The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionTo avoid clergy burnout, parishioners have to lend a hand
by Bill Tammeus on Sep. 22, 2010
Last year as I was gathering information to write the centennial celebration book for a large Catholic parish in Kansas City, Mo., I asked the current priest and several men who formerly served there as priests to gather for conversation.
I wanted to unpack their brains to help me understand what makes Visitation Catholic Parish tick.
It turned out to be quite a helpful session for me as I imagined the shape of the book. But there was something else about these half a dozen or so men being together that struck me as we sat in the living room of the priest’s residence adjacent to the church. They relaxed. They told stories. They laughed. They responded well to each other’s insights. It was like an ad hoc support group for priests. The session seemed to energize them for ministry.
That experience came quickly to mind recently when I learned that from Nov. 2-4, Seabury Western and Bexley Hall Episcopal seminaries will sponsor an event called “Sustaining Excellence in Ministry: Accountability, Friendship & Hope in Peer Groups” in London, Ohio. The goal will be to look at the phenomenon that has come to be known as clergy burnout and the way it has been studied in a project funded by the Lilly Endowment.
Janet Maykus and Bruce Roberts, who helped to evaluate Lilly’s eight-year promotion of clergy wellness, will discuss their research at the conference, which will focus on Lilly’s “Sustaining Pastoral Excellence” project.
We Christians -- whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox -- ask a great deal of our clergy. The old joke about clergy working an hour a week on Sundays is simply too embarrassing to tell for those of us who know the nearly impossible list of tasks we ask clergy to perform -- and perform well, too.
Yes, it begins in the sanctuary with worship and the sacraments, but it extends to pastoral care, teaching, marital and grief counseling, hospital calling, financial wizardry, community involvement and much more -- often including oversight of schools and other church-related organizations.
When I think about the work of the clergy these days, I imagine someone sitting in front of three active computer screens while holding and using two smart phones -- all the while carrying on an eyeball-to-eyeball conversation with a parishioner and motioning directions to a church staff member at the next desk. And while all this is going on the pastor is also praying and meditating.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
That may be hyperbole but it doesn’t sound unrealistic to lots of clergy I know.
The question for those of us in the pews is this: How can we help so that our clergy don’t explode under this pressure but, instead, find ways to encourage and enable us to do the ministry to which each of us is called?
First, we must quit treating clergy as if they were managers of our country clubs. We must see them first as God’s servants, not ours. So we have to find ways to do for ourselves those church functions that must be done but that simply clog up clergy schedules, giving them less time to do real ministry.
You and I are the church -- a lesson we Protestants are taught with regularity -- even if we often don’t act like we get it.
If we fulfill our own tasks as congregants with energy, intelligence, imagination and love we make it possible for our clergy to do their work without feeling that they are on a treadmill to nowhere.
Are there lazy, incompetent clergy? Yes. Some people learn how to game the system, violating the standards to which they pledged allegiance at ordination. But in my experience the percentage of such slackers is quite small. Much more worrisome are the clergy workaholics and those who seek to maintain balance in their lives but are simply overwhelmed by church responsibilities.
You and I can help. Let’s start by asking our pastors how.
* * *
Bill Tammeus, a Presbyterian elder and former award-winning faith columnist for The Kansas City Star, writes the daily "Faith Matters" blog for The Star’s website and a monthly column for The Presbyterian Outlook. His latest book, co-authored with Rabbi Jacques Cukierkorn, is They Were Just People: Stories of Rescue in Poland During the Holocaust. His e-mail address is wtammeus@kc.rr.com.
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Tammeus' column, "A small c catholic," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Tammeus to your list.
In the Catholic Church, the
In the Catholic Church, the laity might get more involved if they had any kind of voice or say in Parish affairs. Some in the clergy have taken the phrase "The Church is not a Democracy" to mean that the laity should have zero say in anything.
Nicely done Austin. A good
Nicely done Austin. A good article about how the clergy works too hard and you are first on here with liberal Catholic whining. I suspect that if I went to the weather channel I'd find you on there blaming tropical storms on the Vatican.
That's it, criticize the
That's it, criticize the bearer of bad news. Austin has, in fact, briefly described many Catholics' experiences with so-called "JPII priests" who believe their ordinations conferred on them an "ontological superiority" over the laity and that they, the clergy, always have the final word on parish matters.
There's no "whining" here, merely a recognition that the Church of Rome has a dysfunctional modus operandi that is purposefully designed to keep the laity in their place.
You´ve said nothing to
You´ve said nothing to disprove or, even, counter his statement, but only made an attempt to discredit the person. And,I find it a bit interesting that you accuse the poster of whining, but then go on and do some whining yourself about liberals. He is offering a posible reason for some pastors not receiving help. As an explanation, it may have value. Is there any chance, kscrawler, for a discussion about the issue?
Oh I'm open to a discussion
Oh I'm open to a discussion but the NCR is not. I notice that some of my posts which first were published have now been taken down. In particular I reacted to writers who criticized celibacy, then I pointed out that married clergy were having the exact problems so that celibacy could hardly be the culprit.
But I suspect that I'm writing this post to the NCR censor only and this will never make it to the board. Because then they will have to admit how carefully they censor the comments. We don't want to interrupe the agenda do we?
Kscrawler, I did read your
Kscrawler, I did read your comments and again, with one acception, you were just taking your pot shots and whining about liberals. Also, you may not have read that there was a spam problem over the weekend and it did effect the comment arena.
I have been reading the NCR for a long time and, I believe, that their agenda is to nourish and inform the Catholics layity that, otherwise, would only get one view, which would be more about propaganda, of their Chruche. I read too much criticism of their positions being posted to think otherwise. I can't help but wonder if you have the same complaints about censorship and onesidedness in the more conservative publications? Perhaps you feel this about the Left, but I find with most partisans of the Right, this complaint, often is more about trying to create a distorted view and have it perceived to be and called "fair and balance".
Well, I am sure that we differ on this, none-the-less I wish you God's blessings on your journey, as you are dearly loved by Christ who has died for each of us.
I am sure all of us, and I am
I am sure all of us, and I am no exception, do read and see things through our own filter. When I first read Tammeus' article it ocurred to me that this would be one article that would not expose any progressive/traditionalist splits. It seemed to be an open minded article about problems that all clergy face, Catholic, or Protestant, celibate or not. But to my amazement three out of the first four posts were from progessives using this article to criticize the church.
I may have reacted to the first poster, (I notice that's the only one of my replies that survived) in shock, that somehow someone did find a way to make the article some sort of vehicle to attack the Church. But my comments to the other posts, (all of which have disappeared) were specific to their posts.
One poster said this proves the church should drop celibacy. So I pointed out that all clergy, including married clergy were having the same issues, so how could celibacy be the issue? Another poster simply posted "ordain women", but again the article talks about clergy of all genders having the same problem. Now you catergorize that as taking "pot shots" at progressives. I think it's exposing the shallowness of progressive thinking, but then we both have our filters.
Can you point me to some examples of censorship in faithful publications? There may be some examples I'm just not aware of any. In fact this is the publication I'm aware of that reviews every reply before allowing it on the website. Any other place I post puts replies up immediately.
Kscrawler, thank you for
Kscrawler, thank you for taking the time to articulate your position. Yet, I have to say that I always find it discouraging that so many, on both the right and the left, feel the need to insult, yet they tend to see only the other side doing it. I have sometimes read well reasoned, articulate postings only to find it concluding with a dismissive comment and/or an insult. In my mind, that diminishes the value of what they were saying tremendously. As
a-matter-of-fact, there are a few posters that I no longer read, as I think, in the final analysis, they just post because they enjoy feeling superior and looking down on others. Of coures they give other reasons, but if those other reasons were true, then the insult would not be necessary.
What I was catagorizing as pot-shots were the insults of, not just referring to the poster as "whining", but then going onto lump all liberals as such. That is too dismissive to so many well-intentioned, loving Christians. When someone is putting forth a possible reason why there is a problem; a reason that they themselves may have experienced, I think, if one is going to respond, one should be respectful, even if they are responding to a post that seems a bit foolish, which, in this case, ordaining women, would seem to me.
I'm not sure if you have considered why some of your posts may be edited. It may have nothing to do with an agenda, as the NCR certainly prints plenty of posts which are critical. But, rather, it may be because of a personal attack that is inappropraite (actually, I wish they would edit more for this reason, be the post coming from the Left or Right). Also, you may not be edited from the more conservative posts because, I suspect, your thinking is afirming their postitons and you may be writing in a more respectful manner. I have been edited from some diocesan papers, not to mention, what seems to be, any publication sympathic or connected to EWTN.
You have responded to my posts before and we certainally do seem to disagree. Yet you have also demostrated the ability to express your posistions well. That is all the more reason to be disappointed with a self-satisfying sneer that can creep into some of your posts. If you feel that a position is not a reasonable one, I think that it would be best to explain your reasons and not do a personal attack on the person posting or a group who you see them as representing.
Just look at what has happeded to the political discourse in this country. I am old enough to remember when insults and such disrespect would not be tolerated. But we now have 24 hour cable and what some cable and radio hosts have discovered is that divisiveness and hate sell, and sell very well. We, as Christians, should be standing up to and setting ourselves apart from this kind of accpeted discourse. Yet, all to often we partake.
Finally, I have to admit that there have been times when I have read a post of mine and wished I have worded it differently (it would be wonderful if there was a "save as a draft" option when writing a response. It would give me time to think about what I have written). I say this only to acknowledge that being uncharatible, unfortunatly, is something that, it seems, we all must always work at (part of original sin, to my thinking). Yet, it is one of the things we are call to do, if we want to consider ourselves as followers of the Prince of Peace. It is not always easy work and, sometimes, frankly, not always feeling very rewarding. None-the-less, that is what we must do.
So, Kscrawler, peace be with you today and for all of the many tomorrows.
John David
I don't disagree with the
I don't disagree with the idea that public discourse could be better handled and I am far from the poster boy for restraint. But I don't feel a lot remorse either and these are the reasons why.
I do not understand the logic of dissident Catholics and do not understand why they just don't leave the Church. If you do not believe that the Holy Spirit Guides the Church and protects it from dogmatic error then why in the world would you want to be a Catholic? If I did not believe that then I would be out in a heartbeat. But if you do, then you sometimes have to check your ego at the door, and even when you question, if you believe, you should submit. If you don't want to submit, then have the integrity to leave. That's my biggest quarrel with dissidents who call themselves Catholics.
I do tend to call liberals whiny and that's because I so tire of the constant victimization which seems to me to be a hallmark of liberalism. My opinion is that liberals raison d'etre is to feel good about themselves, so no suffering, no doubt, no self denial, no self discipline is allowed. So if there is a particular sin that they feel drawn too they must find a support group to tell them it is ok. No matter what 3500 years plus of scripture has to say about it, if you don't like it, don't belive it. But that's not even enough, they must also have the approval of all the rest of us. And most of all, (and the reason I think they don't leave the Church) is that as much as they rail against the Church, hierarchy, as the entire body of Christ they still want the Church to tell them their sins are ok. And when the Church refuses to bend to their selfish desires they throw a "whiny" fit and spill their frustration all over the NCR.
So then they come to the NCR to find the support group that will tell them that their sins are ok, or that the sins of others in the Church somehow negate Church teaching. I post to be that little annoying voice of conscience that tells them they must forget about the characters inhabiting the Church. Those characters like all of us, will soon be exiting the stage, but you must view the Church as the body of Christ, and the head of the Church is not some corrupt hierarchy, but Christ Himself. If you believe the Catholic Church is the body of Christ then when you argue with it's teachings you argue with Christ. And if you don't believe it is the body of Christ of what value is it, and why would you stay?
I read your post with
I read your post with interest. And, as won't come as a surprise, there are issues you raise that I see differently. You keep hearing liberals as seeing themselves as victims and I keep hearing conservatives as seeing themselves as victims. I think that you should keep in mind that within the Church, it is whoever is out of power who will be the ones to see themselves as victims -and, more often then not, rightfully so.
But there are some points to which I try to give attention and one is, as I mentioned, to be respectful. I was disappointed that although you acknowledge that you are not the "poster boy of restraint", you have no regret about it. I know that there have been times when, with words, I have injured and times even when I begin to get a satisfaction from injuring. In an way, I think this is part of the uglyness of original sin and our fallen nature. None-the-less, when I find myself doing this, I am aware of just how serious of a violation it is to the principles Christ laid down for us. Also, I look at what our political public discourse has become and how much it has decended into righteous, dismissive, hateful name calling and destructiveness in the most personal way. It alarms and saddens me that so many who do this think of themselves as Christians and that most of our Chruch leaders have not stepped in to remind us of how deeply this offends who we seek to follow. I also think that this hate that we have will be what, ultimately, destroys us; destroys both the very Church and country that we claim to love.
I think you brush liberalism with a very broad and shallow brush (maybe, I see conservatives as just as shallow. I hope not, but I certainly do have my criticisms). I think we liberals are more complex than how you describe us. I would also ask that you consider the axiom that Carl Jung put forth. He believed that stabiltiy was the tension of opposites. In all temporal institutions and setting, I believe this to be true. It is why, despite my liberal nature, I have been able to realize the value of having the opposite present and active (at least in theory, as I admitt it is not very easy). And, as a liberal, I am none-the-less aware that if liberals were in complete control, there would be chaos. Yet, I believe that if conservatives were in complete control, the church would be have the same focus on the legalistic aspect of faith that the Pharasies had and it would become a cult. Both would cause a destructive imbalance and do great harm to the Church (this is one area where I think John Paul II was very short-sighted). The bottom line is that, for the Church to survive, both need to be present. I think we need to realize this; that there is a symbiotic relationship here and we need to, not just realize this, but respect it.
Yes, I do admitt, that I do, after prayerful discernment, feel free to disagree with some of the Church teachings. But I am honest about that. What I find so amazing is that so many conservatives fool themselves in thinking that they believe in all of the teachings of the Church. They tend to just limit Church teachings to women ordination, gar marriage, abortion or what is being promoted by the hierarchy. The truth is that most simply don't belive in all of the teachings of the Church. Most consrvatives support the Iraq war, the death penality, nuclear weapons and birth control. And, most don't support the Bishops position on universal health care as a policy goal. I would bet I can even give examples of some true-to-life tragic situations others have had to deal with concerning a pregency and believe that for many who call themselves pro-life, they would feel differently if they found themselves or their daughter in some of these very same tragic situaions.
And, lastly, I have heard the, 'if you don't agree, why don't you leave' comments. And, in many ways they make sense. Yes, it would take courage to leave a tridition that you love, but it may be more honest to do so. However, what the one who is always suggesting we, who disagree leave, does not take into consideration is Christ being truly present in the Eucharist. I believe this to be true and I don't think that I, or many others, should be denied the true presents of Jesus because I/we disagree with the Church on some issue. I think that is a very important and powerful point, please considerate it; please consider what you are asking that we deny ourselves. And, as I mentioned, most all of us, both conservatives and liberals, have disagreements. So, all who disagreed left, the Church would be pretty close to empty.
Well, Kscrawler, it has been an interesting conversation. And one that will probably continue in one way or another. I just hope that all of us can stop seeing the other side so one-demensionally. Granted, it is easier to do this and maybe even how we are designed, but it is still very destructive to the living, mystical body of Christ.
Also, my spellcheck is down, so please excuse any mistakes. Spelling, clearly is not my strong point.
John David
I don’t know if you’ll even
I don’t know if you’ll even find this now that the thread has gotten old but I did want to comment. We are talking about the teachings of Jesus Christ; we are not talking about some sort of political or economic philosophy. To then use Jung as a justification for dissent because it somehow “balances” things ignores the elephant in the room. There is Truth as taught by and personified by Jesus Christ, which is protected by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church. If you do not believe that to be the case then the arguments for staying Catholic are petty.
To play dissent off as something other than heresy is nonsense. There is no conservative or liberal there is Truth or Lies. Christ gave us a Supreme Court to determine what is and is not the Truth, the Catholic Church as guided by the Holy Spirit. To not believe that means that you do not believe in the Catholic Church and hanging around the church is to treat it as some sort of extravagant social club.
Now let’s examine some of your other arguments. First you are correct in saying that you do not have to believe everything that every bishop says. There is plenty of room for disagreement on a large variety of issues. But some issues are off limits and dissent is heresy. You said:
“Most conservatives support the Iraq war, the death penalty, nuclear weapons and birth control.”
Of that list only birth control is an intrinsic evil. The others are open for discussion and questioning of Church doctrine. I suspect you already know the difference between intrinsic and non intrinsic evils but tend to throw those things around as a red herring to obscure the debate and justify your position under the schoolyard logic of, “It takes one to know one”.
It is also easy to point out the flaws and sins of another and say "since they are not perfect that allows me to dissent as well". So you point out that faithful Catholics struggle with sin and use that as excuse to justify your ignoring the teachings of Christ? You want desperately to draw this into a political conservative/liberal paradigm. It is not. There are not multiple Truths in Christ. There are not multiple venues from where you can pick your arbiter. There is only one Truth, Christ. There is only one arbiter, Christ, who though the Holy Spirit has chosen to use the Catholic Church to reveal that Truth. Now you can rail against the weaknesses of Faithful Catholics, and that is fair. You can criticize corruption in the hierarchy and that is even welcome. But you cannot use those as reason to disagree with Christ, that is anathema.
As to the issue of wanting to stay because of Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist, I would first have to ask if you don’t believe everything the Church teaches why would you believe in the Eucharist? But even more importantly is that if you do not believe in and in fact work to oppose what Christ through the Church teaches you should run from the Eucharist because to take it unworthily is a mortal sin. You are simply doubling down on your sin and heresy. In this case the Eucharist for you is an occasion of sin until you repent.
You seem sincere so I’m going to assume you have been lied to by those who would make you believe that you are omnipotent, they would have you believe that you and not God decides Truth. The people who have conned you into believing that are your enemy, not your friend. Repent while you still have time. I suspect I’ll be called judgmental and I am not of you, but I am of what is clearly sin. I hope you can escape the snare that is surrounding you.
Kscrawer, there are some
Kscrawer, there are some areas where we just see things differently. Also, I think you are making many assumptions and conclusions about my thinking that are inaccurate. And, of course, we could go on. Yet, there comes a point when it is time to stop and leave our differences, including my relationship to the Echarist, to the guidence and direction of the Holy Spirit. I think we have reached that point in this particular discussion. So, I will exit, as it is now off the thread anyway, but, of course, I will continue to hold you in my prayers.
May peace and wisdom come to you on your journey.
John David
and those clergy and laity
and those clergy and laity who keep saying "the Church is not a democracy" need to read some early Church history too. As soon as the hierarchy and the clergy in general started taking charge of everything, the Church becomes one long history of repeated screw-ups. Today's crises are a very example of this.
There are so many retired
There are so many retired Catholics who could be helping in a parish...however, they don't know what they are welcome to do...plus, we have one woman in the parish who simply "takes over" whenever a need arises & no one else has a chance...
We're assigning up to 4 parishes to one priest...we're literally killing off our clergy with such measures! But the Church refuses to let the tens of thousands of married priests preside at Eucharist, so the current priests become "circuit rider sacrament providers"...there is little to no time for priest to be spiritual guides for the people in the parish...they only have time to drop in for an hour or two, consecrate some bread & wine, and leave...makes it seem more like a magic act that a sacramental presence!
Which is more important to the people of God...a celibate (and 50% are or have been sexually active, so celibacy is an ideal, not a lived out vow) clergy or daily/weekly Eucharist??
Rachael is absolutely right.
Rachael is absolutely right. We are killing off our priests and they may be the lucky ones compared to burned out priests who haven't had time to read a book a book in years.
I recently listened to a radio evangelist lamenting the fact that many good men leave the ministry. They become tired of the pettiness of some of their flock. They feel themselves slipping into un-Christian attitudes towards them. Some leave the ministry. I compare this to a Catholic priest who must walk the same sort of path but find it harder to walk away. Instead, they become bitter and see their flock more as a bothersome neighbor rather than a brother or sister in Christ. They become heavy handed and dictatorial. Some parishioners leave and some stay.
Parishioners need to realize that thir priests are overworked men. We have to be patient and try to give them their space. We have to look out for their well being and sometimes tolerate their grumpyness. It's not the bishop, it's the parishioner who witnesses a pastor's troubled soul. It's up to us to be the front line of help even if it's only saying good afternoon Father.
Retired In Place According to
Retired In Place
According to a licensed clinical social worker who serves on our diocesan priest personnel board, roughly two-thirds of our priests have, “retired in place.” Perhaps much of this phenomenon is due to “clergy burnout.” However, from my observations, many of these men were ill-prepared to face a lifelong commitment to celibacy. Without the love and support of a wife, these men often become neurotic and seriously self-absorbed. Others, sadly, were obviously never cut out to be priests in the first place. In their later years, they have become mean and egotistical. Celibacy is not the pearl of the Church. It’s the polished turd.
it wouldnt happen to have
it wouldnt happen to have anything with the changes brought on by Vatican II nah that couldnt be the reason so many leave the new church.
Excellent column. Thank you!
Excellent column. Thank you! A few thoughts.
- Yes, pastors need our help and support!!
- Lay staff need to be paid a living wage. This will help ease the workload of the clergy by retaining the best lay staff.
- Pastors and lay parish staff need to be welcoming of volunteer involvement.
- Volunteers need adequate training, ongoing support, and reasonable expectations. Volunteer burnout is another important issue in many parishes. Empowering volunteers does require trust, appreciation, and good communication on both sides.
- Neither priests, lay staff, nor volunteers should feel taken advantage of, unprepared for their role(s), or unappreciated on a regular basis.
Read the book, "Excellent
Read the book, "Excellent Catholic Parishes." The thing that all these parishes have in common is what you have suggested - a decent living wage paid to lay staff. A person's heart may be in pastoral work but if they have a family to raise, they may not have the luxury of following their heart.
I have heard that it costs about 1 million dollars for the formation of a single priest in the US. Special collections are taken up by the diocese to cover the costs. Diocese should also start taking up collections to educate the laity. The cost of education is prohibitive and the ability to pay back student loans on the salary parish staff get paid once they graduate makes pursuing this field a fools errand. Right now many parishes have energetic but poorly formed lay persons at the helm when they actually have lay staff in pastoral positions. In my diocese, parishes have "dumbed down" education requirements for people to fill pastoral associate positions because there are so few people who can meet the qualifications. They also have "dumbed down" the salary they are offering. My guess is that these two things combined will only draw poor candidates to work in these critical positions.
Given that Rome is not poised to change the rules on Clerical Celibacy soon, then it must change its tack on formation and compensation. Unless the Church is willing to invest as much in the laity as they do in their infrastructure and clergy, the situation will not improve. It will worsen.
ordain women
ordain women
I sincerely hope this never
I sincerely hope this never happens. But I think we will have non-celebate Priests at some point.
There are several women I know woukld love to be ordained, they are without exception, cotrolling , bossy and self important. I d rather travel 1000 miles for Mass than have a farce.
Anonymous, Are you threatened
Anonymous,
Are you threatened by all women or just the ones who'd like to make a contribution outside of domestic labor?
think we will have
think we will have non-celebate Priests at some point
Try right now...about 50% of priests are not/have not been celibate, heterosexual & homosexual!
As for women who desire ordination, nothing like stereotyping all of them...males with that attitude used to be labelled as a "male chauvinist pigs"...
You crack me up, Rachel. You
You crack me up, Rachel. You chastise for stereotyping right after you stereotype the clergy.
That is unless you have some source to back up your ridiculous claim?
Note to kscrawler: So you
Note to kscrawler:
So you think that giving the laity some say in the running of their parish is only "Liberal Whining?" So the role of the laity is to only "pay, pray and obey?" If you want to be treated like a medieval serf, fine and dandy. Most of the rest of us, however, are not ignorant serfs. We will not accept being treated as serfs and we are not leaving. Get used to it.
Maybe if we really understood
Maybe if we really understood the role of the laity as less in "Church" and more in bringing the good news to their everyday lives, the role of the priest would be better understood? Do we exist to make a better parish or does the parish exist to spur on people to live out their vocations and 'transform' society? More than half of Congress is Catholic! Need I say more?
Controlling, bossy and self
Controlling, bossy and self important...unfortunately that describes several male priests I know. However, unlike Anonymous above, I would allow that there ARE exceptions. There is one priest who puts Himself, his personality and his theatrics, at the center of the Mass, instead of uh, that Other Guy whose life and teaching we are trying to celebrate and live out through the liturgy.
I am sure I shall be called a "liberal whiner" by kscrawler very shortly.
In general, we parishioners indeed would like to help out leaders by lending a hand, if our leaders would remember not to demean or micromanage us, simply by virtue of our gender, or what it would be better to deem, what they feel is a lack of virtue due to our gender.
Margaret Kathryn, I agree
Margaret Kathryn, I agree with all you say, and, in particular, your point about pastors and lay staff being welcoming of lay involvement. I also think true accountability to the parish would increase people's willingness to be involved. If we're told consistently that we are the Church and that we must accept responsibility for our own parish, but ignored once the funds are raised and the school opens - why would we bother? I have several friends who are good, committed and exhausted pastors, but none of them really understand how to work with lay people in any form of true cooperation. I don't know whether it's their theological or pastoral training that's at fault - but something needs to change. Speaking as a woman, I don't want to be ordained to lead sacramental celebrations, but I don't understand why I have no right to contribute in other ways. At the moment lay people can only contribute what the ordained minister decides. Why?
Burnout from what? After 30
Burnout from what? After 30 + years of working in Catholic parishes, I still cannot figure out what priests do all day, and especially assistant priests. There are no job descriptions or parish review boards for clergy. As a parent, I’m on the job 24/7. Some priests have lots of leisure time—to hang out at pools, join volunteer fire departments, play golf several times a week, and after “their Mass” on holidays to spend time with their families and friends (“Father’s coming for dinner today”).
A well-educated friend refuses to be a member of parish council because in her words “It is the duty of the council to find out what “Father” wants, and then to do it.” Father won’t delegate responsibility. There is plenty of work to be done in parishes by the laity, but no authority. Who dares (or cares) to question or to speak up to “Father?” Burn out—the feeling that comes when you don’t get your own way.
Are you honestly saying that
Are you honestly saying that it is wrong for a priest to spend time with his family on holidays once the Masses are finished? Sheesh I'm glad I don't work for you.
I know a lot of priests, and the ones I know take 1 day off a week, how they use that time is their business. If they want to go to the pool, play golf, visit family and friends that's fine with me. These same priests generally start their day around 5, say Mass in the morning, visit the schools when they are in session, make hospital visits, offer spiritual direction, do office work, work on homilies, and work on presentations they are asked to give. The ones I know take a little break in the evening to eat dinner, before going back to the parish for CCD, RCIA, wedding prep, parish meetings etc. I imagine if they have a free hour in the afternoon, they probably do try to get out of the office, because chances are they are going to be back after dinner.
I know my priest is a huge college football fan, I asked him to go to a game. He just grinned and said, "I haven't watched college football in 6 years, Saturdays are a work day now. Thank God for ESPN.com" He suggested maybe finding a weekend to watch one on tv, that way it wouldn't be an all day thing.
Of course priests should be
Of course priests should be entitled to a “day off” or two like the rest of us usually get. (Although parents do not get a “day off”.) I continually see priests who refuse to empower the laity because “Father” is a control freak, or because the laity might try to lead “Father” to a place where he is unwilling to go. Let’s ask our priests to do less, but to it better—better homilies, better knowledge of Church teachings and documents, better interactions and communications with the laity. We don’t need priests to run the parish business, be accountants, decorators, custodians. Priests could empower others to do these tasks. If priests are overburdened with these un-priestly tasks—whose problem is that? Do priests speak up to their bishop?
If we can take “un-priestly” and burdensome tasks away from our priests, then they can have time to do what the rest of us do—laundry, yard work, home repairs, cooking and shopping. Wait—priests don’t have families, so they don’t have to run car pools, volunteer at school, serve on PTA boards, organize parties and picnics, organize and celebrate birthdays and anniversaries, worry about feeding a family, finance childrens’ educations. (They don’t have to try to get their kids to church—a difficult task for parents of teen aged children.) They also don’t have to worry about job security and retirement benefits. How many of us “non clerics” can say the same?
Overburdened? Burn out? Whose fault is that?
Allowing the laity to have a
Allowing the laity to have a voice in the administration of their parish is not heresy. The laity determining how funds are spent, is not bad theology at all. I do not say Mass, hear confessions or administer the Sacraments. Those jobs are the privledge and duty of the priest. Determining how money contributed by the laity is spent is something that the laity can do and do well. I know of a local parish which as a pastor, who performs his priestly functions and a woman who is a CPA who is the business manager. The pastor has oversight over the finances, but he does not make every decision regarding expenditures of funds. This seems to work fairly well. Perhaps a scenario where the pastor is a sort of chairman of the board, but laymen and laywomen of the parish have a voice in finance, facilities, etc. and sit on the board. I think a lot of priests would like this arrangement. It would give them more time off, which they deserve.
The pastor does not have to work 90 hrs per week and make every little decision. I think most priests would agree.
BISHOP OF PHOENIX ARIZONA not
BISHOP OF PHOENIX ARIZONA not only discourages lay initiative,
creativity, leadership and help... He gets rid of ALL PRIESTS
who encourage LAY MINISTRY. The only lay ministry allowed is PAY,
PRAY AND OBEY in PHOENIX. ALL TIME, TALENTS AND HOLY SPIRIT GIFTS
are not recognized in the laity UNLESS... You toe the Bishop's
interpretation of THE RULES. He is acting Pope here. SO SAD !!!
We have absolutely NO SAY... so how can we possibly help our
clergy. They are BURNED-OUT because the parishioners are BURNED-OUT
and feel it is the priest's fault for not speaking up about the ABUSES OF
LAITY and even DEACONS. Priests just show up to serve Mc-Sacraments
and wait for retirement. I sure wish all the uninvolved parishioners
would wake up and smell the ROTTING CORE. This is just another form of
clergy abuse... ignoring the GIFTS of the FAITHFUL. WE ARE BURNED-OUT...
In my urban Jesuit parish,
In my urban Jesuit parish, lay involvement is encouraged, if not exploited. Although people are encouraged to be involved, few decisions are outside the grasp of our dedicated pastor. Committees are "advisory" but whatever Father wants, goes. He works very hard, but my perception is that if he would loosen his grasp a bit, his workload would ease. It's a delicate balance. I think many pastors could benefit from training in office management, volunteer management, and teamwork... not to mention anger management! God forbid anyone upset Father.
I agree with much of what has been said here. Parishes have so many wonderful lay people. With healthy management, good boundaries, and respect on all sides, I know my own parish would be transformed. Our parish just completed a multi million dollar restoration. If only the transformation would penetrate deeper than the wood and stone. Instead, it often feels like a manipulative, dysfunctional family... you know, where the people closest to you receive the brunt of the anger, the least gratitude, and are taken for granted? Sad.
I also think parishes need processes for honest reviews of priests and parish staff. At our parish, there are no such mechanisms, and anyone who disagrees with Father or the staff is eventually asked to leave their volunteer roles or conform. Why is this? This would never go over in my place of business. I find it funny, in a sad way, that of all the places and groups I frequent-- my job, my son's school, community groups-- my church is the place that feels most dysfunctional, least respectful, and least consistent with the Gospel. As I write this, I wonder why I stay.
I think that some priests
I think that some priests would be happy to say Mass, hear Confessions and administer the Sacraments, and not have to worry about who mows the lawn, plows the snow on the parking lot, etc. To keep repeating that "The Church is not a democracy" misses the point. The laity does not elect or chose their pastor, he is appointed by the Bishop. That being said, this does not mean that the laity of the parish should have zero say in anything. Why does the pastor have to make every decision? I do not see that anywhere in the Gospels. The mission of priests is to administer the sacraments, not to determine who mows the lawn. I think the laity can be trusted with non sacramental, non theological housekeeping tasks.
Why are some of the clergy so fearful of allowing the laity ANY say in even non sacramental matters?
As a church office
As a church office receptionist, I see parish administration "up close and personal" everyday. I have also spent 45 years of professional service in education and administration, including Catholic schools. Throughout the decades, I have observed diverse approaches by priests to their duties. Frankly, in my current work, I am not inspired by our priests' "work ethic."
Their squabbles about who will go out on emergency Sac of Sick calls; needing to go home to rest so often in the middle of the day, and not being able to keep up with the demands of increasing the laity's understanding of scripture, theology, etc. are all factors I notice too frequently. Duh!
The Catholic laity are more
The Catholic laity are more that capable and willing...if only the ordained were willing to honor the gifts received in Baptism. Power, control and exclusion are the hallmarks of far too many communities. If the priests are burned out, they have chosen to go to the grill.
I imagine that lay
I imagine that lay involvement varies from parish to parish. I have known priests who are control freaks and who must make every decision, no matter how trivial, and I have known priests who are bored with routine housekeeping tasks and are more than happpy to unload them on the laity and focus on the sacraments. you don't have to be ordained to arrange for the lawn being mowed, balance the checkbook, etc.
Perhaps there would be more
Perhaps there would be more help if women were ordained and celibacy would be optional.
Whatever is happening, its not working. Back to the drawing board.
Best regards,
Bernie Olejniczak
Post new comment