Thursday, May 13, 2010

"Clericalism and the Liturgy" -- Food for Thought

I do get behind in my reading, but today I finally got around to an article by Dominican friar Paul Philibert in this post's heading, found in the recent Celebration publication, a liturgical resource we use here at St. Bridget. Actually it was also reprinted in an NCR article from April 5th, which you can access here; unfortunately, this shows you how far behind I really am in my reading.

As a member of the clergy myself, I guess I find topics like this interesting... this one particularly so. I'm of course not the only one who's noticed a "new clericalism" that seems to be finding favor in recent years. The article notes many symptoms, "... from cardinals unpacking their 15-foot trains of scarlet silk ... to seminarians and young priests living full time in cassocks; from the disappearance of inclusive language in church texts and preaching, to the nearly exclusive focus upon clerical vocations in diocesan letters. These details are debatable; they vary from place to place. Far more significant is the underlying vision and practice of what goes on in the local church."

Fr. Philibert then notes three aspects of "an implicit popular theology of the church that appears to be widespread."
"In this popular theology, the priest represents Christ, while the people represent those to whom Christ ministered. However, I have yet to hear anyone echo the clear teaching of St. Paul that each of the baptized is an alter Christus -- another Christ -- and has a vocation to share the church's mission through an apostolic life in the ordinary world."
"In this popular theology, the ordained priest is understood to be the one who is active in the Eucharist ... while the people are sacramentally passive as recipients of the priest's sacred action ... This reduction of the laity to passive bystanders instead of active participants in Catholic worship is the most characteristic manifestation of clericalism."
"One additional aspect of this ... theology has to do with the Holy Spirit. It imagines that if the Spirit is bestowed on the faithful, it will come exclusively through the ministry of the ordained ... This ignores the rich teaching of Romans and 1 Corinthians that baptism gives the faithful the power to live and act under the impulse of the Holy Spirit and to be powerful witnesses to God's action in the world."


Fr. Philibert isn't describing anything that is as yet very well-developed as a theology, but it's clearly a trend. And it's not a trend that's arising from the people of God, although I acknowledge that some may welcome it; it's more of a "top-down" thing. I think I'm glad that as a deacon I'm on one of the bottom rungs -- good company. That's where Jesus hung out.

But where does this go from here? I committed myself to being a disciple a long time before I ever applied to be a deacon. Are we not really calling the laity to be full & active disciples? As a parishioner wrote to me the other day: "A funny thought I had this morning....what if that somewhat tired adage of Pray, Pay, and Obey transformed into Pray, Convey, and Portray (Christ)?"

2 Comments:

At 3:28 PM, Blogger crystal said...

One of my first Chritian friends was a Quaker and it's interesting how different their take on all this is. I guess the traditionalists are afraid of what would happen to the vertical hierarchical structure if we laity started considering ourselves as representing Christ. I can't help thinking it all has to do with power and controlling others.

 
At 7:05 AM, Blogger Denny said...

Hi Crystal --
And that's what really gets me. The Quakers were never that way, of course. The Catholic Church has had a heavy structure for a long time.

But I remember what Church was like in the '50s, and when things CHANGED. How did this happen, that the pendulum started to swing back the other way? I remember the '70s and '80s, the decades after Vatican II, and the spirit of things was entirely different. It was common to speak about the "ministry of the laity," and to MEAN it. Was it John Paul II that started moving things in that direction? Or was it a collective "We don't really want that responsibilty" on the part of the laity?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home