By Richard Gaillardetz
Pope Francis has identified the evil of clericalism as a principal cause of the church’s current crisis (“Letter to the People of God,” Sept. 2018). The pope had already, on previous occasions, denounced clericalism, which he defined as an attitude marked by a sense of superiority and a failure to remain close to the people one is to serve. Soon after the appearance of the pope’s letter, Bishop Vincent Long of Parramatta, Australia, warned, however, against imagining clericalism simply as an attitude manifested by certain individuals. Rather, he insisted, “it is a question of clericalism inherent in the very culture of the Church.”
His employment of the term “culture” is not insignificant here. According to the sociologist and ecclesiologist, George B. Wilson, S.J., speaking of a clerical culture suggests “very concrete patterns of behavior and ways of thinking” that operate at a largely unconscious or unexamined level (Wilson, Clericalism: The Death of Priesthood, 3). To the extent that the laity share the same cultural presuppositions—that is, to the extent that they willfully accede to clerical claims to privilege and an uncritical deference—they help sustain that culture, rendering many of its problematic features ever more invisible. Because of the limits of space, the focus of this article will be on the way in which the theology, structures, and practice of ordained ministry have played a decisive role in sustaining a clerical culture.
Signs of Clericalism in the Presbyterate
What are some indications of this clerical culture? First, we can see it in a persistent preoccupation with the maintenance of a distinct clerical identity, an inordinate fascination with clerical garb and titles, often at the expense of a sense of solidarity with the whole people of God. Second, this clerical culture is rooted in a problematic theology of the ministerial priesthood. Such a theology fails to properly correlate the ministerial priesthood to the service of the baptismal priesthood. It relies on an exaggerated account of the sacramental character conferred at ordination. It stresses the conferral of new powers, for example, the power to confect the Eucharist and absolve sins, stripped of any substantive ecclesial reference.
A third indication of clericalism is the sense of being exempt from criticism or accountability by those outside the clerical guild along with a determination to protect the good reputation of their guild at all costs. Those outside the guild, it is presumed, cannot properly appreciate the demands placed on those within the guild. Finally, while a balanced theology of the church will acknowledge a diversity of roles and ministries in the life of the church, clericalism re-deploys these distinctions to justify hierarchical superiority, the exercise of dominating power, and the expectation of uncritical deference.
Episcopal Contributions on a Clerical Culture
The seeds of clericalism lie just as much in the current theology, structures, and practices associated with the office of the bishop. Church law and custom today accentuate the bishop’s relation to the episcopal college as a whole and to the pope in particular, often at the expense of his relationship to his flock. Here again, we see one of the features of a clerical culture: an emphasis on belonging to an elite group (the episcopal college) and a weakened sense of solidarity with, and accountability to, those they would serve.
Consider that approximately 40 percent of today’s bishops—ordained church diplomats, many Vatican bureaucrats, and every auxiliary bishop—is assigned to a titular see, that is, they are made bishop of a diocese that existed once, but no longer does. So, technically , every bishop is ordained to serve a local church, even if that local church has no living members. How can such a custom not trivialize the bishop’s relationship to the local church? Since the 19th Century , it has been the practice of the Vatican to appoint bishops to dioceses with minimal input from the local churches themselves. Add to this the fact that bishops today are frequently transferred from one diocese to another, often as a form of ecclesiastical promotion from seemingly peripheral pastoral appointments to more prestigious ones. Finally , consider the use of lofty forms of address directed toward bishops (“Your Excellency”), toward archbishops (“Your Grace”), toward cardinals, (“Your Eminence”) or the fact that cardinals are still often referred to as “princes of the church.” All of these structures and practices have played a role in sustaining an entrenched clerical culture.
A Way Forward?
So how do we move forward along the path of reform? Let us first consider presbyteral ministry before turning once more to the episcopate.
Recover a Healthy Theology of the Priesthood and Reform Seminary Formation
One antidote to the scourge of clericalism would be the widespread embrace, particularly in seminary education, of a sound theology of the ministerial priesthood, one that attends to the teaching of Vatican II that the ministerial priesthood exists to serve the priesthood of all believers. Such a theology would recognize that ordination is not, in the first instance, about the conferral of special powers; ordination draws the presbyter into a new relationship with Christ and Christ’s church-sent-in-mission. The empowerment that ordination effects does not precede but rather follows the presbyter’s sacramental configuration to Christ and his Church.
A more adequate theology of the ministerial priesthood should, in turn, inform how our church calls forth candidates for priestly formation. If we are to purge the church of clericalism, we must reassess our traditional criteria for suitability to priestly ministry. Personal holiness, for example, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for priestly ordination. We need holy priests, to be sure, but we also need healthy ones; even a cursory history of our tradition affirms that these two things do not always go together. The lack of a healthy psycho-sexual maturity and the attendant tendencies toward sexual repression and self-deception have helped create conditions ripe for inappropriate clerical behavior. The psycho-sexually immature candidate is likely to be attracted to an insular clerical culture precisely because the uncritical deference that such a culture encourages can allow him to avoid healthy, vulnerable relationships. Priestly celibacy, which has long been central to our Catholic tradition, is engaged most authentically when it is recognized as a charism to be lived faithfully by the psycho-sexually mature rather than a requirement imposed by law on those who may be called to priestly ministry but who do not recognize in themselves the charism for authentic celibacy. When celibacy is imposed by the burden of law rather than embraced as an authentic gift, psychic and affective mechanisms may develop for coping with that burden that can lead to immature interpersonal relationships and an inability to develop authentic intimacy with others.
Finally, we should seek out candidates who are eager collaborators in ministry, candidates who delight in identifying and supporting the gifts of others. To be blunt, our current system is often better equipped to identify impediments to ordination than to recognize and cultivate authentic charisms for pastoral leadership.
If the ministerial priesthood exists to empower all God’s people for their missionary task, then it does not make sense to prepare diocesan priests in quasi-monastic seclusion, separated from worldly realities and concerns. How healthy is it for seminarians to be insulated from the everyday realities of family budgeting, shopping, cooking, and doing laundry? Seminarians should be expected to pursue their studies in academic contexts where they would be accompanied by lay men and women as students and where they would be taught by a diversity of professors, lay and ordained, men and women. These proposals all have as their aim a practice of priestly formation that moves away from privileged separateness while encouraging gospel practices of pastoral accompaniment and solidarity with those whom they are ordained to serve.
Strengthen the Bishop’s Relationship to the Local Church
As already noted, the clerical culture which pervades our church is sustained not only by problematic theologies and practices associated with the priesthood, but also with the episcopate. The structural weakening of the bishop’s solidarity with his flock is a significant factor in the perpetuation of a clerical culture.
In the church of the first four centuries, the bishop’s relationship to his local church was maintained by much more solidaristic bonds than are present today. One of the most widely shared convictions of early Christianity concerned the right of the local church to affirm, either by election or acclamation, the appointment of their bishop. Pope Celestine I (422-32) would declare in the early Fifth Century: “Let a bishop not be imposed upon the people whom they do not want.” Pope Leo the Great (440-61) would further insist: “He who has to preside over all must be elected by all.”
In contrast to this ancient practice, procedures in the 1983 Code of Canon Law provide for little input from the local church. The Church needs to develop revised procedures that give local churches greater say in the selection of their local bishop. One could easily draw from the centuries of experience among consecrated religious men’s and women’s communities who have developed proven methods for ecclesial discernment in the election of their leaders.
In consideration of necessary reform, we should recall the early Church’s strict prohibition against ordaining a bishop without a pastoral charge to a living local church. Episcopal ordination should not be about honorifics or ecclesiastical promotion; it should be about pastoral leadership of a local flock, no more, no less.
The church would also do well to re-institute, allowing for prudent exceptions, the ancient canonical prohibition against the transfer of a bishop from one diocese to another. The transfer of a bishop violated the nuptial symbolism of a bishop’s “marriage” to his people. At a pastoral level, the prohibition also helped forestall episcopal careerism. A bishop who has been embraced by his local church, and considers himself “married” to his flock, however modest, is more inclined to keep the concerns of his people foremost in mind rather than the approval of his “superiors.”
Finally, if we are to break up the clerical sedimentation that exists in our church, we must apply, “all the way down,” Pope Francis’ principle of synodality calling us to become a “listening church.” To transpose metaphors, we cannot pour the “new wine” of ecclesial synodality into the “old wineskins” of canonical structures still tainted by clerical privilege. What is needed is a richer culture of collaboration in church governance at all levels. Certainly, there are quasi-synodal institutions currently available in canon law that hold some promise, such as pastoral and diocesan councils, diocesan synods and plenary councils like the one currently being planned for the church of Australia. However, new institutional structures beyond those currently available in canon law must also be developed that draw the laity into a fuller participation in the governance of the church without compromising the distinctive apostolic oversight of the pope and bishops.
Finding inspiration in the Pact of the Catacombs
Throughout the course of Vatican II a number of bishops were moved by Pope John XXIII’s evocation of a “church of the poor” and began meeting at the Belgian College in Rome. These bishops had become persuaded of the need to engage in a more evangelical ministry inspired by direct Gospel imperatives. In the fall of 1965, as the council was drawing to a close, some 40 bishops gathered secretly in the Domitilla Catacombs outside of Rome where they celebrated the Eucharist and signed a pact which would come to be known as the Pact of the Catacombs. This remarkable pact included the following pledge:
We, bishops assembled in the Second Vatican Council, are conscious of the deficiencies of our lifestyle in terms of evangelical poverty. … We do not want to be addressed verbally or in writing with names and titles that express prominence and power (such as Eminence, Excellency, Lordship). … [W]e will seek collaborators in ministry so that we can be animators according to the Spirit rather than dominators according to the world. … May God help us to be faithful.
If we are to succeed in purging our Church of the scourge of clericalism, we will need Church leaders at every level who are prepared to enter into the spirit of this historic pledge. But it will also require that we, the lay faithful, enter into our own examination of conscience, mindful of the ways we, too, have been complicit in the rampant clericalism in our Church, for none of us is exempt from the call to conversion that authentic Christian discipleship requires.
Richard R. Gaillardetz is the Joseph Professor of Catholic Systematic Theology at Boston College and is currently the chair of the Theology Department. This article offers an abbreviated version of lectures given at Catholic University of America and Seattle University. A much fuller, more documented version appeared in Worship(Summer 2019) under the title, “A Church in Crisis: How Did We Get Here? How Do We Move Forward?”