Bishop Thomas Zinkula of Davenport names clericalism for the rape of children and other woes in the order of bishops, priests and deacons. You can read his evaluation here.
His Excellency, I know, I know, he wouldn't like that title of deference, misses the mark by about a million miles.
Don't get me wrong. I think clericalism that leads bishops to treating perverted priests who rape children and the Church with deference is wrong!
But where is the true clericalism in all of this? The further weakening of priestly identity as was seen in the 1970's when the rape of children was at its highest after Vatican II or the strengthening of the identity of bishops, priests and deacons as representatives of Christ?
I really don't think the clergy are on any pedestals today, unless they promote the gay theology of Fr. Martin the Jesuit. That's clericalism.
But bishops who accepted broken candidates, coddled them with psychological therapy, reassigned them time and time again and kept quiet the homosexual shenanigans of cardinals, bishops and the lower clergy, they are the problem and yes, call that clericalism please.
His Excellency, I know, I know, he wouldn't like that title of deference, misses the mark by about a million miles.
Don't get me wrong. I think clericalism that leads bishops to treating perverted priests who rape children and the Church with deference is wrong!
But where is the true clericalism in all of this? The further weakening of priestly identity as was seen in the 1970's when the rape of children was at its highest after Vatican II or the strengthening of the identity of bishops, priests and deacons as representatives of Christ?
I really don't think the clergy are on any pedestals today, unless they promote the gay theology of Fr. Martin the Jesuit. That's clericalism.
But bishops who accepted broken candidates, coddled them with psychological therapy, reassigned them time and time again and kept quiet the homosexual shenanigans of cardinals, bishops and the lower clergy, they are the problem and yes, call that clericalism please.
6 comments:
"But where is the true clericalism in all of this?"
Clericalism has nothing to do with priestly identity. In many ways, clericalism is the polar opposite of what a priests' identity should be.
Clericalism is the false belief that a cleric (priest or bishop) is deserving of special treatment because he is a cleric. That is not priestly identity which is intended to be that of a servant.
Clericalism is the false belief that a priest (or bishop) should not be questioned. That is not priestly identity which includes the understanding that a priest can be at times, wrong.
Clericalism is the false belief that a priest (or bishop) is an expert in all things. That is not priestly identity which, following St. Paul, recognizes the superior talent of other members of the Body of Christ in a variety of areas and seeks to engage that talent in the service of the parish and the larger community.
I do see clericalism in some priests. It often originates in the cultures from which "international" priests some, but is also found, sadly, in a few American candidates.
Proposed new definition:
homosexualist, noun
An ecclesiastic who argues that sexual abuse by priests is caused by clericalism.
Fr. MJK, good summary and thanks. Would you add (especially of those hierarchical status): “to be obeyed by his underlings, no matter the issue”?
"Would you add (especially of those hierarchical status): “to be obeyed by his underlings, no matter the issue”?" ... to the list of errors?
Yes and no. No cleric, priest or bishop, can rightly expect those under his authority to obey him "no matter the issue." But bishops do have a right to expect obedience from those who, at their ordination, pledge obedience to them.
I have never been asked by any of my bishops to do something that was immoral. I was asked not to distribute Holy Communion by intinction in Macon to which I immediately obeyed although I thought it was silly since it is clearly allowed in the revised GIRM of the revised Roman Missal.
I could have disobeyed the bishop. I am not sure what he would have done, but if I thought it more important to disobey than obey, then I would have to be willing to pay the consequences. I was not willing to do that over intinction. I am puzzled why that would bring an intervention when we have many more serious liturgical abuses, like priests ad libbing the Mass parts.
If a bishop required me to do something I felt immoral, I would say no and embrace suspension. I would not allow anyone to send me to an institution against my will, but that means I leave the priesthood. I don't belong to a cult!
I think the priest in Chicago was willing to do what his conscience dictated and was /is will to live with the repercussions.
Father McDonald,
That whole thing about intinction is really strange. It is kind of a media res position, to keep from giving communion in the hand but at the same time offering the Precious Blood in an appropriate manner. Were there left-wingers complaining to the Bishop that they couldn't receive communion in the hand?
Post a Comment