Question: (Mr Cyriac T. Kottayam)

Recently in the letter to the Editor column in Light of Truth, I read a note from Subash Anand titled “Uprooting clericalism.”
What is actually clericalism? What are its possible meanings? How to overcome clericalism in the Church?

Answer: DR. GEORGE THERUKAATTIL MCBS

Clericalism is the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and socio-cultural import. It can be described as a “form of elitism” that is reinforced by the distinctive education and formation, dress and titles that Bishops, Priests and the Religious receive. They are addressed as His Eminence, His Grace, His Excellency, My Lord, Very Reverend Father, Very Reverend Superior General, Very Reverend Mother General etc. Insistence on such titles and formality by them certainly could be a “mask for insecurity.” Or, even worse, it could reflect what we might call “supernaturalism” – a belief that their position (confirmed by the use of religious clothing and language) somehow automatically renders them immune from the ambiguities and social and psychological pulls and pressures of ordinary life.

In fact, Jesus, whom they represent, was against power and titles (Mt 23:8-10). The community of Jesus was radically egalitarian community – a community of equality. If all (Jew, gentile….) are truly “one in Christ” (Gal 3:28) they are basically equal before the Lord. Difference of, race, class, sex, do not affect their basic relationship with Jesus. Jesus community will not tolerate any form of pyramidal stratification or ‘hierarchicalization.’ All are members of one body – each dependent on the other, no part is superior to another. There is no room in a Christian community for any devise for domination, control or ambition for power (Mk 10:42-45). The only hierarchy is hierarchy of service and not power.

But the opposite has taken place in the Church. The priestly class in the Church arrogated to itself undue authority and power that made them to unwarranted claims to wisdom, even to having a monopoly on understanding the mind and will of God. The consequence is the great weakening of the Church by denigrating or excluding the many gifts of the Spirit present in the lay people to be used in service to others in every walk of life. The problem of clericalism arises when the clergy acts in indifference, or even contempt, toward the lay people. In a Church governed by clericalism, a hierarchy is established in which the clergy is viewed as church’s highest authority and placed on a higher pedestal than those of the laity who form the vast majority in the Church. Without the laity, as Cardinal Newman’s response to a bishop who spoke slightly of the laity said that the “Church would look foolish without them; something like a football team with only coaches and no players.”

A distorted sense of entitlement, power and domination comes to the priests and bishops because they think that ordination confers a superior dignity upon them than is available to the layperson. But the real picture is as Augustine put it centuries ago: “I am a Christian with you. I am a priest for you.” The office of the priest does not indicate superior dignity or superior sanctity. Nor does the lay office deprive one of anything, because the priesthood (and, indeed, the lay office) are both gifts given by God and undeserved by us. The distorted sense of entitlement, control, power and domination is based on the assumption that they are not bound by the rules that govern everyone else, and that other people exist to serve their needs. Thus clericalism has become today a sort of ‘structural sin.’ The harm done by this sin is of several kinds. By far the worst occurs on the spiritual level, where relatively little is either asked or expected of lay people beyond a legalistic mediocrity – spiritual excellence is equated with keeping rules (go to church, say some prayers, avoid the grosser kinds of sin). At the deepest level, the damage done by clericalism is the injury inflicted upon the self-understanding of the Church as a perfect society with an ‘institutional–hierarchical’ model. This model was rejected and replaced by Second Vatican Council’s preferred model of the Church as ‘People of God,’ wherein we have some form of egalitarianism.

Clericalism seems to have various possible meanings: First, clericalism might refer to a clerical contempt for laypeople whose lives seem to be spiritually undemanding, or, in the case of “nominal” Catholics, possibly unintelligible. The priestly training in seminaries tended to impart a ‘clerical difference,’ a sense of specialness that lead the seminarians to see themselves as not only separate but also superior to laypeople. This clericalism may or may not be distinguishable from the sort of contempt towards Church’s more mediocre laity. Second, clericalism can refer to certain forms of narcissism where leaders of the Church have often been flattered and sickeningly excited by these flatterers. This seems to flourish in the clerical state. Priests who constantly remind the parishioners of everything they have given up for the laity and internalizing a dangerous sense of entitlement. Sadly, we are all aware of the consequences of arrested sexual development in them. Finally, clericalism can refer to a clerical “culture of secrecy” in which mis-behaviour or illegal activities of the clergy are kept hidden or defended when exposed by the media.

It is now worth rationally discussing these forms of clericalism, which has theological error that can afflict both the clergy and laypeople. Though some clericalism comes from narcissism, the testimony of our professional laity tends to suggest a theological [liturgical] origin. If we reduce the significance of the liturgy to the priest’s consecration and distribution of an unquestionably valid sacrament, make the laity dispensable and passive. In the reduction of the laity to passive bystanders where they should be active participants, we have what might be called the paradigm manifestation of clericalism. By ‘active participation’ what I mean is not merely a generic ‘doing things’ or paying attention to the prayers in the Holy Mass, but being conscious that the laity is “offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 48). The lay persons are concelebrants. When this role of the laity is obscured, Sunday Mass often becomes a place where people assemble for private devotions. The laity ceases to be a people with a collective and active role. The problem is that in spite of admonition of proactive participation by the laity as described in 1 Cor. 14:26, the laity has been relegated to a passive role even in the very best of any active participation liturgy.

Obviously, then, we have a situation in which there is a very large gap between the clergy, whose role is emphasized, and the laity, whose role is merely passive. This corresponds to a very large gap between the church and the world. The laity is supposed to be “the link between the Church and the world.” (At the Liturgy, this presumably would happen through the offering up of praise, laypeople presenting the bread and wine, and the voicing of petitions). But the laity simply cannot serve as a link between Church and world if it is not a community of people, but merely a collection of anonymous individuals who cultivate hidden private devotions during the Mass. Consequently Church is estranged from the world.

There are two possible dangers of this estrangement. Both are unhappy. The Church might simply ignore the world, protesting against only the most horrendous injustices and demanding only what is necessary to maintain church buildings and instruct the faithful.

Though clericalism is on the decline, the dangers of clericalism continue to exist; the clericalist attitudes and assumptions remain still embedded in the minds of many lay people and, though probably unrecognized, still harms and goes on doing great harm to the faithful. The harm is of several kinds. By far the worst occurs on the spiritual level, where relatively little is either asked or expected of lay people beyond a legalistic mediocrity. The idea that, as Vatican II taught, the lay people are called to holiness quite as much as the clergy and religious simply does not enter this clericalist picture. It is a miracle that so many lay people achieve holiness or are saints just the same!

If we wish to free the Church of this cancer of clericalism, then we need to go to its roots. Conte-mporary Post-Modern thinkers have drawn our attention to the authoritarian and oppressive character even of what we call theological truths. This is not difficult to see when we keep in mind that the vast volume of theology, spirituality, liturgy and law has been designed almost totally by a small group of clerics. What is still more strange is that even the theology, spirituality, liturgy and law of marriage has been formulated by a small group of clerics who claim to be celibates. The discourse shaping the Church – theology, spirituality, liturgy and law – is of the clergy, by the clergy, for the clergy, and answerable to the clergy. Hence if we earnestly desire to free the Church of Jesus from the cancer of clericalism we need an alternative discourse examining the fundamental issue and the abuse of power that clericalism generates. Only this will make sense of the crisis of clericalism and help to overcome it. For this, first of all, we need a strong and committed laity to push back against clericalism and to demand accountability. We should return to the liturgical problem we saw above. The worshipping community is not merely the priest and accidental spectators: it is one community both priest and the faithful, actively offering the “sacrifice of Jesus.”

Call it traditionalism/orthodoxy/conservatism etc., although many groups of the laity in the parishes and in the diocese go to great lengths to make protests and choices in accord with the “true” wish of Christ and His Church, it often seems that it ends with people referring straightaway and definitively to a priest: “Fr knows best.” Priests deserve respect insofar as their office is concerned but they are still humans – and fallible. This truly hits home when clergy members begin to pontificate on matters outside their academic credentials. No one is ever obligated to give free advice, and silence costs nothing. Yet, as emerging professionals the lay people who often feel frustrated if not downright angry about encounters where they were humiliated or belittled by the priests. It is tempting to a priest to remind his lay subordinates that they are dispensable. This attitude of “irrelevance” of the laity has caused untold harm. The simple solution for this is forthright honesty and humility from the bishops, priests and clergy. Transparency is needed from them now more than ever to witness to the Gospel paradigm of shepherd, which might cool the flames fired by the clerical conflicts. Otherwise, we can expect the feudal mentality of clericalism to get much, much worse.

Second thing to do is to declericalise or declergify. To the extent the Church creates room for both clergy and the laity, freedom and participation, respect and dialogue, committed love and shared forgiveness, the defense and care of life, would gives birth to a new people – “people of God.” This would act as the leaven that is placed in the world and cause the new creation to come into being. But this birth is not a painless one. To the extent that the ecclesial community begets new persons thanks to a different kind of interrelationship – it creates a new style of human community marked by radically different ways of experiencing and understanding of power.

Basic Ecclesial Communities would be the result, where there is no domination and the Church becomes ‘People of God.’ True basic communities of the Church is the hope for the Church universal, for communion ecclesiology means that there cannot be active members on the one side, and passive ones on the other. This ecclesiology tends to the active responsibility of not only the priests but of all lay persons who belong to it. In the light of this responsibility for laity on all levels of Church’s life, we have now parish councils, diocesan councils, diocesan synods, Episcopal synods, wherein we have lay interest, and the preparedness of lay people to take a share of responsibility.

From the part of the clergy, the answer for the perennial problem of clericalism is daily conversion by priests and bishops to our servant Lord. This is somewhat vague, but the problems of narcissism and contempt do require conversion. One way in concrete is to overhaul the formation of the clergy. Here we face two basic problems: First, the problem of clericalism cannot be reduced to individual behaviour. It is a structural sin. The structural aspect of clericalism is in the formation of seminarians and in raising individual clerics onto inappropriate pedestals. The hierarchy of the Church has been using the ‘tortoise-style formation’ [seminary = nursery], which makes the seminarians virtually invulnerable to attack, while they hide behind their shields of secrecy, silence, hypocrisy, cruelty and abuse of power. For many generations earnest, young seminarians have been taught that they are aspiring to a higher level not available to the laity, a level at which they will have the authority to teach, sanctify and govern those below. They will carry with them sacred and temporal powers that will accompany them even into eternity. For such privileges they promise to become eunuchs for the kingdom, and they pledge to defer their own judgments without reservation to the authoritative pronouncements of those on still higher levels, be it pastor, bishop or Pope. Clericalism is contagious; it is breeding a kind of mentality or sub-culture that revels in ecclesiastical ambition, status and power.

To counteract this, to be a good priest, in addition to having passed all the exams, a demonstrated human, spiritual and pastoral maturation is necessary. Seminarians should be so formed that they do not become prey to ‘clericalism,’ nor yield to the temptation of modeling their lives worldly leaders. Priestly ordination, while making its recipient ‘a leader of the people,’ should not lead him to ‘lord it over’ the flock. The Church document Pastores Dabo Vobis, gives the four pillars of integral priestly formation: human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral. So, beside the traditional division of formation into the stages of philosophical and theological studies, there has to be added a threefold division of discipleship, configuration, and pastoral stages. To each of these new stages there “corresponds an itinerary and a formative content, orientated toward an assimilation with the image of the Good Shepherd.” Only through such formation we will have Priests who are disciples in love with the Lord with humane, compassionate and friendly traits, who are authentic, loyal, interiorly free, affectively stable, capable of weaving together peaceful interpersonal relationships and living the evangelical counsels without rigidity, hypocrisy or loopholes. This can surpass the bureaucratic views of ministry, so that we will have Priests, capable of ‘feeling with the Church’ and being, like Jesus, compassionate and merciful Samaritans [Shepherds].

Now we come to the second part of your question: How to overcome the scourge of clericalism. A different style of leadership is possible. The final statement of the 32nd Plenary Meeting of the CBCI lists “Shunning excessive institutionalization, clericalism and extravaganza” among its proposals. Clericalism is what allows clergy to distract from, and cover up for, rampant criminal activity and child abuse. Many members of the clergy think that they can do what they like with impunity; that they can even indulge in criminal behaviour and get away with it. If some of us, priests and bishops, are guilty of serious misbehaviour and still get away easily, it is because our lay people have accepted the awe and aura with which we have cunningly, subtly and successfully surrounded ourselves. It is time that lay people come in contact with contemporary Biblical scholarship, wherein most of the scholars who are concerned about Jesus and his community [Church] are presenting some very profound new insights about Christian origins and subsequent developments of the Church. Their findings are published in journals of theology, which very few bishops and priests read. There is a very disturbing chasm between the growth of knowledge and the laziness of some of our bishops and priests. For those in power, this ignorance can be the source of tremendous bliss and security, but for the vast majority of the laity it is a terrible disaster.

Above all, clericalism is a diminution of the ‘Royal Priesthood of the Laity’ [1Pet.2:9] and an over-valuing of ordained ministry. So, the answer to clericalism is not in ‘clericalization of the laity.’ Without diminishing the ordained (ministerial) priesthood, we must take a higher view and spirituality of the Royal Priesthood of all the baptized and live out this spirituality. This would render clericalism obsolete. Sharing actively in Christ’s priesthood, as well as his royal anointing and prophetic office, laypersons would feel no need for special, quasi-clerical tasks within their parishes.
Fortunately, the Church has within it the resources to overcome the scourge of clericalism. For not only is hierarchical structure part of her essential constitution, so is her nature as a communio [koinonia], a community of faith. Pope Francis has vowed to change the mindset of the Church, declaring that the institution “must return to being a community of the people of God” and rethink the relationship between its leaders and the laity.

By his words and his humble example Pope Francis is preaching almost daily a powerful, silent sermon denouncing the scourge of clericalism. It’s the simple way he lives; his decision to move into the visitors’ quarters and eat his meals with them; his lack of interest in pomp and pageantry; his decision to wash the feet of prison inmates (including women) on Holy Thursday; his insistent concern for the poor and the state of planet Earth. He hasn’t yet addressed any of the hot button items, including birth control, the aspirations of women, the collegiality of bishops or the Vatican’s failure to address the priest abuse scandal in a meaningful way. The Church could be involved in finding solutions to these nagging, peripheral issues, which deafen us from hearing the radical gospel message. So, Pope Francis begins to overcome the scourge of clericalism by building by example a case against the arrogance and self-satisfaction that provides the foundation for a multi-tiered, class-conscious society of those who make the decisions and those who do not, those who have given up earthly rewards in favour of honorific titles, fancy liturgical attire and, above all, power.

It did not take him long to recognize the extent of clericalism rampant in the Curia and to realize how it corrupts the Church and strangles the Holy Spirit. Even before he arrived for the election, he was undoubtedly aware of clericalism and its effects in other countries. He is laying down a kind of platform to reconnect the church of this era to the Spirit that inspired the early Christians and authentic leaders, like Francis of Assisi, to both proclaim the gospel and live it.

One of the strongest criticisms Francis has made of members of the clergy and religious life is what he calls the “complex of the elect,” which he claims is the source of the “pathology of clerical power.” Francis frequently criticizes those who understand the call to the priesthood or to the consecrated life in terms of a warped theology of “election.” Such a theology holds that God separates a person from the world in order to make the person superior to other members of the church.

In line with this theology, Pope Francis has been proposing a new way of being Church, ‘a Church which is bruised, hurting, and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security,’ According to him, authentic pastoral action happens when the pastors are truly inserted in the reality of poor people, when they feel pain in the face of the needs and the deprivations of the poor and when they experience “power as service” and when they become truly human and servant leaders by self-emptying love.