looked interesting. This thread reads like a survey. Surveys are used in research. Other than research, they serve no particular purpose in the world of assessment.

The question that goes through my mind is this. If the majority of the laity felt that there is too much democracy in the Church and this majority pushed to a more centralized government at the parish and diocesan levels isn’t this just another exercise in democracy? It would be the governed telling authority how they want to be governed.

Maybe the problem here is deeper. The problem may be a misunderstanding of ecclesiology. Maybe Christ did not leave a Church that is necessarily governed at the pleasure of the hierarchy. There is no indication in Scripture or the Fathers that they believed this to be the case. The laity even participated in the election of the local bishops, including the election of the Bishop of Rome, who by default is the pope.

We need to understand the difference between Christ founding a Church upon the faith of the apostles and a Church without accountability. Let’s take a practical example. If you want to understand the organizational structure of the early Church, you just have to look at the Benedictine school. The Benedictine school is founded on the model of the Church. There are three sources of authority in a Benedictine community: the rule, the chapter and the abbot. The rule dictates the law. The chapter interprets the law and the abbot executes the law according to the mind of the chapter. Only in those places where the rule or the chapter say that the abbot can make unilateral decisions are they allowed or on points that were never addressed by either the rule or the chapter.

Now watch where Benedict is drawing from.

1. Rule is to the abbey what the Gospel is to the Church
2. The chapter is to the abbey what the synod and councils are to the Church
3. The abbot is to the abbey what the pope is to the Church.

The Benedictine tradition gives us a picture of what the Church should look like and how it should be governed in a microcosmic format. If you examine the three parts very carefully, there is place for other voices. Benedict was not a clergyman. He was a religious brother. Yet, the Church looks to him for answers concerning the consecrated life.

Councils and synods were not just for bishops. You did not have to be ordained to be a council father. Tradition proves this. One of the council fathers at the Fourth Lateran Council was Francis of Assisi. He was a religious brother, not a clergyman. Therefore, he was not a member of the hierarchy.

Throughout the ages, the Church has made use of resources outside of the clergy in order to govern and even to establish order. There is no problem there. That’s pretty consistent with history. The problem may be two-fold. First, a poor understanding of ecclesiology, where roles and jurisdiction are not always clear, not through the fault of the Church, but because they are not taught. Second, the tendency in human nature to want to go to extremes: abdicate responsibility to another or to dictate to others without allowing them to take responsibility of any kind.