Clericalism and other distortions
Russell Shaw writes an absolutely great article on clericalism at Inside Catholic. This is the first of a multi part series on clericalism. The article has a great balance in explaining this with the necessary caveats in that clericalism is a distortion of the role of the priesthood and condemning clericalism does not mean blurring the lines between the priesthood of the faithful and the ordained priesthood. I also likes the examples he used to explain clericalism which made me to see more fully what this term means.
We can forget about the dangers of clericalism when what we mostly see is the danger of those that seem to be reducing the role of priests to some kind of sacramental dispenser.
It also seems to me that the women's ordination movement is also a form of clericalism. Where these women seem to think that the only way to serve the Church is via the priesthood only. In this day and age of specialists this is no surprise since we can see the priesthood as the ultimate religious specialist and we forget that holiness is not caused by our vocational state in life, but by fully responding with love to the vocation we have. The Devil tempts priests and religious by making them long for the lay life and the Devil tempts the laity to long for the priesthood and religious life even when they don't have a vocation to it.
It is ironic that sometimes clericalism is used to support blurring the lines between the laity and the priesthood as for example Bishop Clark has managed to do in his diocese. He uses the term ministerium which is also used by many Protestants to do some of this blurring I must admit when I saw the term ministerium today in a headline in association to the bishops ministerium event I thought that the word was a contraction for minimizing the magisterium.
The fourth-annual ministerium event brought together people who serve in various leadership positions across the diocese. Participants are invited by Bishop Clark, who had introduced the term ministerium -- Latin for "body of ministers" -- in 2001 to define those who exercise an official of ecclesial ministry. This group is inclusive of ordained priests and deacons, and also such people who are considered lay ecclesial ministers: women religious, pastoral administrators, pastoral associates, religious-education coordinators, youth ministers, hospital chaplains, campus ministers, prison chaplains, Catholic-school principals, parish volunteers with significant ministerial responsibilities and diocesan employees.
Under Canon Law to be chaplain in the first place you must be an ordained priest. It really isn't correct to term lay volunteers to these ministries as chaplains. The definition of ministry in this context is a mirror form of clericalism where to be doing something for the Church this means physically doing something for the local diocese as an employee or volunteer to the parish or diocese. Lay apologists, the faithful praying at home for the Church, etc, are left out of this equation. This is like the distorted meaning of active participation meaning physically doing something during Mass.
Known as 
How timely, I was just explaining to someone today what I meant by clericalism and why it was a bad thing. With all the beautiful diversity of charism in the Church, and all the marvelous opportunities for apostalate in this world, we've so many options for serving God in our vocations that the existence of clericalism, when viewed from the perspective of all this diversity, is a sad and anemic thing.
I'm glad to see thinking people writing about this problem.
Loving our priests and bishops for their service to God is a good thing, but wanting to BE them when we are called by God to our own unique vocation in life is to be sadly misguided.
If God wants a particular person to be a priest the first thing He does is have that person born male. With a clue as big as your gender I think it terribly difficult that some feel that they must fight against that indicator of vocational direction. That would be like saying that because I was born with the intelligence for graduate studies that I still ought to prefer to clean toilets for a living--except that all the hints in my life for vocational direction, gender, intellectual gifts, and the opportunities which came my way by virtue of being in the family to which I was born, all point clearly to study and service with my mind for my vocation.
If I were born poor and with limited intellectual gifts, then a janitorial position done well would be a better choice for me, and there is nothing wrong with it.
It isn't WHAT we do exactly, but how we put what is dealt to us to use that guides us into our vocations.
If circumstances place me in a town where I must stay, and I feel called to a Lay position in a religious order, then I should ask what is available in this town in the way of Lay religious? The call is there, and if the only order with a chapter locally is Franscican, then perhaps that is the best place to begin to discern the specific call.
If intellect and finances make advanced education possible, but the vocation of marriage places me in a particular city, then the choice of school and particulars of the degree taken may be set by what is available unless it is possible to relocate the family. What is possible helps to guide what is chosen.
The world is vast, the needs for workers in the vineyard even greater, and each person has something to give--and for most, it will not be within the walls of the parish church.
Different is not lesser. Cleric or Laity are equally good.
Clericalism is a sad thing and so limited.
OUR POOR PRIESTS...EVEN IF THERE ARE ONLY TWENTY PEOPLE AT THE MASS, HE HAS 3,4 0R 5 PEOPLE HELPING HIM ...THEY REALLY ARE EXTRAORDINARY.
I wrote a post about the strange clericalism of lay ministry a few years ago:
Ministry Ministry Everywhere...
Thanks for pointing out the Shaw article. It is outstanding.
FWIW, the term "ministry" and its derivatives are reserved exclusively to priests in the documents of Vatican II.
THOSE AWFUL PUPPETS ARE BACK AT CHARLOTTE WAS BOTH BLOG.
Mr. Shaw has done some stellar work in the area of the laity and the universal call to holiness, and the specifically secular nature of the role of the laity, *in the world.* He also has written about the way in which in the US, this dimension of the call of the laity has been somewhat obscured by a distorted emphasis on lay ministry *within the Church* While certainly not opposing lay ministry, it is high time to stop seeing the laity as consumers, but as actors, subjects, apostles and missionaries in their own right, commissioned by their baptism. Well, the Popes have been saying this for decades. It's take a while for this to penetrate our minds, it seems.
When discussing clericalism, secrecy and the sex-abuse crisis, Shaw -- like the vast majority of Catholics, I've found -- forget this: [b][i]Any[/i][/b] centralized, bureaucratic hierarchy that isolates its leaders (especially if they're self-benighted) from the people it claims to serve, demands blind deference from them and discourages accountability and transparency at every turn will become a breeding ground for corruption.
Just look at the Soviet [i]apparachiki[/i]; their rhetoric about serving the proletariat through Marxist philosophy so lost its luster that the average Russian became depressingly cynical about his country. We Catholics risk the same thing.
As far as "congregationalism" is concerned, riddle me this: Why is it that it's "congregationalism" when laity choose their pastors (as in the Eastern Orthodox model) or bishops but it's [b][i]not[/i][/b] "congregationalism" when the College of Cardinals [i]elects[/i] a Pope from among its own number?
Catholics have been so traumatized by the Reformation, so fearful of schism and so proud of the [i]prudential[/i] structures of apostolic succession that we have lost our spiritual and moral bearings. We confuse the institutionalized Church for God and Christ. Why do you think so many Catholics are in denial over the bishops' corruption in the clerical sex-abuse crisis? We Catholics have been brainwashed -- and, no, that's not too strong a term -- into viewing the higher clergy in an [b][i]excessively[/i][/b] deferential manner. Remember what Christ said about the religious leaders of His own day in Matthew 23. Has human nature changed so much in 2,000 years?
One more thing: If the Church has to become more "Protestant" (whatever that means) to become more Christian (and we all know what that means, I hope), [i]then so be it.[/i] Do you seriously believe that a holy, righteous God cares more about labels than about committment to His fundamental truths and character?
I've been calling the whole "equality" movement within the Church "clericalism masquerading as laicism" for a few years now...