A few years back, Russell Shaw wrote a terrific book called To Hunt, To Shoot, To Entertain: Clericalism and the Catholic Laity. It took its title from an amazing remark by a 19th-century English monsignor who loftily declared, “What is the province of the laity? To hunt, to shoot, to entertain. These matters they understand, but to meddle with ecclesiastical matters they have no right at all.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman disagreed, pointing out that during the Arian crisis, it was the laity who kept the Faith while the majority of bishops vacillated, caved to heresy, or were silent during the 60 years of the crisis. That doesn’t mean that the Church operates on the principle vox populi, vox Dei. But it does mean that clericalism ought to be avoided.

Clericalism is basically the bad idea that only the ordained and religious are fully Catholic and that laypeople are more or less second-class. With that idea comes a host of other bad ideas, such as “Father is always right,” “Never disagree if a bishop does it,” and “Don’t question anything a priest or bishop does.”

It’s this conception of the ordained office as a place of power that gave us the scandal of priestly abuse and episcopal cover-up of same. Priests like John Geoghan used their office to dominate and abuse kids. Bishops, many of them thorough-going clericalists as well, saw their office as a place of power and, when that power was threatened by the Heaven-heard cries of victims, attacked the victims and protected the power. And mysteriously, many parents, police, and prosecutors — laity all — let them because they somehow had become convinced that the mere fact of ordination trumped the natural law which says you should protect a child from a rapist and call the cops.

Americans are incorrigible about dividing everything up into “conservative” and “liberal” tribalisms. The standard media template of “Plucky Rebel Liberal Alliance v. Evil Conservative Hierarchical Empire” lends itself easily to such simplicities. Some would have us believe that “conservatives,” being “poor, uneducated and easily led,” are suckers for clericalism while “progressives” question authority and prize open discussion of the issues. And, admittedly, reputed conservatives, both lay and ordained, have done their part to sustain that template. One thinks, for instance, of the sensitive pastoral approach of the quite orthodox Archbishop Elden Curtiss to laypeople like Frank Ayers and Jeanne Bast, an 80-year-old mother of eleven and retired Catholic grade-school teacher from west Omaha, who wrote letters to the Omaha World-Herald regarding Curtiss’s decision to assign a priest who had viewed Internet child pornography to St. Gerald parish in Ralston, after publicly criticizing his decision to reassign a priest who had viewed Internet child pornography.

“You should be ashamed of yourself!” the archbishop wrote to Bast. Likewise, Ayers was informed by Curtiss that he was “a disgrace to the church.” For maximum humiliation, the letters were carbon copied to the writers’ pastors and both writers were commanded to say one “Hail Mary” prayer for him as penance. Unfortunately, for Archbishop Curtiss, he picked the moment when the priest abuse scandal was breaking all over the United States in the spring of 2002 to pursue this singularly ill-advised effort at shutting down perfectly legitimate lay input on the clergy’s catastrophic failure. When it comes to matters of the common good, lay people have more input to offer than pay, pray, and obey, and he ought really to have listened to these good people and not simply assumed that ordination conferred on him the right to tell people not to point out the bleedin’ obvious. Not surprisingly, such moments give many people the impression that “conservative company man” vs. “brave liberal reformer” explains everything.

An Equal-Opportunity Problem

Real life is nonetheless more complex than simple conservative-vs.-liberal cartoons. Clericalism cuts across such neat categories ruthlessly. Yes, it was a “conservative” cardinal who rightly resigned in Boston. But it was a “liberal” bishop in Phoenix who—two weeks after cutting a deal with the prosecution to avoid indictment on obstruction charges for protecting child-molesting priests—killed a man with his car and somehow got the impression that his first duty was to hide the evidence from the cops who were looking for him.

Clericalism, it turns out, is an equal-opportunity sin. It’s not reserved just to conservatives. Some of the most clerical people I know have been staunchly “progressive” dissenters and despisers of Church teaching who use their office to muzzle any attempt to question them when they “renovate” a Church, improve the liturgy into a festival of St. Narcissus, or transmute RCIA into a cell group for chanting slogans against the Magisterium on their favorite pelvic issues. Clericalist liberals routinely smear as “rigid” or “overly devotional” Catholics who take seriously the teaching of the Church. It is not unknown for progressive clericalists to publicly silence as “fundamentalist” those who have the effrontery to take St. Paul at something like his word concerning the incompatibility of homosexual practice with Christian morality. I have sat through RCIAs in which the director of religious education would simultaneously mock and sneer at Pope John Paul II’s teaching while ordering catechumens not to question his own dubious tendencies to downplay the miracles of Scripture. For such people, the watchword is “Question the Tradition, but don’t you dare question me!”

Similarly, don’t think for a moment that clericalism is exclusively the province of clerics. Laypeople can be some of the most clerical on earth. This is, as Shaw points out, one of the reasons for the alleged “crisis” over women and married priests. If you hold that only religious professionals (and for Catholics, that means priests) are “real Catholics,” then it naturally follows that no woman or married guy is a “real Catholic.”

The Feudal Lord of the Parish

How that plays out on the ground is familiar to anybody who has ever had to deal with the lay religious professional who has carved out his or her niche on the liturgy committee or the RCIA or the Whatnot Committee. Such people can be more territorial than high-strung little yip dogs and as contemptuous of the unwashed as the most ferocious Pharisee. If some impertinent person dares to wonder why there is sand in the holy water font for Lent or why the kneelers have been ripped out and the pews moved so close that it is physically impossible to kneel during the liturgy, they will receive a mixture of condescending explanation and impatient tongue-lashing for their sinister pre-Vatican II tendencies by the local Ubergruppenfuehrer for Liturgical Experimentation with an M.A. from Seattle U (“an institution in the Jesuit tradition”).

With sufficient applications of this sort of semi-academic clericalism, whole parishes can be remade into the image and likeness of the liturgist-who-wishes-s/he-ran-the-show and an entire culture of mutually back-slapping Vanguard of History types can be incubated for the future transformation of other parishes fiercely loyal to Vatican III. Such “Stockholm Syndrome” behavior is on full display among the extremely confused folk who run Voice of the Faithful, an organization that sprang up in response to the scandal. Run by well-meaning folk who were rightly outraged by the abuse of children, it almost immediately became a clearinghouse for all the usual dissents on all the usual pelvic issues—many of them championed by the very priests who were jailed for being too free with their own pelvic issues.

However, none of this need be the case. If you hold the Church’s actual teaching and recognize that the ordained office is but one of many offices (and not a more or less important office than the lay office) then there is no sense in talking about women being “excluded from ministry” just as there is no sense in complaining that men were “excluded from” the Virgin Birth. There is an ocean of ministry, and all the lay women and men in the world could labor their whole lives and not perform it all.

The error of clericalism (and its real desire) is not ministry, but power. Clericalists, both lay and ordained, see the priesthood as a place of power, and hunger for it. But Jesus saw the priesthood as a place of service. So does the Holy Church. That is why the sacrament of Holy Orders is described by the Catechism as a “sacrament at the service of communion.”

We laypeople are called to obey our bishops in matters of faith and morals. And we are called to honor our bishops as spiritual fathers. But we are not required to approve everything they do, especially when it contradicts the clear teaching of the Church. If a bishop, like former Bishop Anthony O’Connell of Palm Beach, specifically commands something clearly contrary to the teaching of the Holy Church, such as “Remove your pants and bend over,” our right and proper office as laity is to raise our voice and call the cops. Indeed, we laypeople must do it, because we are the cops, the investigators, the prosecutors, the jailers.

But mark that: We laypeople have to hold them to account in light of the Tradition, not in light of the tenets of the secular world, nor in light of what lawyers and psychologists say, nor in light of what the “Repeal Vatican II!” crowd says.

The way out of clericalism is more fidelity to the Holy Church, not less. This problem will be solved by returning to the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, pure and undefiled, and not by the myriad paths away from it proposed by Call to Action, or the Society of St. Pius X, or the New York Times editorial board.

Mark Shea


Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog and regularly blogs for National Catholic Register. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Clericalism | Catholic Exchange --

  • SeanReynoldsNZ

    Nice one Mark! In fact, for a while I just went through the motions of going to Mass on Sunday evening and skipping off after Mass to the local Presbyterian ecclesial community (strictly not a Church due to the lack of the Eucharist) because while the Catholic Church felt familiar, there appeared to be no place in it for those who felt like they were not called to the priesthood. On the other hand, the minister at the Presbyterian community would talk in his sermons about real life. Suffice to say, discovering St Josemaria Escriva talking about the call to Holiness being for everyone was what brought me back to the Catholic Church.

  • delynn

    Thank you! I have wondered how much we, as laity, have contributed to the crisis by our willing participation in clericalism. Our priests are human. To treat them as if they were experts in everything, or even God Himself, must put a massive burden on them. Also, I now wonder if we aren’t isolating our priests even more now. Everyone is watching for signs of trouble, certainly not without reason, but is there any peace for our priests? God bless us and be merciful to us all!

  • momof11

    I’m confused…Who authored this piece? At the top it says Mark Ryland, but it has Mark Shea’s info at the bottom and above the title is Mark Shea today. Good article, please fix the credit….

  • I have fixed this. We know it said Mark Shea yesterday and earlier when he posted it, but we are having a glitch with the author names.

  • mgossett

    Great article Mark! The diocese in which my university belongs often confuses fighting clericalism with blurring the role of the priest/laity. The priests in my diocese often will only wear their clerics right before Mass. I may just be naive, but it always gives me great confidence in my faith when I see a priest wearing his clerics out in the world. Instead, they view wearing clerics as a ‘wall that separates laity and the clergy’. Again, my ignorance may be taking over, but if a married person were to take off their wedding band so as not to make people feel uncomfortable or to put up a wall between himself and all those around him, I would view that as a lack of respect for the vows he took. I know that clerics do not define the priest just as the wedding band doesn’t make the marriage . However, if we can see (literally see by what they are wearing) one vocation present and actively living the faith, it may help those around them live their own faiths more openly.

  • bwnasca

    Very prophetic, Mark. My monitor is still smokin’!

  • jmtfh

    Spot on!

    Unfortunately, in our area we are seeing a resurgence in clericalism–fostered, sadly, in the local minor seminary. It is tragic to see how these humble young men start out sincere in their calling but are then “coddled” with all the nicest trappings–perks NOT available to others at the Catholic college who hosts them.

    They are fed better meals, all of their expenses are paid and and they want for nothing. It is well known to the rest of the campus that this is a very privileged group. A great effort is made to keep them “separate” and and “special.” While it is understood that we do need priests and the seminaries need to work to retain young recruits, treating them as royalty fosters clericalism rather than holiness and meekness among our future priests.

  • bythesea

    “There is an ocean of ministry, and all the lay women and men in the world could labor their whole lives and not perform it all.”

    Well said! When one looks at some of the unique vocations that have sprung up over the last couple centuries, or studies some of the people that Pope John Paul II canonized, one realizes the great breadth of vocations that our Lord gives us.

  • Kathryn

    “It is tragic to see how these humble young men start out sincere in their calling but are then “coddled” with all the nicest trappings–perks NOT available to others at the Catholic college who hosts them.

    They are fed better meals, all of their expenses are paid and and they want for nothing. It is well known to the rest of the campus that this is a very privileged group.”

    There was a time I wanted my eldest son to be a priest. I joked he was going to be the first American Pope. That was some time ago. If God calls him, okay, fine. But I certainly hope it happens AFTER my son has learned something about the marketplace and how people EARN a living. Most priests I have encountered seem to have no clue how regular life (aka, how to put a roof over your head, food on the table, and balance the checkbook) works.

    The bit in the article about RCIA rings so true. I remember the Director of Religious Ed who gave a presentation refer to then Card. Ratzinger as “RAT”zinger.

  • tomasungar

    A reckless love is needed to become priest, you need courage, just as much as to ask for your fiance’s hand.

  • lkeebler

    Until the laity sees the Church as God’s House and stops trying to make it their own personal social club this problem will never end. This sort of cliquish social club stuff is encouraged (by all involved) even though priests come and go, and the network tightly strangles any honesty that would like so desperately to seep out into the open. Everyone is snapped into a web of congealed conformity and, not so “mysteriously”, most would rather turn a blind eye to the pain and suffering of those mistreated or rejected by “the club” then rock the boat. But God’s House is not a club and we do not need to meet the standards of membership according to club initiation and rules, but the Church is Christ’s who sets the standards of conduct calling all into obedience. When we see others as belonging to Christ to do His Will (and not to us to do our bidding), only then will we make progress.

  • Pingback: The Perils of Clericalism » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog()

  • v4victory

    Elden Curtiss is neither NCR progressive nor Wanderer anachronistic (or conservative, some might say), but he is definitely a clericalist of the first order.

    When I lived in Montana, I sat in a meeting where Bishop Curtiss defended his boy, our pastor, by selling out Fr. Peter Stravinskas as a rigorist. He was defending our pastor, a member of the Butte/Anaconda mafia that ran his diocese, a mafia cohort formed of the remains of the Hunthausen era. That little mafia was loaded with pedophiles, light-in-the-loafers or vocationless priests who were also vicious clericalists. Curtiss wasn’t vicious, though, just a weakling.

    Seems like the only good hearted priests were the ones who came up before Hunthausen. It was an inexplicable mess.

    I have picked up a few items of news from his term on Nebraska, and now he is trying to be doctrinally straight? Some of the things I have heard about over there just make me laugh at the foolishness of the man. Another inexplicable mess.

    Well, thanks for an interesting, long article. This is the first time I have ever comprehended the things I saw in Montana.

  • Great article. See also the sequel, “Overcoming Clericalism” of July 14.