The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Alternate thoughts for this Year for Priests
by Richard McBrien on Sep. 14, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionPope Benedict XVI declared this a Year for Priests, beginning on June 19, the feast of the Sacred Heart, and ending next June with an international gathering of priests in Rome. The pope named St. Jean Vianney, the Curé d'Ars, as universal patron of priests to mark the 150th anniversary of his death.
As part of the year-long observance there will be an international priests' retreat in Ars, France, sponsored by the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy, from September 27 to October 3, and a symposium on the "faithfulness" of priests at The Catholic University of America Oct. 6-7.
Undoubtedly, the pious thing for most priests to do is to get fully into the spirit of this Year for Priests and for lay people to renew their appreciation for the good work that so many priests have done and continue to do in the life of the church.
But there is a more realistic dimension to this Year for Priests, and it is one that never sees the light of day in most of the diocesan papers in the United States and Canada because bishops will not permit any discordant opinions to be expressed.
One such voice, that of a priest ordained almost 40 years, has expressed the views of fellow priests -- not all, perhaps not even most, but definitely many.
Apart from this week's column, his views and theirs have heretofore not been heard, much less taken into serious account by the Vatican or by many bishops in this "Year for Priests."
My priest-correspondent has identified 10 issues that priests need help in facing -- help that will not be forthcoming at symposia on the "faithfulness" of priests, nor at international retreats in France.
1. The shortage of diocesan priests cannot be addressed by band-aid solutions, like inviting priests from foreign countries to engage in sacramental ministry in dioceses with sharply declining numbers of domestic vocations. There needs to be a public discussion, involving priests themselves, concerning obligatory celibacy and its pastoral ramifications.
2. Many priests do not perceive themselves to be close collaborators with their bishops, as Vatican II envisioned them to be (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 7). Too few bishops reach out to their priests to ask for their honest opinions about anything that seriously affects the life of the church and the priesthood.
3. Many diocesan priests still feel betrayed by their bishops with the passage in 2002 of the Dallas Charter. Priests who have been accused by anyone of any sexual impropriety whatever with minors have been summarily removed from the active ministry. At the same time, no bishop, other than one cardinal-archbishop, has been forced to resign because of his mishandling of the sexual-abuse scandal.
4. There is a growing rift between so-called "Vatican II priests" and so-called "John Paul II priests," which is painfully evident in some dioceses when priests gather for the Eucharist at retreats and other diocesan events.
5. There is a concomitant return to clericalism in the priesthood, involving not only a fascination with cassocks and birettas and a preference for antiquated vestments and devotions, but also a negative, censorious tone to preaching and a cavalier dismissal of consultative structures that are supposed to be in place in every parish.
6. At the same time, the Vatican and the bishops have failed to address concerns raised by the disproportionate number of gays in seminaries and the priesthood, including also the hierarchy. It is the elephant in the living room, as pointed out almost 10 years ago in Fr. Donald Cozzens's The Changing Face of the Priesthood. Yet how many priests' retreats and clergy conferences have used that book as a basis for discussion?
7. There has been a substantial attrition of Catholics -- women, gays and lesbians, divorced people, critics of official teachings on sexuality and reproduction -- from active membership in the church, to the point where fully one-tenth of the U.S. population now consists of ex-Catholics. What is being done about it?
8. Resigned priests are treated like traitors. To be sure, some bishops welcome them back at clergy reunions, but others boycott such gatherings as a sign of their contempt.
9. Appointments to the hierarchy since the pontificate of Paul VI have been of a certain type. Those who do not fit the official profile are excluded from consideration or are harassed by Vatican officials if they are already bishops.
10. So many senior priests say to their friends, "I can't wait for retirement." Why this sense of discouragement over the present state of the Church, bordering sometimes on hopelessness?
Alternate thoughts for this "Year for Priests."
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
Alternate thoughts for this
Alternate thoughts for this "Year for Priests"? No, not alternate but additional: Suspend for one year "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" and "Corncerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis".
I find it amusing that in
I find it amusing that in this year of the priest the Vatican is conducting a visitation of nuns. I think its time for Vatican II priest and sisters to stand together against a continued misuse of authority and abuse of its faithful priest and sisters. I believe many of us lay folk will stand with you. When and where and how long will we tolerate this sick system of ecclesial authoritarianism and call it the voice of God. What an insult to God.
Dottie, the so-called
Dottie, the so-called visitation of nuns was "decreed" before the proclamation of the Year for Priests. That is the problem of many people, lay and clerics, who do not even bother to check the basis of their negative comments on the Church and church authority. I feel so sorry for them. I doubt whether they are practicing Catholics; surely they are readers of NCR only for the purpose of venting their ire on the Catholic church. Amen.
No need to feel sorry for me.
No need to feel sorry for me. I am free and don't need any sympathy. Those who can't think for themselves and need some authority to provide them certainty and security are the ones who need sympathy.
God bless you Father McBrien.
God bless you Father McBrien. Your insights and suggestions are a light in the darkness. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your commentary.
Thank you Father McBrien, but
Thank you Father McBrien, but I fear that you are a "voice crying in the wilderness".
11. As much as I would love
11. As much as I would love to actively support the good priests and bishops I'm confounded by an inability to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Being mistaken in this matter can lead to spiritual disaster for all concerned as recent history proves. The church offers no noticeable guidance in this matter and helpful discussion is non-existent. The only alternative for many is to pack up and leave the church. I'm seriously examining this option in the light of my conscience. /a12
To Anawim12: I too understand
To Anawim12: I too understand your inability to tell the good guys from the bad guys..and yes it can lead to a spiritual disaster for all concerned, if, we choose to view it in that matter...If, the only alternative for us is to pack up and leave THE CHURCH..Then ask yourself this??? Who will be left to fight the good fight for JESUS CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.. OUR CHURCH!!!! Our faith is in Jesus Christ and his Church,and HIS teachings, not always in those who run the church.. That is why the Church has survived for all these years...where as we may not always agree with one another and what some may or may not do. We do agree in the very basic teachings of OUR FAITH...in times such as this that is where must go and that is to OUR FAITH!!!! We can not leave our faith behind us when that is the only thing that we have to get us through. This is when we must rely on our teaching within our faith. To otherwise would take away the very part of us that is CATHOLIC....with me it is a very large part of me...I too, have thought about leaving the Church...but, I can not, I love my faith..the Euchrist,Our Holy Mother. I do not however, agree with some of our Bishops,or the comments, but, I do believe in the Church and Our Lord Jesus Christ, and he is who I go to for help....I will pray for you..listen to your heart and let Christ guide you.
These concerns are also among
These concerns are also among the people. When you sweep so much stuff under the rug it begins to show. At some point all these things have to be taken into account and discussed. There is no going forward or being renewed while all this festers. Glad to know "many" priests have the same concerns as the many of the laity. Some people tell us in the laity to leave (well, after last weeks article they've even asked you to leave) but if everyone who is unhappy leaves including the "many" priests, I don't think there would be a church left.
I totally agree with this
I totally agree with this "hidden" priest's views. Come out of hiding and make your voice heard. Maybe then more priests will come out of hiding and make their voices heard. I am no longer Catholic even though I read NCR with hope. My hopes are always crushed by the stupidity and just plain cowardice of the many priests who disagree with their bishops and pope. I can no longer tolerate mortal sin, venial sin, hell, atonement, etc. etc. etc. But, I have nowhere else to go so I meditate every day and feel that I am part of God.
I feel just like you. It's a
I feel just like you. It's a lonely state but at least it isn't condoning the evil parts of the Church.
Dear Elisabeth Kishler: I am
Dear Elisabeth Kishler:
I am sad that you said you are no longer a Catholic. Please, you could and must put the imperial, monarchicl and heirachical church behind you but never leave the SACRAMENTAL CHURCH THAT JESUS HIMSELF HAS INTITATED. Jesus came purposely for that and for you. Please, don't misunderstand HIM and stay away from HIM.
Dear Elizabeth, I read your
Dear Elizabeth,
I read your comments and it makes me sad to think there is another Catholic out there who has abandoned their God given gift of faith claiming the frailty and weakness of human beings (priests/bishops or not) as the cause. The Church belongs to God and all of us, priests and people of God form His body. Meditating in your self isolation is not the answer. "In my father's house, there are many mansions there...."
Peace and grace from God the father of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
As one who opted out
As one who opted out thirty-plus years ago, I feel great sympathy for my contemporaries who labored on. From what I can see, Richard's priest-correspondent hit the nail on the head repeatedly in his ten points. I would, however, strongly opt for an eleventh: the failure of Bishops to challenge the Vatican's ipse dixit decree that women's ordination is off the table. You can bet your last dollar that this will not be on any program for the so-called "Year of the Priest".
Until recently, my wife and I enjoyed from time to time the benefit of hearing the voices of many gifted women breaking open the word in our parish church. Sadly, with the retirement of a beloved pastor and his replacement with a Parish Life Director and Sacramental Minister, the practice has fallen into disuse. There is no shortage of vocations; there is a refusal to recognize them. Is not this a sin against the Holy Spirit?
It is so true that there is a
It is so true that there is a refusal to recognize vocations rather than a shortage. I often wonder that if married men and women who feel called to the priesthood could be ordained maybe we might have a big surplus!
"There is no shortage of
"There is no shortage of vocations; there is a refusal to recognize them. Is not this a sin against the Holy Spirit?" I second this question and would like a theological answer!
I heard a bishop - at a
I heard a bishop - at a public workshop - phrase the question like this: "How many gifts of the Spirit has the Church squandered?" Until we root ourselves in our biblical rather than ecclessiastical tradition, we will not begin to face that question.
All who have found their true
All who have found their true vocation rejected for JPII political reasons know the permanent pain this carries, this real dream deferred, and the permanent and irreplaceable loss to Our Holy Mother The Roman Catholic Church.
Me thinks we have found the
Me thinks we have found the true reason for brother charles's bitterness and hatred toward the rightful Church leadership.
oh? please! Tell
oh?
please!
Tell me!
rightful?
bitterness?
hatred?
reason?
clue me in, too, please, and inform my fuller conversion to the Faith in forgiveness, in colegiality, in communion, in community, with the People of God . . .
Women cannot be priest
Women cannot be priest because the Church is the bride of Christ...women cannot marry women...as the priest in en person Christi.
peace my brother
"Women cannot marry women"!
"Women cannot marry women"! No?
"Women cannot be priest because the Church is the bride of Christ" - So, as a man, becoming a priest means becoming a woman? Is this theology, poetry, analogy, superstition or myth? Is this why priests sometimes wear dresses, and sometimes not? Cross-dressing? Is this why traditionalist priests wear "collars"? In any case is makes no sense. Think about it.
"In any case is makes no
"In any case is makes no sense."
- it makes no sense because you cant see past your ideological blinders.
the church is the bride of Christ, yes. The priest acts in persona Christi.
This "bride of Christ" stuff
This "bride of Christ" stuff is just pure unadulterated crap!
It makes no more sense to me today than it did forty or more years ago.
in that case you should
in that case you should probably have a stern word with whoever was responsible for teaching you your religion.
dont you think calling a
dont you think calling a cassock a dress is disrespectful and unchristian? It is the traditional clothing for a priest. Can you not have a reasonable and charitable conversation without being unkind disrespectful or un Christlike?
The image of the Church as
The image of the Church as the "bride of Christ" is in Saint Paul.
What "anonymous" meant was the priest, as an image of Christ, must be male, because a woman priest would not sacramentally image Christ. In a mystical and sacramental sense, the priest "marries" the Church. A woman (priest) cannot marry a woman (Church).
This is not so esoteric; it's in Sacred Scripture.
This just doesn't make any
This just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to me to be some bazzar, eccentric, academic interpetation equating, in a literal fashion, the institution to the physical. I see it as a very weak argument whose purpose is simply to justify the exclusion of women and nothing more.
Dear John David,
Dear John David,
Those in the far right ethereal zone often fall back on the language of philosophy and metaphor when they run out of any coherent argument that applies to temporal realities. Taken apart from a substantive context, the tactic is designed to shut down discussion. You just can't reason with this mindset. Very sad.
But can gay men marry a
But can gay men marry a woman? This is a serious question. And I recognize that this is at the heart of the issue surrounding investigations into the seminaries. But seriously.
It's sad when a colorful
It's sad when a colorful metaphor is elevated to the status of
theology, turned inside out, stretched like Silly Putty, and
used to prove a foregone conclusion.
AMEN.
AMEN.
For the same reason, I
For the same reason, I suppose, men cannot be members of the Catholic Church. For how can a man be a member of the "bride of Christ"?
Saying women cannot be
Saying women cannot be priests because the Church is the bride of Christ and the priest is en person Christi are MAN-MADE interpretations.
I do not recall Jesus making any metaphor a mandate for church laws. Jesus' metaphors, rather, were used by him as examples of how to live in a Christ-like way. He did not set his teachings up as rules to govern Church. He was more interested in the state of our hearts and our internal motivations rather than how the church was run. Isn't it time we recognized that we are thinking like fundamentalist Christians when we forget about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law?
Thank you, Richard, for being
Thank you, Richard, for being a voice in the wilderness. I started out writing another comment, and was surprised at how much came pouring out of me. Let me just say how sad & discouraging it is (as someone ordained 28 years) to see the progress we have fought hard for in the spirit of Vatican II to now be pushed aside by those who have more of the voice of the hierarchy but less of the vision of the Council. To hear newly ordained priests say things like, "Vatican II was just one council, and the church has had lots of councils in its history. Trent was every bit as important as Vatican II." makes me sad for the faithful who will have to endure the "leadership" of these "nostalgia-buffs." The people of God deserve better...
Once the phrase "spirit of
Once the phrase "spirit of Vatican II" is used, everyone should just stop reading.
Why? the Spirit was very much
Why? the Spirit was very much in evidence there. Read Fr. O'Malley's "What Happened at Vatican II."
Holy Spirit=one person of the
Holy Spirit=one person of the Trinity.
"spirit of Vatican II" made-up idea by people who place their own agenda in place of the Council and ignore the actual documents of the Council.
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the spirit of Vatican II all come to a four way stop sign at the same time. Who has the right of way?
No one, because they are all a figment of your imagination!
Question regarding this
Question regarding this point:
"There is a growing rift between so-called 'Vatican II priests' and so-called 'John Paul II priests,' which is painfully evident in some dioceses when priests gather for the Eucharist at retreats and other diocesan events."
What specific qualities (EXACT DEFINITIONS PLEASE) make one a 'Vatican II priest' as opposed to a 'John Paul II' priest?
Again, EXACT, SPECIFIC, DEFINED QUALITIES, please.
Is it age? If so, what age is the tipping point considered to be? Why?
Is it acceptance of Church teaching? If so, what SPECIFIC points of Church teaching must one accept/reject to be one kind of priest or the other, and why?
WHO GETS TO DECIDE THE DEFINITIONS AND WHY?
Is one type more holy than the other? If so, why?
I ask these questions because many people here (comment posters and article writers alike) at times use the same terms, but end up having totally different definitions for them.
Not sure if he reads the comments on his own articles, but perhaps even Fr. McBrien will answer these questions...
Geek, The fact that you are
Geek,
The fact that you are so obsessed (all caps) with definitions regarding an issue that is so much about Spirit makes the exercise a fools errand. Let metaphor be. Let it go. None of this matters in the long run.
If the terms don't matter,
If the terms don't matter, then why did Fr. Mcbrien use them?
He quite obviously means there is a REAL difference between 'Vatican II priest' and 'John Paul II' priest. Something REAL. If we are going to use a phrase to describe the differences between two sets of people, we should be able to define what those differences are.
And definitions matter GREATLY in the Catholic Faith. The Faith almost died in the world over definitions of key articles of Faith. Why do you think the creed is so explicit on certain terms?
Again, if we are to lump people into two sets (in this case priests) and noone can actually tell me what the difference between them is, then the grouping is meaningless.
I look forward to someone hopefully giving me the answers to the questions I posed.
Afterall, isn't that what the NCR prides itself so much on? Questioning things?
His is an essay pete, not a
His is an essay pete, not a book or dissertation. Still I commend you for your "condemnation-free" remarks so characteristic of those who give the impression in this interactive forum that the Church exists primarily for doctrines, not for the Kingdom, and that their understanding of church teachings is far more important than the practice of love and understanding and dialogue. I hope those who disagree with Fr. McBrien will follow your example. We can disagree without being hostile to each other. God forbid in the interchange of ideas we would unwittingly set aside Jesus' injunction to love our enemies and consequently scandalize our non-Christian brothers and sisters.
P.S. In the gospels, Jesus did utter harsh and insulting words but always directed towards the hypocrites, self-righteous and people in authority who have made the "law" burdensome to people. There are times we as prophets should do this but this needs genuine spiritual discernment.
Pete the Greek, you've asked
Pete the Greek, you've asked a fair question, to wit, what is the difference between a "JPII priest" and a "Vatican II priest"?
Basically, the former sees himself as a member of the "cultic" priesthood, one who is set apart from the laity by sacramental ordination (and is thus "ontologically different"). The latter, on the other hand, sees himself as a "servant leader" who acknowledges the role of the laity in parish administration and management. The "JPII priest," on the other hand, tends to see a diminished role for the laity in parish governance.
So far as I know, these terms have been used by sociologists of religion who have studied the role and self-identity of Catholic priests over the years. Of necessity, they are general terms and, as such, cannot address the several questions you've posed (age brackets, beliefs, etc.). What one can say based on anecdotal evidence is that while most "JPII priests" are likely younger than their "Vatican II" counterparts, the "JPII" category does include older men who were attracted later in life to their calling by the example of the late pope (hence their categorical name).
Sociologists James Davidson and the late Dean Hoge wrote an article, "Mind the Gap: the Return of the Lay-Clerical Divide," that appeared in COMMONWEAL (November 23, 2007). You'll likely need a subscription to view this article online. In addition to describing these two broad categories, the authors conclude that as the older generation of priests die off, the church will see a growing divide between the "JPII priests" and the laity, young and old alike, in light of the higher educational levels and increased expectations of the latter group.
In addition, you can find another article by James Davidson, "Generational Differences Among Priests," at http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/0109/signs.htm .
The following books may be of
The following books may be of interest:
+ Donald Cozzens. THE CHANGING FACE OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
+ Richard McBrien. THE CHURCH: THE EVOLUTION OF CATHOLICISM.
+ Michael Papesh. CLERICAL CULTURE: CONTRADICTION AND TRANSFORMATION.
+ George Wilson. CLERICALISM: THE DEATH OF PRIESTHOOD.
Regarding number 6: They why
Regarding number 6: They why did you and everyone else on here voice discontent when the Vatican made statements regarding the admission of gays to the Seminary?
I personally have no concern
I personally have no concern about the sexual orientation of any priest. Frankly, it's none of my business. All Catholic Christians are expected to live in chastity according to their state in life. Outside of sacramental marriage, that means living a celibate life. Chastity applies to everyone regardless of gender orientation (heterosexual or homosexual)... and even marriage does not give license to rampant lust.
.
I DO have a problem with the use of the words "intrinsically disordered" as stated by the Magisterium... which implies a human person to have designation as "defective goods"... and so demeans their personhood. Such wording also leaves a false inference of greater potential to deviancy, which is complete nonsense (See: DSM-IV, clinical literature, et al). [True pedophiles — a psychological pathology — typically profile as heterosexual males, who are sometimes married. They gravitate to young children, not teens.]
.
Unfortunately, the hierarchy and their risk managers totally botched that discussion while engaged in ham-handed post-scandal efforts to cover hierarchical fannies... looking to shift blame anywhere else but where it actually belonged. There was plenty of blame for old-fashioned criminal behavior choices to go around... including among bishops! Painting all homosexual orientation with a broad brush of promiscuous deviancy, was a convenient scapegoat and distraction.
.
Homosexuality is NOT a choice one makes, any more than is heterosexuality. It is NOT a psychological pathology. It just is what it is. Each person is born with his/her sexual orientation and must learn to live the Christian life appropriately in chastity. Chastity and celibacy are choices which are imminently possible to maintain. No one ever went cross-eyed and crazy (or driven to perversion) from lack of sex. That's a myth. The choice to be promiscuous with other adults reflects a lack of personal discipline — which is a matter of character, not sexuality per se.
.
Unfortunately, homophobia remains alive and well within the Church... hopefully, we will one day grow up and get over our uninformed prejudices and squeamishness about human sexuality. There is no sin in sexual orientation, nor in sexual temptation... the sin is when we give in to temptation to live unchastely.
Agree aileen!... except in
Agree aileen!... except in one thing: behavioral sciences have not yet arrived at a consensus whether homosexuality is inborn or acquired. Or am I not up-to-date?
golly, ask the guys given
golly, ask the guys given aversion therapies to "cure" them a generation or two past . . .
There will always be those
There will always be those who will challange the inborn theory of sexual orientation or say that "the Jury is still out", because it cannot be proven and because this appeals to many in their efforts to discredit same-sex attraction. Yet, the consensus is that it is, indeed, inborn.
There is clinical literature
There is clinical literature which associates homosexuality with hormonal fluctuations in utero during certain formative periods of gestation. The very same phenomena has also been observed in lower animals (non-human) who do not have the ability to make a "moral", selective choice/preference for homosexual behavior.
.
Hormone fluctuations during gestation can also cause (or contribute to) an infant to be born with the genitalia of both male and female... the ultimate determination of gender (and subsequent surgical correction) being the presence or absence of the "Y" chromosome.
.
As a side note: our environment has become so polluted with hormone metabolites in our food supply and water sources, that it is quite possible these factors contribute to gestational aberration from the norm. It definitely contributes to menstruation onset occurring sooner in girls.
.
Unfortunately, the Magisterium is more inclined to attribute some moral/sin attribute to the equation rather than deal with medical and physiological realities. Nothing new there.
I think the point being made
I think the point being made was there is something wrong with the system if it tends to disproportionately draw from any one group of people. I have no trouble with having a gay priest and I am sure the priests don't either but the question is why so many heterosexuals are not joining in addition to the gays. What about the lifestyle precludes one group? Dare I say the answer is because they want marriage, another sacramental option of the church?
Perhaps what seems an obvious
Perhaps what seems an obvious possibility might actually provide at least one potential answer.
.
Homosexual men do not have the option of sacramental marriage since they are not attracted sexually to women. That fact alone would make marital consummation less than an optimal experience, to put it delicately. They would not be biologically drawn to such a situation.
.
Since there is no option for marriage other than between a man an woman within Catholic spirituality, it would seem logical that homosexual men would not have that particular diversion from answering the call to celibacy in the priesthood.
.
All things being equal as far as the call of God and a man's interior spirituality, it would seem that the variable would lie in available alternatives to that call, potentially pulling him in the opposite direction. Were the discipline of celibacy removed, we might see a shift in the demographics.
.
Just a thought.
I don't understand your
I don't understand your question. I don't see a contridiction. Clearly, many gays and lesbians have helped fill seminaries and convents over many centuries. It seems to me that they, more often than not, have served The Church as well as their hetrosexual sisters and brothers. Yet, they too are as much in need of understanding who they are and what it means as anyone else. This is even more true today as old ignorances and distortions are replaced with a better understanding of same-sex attraction. Yet, knowledge brings change and, I feel, that there is fear of what change this knowledge will bring. The fear and denial of this knowledge is one of the issues that is harming The Church, not to mention the souls of many gay and lesbian men and women.
Perhaps the biggest
Perhaps the biggest difference between the "VII" and JPII" priests while celebrating the Eucharist as diocesan or clergy gatherings is that the latter prefer to use Roman Catholic liturgical books and wear proper vestments while the former would prefer to make up their own rituals and just throw that old children of the world or rainbow stole over their jeans and flannel shirt?
sure, anonymous, for you it's
sure, anonymous, for you it's all about the exterior appearances, right?
Where did you acquire that
Where did you acquire that very strange... and wrong... delineation???
The 'progressive' VII priests I know celebrate Mass REVERENTLY and VALIDLY. Your description of silly irreverence toward the Mass is terribly insulting and demeaning to these holy men and faithful pastors.
this is interesting
this is interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQPkYwIOCRM&feature=fvw
One person's idea of
One person's idea of liturgical abuse is another person's idea of liturgical relevance. If everyone were of single mind on what is appropriate, on the one hand, and what is inappropriate, on the other, we might be able to locate that specific numeric point on the "Appropriateness Scale" where liturgical actions "cross the line," so to speak.
Unfortunately, such is not the case.
We do, however, have a common historical reference point (or "baseline") in Justin's description of the liturgy ca. 150 AD. We also have the gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus, not to mention relevant parts of Acts and the epistles. Finally, we have a future pope's acknowledgement of the process of liturgical accretion (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press, 1966).
Tridentine culture (including its liturgy) does, in fact, reflect the imperial influence of Roman civil administration when Christianity was legalized by the Emperor Constantine in 312/313 AD and the bishops were given various civil jurisdictional powers over Christians. Vatican II culture (including its liturgy), on the other hand, strives for the simplicity of the sacred meal at which primitive Christians remembered Jesus' saving action.
For my part, I prefer to see Catholic liturgy return as much as practicable to that likely used by primitive Christians who were closest to Jesus and his disciples in time, circumstance, and place. I myself see no need for liturgical dance, clown priests, etc., anymore than I see a need for the imperial pomp and ceremony of the pre-Vatican II mass.
Let's "prune" the accretions so that we can recover what is known of our liturgical "roots." Primitive practice should be our common denominator.
let's just call it a day and
let's just call it a day and say Mass in SPanish (as living Latin) and see who comes, and make room for them all
Let us all pray for Pope
Let us all pray for Pope Benedict XVI and the priests of the world.
How sad that the hierarchy
How sad that the hierarchy are so entranced with the perks of position and power that they cannot see the lived reality of priesthood. I grieve good priests who have left because they simply could not take it anymore and good priests who stay because they believe that they are serving the needs of their people and denying themselves and taking up that cross daily. And, yes, I have heard some say that they can't wait to retire.
How sad! No matter how we
How sad!
No matter how we look at it, we are moving backward.
The Church needs a John XXIVth - a new visionary.
It is very hard to find "new
It is very hard to find "new visionaries" in the Cardinals. JPII has stacked the deck. Look at the Ben XVI election: Ratzinger already knew the papal name he wanted 60 seconds after his election. It was a setup. Anyone who allows himself/herself to think is aware of this. JPII saw to it that the same uncharitable, "business men" bishops of the 50's are now comfortably seated in red hats.
Perhaps the caring, Christ-like branch of the American Catholic Church should break off from the Vatican. I cannot stand to view the ceremonies. Benedict XVI has more costumes than Liberace!
I so much agree with you. I
I so much agree with you. I don't believe that the kind of change and recognition of the Spirit moving among all of us that John XXIII called for has ever happened. His vision of church has hardly been realized. In fact, it seems that our leaders have taken many steps backward. As much as I trust in the Holy Spirit, I find it hard to believe that a John XXIV could even be elected by the types of bishops and cardinals we have today. So we'll continue to find ways of being church even if the hierarchy doesn't want any part of it.
As a Scottish priest of some
As a Scottish priest of some 35 years, I would certainly endorse, and wholeheartedly so, points 1-5. Much of the others are pertinent really to the USA; so, I can't really comment. It would be great for us ordained in the Spirit of Vatican 2 if today's Church were really to allow that Spirit to flourish. To many of us, much of what fired our enthusiasm seems to have been undermined.
I think that is the problem.
I think that is the problem. You were ordained in the spirit of Vatican II. Priests today like to be ordained into the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
Oh, poo on you. What
Oh, poo on you. What claptrap!
Next time, try to come up with something better (you know, something of substance).
Excellent comments!! Thank
Excellent comments!! Thank you so much. As a mother of four daughters, one of whom is lesbian, I have watched as three of them have left the church. The one who stayed did so only because she married a Catholic. I listen to their reasons for leaving, and they are all valid, and all included in the above article.
Sadly, I have to concur with
Sadly, I have to concur with your conclusions. My priest classmates, who were ordained in 1969, are already beginning to retire. They are willing to be sacramental ministers on their own terms, but they can't wait to get out of active ministry. Within ten years, we will lose a significant percentage of our current active priests due to the reduced size of ordination classes following Vatican II. Priests ordained earlier are already retired, even though they are in relatively good physical health.
I do not see how these issues can or ever will be discussed among the active clergy. Therefore, I have no suggestions and/or solutions. God help us all.
I think you unintentionally
I think you unintentionally hit the nail on the head regarding the so-called Vatican II priests. They want to be "sacramental ministers on their own terms."
Post new comment