Pope Francis on Clericalism
Imagine There Is No Clergy: Two Views by Willam Shea and David Cloutier is the topic for April's meeting of the Cleveland Commonweal Local Community.
I want to avoid a discussion in which everyone projects their gripes about aspects of Catholicism unto the "clergy" and "clericalism', and so I have also sent everybody these two links to help center the discussion upon what Francis means when he criticizes clericalism. I am interested in your reaction to these two talks and my interpretation of them?. Do you have a different take upon what he means? Do you have better examples either in terms of talks, quotes, or actions that could help define what Francis means by clericalism?
Pope Francis has been particularly critical of clericalism in Latin America. His talk to the bishops of Chile is a recent example. This example as well as the next indicate that for Francis, "elitism" of all kinds including a non-ordained elite of men and women religious is at the center of clericalism.
Pope reminds bishops they are part of God's people
Church is not, nor will it ever be, an élite of consecrated men and women, priests, and bishops.
Clericalism is the lack of consciousness of belonging to God’s people as servants, and not masters.
Mission belongs to the entire Church, and not to the individual priest or bishop,
Let us be clear about this. The laypersons are not our peons, or our employees. They don’t have to parrot back whatever we say.
Clericalism gradually extinguishes the prophetic flame to which the entire Church is called to bear witness. Implore from the Holy Spirit the gift of dreaming and working for a missionary and prophetic option capable of transforming everything, so that our customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and ecclesial structures can be suitably channeled for evangelization rather than for ecclesiastical self-preservation. Let us not be afraid to strip ourselves of everything that separates us from the missionary mandate.
In some of his critiques Francis has stated that the laity are part of the problem, that they enable clericalism. So he obviously does not think that it is the clergy alone who must change. Some of this viewpoint is evident in the following criticism of the lay elite of pastoral workers.
Letter to the Pontifical Commission on Latin America
More beyond the break....
"We cannot reflect on the theme of the laity while ignoring one of the greatest distortions that Latin America has to confront — and to which I ask you to devote special attention — clericalism. This approach not only nullifies the character of Christians, but also tends to diminish and undervalue the baptismal grace that the Holy Spirit has placed in the heart of our people. Clericalism leads to homologization of the laity; treating the laity as “representative” limits the diverse initiatives and efforts and, dare I say, the necessary boldness to enable the Good News of the Gospel to be brought to all areas of the social and above all political sphere.
It means finding a way to be able to encourage, accompany and inspire all attempts and efforts that are being made today in order to keep hope and faith alive in a world full of contradictions, especially for the poor, especially with the poorest. It means, as pastors, committing ourselves among our people and, with our people, supporting their faith and hope. Opening doors, working with them, dreaming with them, reflecting and above all praying with them. “We need to look at our cities” — and thus all areas where the life of our people unfolds — “with a contemplative gaze, a gaze of faith which sees God dwelling in their homes, in their streets and squares.... He dwells among them, fostering solidarity, fraternity, and the desire for goodness, truth and justice. This presence must not be contrived but found, uncovered. God does not hide himself from those who seek him with a sincere heart.
It is not the pastor to tell lay people what they must do and say, they know this better than we do. It is not the pastor to establish what the faithful must say in various settings. As pastors, united with our people, it does us good to ask ourselves how we are encouraging and promoting charity and fraternity, the desire for good, for truth and for justice; how we can ensure that corruption does not settle in our hearts.
Often we have given in to the temptation of thinking that committed lay people are those dedicated to the works of the Church and/or the matters of the parish or the diocese, and we have reflected little on how to accompany baptized people in their public and daily life; on how in their daily activities, with the responsibilities they have, they are committed as Christians in public life. Without realizing it, we have generated a lay elite, believing that committed lay people are only those who work in the matters “of priests”, and we have forgotten, overlooked, the believers who very often burn out their hope in the daily struggle to live the faith. These are the situations that clericalism fails to notice, because it is more concerned with dominating spaces than with generating initiatives. Therefore we must recognize that lay people — through their reality, through their identity, for they are immersed in the heart of social, public and political life, participate in cultural forms that are constantly generated — need new forms of organization and of celebration of the faith.
We cannot give general directives in order to organize the People of God within its public life. Inculturation is a process that we pastors are called to inspire, encouraging people to live their faith where and with whom they are. Inculturation is learning to discover how a determinate portion of the people today, in the historical here and now, live, celebrate and proclaim their faith. With a particular identity and on the basis of the problems that must be faced, as well as with all the reasons they have to rejoice. Inculturation is the work of artisans and not of a factory with a production line dedicated to “manufacturing Christian worlds or spaces”.
My interpretation:
For Francis the central problem of clericalism seems to be elitism, i.e. when certain members remove themselves from the people rather than considering themselves as part of the people and servants of the people. Elitism is not limited to the clergy. Francis includes consecrated men and women as among those who can view themselves or be viewed as elite.
Committed lay people can also form an elite when lay people who are committed to the works of the Church, the parish and the diocese are considered superior to those (especially the poor) who struggle in their families, neighbors, workplaces and public life for goodness, truth, justice, and charity.
From the perspective of a social psychologist it is important to view this not as simply as a personal problem of elitist attitudes upon the part of some persons (clergy, religious, lay leaders) but also a structural problem, i.e. certain structures and practices encourage everyone to view themselves or others people as an elite.
For example the deaconate: Francis himself has frequently asked the question "why would you ordain an outstanding lay leader as a deacon and deprive the Church of an example of lay leadership?" Now if the person is being ordained for the purpose of preaching at Mass, the person clearly needs ordination under our present rules. But in my area few people are being ordained deacons to preach, and most deacons who do preach do a poor job of preaching just as most young priests do a poor job. Expanding the deaconate to women who are paid ecclesial ministers will demonstrate how "clerical" our parish lay leadership has become.
For example paid lay ecclesial ministers: Back in the 1980s before lay ecclesial ministers became prevalent I was a member of a voluntary pastoral staff. All the diversity of that voluntary staff provided far more spiritual and secular talent into parish leadership than could ever be provided by either training in lay ecclesial ministry program or prior experience in ministry. Both of those provide a far narrower range of talent. Because lay ecclesial ministers form an elite that have actually promoted clericalism despite the "lay" label.
For example voluntary parish ministers: In our large suburban parish, both paid lay ecclesial ministers and lay volunteers constantly complain of the doing all the work and not being able to recruit more volunteers. During my four years on pastoral council, I observed many people who were interested in volunteering but once they saw that the "same people, paid or volunteer" were going to provide all the leadership, they lost interest. There are many talented people who would gladly volunteer their time, but they simply are not interested in doing things that require little talent or autonomy. They are interested in being leaders not followers.
My proposal for a non-elitist "poor church for the poor" is to have most ministry be voluntary and part time, including the priesthood and deaconate, and most roles in the parish time limited. The experience I had in the 1980s was term limited, i.e. most of us after a few years were grateful for the experience and glad to move on. I found the pastoral staff experience gave me renewed energy, and greater perspective for my day job in the mental health system. I think the ideal life of Christian service and leadership involves family, work, community as well as church. Not all done simultaneously but in well discerned changes of focus. The ideal parish community is one where there is a constant circulation into and out of parish ministries so that everyone shares the work and elites do not develop. The only paid roles would be celibate including bishops, some priests and some religious.