Clericalism, Anti-Clericalism, and Non-Clericalism

For purposes of this essay, "clericalism" is used in an objective, non-pejorative, almost anthropological sense of the system of cultural practices and beliefs that maintain a distinct priestly caste. As such, Catholicism is inherently clerical as our faith centers on God's presence in a sacramental system, particularly Eucharist and Penance, which is maintained by a priestly caste, our clergy. Anti-clericalism becomes, therefore, inevitable and almost constitutive of our culture for two reasons. Given our sinful nature, many if not all of our clergy will succumb to temptations to arrogance and distance that come with the privileges of the caste. Even if all priests were, however, perfect saints, envy and resentment will arise among the laity in regard to their status...again because of our sinful nature. "Non-clericalism" refers to a style that consciously downplays the clerical style to accentuate the equality of priest and lay as sinners-in-recovery and disciples of our Lord. A wholesome clericalism, then, would emphasize the imitation of the servant Christ and the unworthiness of the individual to be such an "alter-Christ" and dispense the sacred mysteries. Clericalism in the negative sense would be a climate of arrogance, power, privilege and separation that can accompany the priesthood. Pope Benedict is an example of clericalism in the best sense: he had a profound sense of the solemnity of the liturgy and his manner and theology flowed from a humility before Christ's Eucharistic presence. For example, he rode a bike to school, even as a renowned theologian. When asked if he did so as bishop, he smiled and said "No. I would never be so unconventional." His instincts were modest, reticent and conservative:  he would continue what had been done rather than call attention to himself or innovate. John Paul, by contrast, was priestly in the highest sense but non-clerical as he presented himself as an equal, a brother, a friend. His liturgical style is informal and loose but very holy. Pope Benedict (with a different style) said he felt closest to his predecessor when he said the mass. Pope Francis, surprisingly, is anti-clerical. He dislikes the trappings of formality that surround the hierarchy: the Latin mass, the title "monsignor," and manifestations of piety, It is, to say the least, unusual that our number 1 cleric be anti-clerical. Nevertheless, the Church is a big tent and has room even for anti-clerical clerics! I consider myself to be moderately clerical. Almost 70 years old, I address 28 year old priests as "Father." At an ordination I happily kneel for a blessing and kiss the hands that will confect the Sacrament. I recall that as a collegiate seminarian I was warned (by my mentor, a wise ex-marine, ex-fighter autodictat librarian) that Catholics systematically, warmly spoil their priests and seminarians and it is hard to resist the sense of privilege. The priest who wants to be called by his first name is non-clerical, but not necessarily anti-clerical. Much of the Church is a wholesome non-clericalism. It prevails in many of the religious orders, especially brothers who are non-clerics and noticeably among Franciscans, Benedictines, Salesians, Jesuits and Maryknollers. These cherish the priesthood but in a low-key manner. Their vows ordinarily preceed their ordination, if they are ordained, and the identity as evangelical brother takes precedence over holy orders. This is healthy but does not contradict a balanced and modest clericalism in the manner of Joseph Ratzinger. For a Catholic, all things lead to The High Priest, our Lord Jesus, who himself had some harsh things to say about the priests of his time. The Catholic Church is a big table with room for the modest clericalism of Benedict, the holy and priestly non-clericalism of John Paul, and the anti-clericalism of Francis.

We Don't Like You, But We Love You

"We have to love everyone, but we don't have to like everyone" my father liked to say. Pope Francis, discarding the restrains of tradition, is transparent and even shameless about those he doesn't like. The top five are: clerics who cherish the rubrics and status of a priestly caste, the pious who count their devotions and show forth their devotion, capitalists even if they create and share wealth, Latin Mass folk who love tradition, and Culture Warriors (that's me!) who advocate a rigorous ethos of chastity in defiance of hegemonic sexual liberalism and are seen as moralistic and arrogant. We are, of course, the very people who are most fervent in our love and loyalty to the pope. It is as if a teacher disliked students who have perfect attendance, straight Es in conduct, and are on the honor roll; but loves those who "make a mess" (a favorite phrase of Pope Francis) by disrupting class! When someone really doesn't like you it is hard, if not impossible, to keep liking him. And, my father taught me, it is not a Christian obligation. Besides, the cultural liberators will agree that it is more healthy to admit feelings than repress them. So I will be honest:  I don't like you Holy Father! And you don't like me. But I do love you. I am loyal to you, even in respectful disagreement. You are our teacher, father, and source of unity...even when you are ridiculous. And I pray for you. May God bless you and bless us, this dysfunctional family that is the Catholic Church!

Judgement: Male and Female

We love the person always; but not always what he says or does. These we must judge. And in truth we must correct him if he is in error or sin. In some spheres, the modern mind accepts this as with cigarettes which are bad for you so it is an act of love for me to tell you this. But in the sexual sphere it is not so. For the Catholic, sexuality is sacred as a vehicle of intimacy that images that of God Himself and as a participation in the creation of life, even of an eternal soul. For the secular modern it is sacred but in an opposing way: sexuality is a sacrosanct, private expression of who I am and any judgement by another is an intolerable violation. If I am not directly hurting another, who are you to judge me? There is an absolute intolerance of difference of opinion: it is unthinkable that one suggest anything pathological about pornography, homosexual activity, contraception or cohabitation. It also has to do with the feminine and masculine minds. The strength, and weakness, of the feminine intellect is to move to the concrete, to the person, to synthesize; it is the strength and weakness of the masculine intellect to disengage, abstract, analyze and distinguish. In the act of love and the act of knowing both there always involves both engagement and distance: the counselor who completely engages without distance will be swallowed by the emotion of the client; but one who distances without engagement will be cold and detached. Both are required: union and distance. Love and knowledge are always both: union and distance. The feminine tends strongly to union; the masculine to distance. They need to balance each other. If the immature male mind tends to detachment and abstraction, the immature female brain is weak in distinction, distance and abstraction as it embraces the concrete person. The two need each other to strike a balance in love and knowledge. The contemporary, cultural liberal mind is that of the immature female that lacks paternal influence: immersed in emotion and unable to distinguish. And so, if I critique contraception or cohabitation, I must hate all contraceptors and cohabitators. This intellect is incapable of entertaining the possibility that I might love them and want to separate them from what is toxic and sinful. In theology and politics both, the conservative mind at its worst is that of the immature male and the liberal mind at its worst is that of the immature female. We need each other to grow in wisdom and love.

The Wrath of God

A merciful god, tender, inclusive, tolerant of all...free of wrath...is a soft, "femmy" god without gravitas and unworthy of worship. The God of the Bible is a God of Wrath and of Mercy. His wrath is not against the sinner, whom He loves, but against sin which he detests...which he absolutely does not tolerate...which he takes upon himself and destroys. It is helpful to view the passion and crucifixion of Christ as the final and complete expression of God's wrath. But it is not just the wrath of the Father. Rather, the Son shares fully in this wrath and so he enters into his passion, not just in weakness and passivity like a lamb and victim, although he does surrender in humility and obedience. No, the other side is that our Savior despises sin and enters his passion and death as a champion enters into battle. He despises sin. He absolutely un-tolerates sin. He completely vanquishes sin, guilt and death. He is our champion, riding into hell to deliver us, fearless and reckless and aflame with anger at sin and Satan and the entire realm of darkness. The Catholic iconography of the passion...stations of the cross, sorrowful mysteries of the rosary, bloodied body on the crucifix, Gibson's "Passion"...easily lead the imagination into a feeling of sadness, defeat, and despair. But when Christ talked with Moses and Elijah about his passion on the mountain of the transfiguration, they were not melancholic! They were exultant about this event of unexcelled love: love of Jesus for his Father and for us. But it was also an event of unequaled vigor, passion, strength and triumph: the absolute defeat of sin, death, guilt and the kingdom of darkness. And so, our Church needs more Wrath, more anger against the Darkness, more aversion to sin! Our love for the sinner will be in proportion to our hatred of sin! Our Yes to God will be as strong as our No to Satan! Just like our baptismal promises! Let us pray that our Love and all our loves be fortified by our wrath and hatreds of the Dark Side!

Who AM I To Judge?

It is the most simple and fundamental concept in moral thinking, but the most difficult for many (notably adolescent females and liberals) to comprehend: the distinction between the subjective and the objective. We must judge the act, but not the person!  We can NEVER judge the heart and soul of another person! Never! Not the pope not the Supreme Court...none of us can judge another! But we can and must and constantly do judge actions and ideas!And so we see the confusion caused by our Holy Father when he says, in reference to homosexuality, "Who am I to judge?" On the face of it, he is voicing a Catholic truism with which his predecessors and any informed Catholic would surely agree: Who am I to judge the heart and soul of another person? But he is ambiguous and so he is largely understood to mean:  Who am I to judge these actions, relationships and lifestyles? As Pope, he is, of course, supreme judge of right and wrong; he is our teacher; he is an incomparable source of instruction, for Catholics of course but for others as well. A wise and loving father will firmly and directly admonish his children against sin. It is impossible for us to determine: did this ambiguous statement do more harm or good? Did he do more good by welcoming and affirming active homosexuals? Or did he do more harm by confirming them in error, by enabling them in what is harmful? My view is that truth is essential and not to be watered down! We are, all of us, sinners...hopefully in recovery...and our recovery absolutely requires heavy doses of candor and truth...even if that arouses the ire of those of us still in denial. For my money, Pope Francis is too much of an enabler. He is our "Father" and a father's love is tender and compassionate but also true and just. It can be experienced as a harsh and tough love. By contrast, his is a soft, feminine and inclusive love, lacking firmness, clarity and justice.

Respectfully, Holy Father, We Disagree

Our Catholic Church is in trouble! After the synods clearly renounced his agenda, Pope Francis has covertly led us into division if not outright schism on the specific issue of communion for those divorced-and-remarried-civilly. The German bishops allow it; next door the Polish do not. The German bishops are, of course, implementing the approval (in defiance of the collegial decision) that Pope Francis gave the Argentinian bishops about this practice. This is NOT the Catholic way. It is a binary question: they can or they can't! It is like woman priests and contraception: it is a Yes or a No. It can't be avoided or transcended or finessed. Pope Francis is right or wrong. I stand firmly, clearly, peacefully, confidently, and loyally against our Holy Father, in fidelity to the legacy of two thousand years so recently and stirringly re-affirmed by Popes John Paul II and Benedict. At the very heart of our Catholic faith is marriage of man and woman, indissoluble, as analogue for our conjugal union with Christ in the Eucharist. If you distort these two, you have destroyed the Catholic faith. St. Thomas Moore and countless martyrs suffered tortuous death on behalf of this reality. Our Pope MUST be resisted on this; he must be corrected, perhaps formally by the cardinals or bishops. It is simple: Speak the truth in love!  Hate the sin, love the sinner!  Has no one condemned you? Then neither do I! Go now and sin no more! Truth and Love are not separate from or extrinsic to each other: they belong to each other in a perfect union, a marriage, a communion analagous to the Trinity. If I love you I will be true to you, I will speak the truth to you. If you are in sin, I will tell you the truth and invite you to repent and pray for me, a sinner-in-recovery myself.But it is essential that we witness in a spirit of love and peace. There must be nothing shrill, anxious, judgmental or angry about our witness. Our dispute can and must be civil, respectful and charitable. Unfortunately, Pope Francis himself is not a role model in this regard. He refuses to answer the "Dubia" which were questions for clarification from a group of Cardinals. Instead, he makes a habit of ridiculing his opponents as rigid, moralistic pharisees. His style is emotional, resentful, and contemptuous. And so we do well to emulate his predecessors in style as well as substance: John Paul and Benedict were unfailingly sober, unemotional, peaceful, dignified and respectful as they witnessed to the Truth in Love. Always! Their teaching was reliably profound, clear, faithful to Tradition and yet refreshingly creative. Pope Francis, by contrast, has successfully humanized the papacy in that he is transparent in his confused thinking and personal bias.  By now this is so obvious that it cannot be denied by a sentimental piety of unthinking  submission to papal authority. A healthy family is not one without problems, but one that faces, acknowledges and engages the problems: peacefully, respectfully, directly. And so those of us who love the legacy of JP/Benedict and the Great Tradition now must renounce the positions of Pope Francis which contradict our tradition. But we do so respectfully: he is our Holy Father! Notwithstanding his shortcomings, he is both Holy and Father by virtue of his office. And so, respectfully, Holy Father, we disagree!