Pope Francis is using the actual supreme authority he has as pope to let others in the Vatican and the Church at large know who is in charge.
As we know now, the Vatican congregations seem to be dysfunctional with many seeking to grab power for their own purposes. This happens on the diocesan and parish levels to with departments and committees, other paid staff and volunteerers.
So should pastors and bishops return to a sort of pre-Vatican II kind of control or a much more humble and streamlined post-Vatican II reliance on the laity for the secular aspects of Church administration that require the laity's expertise in finances and management?
Is Pope Francis teaching bishops and pastors to be pre-Vatican II clergy in a post Vatican II populist sort of way?
30 comments:
I can't tell what he is doing. I am still holding my breath...
I think you can allow laity to hold some positions--Greg Burke, affiliated with Opus Dei is a fantastic example--but they have to be the right positions. If you want them in media, apologetics, have at it. But woe to the day any disingenuous pope trying to appeal to the secularists puts a lay person in control of a Congregation! That just would not work.
I am with Gene. My concern is that he may not have either the background, or a lieutenant, that understands large organisation management to pull this off.
At the parish level the Priests need to get back in the drivers seat. If they are concerned about what the Bishop will think when their attendance drops, then they need to think back to what Pope Francis said about careerism.
The Priests seem to have been willing to abdicate a great deal of responsibility to laity. I am not sure why, but there is an appearance of ignorance of theology and Liturgy, whether it is true or not. They seem to defer to laity with Theology degrees rather than going back to clergy and 'higher authority' with background and education, but also share an obligation to follow Peter that is is equally apparent that the laity do not.
An awful lot of the lame ideas that are now regular events in Mass are the brainstorm of some (then) recent theology student that the Priests and bishops either went along with as passive endorsement, or were not concerned or educated enough to push back.
"Is Pope Francis ignoring Vatican structures to make things worse his way?"
Like when Pope Paul VI took control of the liturgy away from the now-called Congregation for Divine Worship (which he thought too conservative) and gave it to an ad hoc commission under Msgr. Bugnini?
"Read Francis through Paul VI"? Too soon to be sure, but many signs point that way.
The priest only control of the church brought us the sexual abuse scandal of the past. We do need the laity especially empowered parents who understand that unchecked control by priest has proven to be dangerous to the health and well being of children.
I agree that trained adults , parents or not are very important, but how do you explain the sex abuse in other very congregational churches and secular institutions ? This isn't exclusively Catholic priesthood related. Church of England just offered a major meal culpa for their married clergy sex abuse scandal.
Surely, it's not a catholic problem. Our past solutions have been more unique. Those other religions tended to turn over the perps for investigation and prosecution. Our management thought the welfare of priests were more important than the welfare of children and their families. Jerry Sandusky is spending the rest of his life in jail. Long time coming, but justice prevailed in the end. Very different life than being shipped to a new unsuspecting parish.
Anonymous said, "The priest[-]only control of the [C]hurch brought us the sexual abuse scandal of the past". Where is your evidence for this statement? Do you have abuse rates for other religious groups and studies of their respective handling of these crimes? I'm not criticizing your statement, I just think you need to back it up with science.
AA, walk us through the timeline of the sex abuse crisis and the decrease in clergy authority. Correlate the points where Clergy influence decreased and sex abuse, including in seminaries, was the worst.
Do a similar timeline correlating the events surrounding decline of religious women populations and the influence of secular humanist and pop-psychology on the orders and the inculcation of those curriculum into the values and goals of the orders.
Priets holding positions of authority and control did not bring the sex abuse scandal. In fact, the free time afforded them by so much laity involvement probably had more of an enabling effect.
What is particularly offensive to me is V.I.R.T.U.S. training requirements for anyone working with young people. It was not a LAITY sex abuse scandal, but a PRIESTLY sex abuse scandal. So why must the laity be treated with suspicion and condescension? It's pure madness.
Never underestimate how stupid bureaucracies think most people are.
Is a layman less likely to be a pervert than a priest? Where is the scientific evidence, Anonymous?
I am not going on scientific evidence, but statistics. Of course laypeople commit sexual abuse crimes, but there's seems to be something about the authority or privileges of ordination that are more likely to create the scenario of the older person taking advantage of the younger person, not to mention that the overwhelming majority of sex crimes in this scandal were homosexual in nature. If such is the case, why are we punishing women by making them take VIRTUS training? What is the point? It was ordained clergy, not lay volunteers who committed these crimes. The bureaucracy of the USCCB is simply trying to create a perception of safety and security for the public.
How many PRIESTS take VIRTUS training?
This is not to demonize priests. I'm simply taking a common-sense look at what the problem really was (and probably still is) and how much time and money is being wasted on PR instead of actually dealing with the problem.
Requiring VIRTUS training is not an indication that a trainee is under suspicion.
VIRTUS is intended to help us recognize and respond appropriately to signs of abuse that we may encounter in our work in the Church.
Priests, too, have to be VIRTUS trained, so it makes no sense to suggest that this is a condescension toward laity.
Priests are required to take virtus and follow-up lessens. It will not stop a true predator from abusing someone but virtus teaches those who have no inclination toward abuse to be vigilant of how abuse relationships develop and to be more proactive in terms of intervention and reporting. I think too that virtus alerts young priests of situations to avoid and not to place themselves in relationships that could compromise them and hurt others.
Anonymous,
Having the laity participate in VIRTUS training is the Church being PROACTIVE. To protect the kids in our parishes, I think it's okay if we are overprotective! In addition, in VIRTUS training, participants learn to be aware of behaviors of volunteers/staff which by themselves may not be worrisome, but if you noticed several of these behaviors, it's reason to mention it to parish leadership.
It's not that the Church is suspicious of volunteers; the Church is just making sure that these abuse scandals don't happen anymore, by anyone. I think taking two hours out of one week to help the Church in her mission of protecting our youth, our future, is worth it.
I have two things to add to this discussion:
First, the sexual abuse scandal wasn't caused by priests who became predators: It was caused by predators who became priests. In other words, the sort of people who want to abuse others put themselves in positions that will allow them to do so, usually positions of power or trust.
Second, VIRTUS is clearly something that lawyers developed with an eye toward minimizing liability for future incidents of abuse. There may be some secondary effect of reducing cases of abuse, but the program was created with litigation in mind.
Regarding abuse of power more generally than just sexual abuse . . . Would that innocent priests were protected as effectively as guilty bishops.
Anonymous,
Attending a Safe Environment training session seems a small price to pay for the protection of children from perverts. I personally know a Catholic high school coach (in Knoxville) and a Catholic high school principal (in Tulsa) who have been reported to the authorities and removed from their positions for molesting students at their respective schools. The coach and principal were both laymen (a woman and a man).
A wound not healed....I for one will not belong to a church that returns to priest on a pedestal, beyond reproach. Fundamentally, we are all disciples. Priests preach that married couples should procreate. There has been a serious breach of trust that clergy police their own. To posture that committees and lay people are trying to seize power is patronising. I have never seen poorer financial accountability than that in most parishes. There, there...never mind....it's God's money anyway. I would challenge those looking for statistics to read any of the books by New Orleans catholic lay member Jason Berry or watch Frontline documentaries regarding the abuse. None of the offending Bishops have been held accountable. VIRTUS is a weak solution if the hierarchy never changes. Turning your back to the people in the Mass orientation is body language at it's finest.
Anonymous, You reveal a sad lack of understanding of the Mass as well as of body language. Why don't you just join a protestant church? It would be a favor to us all and, I'm sure, a blessing for you.
"I for one will not belong to a church that returns to priest on a pedestal, beyond reproach."
Are you serious? The Catholic Church does no such thing. Sure, some of the laity create the illusion of the the "flawless" clergy in their minds and actions, but no one seriously believes such a thing.
While much of Jason Berry's work is informative, his anger seems to have taken him in the wrong direction. I would say the same for SNAP: They are far more interested in collecting court settlements and demonizing the Church than they are in any kind of healing.
Finally, your comment about priests with their "backs turned" to the people demonstrates an almost unbelievable ignorance about the TLM. But then again, most of the "Catholics" who believe they are faithful by joining SNAP and "demanding" certain lay rights betray themselves for what they really are: fake Catholics who simply want to keep changing the Church into something different.
The Catholic Church functioned for 2000 years quite well without iconoclasts tearing down her traditions. Luther, Cranmer and Calvin didn't "reform" anything. The Church under the authority of the Council of Trent and a very holy pope, St. Pius V, reformed and corrected Herself.
Bad behavior by priests does not equal the Church being in error. The existence of sin within the ranks of the clergy does not make the institution of the Church sinful. You can exit on the left or you can exit on the right, but using the sins of priests as an excuse to Protestantize the Church is so transparently opportunistic that it fools no one. Not anymore.
The Novus Ordo practice of the priest turning his back to God in the Tabernacle is a greater parallel this abuse scandal where priests and bishops turned their backs to God when abusing his people and their power.
Marc, you just named one of the reasons why liturgists wanted to move the tabernacle to a separate chapel or a side altar.
I'm probably as traditional as it's healthy to be, and I agree that it's scandalous for a priest to celebrate Mass with his back to the Tabernacle. So I find myself in agreement with those loathsome Novus Ordo liturgists on this one. Though I favor an entirely different solution than shunting the Tabernacle aside.
Hmm ... Not being a priest, I wonder whether, when a bishop asks a priest why he's started celebrating Mass ad orientem, an effective answer would be that his conscience will no longer permit him to celebrate with his back to Our Lord's Real Presence in the Tabernacle. (Of course, this would apply only in a "real" Catholic church that is centered on the Tabernacle.)
The fact that these de-constructioinist liturgists wanted to move the Tabernacle indicates to me that it felt wrong to them on some level to celebrate versus populum, to begin with.
This is what I don't get when priests feel like they have to go out of their way to justify ad orientem with the people by explaining to them that they aren't turning their backs on the congregation.
It seems to me the priest should say precisely that! After all, this is the method of our worship, as presented to us in the Old Testament types: the priest entered the Holy of Holies with the awesome and unenviable task of facing God. So, he turned away from the people and entered the Holy Place, forsaking his earthly ties so as to adequately mediate with the people before God, face-to-face in a fashion. So, he both turns toward God and away from the people.
Similarly, in my role as a mediator between my clients and the Court, I don't face my client when presenting his case. I represent him by facing toward the judge. Thus, I act as a true mediator by taking his pleas and presenting them outwardly. There is involved both a turning away from him and toward the judge.
If I were a priest, setting aside all the arguments from history and tradition, I would simply say this to the people:
"How would everyone here feel if I turned my back to him or her? Well, that is precisely what I have been doing to our Lord for these many decades I have been a priest! When I speak to you, at the Orate Fratres, for example, I will turn to you. When I speak to our Lord on your behalf, as I do at almost every other time during the Mass, I will turn to Him, but be assured you will be in my mind as I forsake the world to bring your petitions before our Great Lord and Judge. It is an awesome task, which is why it begins with my seeking your blessing when I say, 'Dominus Vobiscum,' a blessing I will seek multiple times during this journey, and when I say, 'Orate Fratres,' just before the August Sacrifice is re-presented. Pray for me as I pray for and with you."
I've never heard a priest discuss this issue in this manner, but it seems quite obvious to me.
If the un-broken tradition and the current practice of the Church had been to place the tabernacle in the center of the altar, the argument about turning one's back on the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament might make sense.
The place of reservation has, however, not always been in the center of the altar. Separate chapels have been employed in various places for centuries. In some places the Blessed Sacrament was reserved in a "Eucharistic Dove" suspended from the ceiling. In St. Peter's Basilica the chapel of reservation is a side chapel.
Un-historical arguments should not be given any credence.
You're right, Anonymous, we should definitely give more credence to your argument from the exception than base an argument on the predominant historical rule and the vast majority of actual practice...
You'll also note that my last post, for example, didn't mention tabernacles and their location as the root of the argument.
So, do you have an historical argument to support Mass facing the people? Otherwise, we can easily discard your assertion based on your own criterion of argument: since history supports ad orientem, you un-historical argument for versus populum shall not be given any credence.
I look forward to your versus populum argument from an historical perspective.
Gee, Marc, Anonymous does not seem to have responded. Aren't these libs and Catholics in name only a hoot...LOL!
Post a Comment