A modest proposal: Spread the priesthood by eliminating clergy
ForumCatholic Tradition
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.
Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.
1John5918
A modest proposal: Spread the priesthood by eliminating clergy (NCR)
Pope Francis has backed away from the proposal to allow for married clergy in a part of the world where there is a shortage of priests. The move might have been a step toward a significant change in the Catholic Church. It is the kind of small change that could open the door to larger changes typical of church reforms in the past.
These times, however, require a more imaginative and bolder change. Forty years ago, Andrew Greeley proposed a solution to the priest shortage that he called a "Priest Corps." He thought of this move as a temporary experiment which is still the way it could be begun. But it could lead to a permanent change in the leadership of the Catholic Church.
His proposal was to ordain priests for 10 years. The celibacy question becomes immediately irrelevant (gender, too, one can hope). Some people who are very good at the role would be reappointed. There might be individuals who would continue for a lifetime in the position, but no one would be appointed as permanent. Those with extensive experience could be appointed as overseers or bishops for a specified period of time.
Pope Francis in 2015 made this remarkable statement: "A time limit should be established for roles in the church, which are in reality a form of service. … It would be opportune for all roles of service in the church to have a time limit – there are no lifelong leaders in the church." Pope Benedict XVI led the way in showing that the papacy should be included in this principle. Ten years is plenty of time for anyone to occupy the papacy...
It's an idea I have heard discussed in many fora. I've heard bishops proposing that a celibate priesthood should be limited to a certain number of years, and at least one bishop, who longed to get back to being a simple parish priest, told me that there should be a fixed time limit on how long you serve as a bishop (which I believe is the case with Anglicans, for example). Not only would these proposals solve the question of the shortage of priests, but they would also demystify and declericalise the priesthood.
Pope Francis has backed away from the proposal to allow for married clergy in a part of the world where there is a shortage of priests. The move might have been a step toward a significant change in the Catholic Church. It is the kind of small change that could open the door to larger changes typical of church reforms in the past.
These times, however, require a more imaginative and bolder change. Forty years ago, Andrew Greeley proposed a solution to the priest shortage that he called a "Priest Corps." He thought of this move as a temporary experiment which is still the way it could be begun. But it could lead to a permanent change in the leadership of the Catholic Church.
His proposal was to ordain priests for 10 years. The celibacy question becomes immediately irrelevant (gender, too, one can hope). Some people who are very good at the role would be reappointed. There might be individuals who would continue for a lifetime in the position, but no one would be appointed as permanent. Those with extensive experience could be appointed as overseers or bishops for a specified period of time.
Pope Francis in 2015 made this remarkable statement: "A time limit should be established for roles in the church, which are in reality a form of service. … It would be opportune for all roles of service in the church to have a time limit – there are no lifelong leaders in the church." Pope Benedict XVI led the way in showing that the papacy should be included in this principle. Ten years is plenty of time for anyone to occupy the papacy...
It's an idea I have heard discussed in many fora. I've heard bishops proposing that a celibate priesthood should be limited to a certain number of years, and at least one bishop, who longed to get back to being a simple parish priest, told me that there should be a fixed time limit on how long you serve as a bishop (which I believe is the case with Anglicans, for example). Not only would these proposals solve the question of the shortage of priests, but they would also demystify and declericalise the priesthood.
2hf22
Putting aside the deep problems with this from a Catholic perspective#, it is worth noting Anglican don't generally have term limits for Bishops.
There might be a jurisdiction somewhere with an odd approach, but normally Anglican leaders are only subject to:
- Retirement ages for their diocesan roles (as Catholic Bishops are); and
- Re-election terms for regional leadership roles (i.e. as with the president of a Catholic Bishops Conference, someone like the US Presiding Bishop is elected for a set term).
Further retired Anglican bishops remain bishops, just without diocesan responsibilities, just like a Catholic Bishop Emeritus.
# I.e. It isn't possible for someone to be ordained for a set time period, the mistaken conflation of Orders with having a pastoral ministry, and thinking time limits matter at all for the gender / celibacy requirements.
There might be a jurisdiction somewhere with an odd approach, but normally Anglican leaders are only subject to:
- Retirement ages for their diocesan roles (as Catholic Bishops are); and
- Re-election terms for regional leadership roles (i.e. as with the president of a Catholic Bishops Conference, someone like the US Presiding Bishop is elected for a set term).
Further retired Anglican bishops remain bishops, just without diocesan responsibilities, just like a Catholic Bishop Emeritus.
# I.e. It isn't possible for someone to be ordained for a set time period, the mistaken conflation of Orders with having a pastoral ministry, and thinking time limits matter at all for the gender / celibacy requirements.
3John5918
>2 hf22:
The Anglican Church in both Sudan and South Sudan has term limits at least for for their primates.
The Anglican Church in both Sudan and South Sudan has term limits at least for for their primates.
4hf22
>3 John5918:
Primates are the "regional leadership roles" I was talking about (the US "Presiding Bishop" is their primate).
The US has 9 year terms I think, whereas say here in Australia the primate is elected for 6 year terms (but retains their diocesan roles both during and after their term). Which is the say, it is akin to the Catholic system regarding presidency of a Bishop's Conference.
Accordingly it is simply not true to say Anglicans' have a "fixed time limit on how long you serve as a bishop".
Primates are the "regional leadership roles" I was talking about (the US "Presiding Bishop" is their primate).
The US has 9 year terms I think, whereas say here in Australia the primate is elected for 6 year terms (but retains their diocesan roles both during and after their term). Which is the say, it is akin to the Catholic system regarding presidency of a Bishop's Conference.
Accordingly it is simply not true to say Anglicans' have a "fixed time limit on how long you serve as a bishop".
5John5918
>4 hf22:
Well, in South Sudan the primate doesn't keep a diocesan role when he finishes his term (five years, renewable once). But anyway, what the Anglicans do is not relevant to the "modest proposal" made in the quoted article.
Well, in South Sudan the primate doesn't keep a diocesan role when he finishes his term (five years, renewable once). But anyway, what the Anglicans do is not relevant to the "modest proposal" made in the quoted article.
6hf22
>5 John5918:
So the factoid you offered to support the article's conclusion was both irrelevant and wrong? Glad we cleared that up then.
So the factoid you offered to support the article's conclusion was both irrelevant and wrong? Glad we cleared that up then.
7John5918
>6 hf22:
Good grief, did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? I used the phrase "I believe" which implies that I am not offering it as a 100% verified fact, and I said "for example". And my >3 John5918:, "The Anglican Church in both Sudan and South Sudan has term limits at least for for their primates" and >5 John5918: "the primate doesn't keep a diocesan role when he finishes his term" are not wrong; you merely believe that primates are irrelevant to the point.
Good grief, did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? I used the phrase "I believe" which implies that I am not offering it as a 100% verified fact, and I said "for example". And my >3 John5918:, "The Anglican Church in both Sudan and South Sudan has term limits at least for for their primates" and >5 John5918: "the primate doesn't keep a diocesan role when he finishes his term" are not wrong; you merely believe that primates are irrelevant to the point.
8John5918
Let me return to the original "modest proposal". It's something I have thought about in the past, and I believe there are at least two possible avenues that could be explored without making the major changes which some of our fussier brethren abhor.
The first option is to recognise the status quo that in fact we already have temporary priests, but to remove the stigma when they resign. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of former Catholic priests who have resigned from the priesthood for one reason or another. Some have been laicised, some have chosen not to, but that's beside the point. They dedicated many years of their lives, often the best years of their lives, to service as priests, and then discerned that God was calling them to a different vocation in life. Sadly in some places there is still stigma atatched to this discernment. In Ireland they used to be referred to as "spolied priests". But if we were to carry on with the status quo, ordain priests with the intention of remaining in the ministry for life, but remove the stigma of those who feel called to resign, we would simply be recognising the temporary priesthood option which we already have in practice.
A corollary to this is that there are thousands of priests who have not resigned but who are no longer practising pastoral ministry. They are doing office and administration jobs which could and should be done better by the laity. Why they are still called priests when they have effectively moved out of the ministry of priesthood is a good question. I'm not suggesting that they should be forced back into pastoral ministry - it's a free choice, and many of them would be appalling at it - but simply to recognise that they were, effectively, temporary priests, serving a short period as a priest before becoming office boys. I've come across the same dynamic with quite a few missionaries that I have met in Europe and north America while visiting from my own missionary work in Africa. "Oh, I wish I were back on the missions!" they would exclaim. "I'd go back tomorrow, only my job as assistant deputy archivist (or add your own administrative job description) is too important and they can't find anybody else qualified to do it!" I'm talking here not about missionaries who have been called home (usually very reluctantly) for a stint of several years before being returned to the missions, but priests who have without doubt left the missions for good and found themselves a job back home. I have no problem with people who, for whatever reason, feel that their time as priests or missionaries has come to an end, but I wish they would recognise it for what it is - temporary priesthood.
The second option is to recognise the existing difference between normative and exraordinary ministries. To take two sacramental examples, the normative minister of baptism is an ordained minister, but a lay person can baptise in extraordinary circumstances. Likewise, the normative minister of confirmation is the bishop, but this sacrament is routinely conferred by vicar generals and parish priests. Or to take a different tack, we have lay Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist who assist in distributing communion and taking it to the sick. We also have lay catechists who have been authorised to conduct baptisms, marriages, funerals, etc in the absence of a priest. Their role is not normative, and it must be properly authorised, but nevertheless they perform it when needed. So if baptism and confirmation can be carried out by extraordinary rather than normative ministers on some occasions, could not a lay presider at mass be authorised in extraordinary circumstances? She or he would not be ordained as priest (just as a parish priest conferring the sacrament of confirmation is not ordained bishop, nor a lay person conferring the sacrament of baptism ordained priest) but would simply be an extraordinary minister.
OK, the second one is more radical than the first, but I believe both of these are "modest proposals", to quote again the linked article, with some existing precedents.
The first option is to recognise the status quo that in fact we already have temporary priests, but to remove the stigma when they resign. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of former Catholic priests who have resigned from the priesthood for one reason or another. Some have been laicised, some have chosen not to, but that's beside the point. They dedicated many years of their lives, often the best years of their lives, to service as priests, and then discerned that God was calling them to a different vocation in life. Sadly in some places there is still stigma atatched to this discernment. In Ireland they used to be referred to as "spolied priests". But if we were to carry on with the status quo, ordain priests with the intention of remaining in the ministry for life, but remove the stigma of those who feel called to resign, we would simply be recognising the temporary priesthood option which we already have in practice.
A corollary to this is that there are thousands of priests who have not resigned but who are no longer practising pastoral ministry. They are doing office and administration jobs which could and should be done better by the laity. Why they are still called priests when they have effectively moved out of the ministry of priesthood is a good question. I'm not suggesting that they should be forced back into pastoral ministry - it's a free choice, and many of them would be appalling at it - but simply to recognise that they were, effectively, temporary priests, serving a short period as a priest before becoming office boys. I've come across the same dynamic with quite a few missionaries that I have met in Europe and north America while visiting from my own missionary work in Africa. "Oh, I wish I were back on the missions!" they would exclaim. "I'd go back tomorrow, only my job as assistant deputy archivist (or add your own administrative job description) is too important and they can't find anybody else qualified to do it!" I'm talking here not about missionaries who have been called home (usually very reluctantly) for a stint of several years before being returned to the missions, but priests who have without doubt left the missions for good and found themselves a job back home. I have no problem with people who, for whatever reason, feel that their time as priests or missionaries has come to an end, but I wish they would recognise it for what it is - temporary priesthood.
The second option is to recognise the existing difference between normative and exraordinary ministries. To take two sacramental examples, the normative minister of baptism is an ordained minister, but a lay person can baptise in extraordinary circumstances. Likewise, the normative minister of confirmation is the bishop, but this sacrament is routinely conferred by vicar generals and parish priests. Or to take a different tack, we have lay Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist who assist in distributing communion and taking it to the sick. We also have lay catechists who have been authorised to conduct baptisms, marriages, funerals, etc in the absence of a priest. Their role is not normative, and it must be properly authorised, but nevertheless they perform it when needed. So if baptism and confirmation can be carried out by extraordinary rather than normative ministers on some occasions, could not a lay presider at mass be authorised in extraordinary circumstances? She or he would not be ordained as priest (just as a parish priest conferring the sacrament of confirmation is not ordained bishop, nor a lay person conferring the sacrament of baptism ordained priest) but would simply be an extraordinary minister.
OK, the second one is more radical than the first, but I believe both of these are "modest proposals", to quote again the linked article, with some existing precedents.
9hf22
>7 John5918:
you merely believe that primates are irrelevant to the point.
You were the one who declared the point irrelevant - But anyway, what the Anglicans do is not relevant to the "modest proposal" made in the quoted article.
My point is merely the importance of fact checking. Especially since a great many Anglicans would find the inference that they shared the flawed premises of this article offensive.
>8 John5918:
but I wish they would recognise it for what it is - temporary priesthood.
Holy Orders are not merely the pastoral ministries some who are ordained happen to carry out. Just like I can't get unbaptised, you don't cease to be a priest, even if you haven't served as one for decades. "For He testifies: You are a priest forever, According to the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 7:17).
A great and terrible thing, to be sure, but that is the nature of God.
So if baptism and confirmation can be carried out by extraordinary rather than normative ministers on some occasions, could not a lay presider at mass be authorised in extraordinary circumstances?
You will find Pope Francis beautifully answers this question in Querida Amazonia, paragraphs 85 to 90. You'll will also find he doesn't think it a modest proposal at all, but rather a very serious fundamental error.
you merely believe that primates are irrelevant to the point.
You were the one who declared the point irrelevant - But anyway, what the Anglicans do is not relevant to the "modest proposal" made in the quoted article.
My point is merely the importance of fact checking. Especially since a great many Anglicans would find the inference that they shared the flawed premises of this article offensive.
>8 John5918:
but I wish they would recognise it for what it is - temporary priesthood.
Holy Orders are not merely the pastoral ministries some who are ordained happen to carry out. Just like I can't get unbaptised, you don't cease to be a priest, even if you haven't served as one for decades. "For He testifies: You are a priest forever, According to the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 7:17).
A great and terrible thing, to be sure, but that is the nature of God.
So if baptism and confirmation can be carried out by extraordinary rather than normative ministers on some occasions, could not a lay presider at mass be authorised in extraordinary circumstances?
You will find Pope Francis beautifully answers this question in Querida Amazonia, paragraphs 85 to 90. You'll will also find he doesn't think it a modest proposal at all, but rather a very serious fundamental error.
10John5918
>9 hf22: Just like I can't get unbaptised, you don't cease to be a priest, even if you haven't served as one for decades
Yes, yes, but in terms of the active priesthood, which is what the Church needs, these priests are no longer functioning as priests, and so their ministry as priests (if not their nature as priests) is de facto temporary. We need to stop stigmatising the priests who leave, and recognise that we already have a temporary priesthood.
Querida Amazonia, paragraphs 85 to 90. You'll will also find he doesn't think it a modest proposal at all, but rather a very serious fundamental error.
Hm. I've reread it and I don't see the words "fundamental error". He does disagree with the use of extraordinary ministries in this case, saying that certain functions of the priesthood are "non-delegable". As I said, this is a more radical option, and maybe the Church isn't ready for it.
Yes, yes, but in terms of the active priesthood, which is what the Church needs, these priests are no longer functioning as priests, and so their ministry as priests (if not their nature as priests) is de facto temporary. We need to stop stigmatising the priests who leave, and recognise that we already have a temporary priesthood.
Querida Amazonia, paragraphs 85 to 90. You'll will also find he doesn't think it a modest proposal at all, but rather a very serious fundamental error.
Hm. I've reread it and I don't see the words "fundamental error". He does disagree with the use of extraordinary ministries in this case, saying that certain functions of the priesthood are "non-delegable". As I said, this is a more radical option, and maybe the Church isn't ready for it.
11hf22
>10 John5918:
their ministry as priests (if not their nature as priests) is de facto temporary
The fact that ordination itself is by necessity permanent matters in these things.
It means that laicization will always represent something other than which the Church and the ordained intend at the beginning. Just like a marriage, if you never intend for it to be permanent, then it would never really have been a sacramental bond at all.
I've reread it and I don't see the words "fundamental error".
Which is why I didn't put it in quotation marks. Yet there is no doubt he thinks your answer is seriously wrong.
As I said, this is a more radical option, and maybe the Church isn't ready for it.
It isn't a matter of being ready for it. The option has been available and proposed since Christ himself walked the earth.
It is an *old* proposal. The Church isn't preparing for it, it moved on and away from it for thousands of years, in preference for the sacramental priesthood which has always characterised the Church.
their ministry as priests (if not their nature as priests) is de facto temporary
The fact that ordination itself is by necessity permanent matters in these things.
It means that laicization will always represent something other than which the Church and the ordained intend at the beginning. Just like a marriage, if you never intend for it to be permanent, then it would never really have been a sacramental bond at all.
I've reread it and I don't see the words "fundamental error".
Which is why I didn't put it in quotation marks. Yet there is no doubt he thinks your answer is seriously wrong.
As I said, this is a more radical option, and maybe the Church isn't ready for it.
It isn't a matter of being ready for it. The option has been available and proposed since Christ himself walked the earth.
It is an *old* proposal. The Church isn't preparing for it, it moved on and away from it for thousands of years, in preference for the sacramental priesthood which has always characterised the Church.
12John5918
>11 hf22:
Yes, of course there are those (men more so than women) in the developed world to whom it looks as if it is all done and dusted and there is no room/need for evolution in the Church's thinking on the priesthood.
A little snippet from another thread - http://www.librarything.com/topic/317330
while the ratio of priests to lay faithful in the US and Europe overall is about 1-1,300, at the station churches {in Rome} it’s usually more like 1-2 or 1-3. It’s a reminder of an inescapable truth about Rome: There may be a priest shortage in the rest of the world, but definitely not here. Bishops who come to Rome from, say, the Amazon, or the Pacific Islands, or sub-Saharan Africa, or from other points of the compass where the priest-to-person ratio can soar as high as 1-10,000 or more, often can’t help fuming over the surfeit of clergy here... Overall, almost three-quarters of the Catholics in the world are in the global south, yet more than two-thirds of the Church’s priests are in the global north...
Yes, "almost three-quarters of the Catholics in the world are in the global south", and that, my friend, is going to change the Eurocentric Church as you and I know it, whether we like it or not. Of course fundamental truths won't change, but the perception of what is fundamental might well evolve.
By the by, I've been in isolated bush parishes in Geraldton diocese in Australia, and I have to say that it reminded me of mission territory in Africa. Long dusty outback roads, being picked up and ferried about by a religious brother driving a ute, being with a Nigerian missionary priest who didn't want to let me go as he was so lonely and so grateful for the chance to talk with someone who knew his home continent (even though I have never been within two thousand km of his country), staying at the bishop's simple house where he had just driven 1,400 km over the weekend to visit parishes, the main difference being that whereas we see gazelle leaping across the road in front of us, there I saw kangaroos. I've also stayed at Cardinal Pell's palace in Sydney, and that reminds me more of the Roman Church described in the snippet above...
Yes, of course there are those (men more so than women) in the developed world to whom it looks as if it is all done and dusted and there is no room/need for evolution in the Church's thinking on the priesthood.
A little snippet from another thread - http://www.librarything.com/topic/317330
while the ratio of priests to lay faithful in the US and Europe overall is about 1-1,300, at the station churches {in Rome} it’s usually more like 1-2 or 1-3. It’s a reminder of an inescapable truth about Rome: There may be a priest shortage in the rest of the world, but definitely not here. Bishops who come to Rome from, say, the Amazon, or the Pacific Islands, or sub-Saharan Africa, or from other points of the compass where the priest-to-person ratio can soar as high as 1-10,000 or more, often can’t help fuming over the surfeit of clergy here... Overall, almost three-quarters of the Catholics in the world are in the global south, yet more than two-thirds of the Church’s priests are in the global north...
Yes, "almost three-quarters of the Catholics in the world are in the global south", and that, my friend, is going to change the Eurocentric Church as you and I know it, whether we like it or not. Of course fundamental truths won't change, but the perception of what is fundamental might well evolve.
By the by, I've been in isolated bush parishes in Geraldton diocese in Australia, and I have to say that it reminded me of mission territory in Africa. Long dusty outback roads, being picked up and ferried about by a religious brother driving a ute, being with a Nigerian missionary priest who didn't want to let me go as he was so lonely and so grateful for the chance to talk with someone who knew his home continent (even though I have never been within two thousand km of his country), staying at the bishop's simple house where he had just driven 1,400 km over the weekend to visit parishes, the main difference being that whereas we see gazelle leaping across the road in front of us, there I saw kangaroos. I've also stayed at Cardinal Pell's palace in Sydney, and that reminds me more of the Roman Church described in the snippet above...
13John5918
>12 John5918:
And here's the other quote I meant to include from that thread:
spending some time in Rome is also an education in Italian flexibility. The late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago was fond of saying that Americans may be ecclesiastically Catholic, but they remain culturally Protestant. He meant that the cultural foundations in America include a strong dose of Calvinist rigor, which can translate into American Catholics, including our clergy, coming off as fusspots, insisting on exacting obedience to even minor rules and protocols. Legendarily, Italians are masters of adaptation...
I think northern Europeans (and probably Australians!) can be included in that description of "fusspots, insisting on exacting obedience to even minor rules and protocols"!
Reminds me of an occasion when I was in an international Catholic seminary somewhere in Europe forty-odd years ago, and the students were involved in a heated discussion on the pros and cons of priestly celibacy - well, naturally it was heated as these were the poor buggers who were expected to practice celibacy for the rest of their lives. The northern Europeans were arguing for a change of the rules - true to type, they would obey an unpopular law but work strenuously for it to be changed. The southern Europeans couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. "Don't rock the boat! Let the law stand, and just don't follow it if you don't like it!"
And here's the other quote I meant to include from that thread:
spending some time in Rome is also an education in Italian flexibility. The late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago was fond of saying that Americans may be ecclesiastically Catholic, but they remain culturally Protestant. He meant that the cultural foundations in America include a strong dose of Calvinist rigor, which can translate into American Catholics, including our clergy, coming off as fusspots, insisting on exacting obedience to even minor rules and protocols. Legendarily, Italians are masters of adaptation...
I think northern Europeans (and probably Australians!) can be included in that description of "fusspots, insisting on exacting obedience to even minor rules and protocols"!
Reminds me of an occasion when I was in an international Catholic seminary somewhere in Europe forty-odd years ago, and the students were involved in a heated discussion on the pros and cons of priestly celibacy - well, naturally it was heated as these were the poor buggers who were expected to practice celibacy for the rest of their lives. The northern Europeans were arguing for a change of the rules - true to type, they would obey an unpopular law but work strenuously for it to be changed. The southern Europeans couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. "Don't rock the boat! Let the law stand, and just don't follow it if you don't like it!"
14John5918
>13 John5918:
And I've just remembered another quote from that thread which I meant to include:
spending some time in Rome is also an education in Italian flexibility. The late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago was fond of saying that Americans may be ecclesiastically Catholic, but they remain culturally Protestant. He meant that the cultural foundations in America include a strong dose of Calvinist rigor, which can translate into American Catholics, including our clergy, coming off as fusspots, insisting on exacting obedience to even minor rules and protocols. Legendarily, Italians are masters of adaptation...
I think many northern Europeans (and probably Australians!) can also be included amongst the "fusspots, insisting on exacting obedience to even minor rules and protocols".
Reminds me of when I was in an international Catholic seminary somewhere in Europe forty-odd years ago, and in the bar one evening the seminarians were having a heated discussion on the pros and cons of celibacy - well, naturally it was heated as these were the poor buggers who would be expected to practice celibacy for the rest of their lives. The northern Europeans were arguing for a change in the church's disipline of compulsory priestly celibacy - true to type, they would accept an existing unpopular or unjust law but would work strenuously to have it changed. The southern Europeans couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. "Don't rock the boat! Don't try to change the law, but if you don't agree with it, just quietly ignore it!"
And I've just remembered another quote from that thread which I meant to include:
spending some time in Rome is also an education in Italian flexibility. The late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago was fond of saying that Americans may be ecclesiastically Catholic, but they remain culturally Protestant. He meant that the cultural foundations in America include a strong dose of Calvinist rigor, which can translate into American Catholics, including our clergy, coming off as fusspots, insisting on exacting obedience to even minor rules and protocols. Legendarily, Italians are masters of adaptation...
I think many northern Europeans (and probably Australians!) can also be included amongst the "fusspots, insisting on exacting obedience to even minor rules and protocols".
Reminds me of when I was in an international Catholic seminary somewhere in Europe forty-odd years ago, and in the bar one evening the seminarians were having a heated discussion on the pros and cons of celibacy - well, naturally it was heated as these were the poor buggers who would be expected to practice celibacy for the rest of their lives. The northern Europeans were arguing for a change in the church's disipline of compulsory priestly celibacy - true to type, they would accept an existing unpopular or unjust law but would work strenuously to have it changed. The southern Europeans couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. "Don't rock the boat! Don't try to change the law, but if you don't agree with it, just quietly ignore it!"
15hf22
>12 John5918:
in the developed world
The Pope isn't from the developed world.
Yes, "almost three-quarters of the Catholics in the world are in the global south", and that, my friend, is going to change the Eurocentric Church as you and I know it, whether we like it or not. Of course fundamental truths won't change, but the perception of what is fundamental might well evolve.
Take it up with people like Cardinal Sarah.
But more seriously, that certain functions of the priesthood are "non-delegable" has nothing to do with Eurocentric thought. In fact in many cases, these dogmas are more intelligible to non-Western cultures then for many in the developed world, which is why the supposed reformers are mostly far older, richer and whiter than our global Church.
We can play such games of course, but when deployed by retired white men in defence of each other, it really does tell a different story than intended.
Cardinal Pell's palace
Cardinal Pell's palace is currently a jail cell, rightly or wrongly, which isn't much for luxuries.
Anyway, I'm currently more worried about the goanna which kept visiting my back yard during our recently ended extended dry spell, than any kangaroos.
>13 John5918:
"Don't rock the boat! Let the law stand, and just don't follow it if you don't like it!"
I have never found hypocrisy much of a virtue. Jesus was quite pointed about it, as I recall.
in the developed world
The Pope isn't from the developed world.
Yes, "almost three-quarters of the Catholics in the world are in the global south", and that, my friend, is going to change the Eurocentric Church as you and I know it, whether we like it or not. Of course fundamental truths won't change, but the perception of what is fundamental might well evolve.
Take it up with people like Cardinal Sarah.
But more seriously, that certain functions of the priesthood are "non-delegable" has nothing to do with Eurocentric thought. In fact in many cases, these dogmas are more intelligible to non-Western cultures then for many in the developed world, which is why the supposed reformers are mostly far older, richer and whiter than our global Church.
We can play such games of course, but when deployed by retired white men in defence of each other, it really does tell a different story than intended.
Cardinal Pell's palace
Cardinal Pell's palace is currently a jail cell, rightly or wrongly, which isn't much for luxuries.
Anyway, I'm currently more worried about the goanna which kept visiting my back yard during our recently ended extended dry spell, than any kangaroos.
>13 John5918:
"Don't rock the boat! Let the law stand, and just don't follow it if you don't like it!"
I have never found hypocrisy much of a virtue. Jesus was quite pointed about it, as I recall.
16John5918
>15 hf22: The Pope isn't from the developed world
No, he isn't, and at least he has opened up some topics of conversation which were closed before, and given new hope to millions of Catholics (and non-Catholics) across the world, even if he hasn't gone as far as some would like. And look at the vilification he has received from some Catholics for so doing.
Cardinal Sarah does not speak for the entire Global South.
In fact in many cases, these dogmas are more intelligible to non-Western cultures then for many in the developed world, which is why the supposed reformers are mostly far older, richer and whiter than our global Church. We can play such games of course, but when deployed by retired white men in defence of each other, it really does tell a different story than intended.
Now that's a statement which would need to be unpacked if it were to have any meaning.
Cardinal Pell's palace was indeed a palace when I stayed there nearly twenty years ago.
I have never found hypocrisy much of a virtue
Sadly it's very common to mock and dismiss other people's cultures by giving them a pejorative name. It might be more helpful to try to understand those cultures and learn from them. But then that would mean interrogating one's own culture, of course.
Look, I don't claim I'm right, and that my opinions should prevail, but I do argue that the conversations should continue, and that many different strands should be explored in the continuing evolution of our Church, a living Church, not a fossil which stopped developing at some arbitrary point in European history. Despite the intellectual fussiness of those who often claim for themselves the title "traditionalists", in fact the tradition of the Church is one of growth, reform and evolution.
A former colleague of mine, a renowned scripture scholar, left the priesthood in his seventies over the question of women priests. He said he did not mind Rome telling him that he was wrong, and that we couldn't have women priests, but he would not accept being told that he couldn't even discuss the issue. Let the conversations continue!
No, he isn't, and at least he has opened up some topics of conversation which were closed before, and given new hope to millions of Catholics (and non-Catholics) across the world, even if he hasn't gone as far as some would like. And look at the vilification he has received from some Catholics for so doing.
Cardinal Sarah does not speak for the entire Global South.
In fact in many cases, these dogmas are more intelligible to non-Western cultures then for many in the developed world, which is why the supposed reformers are mostly far older, richer and whiter than our global Church. We can play such games of course, but when deployed by retired white men in defence of each other, it really does tell a different story than intended.
Now that's a statement which would need to be unpacked if it were to have any meaning.
Cardinal Pell's palace was indeed a palace when I stayed there nearly twenty years ago.
I have never found hypocrisy much of a virtue
Sadly it's very common to mock and dismiss other people's cultures by giving them a pejorative name. It might be more helpful to try to understand those cultures and learn from them. But then that would mean interrogating one's own culture, of course.
Look, I don't claim I'm right, and that my opinions should prevail, but I do argue that the conversations should continue, and that many different strands should be explored in the continuing evolution of our Church, a living Church, not a fossil which stopped developing at some arbitrary point in European history. Despite the intellectual fussiness of those who often claim for themselves the title "traditionalists", in fact the tradition of the Church is one of growth, reform and evolution.
A former colleague of mine, a renowned scripture scholar, left the priesthood in his seventies over the question of women priests. He said he did not mind Rome telling him that he was wrong, and that we couldn't have women priests, but he would not accept being told that he couldn't even discuss the issue. Let the conversations continue!
17John5918
Top anti-abuse expert says ‘paternalistic’ attitude is worse than clericalism (Crux)
more dangerous than clericalism in the clerical abuse crisis is a “paternalistic” attitude within the Church that both devalues laypeople and puts clergy on a pedestal...
The problem with this attitude, he said, “has two sides: Both with those in the hierarchy not involving the gifts of a wide variety of faithful, and on the other hand, we have laypeople who enable a paternalistic attitude by believing bishops to be omniscient and having the power to affect immediate change”...
more dangerous than clericalism in the clerical abuse crisis is a “paternalistic” attitude within the Church that both devalues laypeople and puts clergy on a pedestal...
The problem with this attitude, he said, “has two sides: Both with those in the hierarchy not involving the gifts of a wide variety of faithful, and on the other hand, we have laypeople who enable a paternalistic attitude by believing bishops to be omniscient and having the power to affect immediate change”...
18hf22
>16 John5918:
Now that's a statement which would need to be unpacked if it were to have any meaning.
I'm happy to expand on any element you don't find clear.
Sadly it's very common to mock and dismiss other people's cultures by giving them a pejorative name.
I didn't attribute hypocrisy to any culture, and I would happily point you to countless examples of hypocrisy in my own.
But the fact remains the attitude you were endorsing is hypocritical, and thus we should (following Jesus) reject it as unchristian.
He said he did not mind Rome telling him that he was wrong, and that we couldn't have women priests, but he would not accept being told that he couldn't even discuss the issue.
Then his ecclesiology, and theology of Communion, were even more flawed than his understanding of Holy Orders.
Now that's a statement which would need to be unpacked if it were to have any meaning.
I'm happy to expand on any element you don't find clear.
Sadly it's very common to mock and dismiss other people's cultures by giving them a pejorative name.
I didn't attribute hypocrisy to any culture, and I would happily point you to countless examples of hypocrisy in my own.
But the fact remains the attitude you were endorsing is hypocritical, and thus we should (following Jesus) reject it as unchristian.
He said he did not mind Rome telling him that he was wrong, and that we couldn't have women priests, but he would not accept being told that he couldn't even discuss the issue.
Then his ecclesiology, and theology of Communion, were even more flawed than his understanding of Holy Orders.
19John5918
Post-reformation theology of the priesthood influenced abuse crisis, author says (Crux)
what we think of as the official theology of the priesthood is actually a 400-year-old revolutionary one, linked to clerical formation spirituality. Its underlying spiritual theology has influenced the training of seminarians up until Vatican II and has had a major resurgence since the 90’s. Interestingly, it hasn’t been of much interest to most systematic theologians.
This theology was proposed in the early 17th century by a little-known cardinal-Pierre de Bérulle, the founder of the French School of Spirituality, and is a rather psychologically and spiritually unhealthy one... Arguably, Bérulle’s innovations have contributed to an unhealthy priestly identity and culture over centuries, principally through both an over-identification with Christ and an exaggerated sacrificial spirituality...
Bérulle’s priestly identity is very different than the priestly identity proposed by Pope St. Gregory the Great-a more humble, service-oriented but still cultic vision of the priest... Gregory’s pastoral manual served the Church for a thousand years before the Berullian priestly identity and spirituality took over...
what we think of as the official theology of the priesthood is actually a 400-year-old revolutionary one, linked to clerical formation spirituality. Its underlying spiritual theology has influenced the training of seminarians up until Vatican II and has had a major resurgence since the 90’s. Interestingly, it hasn’t been of much interest to most systematic theologians.
This theology was proposed in the early 17th century by a little-known cardinal-Pierre de Bérulle, the founder of the French School of Spirituality, and is a rather psychologically and spiritually unhealthy one... Arguably, Bérulle’s innovations have contributed to an unhealthy priestly identity and culture over centuries, principally through both an over-identification with Christ and an exaggerated sacrificial spirituality...
Bérulle’s priestly identity is very different than the priestly identity proposed by Pope St. Gregory the Great-a more humble, service-oriented but still cultic vision of the priest... Gregory’s pastoral manual served the Church for a thousand years before the Berullian priestly identity and spirituality took over...
202wonderY
>19 John5918: I knew that in a vague sense. Glad to learn the specific source. Thanks.
21John5918
>20 2wonderY:
Me too. It brings home to me once again how much of what some of our more reactionary Catholic brothers and sisters view as "how it's always been" is actually relatively recent - 400 years is only one fifth of the lifespan of the Church. The richness and diversity within the Church prior to the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent is often glossed over or forgotten, although thanks to Vatican II and popes such as John XXIII and Francis there is hope that some of it will be reclaimed. Reformation in continuity with Tradition, but with the whole of Tradition, not just the last 400 years' worth.
Also worth mentioning that the Council of Trent was a reaction to the particular circumstances of the time - reading the signs of the times (to quote Gaudium et spes). So to be faithful to the tradition of Trent we need to, er, read the signs of the times in the particular circumstances that we find ourselves in our current era.
Me too. It brings home to me once again how much of what some of our more reactionary Catholic brothers and sisters view as "how it's always been" is actually relatively recent - 400 years is only one fifth of the lifespan of the Church. The richness and diversity within the Church prior to the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent is often glossed over or forgotten, although thanks to Vatican II and popes such as John XXIII and Francis there is hope that some of it will be reclaimed. Reformation in continuity with Tradition, but with the whole of Tradition, not just the last 400 years' worth.
Also worth mentioning that the Council of Trent was a reaction to the particular circumstances of the time - reading the signs of the times (to quote Gaudium et spes). So to be faithful to the tradition of Trent we need to, er, read the signs of the times in the particular circumstances that we find ourselves in our current era.
Anmelden um mitzuschreiben.
