What is clericalism? Is it a good thing? Is it lay people trying to act as clerics and wanting power in the Church, with clerics wanting power in civil society?

Is it, on the contrary, lay people being subservient to the clergy and behaving as servants and being second class Christians?

In the Church of the future lay people will play a more important role and the relative positions of clergy and laity will change. Thus an understanding of clericalism will become essential.

What do you think?

In Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clericalism)I read:

Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and sociocultural import. In a pejorative manner, "clericalism" is often used to denote an ecclesiolatry approach to issues beyond the church by either clergy or their supporters while the term has also been applied in a pejorative manner to describe the cronyism and cloistered political environs of the Church—mainly in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

Post edited 12:12 am – September 2, 2009 by saintstephen

noelfitz said:

What is clericalism? Is it a good thing? Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and sociocultural import. In a pejorative manner, “clericalism” is often used to denote an ecclesiolatry approach to issues beyond the church by either clergy or their supporters while the term has also been applied in a pejorative manner to describe the cronyism and cloistered political environs of the Church—mainly in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

Noel, There is only one way to right the world which is upside down and that is to recognize servant hood when you see it in any man including yourself and myself [as you know as well as I that the Irish are want to say, "tis himself"]. We are called to wash each others feet. Reading this text slowly and absorbing the message of Christ will create in you the effect of humility which is motivated by love for our brothers and sisters. I refer you to the washing of the feet, the answer you seek is found in the text hereafter following:

The Holy See

New American Bible

2002 11 11
IntraText – Text

* The Gospels
o John
+ Chapter 13

Chapter 13

1

1 2 3 Before the feast of Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to pass from this world to the Father. He loved his own in the world and he loved them to the end.

2

The devil had already induced 4 Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot, to hand him over. So, during supper,

3

fully aware that the Father had put everything into his power and that he had come from God and was returning to God,

4

he rose from supper and took off his outer garments. He took a towel and tied it around his waist.

5

5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and dry them with the towel around his waist.

6

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Master, are you going to wash my feet?”

7

Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will understand later.”

8

Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me.”

9

Simon Peter said to him, “Master, then not only my feet, but my hands and head as well.”

10

Jesus said to him, “Whoever has bathed 6 has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.”

11

For he knew who would betray him; for this reason, he said, “Not all of you are clean.”

12

So when he had washed their feet (and) put his garments back on and reclined at table again, he said to them, “Do you realize what I have done for you?

13

You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am.

14

If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet.

15

I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.

16

Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger 7 greater than the one who sent him.

17

If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it.

18

I am not speaking of all of you. I know those whom I have chosen. But so that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘The one who ate my food has raised his heel against me.’

19

From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I AM.

Michael,

You asked how I get a signature/motto into my posts.

First of all I log into "Catholic Exchange". I then open the forum "Faith & Life" and select "profile". In this I add a signature in the appropriate box. I use tags such as (b) and (br), with angular rather than curved brackets. Finally I click "Update Profile"

Yeah!

Thanks much Noel.

[Cross-posted, in part, from the The Return of the Arians]

There really is no other way to achieve that purity of heart other than sanctification through rigid practice of the virtues enforced by either Rules of Monastic life or parochial rules for parish involvement in the individual parish. The most effective parishes have rules that are enforced rather than merely preached. Preaching helps but enforcement certifies sanctity and that is what a Rule is all about, not a guideline but rather an absolute requirement for membership. [Emphasis added]

What is it that you are suggesting, saintstephen? What rules should be enforced by the parish to ensure the sanctity of the faithful? I believe that you are a faithful Catholic doing what he can to lead a life guided by the Church. That you have some misunderstandings of the application of Church teaching viz. myriad elements of Church teaching does not make me think that you are, somehow, less than faithful. I simply point out your errors and give you the ability to discover truth.

If I am reading you correctly, that the parish priest should be the – enforcer, I suppose – which goes to Noel’s reason for discussing clericalism. Unfortunately, some priests don’t even know what is right. For example, Archbishop Nienstedt, of the Diocese of Minneapolis/St. Paul, had to come out strongly against a practice in his diocese of parishes providing general absolution in clear violation of Canon Law. As a Cursillo member (Cursillista) for almost a decade, I was particularly disturbed to see that the Spiritual Director in that area admitted that his parish had been doing that for some time. Then had the temerity to suggest that he “had concern” about the bishop’s “change” – a change to a practice that should never have been occurring in the first place. This was not isolated, either, as the archbishop had to direct a letter to all parishes.

The faithful in those parishes should long ago have risen up and demanded fidelity rather than going along, simply assuming that the priest or priests knew what they were doing.

So who is the “enforcer” at the parish level?

Finally, I have given, and will continue to give you the opportunity to amend your error with respect to me in this public forum. As I have said before, I will accept your apology when offered.

In Christ,
Michael

Post edited 12:11 pm – September 3, 2009 by Michael

Hello, saintstephen:

You said,

If you have a problem with Archbishop Nienstadt, go over his head not under. Go to the Extraordinary Bishop in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI to make your complaint formally and in writing and ask for a response directly.

Your prattle reminds me of a child who has been disciplined by his parents who then cries to all his friends and brothers and sisters that he was disciplined

Try reading my post…I’m agreeing with the action taken by the archbishop! I’ve not been disciplined – certain priests have.

I’m saying that it would be poor practice to have the priest as some sort of parish “enforcer” of sanctity since, by this example, priests themselves often have difficulty with either understanding or obedience. I believe that your method, if I’ve read it correctly, sets entire parishes up to be rigorously monitored by the priest for signs of infidelity. My point is that even priests fail at this.

Your posted reply is silly on its face when my post has actually been read. I think it’s pretty clear that I was coming down against the priests who violated the canon and on the side of the actions of the Ordinary.

Pay attention!…or continue to risk appearing like you can’t read.

Finally, I have given, and will continue to give you the opportunity to amend your error with respect to me in this public forum. As I have said before, I will accept your apology when offered. This also saves you from continuing to be viewed as a liar.

In Christ,
Michael

Post edited 5:25 pm – September 3, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 5:29 pm – September 3, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 5:46 pm – September 3, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

saintstephen:

I can see where, if one only read the sentence you highlighted from my post, one might think I said the archbishop was violating Canon Law. However, the rest of the paragraph should have made it clear to you that the post was about the actions of some priests of the archdiocese having provided general absolution in violation of the canon – not that the archbishop was violating canon.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, When, where and how a Bishop disciplines a Priest is none of your business unless the Priest in question is directly your parish Priest. The Bishop did not ask your opinion to address a certain Priest. You are still engaging in prattle and further making inflammatory and derogatory insinuations about all Priests when perhaps a certain Priest was disciplined.

To make the statement that “Priests do not know what they are doing” simply because one or even many are corrected by the Bishop is not sufficient reason to make that inflammatory statement.

I personally know about 25 Priests currently and am in contact with them regularly and I know from experience they are not all “bad eggs”. In fact none of them are “bad eggs” and are in fact highly effective each in their own manner according to the gifts of chrism granted to them by the Holy Spirit and the Ordination to which they were called.

Simply because they do not all possess identically the same gift of the Spirit is no reason to condemn them all as “ignorant” as you so desire to do to the revelation of your own fault I will add. What do you think the purpose of a Seminary is? That the Priests prattle their days away? Of course not, they study to show themselves approved, "A workman that need not be ashamed". To become effective Ministers of Grace in the Ordination to the Priesthood.

I took the vocational inventory for the Vocation to the Priesthood and scored 98%. So according to your defective reasoning I would not be a good candidate for the Priesthood because I missed 2% on the inventory and I don’t know what the answers were because 2% of the inventory questions were unknown to me?

I do not agree with your reasoning as it is highly irrational and emotionally charged with illogic and vindication and entirely unfair to those Priest who have attained a high degree of integrity and knowledge of practice in the Ordination to the Priesthood.

What is your score? “Let he that is without sin cast the first stone”.

Post edited 6:17 pm – September 3, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

I have no problem with submitting my will to that of the Church or the clergy. But Church first! When a priest is wrong about Church discipline, he can carry the faithful into harm, as the archbishop articulates in his letter when he states:

/p>

Michael, So as you submit your will to the Church, then all you need to do is follow the advice of the Archbishop and go to Confession in the Confessional yourself. You obviously are not appointed the “Confession Police” for the Diocese.

When the Bishop makes a proclamation to the Diocese concerning an error what he is doing in effect is making certain that the entire Diocese is corrected in conscience. The Bishop is not making the error correction for the purpose of creating prattle and mistrust of the Ordained Priesthood.

As a student of the Catholic faith certainly this concept of education can be understood by you. Take the advise of the Bishop and immediately apply that correction to yourself and leave the “Policing of the Confessional” to the parish Priest. That is his job to corral his parishoners into the Confessional.

If you are uncomfortable with your Parish Priest then by all means go out to all the world and search for one with whom you can establish a level of trust with and confidentiality.

Your prattle reminds me of the protestant women who get together for coffee and prattle on about their husbands sharing details of the intimacy which is required for fidelity and making a mockery of their marriage. Intimacy with your Priest is essential for a good confession.

The Bishop will do his job, the Priest will do his job if you will simply do your job and obey the correction of the Archbishop.

I suppose your next post will prattle on about some other perceived irrational and emotional judgment that you wish to pronounce upon the Chruch in the name of what? In the name of vanity and vindication according to what I read of what I have already read in your posts.

Once again you miss the obvious. If the Priests are all at fault in this error, then the only scenario that is plausible is that in every parish there are long lines of parishioners waiting patiently for Confession and you would suppose that the Priest is lounging in his office ho-humming around and deliberately denying his office of the Confessional.

I do not believe your conjecture. The true scenario is that the Priests waited in the Confessional and grew tired of waiting for someone that would never come because the nature of American Catholic is such that they are "without sin" and so do not require Confession for Sanctification.

I have eyes and ears also and a Spirit of discernment. The long lines to the Confessional stopped in the year about 1955, from there they thinned out until currently there may be fortunately 2 or 3 faithful waiting patiently for the Priest to hear their Confession which of course led to general absolution as the Priest has a duty to present to Christ an "acceptable offering" which became increasingly impossible when few parishioners would cooperate with the Ministers of Grace and so their hands were forced to absolve their parish before Holy Communion otherwise everyone[except those who Confessed] would most definitely receive "Sacrilegiously" the Body and Blood.

Your presumption that the Bishop saw this mess and acted to correct is inaccurate as the entire Diocese of Priests saw this mess and asked the Bishop to correct the conscience of the entire Diocese and tell everyone the "Rule".

Get back to Confession! Be there or be square!

Michael said:

I wasn’t aware that a vocational inventory measured gifts of the Spirit as you seem to indicate whey tying the two paragraphs, above, together.
Michael

Michael, The Vocation Inventory for the Priesthood measures all 7 Gifts of the Spirit-go take the inventory to find out for yourself.

If you had made the complaint that you asked your parish Priest of the Sacrament of Confession and he said to you, "No, that Sacrament is extinct, we only do a General Absolution" then I would be your most ardent comrade in faith and take your side to right the wrong.

However I do not believe that is your case and you have not in one breath made any reference to you personally being denied the Sacrament of Confession by a Priest, therefore I do not believe you truly understand the complaint that you make.

I would much prefer to hear the Archbishop's take on the whole mess, including individual complaints from parish Priests and yours in particular.

You tell me please how a Priest in good conscience can offer Mass with the intention of distributing Holy Communion to a parish that entirely denies that they sin and who refuse Confession but want the Holy Eucharist.

Defend that honestly and truthfully and I will be your pal forever.

Post edited 11:39 pm – September 3, 2009 by saintstephen

Warren Jewell said:

I think that clericalism is less apparently lay desire to slothfulness and obsequiousness than many a pastor thinking only he can do this and that.

Warren, There is only one reason why I do not agree with your premise entirely is that we all share in the “common Priesthood”. Very few Catholic understand the meaning of the common Priesthood and so imagine themselves entirely as lay and end up laying down on the job.

It takes two to tango and even Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire understood that they both had to dance to be a big hit.

So it is with the Church, Priest and lay are required to work toward the common Priesthood and stop pointing the finger of blame at each other.

Part I-I. The Common Priesthood of the Faithful and the Ministerial Priesthood

Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest, wished that his one and indivisible priesthood be transmitted to his Church. This Church is the people of the New Covenant who, "through Baptism and the anointing of the Holy Spirit are reborn and consecrated as a spiritual temple and a holy priesthood. By living the Christian life, they offer up spiritual sacrifices and proclaim the prodigious deeds of Him who called them from darkness into his own wonderful light (cf. 1 Pt 2, 4-10)".[19] "There is but one chosen People of God: 'one Lord, one faith, one Baptism' (Eph 4, 5): there is a common dignity of members deriving from their rebirth in Christ, a common grace of filial adoption, a common vocation to perfection".[20] There exists "a true equality between all with regard to the dignity and to the activity which is common to all the faithful in the building up of the Body of Christ". By the will of Christ some are constituted "teachers, dispensers of the mysteries and pastors".[21] The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood "though they differ essentially and not only in degree… are none the less ordered one to another; [since] each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ".[22] Between both there is an effective unity since the Holy Spirit makes the Church one in communion, in service and in the outpouring of the diverse hierarchical and charismatic gifts.[23]

Thus the essential difference between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood is not found in the priesthood of Christ, which remains forever one and indivisible, nor in the sanctity to which all of the faithful are called: "Indeed the ministerial priesthood does not of itself signify a greater degree of holiness with regard to the common priesthood of the faithful; through it, Christ gives to priests, in the Spirit, a particular gift so that they can help the People of God to exercise faithfully and fully the common priesthood which it has received".[24] For the building up of the Church, the Body of Christ, there is a diversity of members and functions but only one Spirit who, for the good of the Church, distributes his various gifts with munificence proportionate to his riches and the needs of service, (cf. 1 Cor 12, 1-11).[25]

This diversity exists at the mode of participation in the priesthood of Christ and is essential in the sense that "while the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace, – a life of faith, hope and charity, a life according to the Spirit – the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood… and directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians".[26] Consequently, the ministerial priesthood "differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful"[27]. For this reason the priest is exhorted "…to grow in awareness of the deep communion uniting him to the People of God" in order to "awaken and deepen co-responsibility in the one common mission of salvation, with a prompt and heartfelt esteem for all the charisms and tasks which the Spirit gives believers for the building up of the Church".[28]

The characteristics which differentiate the ministerial priesthood of Bishops and Priests from the common priesthood of the faithful and consequently delineate the extent to which other members of the faithful cooperate with this ministry, may be summarized in the following fashion:

a. the ministerial priesthood is rooted in the Apostolic Succession, and vested with "potestas sacra"[29] consisting of the faculty and the responsibility of acting in the person of Christ the Head and the Shepherd.[30]

b. it is a priesthood which renders its sacred ministers servants of Christ and of the Church by means of authoritative proclamation of the Word of God, the administration of the sacraments and the pastoral direction of the faithful.[31]

To base the foundations of the ordained ministry on Apostolic Succession, because this ministry continues the mission received by the Apostles from Christ, is an essential point of Catholic ecclesiological doctrine.[32]

The ordained ministry, therefore, is established on the foundation of the Apostles for the upbuilding of the Church: [33] "and is completely at the service of the Church".[34] "Intrinsically linked to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry is its character of service. Entirely dependent on Christ who gives mission and authority, ministers are truly 'servants of Christ' (Rom 1, 1) in the image of him who freely took for us 'the form of a slave' (Phil 2,7). Because the word and grace of which they are ministers are not their own, but are given to them by Christ for the sake of others, they must freely become the slaves of all".[35]