Emerging Forms of Church for the 21st Century

A Vision of a = Post-Clerical Church

BVM Network for Women’s Issues
Chicago, IL

January 18, 20= 09

Mary E. Hunt

&nbs= p; We at WATER are always grateful to the BVMs for your strong support and feel t= hat we share many commitments to Justice, Earth, and the Divine Spirit. This da= y is a fitting way to celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King and to prepare ourselves for the change of scenery in Washington that we will welcome this week. I find it exciting to think that we will experience a dramatic historical moment. Of course, I am not naïve abo= ut President Obama. The savior of humanity he isn’t. But today’s opening event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial is a stirring reminder—with Episcopal Bishop Eugene Robinson, an openly gay man, praying the Invocation—that = we are in for some new adventures as a nation. In this New Year we are thinking new thoughts, pondering new problems, even if we do not have good solutions. I = find that refreshing. So today we will ask some new questions as Catholic women = in solidarity with the rest of our nation.&nb= sp;

&nbs= p; Let me begin by saying what I don’t want to do today and then what I do w= ant to do:

I do not want to debate whether or not to ordain women; that= is to buy into a question that serves to divide and conquer women.
I do not want to bemoan the dismal state of the institutiona= l, or what Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza calls the “kyriarchal,= ” church; that is to belabor the obvious and distract our attention from what we can do to create the kind of church we want for ourselves and = those who follow us.
I do want to begin from a women-church perspective, looking = at the needs of the world, not the failings of the church—that is, = to be faithful to who we are and what we are responsible for as mature, religious agents.

&nbs= p; Let’s begin with a question: What does church, in our case, Catholicism, without clergy suggest to you? In other words, if there were no clerics, what would= you miss? Let’s take five minutes to imagine together before we look more systematically at the trajectory from what is now in my view a clergy-cente= red, dysfunctional model to a community-centered healthy model we are in the pro= cess of creating.

<= o:p>

<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> = I begin from a Women-Church perspective (that is, an unabashedly Catholic starting point with “Catholic” understood as in catholicus—broadminded, incl= usive, encompassing all), but not a Roman= perspective. A great myth in our time is that the Roman articulation of Cat= holicism is the normative one. I prefer to be polite, not to mention honest, about the reality of Orthodox Catholics, Anglo Catholics, Old Catholics, women-church Catholics, Call to Action and Commonweal Catholics = in suggesting that there are a range of ways of being Catholic of which Roman = is but one. It is not the normative one and need not be treated as such. =

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Since you as the BVM Network for Women’s Issues are part of Women-Church Convergence, I will simply dust over the basics of that movement to locate = our discussion. I am sure you know that women-church is not for women only. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza coined the term “ekklesia of women,= ” which she and Diann Neu rendered “woman church” in the early 19= 80s, later called “women-church” to signify the plurality of experie= nces diverse women bring to the table. It was never meant to be a church of wome= n. Rather, it was meant to signal that because “church” or ekklesia, according to theologian = Edward Schillebeeckx, had been based on the model of the city-state in which it was the regularly convoked assembly of the free male citizens who gathered to m= ake decisions for themselves, their wives, children, slaves, and animals. In or= der to be what Schüssler Fiorenza called “a discipleship of equals,&= #8221; one had to affix “women” or use some other way to signal those = who were left out if one were to assume the fullness of the Christian claim to inclusivity.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; It is easy to see why this model appeals to us after Vatican II. It is circula= r, not hierarchical, in its design. Participation is expected; one does not ju= st drop in and get fed passively. Justice trumps rubrics whether in liturgy, decision-making, and/or community life.

What began as a Catholic-rooted concept now involves w= omen well beyond the Roman lines. For example, my local group has Protestant wom= en ministers and others involved; a group in Basel, Switzerland, for example, is also mixed with Protestant and Catholic women making up its members.

Women-church is women-centered but not exclusive; chil= dren are welcome and some groups include men, at least some of the time. Women-c= hurch began with Roman Catholic women. As our society becomes increasingly plural= istic—we now have more Muslims than Presbyterians, and increasing numbers of Buddhis= ts, pagans, and others—it is not surprising that we find increasing diver= sity not just among but also within our traditions. Thus we have a legitimate cl= aim to be Catholic even though we do not toe the kyriarchal line on a variety of issues. The hierarchs do not own the church, contrary to popular belief, but are simply a part of it. We women are just as fully Catholic as anyone else, something that I think we find as hard to believe as others do. =

Two dimensions of women-church stand out: I think of t= hem as sacrament and solidarity. In women-church, all baptized Catholics (and n= ow I will speak explicitly to the Catholic aspect) are engaged in ministry with = no distinctions of status. Women-church has no clergy of its own. Of course th= is does not mean that there are no leaders. It is my view that we have not yet figured out how to name, affirm, and empower leaders effectively in women-c= hurch. But we do well without clergy and I think that has implications for the whole/larger church.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Women-church groups seem to manage just fine without clergy. If you stop and ask, “= ;For what do we need clergy?” I think the answer will reflect various kind= s of theology:

· to confect the sacred mysteries— reflects a biologistic approach pre-Vat= ican I (1869-70);

· to make sacraments valid—is mired in a pre-Vatican II theology (1962-65)= ;

· to mediate between God and us—an idea long since discredited;=

· because Rome is structured that way— perhaps the reality, but not good theology!=

<= o:p>

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; We need ministers—people who pay attention and respond to the needs of a community. I have heard ministry described as “creative loitering,= 221; being around, paying attention to the needs of a community. We need lots of ministers, but we do not need any who are elevated beyond the rest of us in terms of their status, decision-making, or sacramental power. We need leaders—people who will take on and carry out tasks for the community—who are animators, facilitators, those who chronicle and communicate. All this we need but we don’t need hierarchy. Nor is there any magic involved, as= is sometime suggested by the notion that the priest’s hands are consecra= ted at ordination to perform the sacraments. The “magic” is in the community that responds to the stirrings of the Spirit and acts for the goo= d of the world.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; The most casual look at the Roman C= atholic Church in the U.S. demonstrates that it is in a profound crisis and that it is reacting to the crisis not as an opportunity for change but as a time to reinscribe and reinforce the old model that does not work. The priest pedophilia and episc= opal cover-ups (they always go together) have thoroughly bankrupted the institut= ion both morally and financially. While this is not altogether evident, I think there is enough data to suggest that within five years things will begin to look different in most local situations.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; The heart of many of the problems at hand is not a few rotten apples in the bus= hel, as the bishops have suggested, but a clerical structure that needs to be replaced. I propose that we replace it with shared ministry, which includes both shared responsibility for the sacramental life of the community as wel= l as shared responsibility for the solidarity component of our Christian commitm= ent whether in education, political work, or caring for those who are poor/sick/young/old, in short, all of the work that women like us do. =

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Let’s think about clericalism and then imagine shared ministry as a feasible alternative. Priesthood has b= een on many women’s minds in light of the emergence of the Roman Catholic Wo= menpriests group which has conducted ordination ceremonies on the Danube, the St. Lawrence, in St. Louis, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere. I have deep res= pect for the women involved in these ordinations though I have difficulties understanding what they are trying to do.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; They claim to be creating a new model of priesthood without getting co-opted by = the old yet they continue to stake their claim to legitimacy on Apostolic Succession, itself a dubious notion in the 21^st century (the han= ds that laid the hands upon the hands…). I am not persuaded that one can square a circle, that one can be a ROMAN Catholic priest and not participat= e in the ORDERED, that is, hierarchical structure that accrues when the notion of priest as different from the rest of us is applied. And if the priest is no= t different from us, as some RCWPs try to insist, then what is the point of ordination? Still, I think these are the wrong questions. When asked to present the progressive case AGAINST women priests, I refuse to do so out of solidarity= with the women and because I think there is no single way to bring about justice= for women and quality ministry.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Rather, I think the fundamental problem is not about ordaining women—heavens, ordaining men is bad enough—but the fundamental problem is creating a clerical caste instead of a “discipleship of equals.” I suggest= we develop a post-clerical church so that we do not get hung up on ordination.= I propose that we stick with the centrality of baptism, conferring priesthood= on all believers, and focus on the needs of the world, not the failings of the church (albeit, the church is part of the world) as setting the agenda four= our ministry.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Let us think for a moment about priesthood. Priesthood in Vatican II: Lumen Gentium, or the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 2, promulgated in 1964, is some hel= p. I warn you it is not the final word because it does mix priesthood of all believers with hierarchical priesthood. In sections 10 and 11, we find a go= od explanation of the idea of priesthood of all believers:

10. Christ the Lord, High Priest taken from among men,(100) made the new people "a kingdom and priests to God the Father".(101) The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the H= oly Spirit, are consecrated as a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, in order that through all those works which are those of the Christian man they may offer spiritual sacrifices and proclaim the power of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light.(102) Therefore all the disciples = of Christ, persevering in prayer and praising God,(103) should present themsel= ves as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God.(104) Everywhere on earth t= hey must bear witness to Christ and give an answer to those who seek an account= of that hope of eternal life which is in them.(105)

Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood a= re nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ.(2*) The ministerial priest, = by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offer= s it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. (3*) They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity.”

11. It is through t= he sacraments and the exercise of the virtues that the sacred nature and organ= ic structure of the priestly community is brought into operation. Incorporated= in the Church through baptism, the faithful are destined by the baptismal character for the worship of the Christian religion; reborn as sons of God = they must confess before men the faith which they have received from God through= the Church (4*).

Rather than clearly deciding the question, I think this text represents the conflict pl= ayed out at Vatican II between those who wanted a clerical model, different by essence not just degree, and those who wanted a priesthood of all believers approach. Happily, we have 40 years of post-Vatican II experience to help u= s to imagine and incarnate new models of priesthood of all belie= vers as well as incorporate our understanding of ministerial priesthood while leaving aside all notions of clericalism.

The Catechism of the Cath= olic Church makes it even clearer:

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefo= re . . . we are members one of another."[71] Baptism incorporates us into t= he Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized in= to one body."[72]

1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."[73] By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, G= od's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light."[74] Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers. (I Peter 2:5, 9)=

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; So you can see that even on its own terms, the Roman Catholic Church connects baptism and priesthood, having to bend itself into a theological pretzel to argue for the uniqueness of ordained priests over the rest of the baptized. Moreover, the mistaken notion that ordained priests are somehow different f= rom the baptized people who are priests, the triumph of a Roman model over a biblic= al communitarian model of church is the essence of clericalism. It presumes th= at the “ordo” or hierarchical ordering of gifts permits and even necessitates a strict structure with assigned places, some involving more access to power and decision making than others. This is the redaction of <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Rome, not a close= reading of the scriptural basis.

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Clericalism is the notion that one who is ordained now belongs to the “clericus,&= #8221; and thus is privileged. The word comes from the Old English clerc, = from L.L. clericus= "a priest," from Gk. klerikos (ad= j.) in church jargon "of the clergy," derived from kleros "lot, inheritance" (orig. "a shard used in casting lots") [Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clerk (accessed: November 05, 2008)].

One could = say that clergy are really clerks, the ones who handle the paperwork. But in no= way are they to be understood as more important or more responsible than teache= rs, pastoral ministers, preachers, theologians, liturgists, musicians, and others who perform useful/necessary functions for the community. Nor is there any reas= on to think that they ought to have special privileges, be paid for their work= , or make decisions for the whole community. But as we know in our post-Vatican = II experience of Catholicism, clericalism is a deep and profound problem that limits and circumscribes the ministries of all baptized Christians. So when= we say we want to live in a post-clerical church, it means that we want to bre= ak down the structures and beliefs, codes, practices and teachings that suppor= t a false and destructive way of organizing ourselves and our baptismally-sanctioned ministries. Recent history is proof that it does not work.

Clericalism takes many forms. Rosemary Radford Ruether calls it “the expropriatio= n of sacramental life, theological education, and church administration from the people.” In contrast she writes, using the term coined by Elisabeth S= chüssler Fiorenza, “A ministry of the discipleship of equals, is, therefore a revolutionary process of reappropriating to the people what has been falsely taken from us” (Rosemary Radford Ruether, Catholic Does Not Equal Vatican, The New Press, 2008, p. 102). She goes on to note, “We a= re reclaiming sacramental life as our rightful entry into redemptive life. Our mutual empowerment in authentic human life is freed from alienating power. = We understand theological education and teaching as our reflections on the mea= ning of reclaiming our authentic life from such distortion. Ministry is the acti= ve work and reflection upon that life; it is also the building of redemptive communities as the bases from which to challenge systems and ideologies of oppression and injustice” (p. 103).

&= nbsp; Clericalism takes may forms. In addition to the obvious reinscribing of it in the ordination service when those who are ordained lay hands on or welcome into= the clericus those being ordained, we can see how women are used over and over = as the way to achieve clerical power. Not only is the Eucharist unavailable to women, but decision making is linked with ordination thus, de facto, kept from women’s hands. This is true whether in terms of property (for example, Massachusetts Women-Church was prohibited f= rom meeting on church property by Bernard Cardinal Law in Boston) or money (for example, payouts = for sexual abuse cases were made without consulting beyond the clergy ranks). B= ut, more subtly, oppressing women is a signature of clericalism.

&= nbsp; If you have seen the new movie “Doubt,” you know what I mean when I say that clericalism sets the parameters for how we are Catholic. Women who= are members of religious communities, no matter how powerful, are still below t= he bright red line that divides clerics from lay people. Clericalism in the mo= vie is portrayed as dangerous. The priest has authority by virtue of his status, not his competence. He also has unfettered access to children as well as the presumption of good intentions—a child beloved of Father is blessed. Nuns, by contrast, are shown in the move to be the quintessential laity—lower in status by virtue of their being, expected to be obedie= nt to a fault and not use their common sense. You begin to see the toll clericalism takes on everyone—children in danger, ordained men with little perspective on their skills and position, women religious trying to = do the right thing in a dysfunctional situation. It is a complicated movie and worth a good discussion, but at base clericalism is the “absent referent” (the term comes from feminist theorist Carol Adams, The Sexual Politics of Meat), that which is not mentioned but underlying the whole church.

&= nbsp; Even inveterate church-watchers like me are occasiona= lly taken aback, as we were recently, by the St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke’s declaration of interdict= against Louise Lears, a Sister of Charity. Her “grave crime”= was supporting and attending (with 600 others) the ordination of two Catholic women—both of whom were promptly excommunicated by the same bishop. T= he day after his declaration, the Vatican announced that Archbishop Burke has been named head of the Apostolic Signat= ura, its highest court of canon law where such cases are heard on appeal. He will undoubtedly be elevated to cardinal soon. Quid quo pro, perhaps? Clericalism, for sure, maybe even mortal sin but, who’s counting?!

&nb= sp; Louise Lears was a pastoral minister at St. Cronan Parish, an inner city church in= St. Louis, and a religious education coordinator for the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The Archdiocese authorized videotaping of the offending ordination service, hel= d in a synagogue no less, to assure that those who attended for such perfidious purposes were not themselves subject to penalty.

&nb= sp; For the uninitiated, the “interdict” in this case (there are several sorts of interdict—who knew?) means that this woman is prohibited from receiving most sacraments (if, God forbid, she were in danger of death she could receive communion according to the law) and from working in any minis= try related to the Archdiocese. Interdict differs from excommunication in the technicality that one under interdict is, strictly speaking, still in commu= nion with the larger church while the excommunicated is not. But both decrees effectively drum their recipients out of the corps. Who would presume to do this but someone who felt he, or God forbid she, had more power than the re= st of us.

&nb= sp; Such decrees do not mean a lot in everyday life, as most thinking Catholics have moved on from the notion that the institutional church dispenses the sacram= ents the way a gas station provides fuel for a car. Rather, such declarations are meant to bring attention to what the kyriarchal ch= urch does not like, what annoys those who have the power to act on their annoyan= ce. They are a chance for bishops to flex the little bit of ecclesial muscle th= ey have left. The whole thing seems rather quaint, like a medieval morality pl= ay for a post-modern audience. The words ring a bell, but the concepts do not translate in a world fraught by wars and vexed by global warming. Bishops, = it would appear, have a lot of time on their hands. Clericalism functions in t= his respect to keep them busy with paperwork while the needs of the world go unattended.

&nb= sp; Acting against progressive Catholic women is a tried and true way for men of the R= oman Catholic Church to get a promotion. Several contemporary instances show that church history repeats itself. For example, in 1983 an auxiliary bishop from Brooklyn, Anthony Bevilaqua, was dispatched by the Vatican to Michigan where Mercy Sister Agnes Mary Mansour had been appointed to head the state’s Department of Social Services. Her office handled funding for abortions for poor women. Though she was personally opposed to abortion, she had accepted the governor’s invitation to do a job in a religiously pluralistic setting and she intended to fulfill her commitment. Mansour was forced by Bevilaqua to choose between her job and her membership in her religious congregation. She chose the job on principle, leaving the order reluctantly, and remaining close to her sisters all of her life. Bevilaqua became bishop of Pittsburgh shortly thereafter. How do you spell clericalism?

&nb= sp; Another such instance occurred in 1986 when then auxiliary bishop Donald Wuerl was dispatched to Seattle. In an extraordinary administrative move, he agreed to take over some of the responsibilities that the Vatican alleged progressive Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen was soft on, including women’s involvement in ministry and the role of lesbian and gay peopl= e in church life. The awkward, not to mention insulting, arrangement failed, with Hunthausen’s authority eventually restored. Wuerl was quickly sent ho= me to Pittsburgh where he became bishop, while Bishop Bevilaqua was promoted to the more prestigious Archdiocese of Philadelphia where he was made cardinal three ye= ars later. Wuerl has since been rewarded as the head of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC (often a place that has a cardinal). He leaves out mention of his Seattle stint on his official biography. I would too in his shoes. But the real iss= ue here is not the man’s integrity but the structure’s problems, w= hich are clerical in origin.

&nb= sp; Moving against progressive Catholic women is apparently a stepping stone to higher privilege in the Roman Catholic Church. If so, the institution must live in deep and abiding fear of our power. There is no such thing as a general assembly or a meeting of the whole where lay people would have voice, if not vote. So Catholic lay women and men (better: baptized Catholics who are priests) have to be endlessly creati= ve in our efforts to be church.

&nb= sp; I suggest it is time to use a new language among us—to leave aside the clergy/lay language and speak of ourselves as baptized Catholics who are priests. By the way, if you ever ca= tch yourself speaking of “nuns and the lay women” or “sister and the laity” you will realize how deeply socialized we all are in a fundame= ntally flawed logic and the linguistic missteps that go with it. Such distinctions= among us as women have no place in a discipleship of equals.

&nb= sp; This is why ordination of women is risky business The ordained women engage in a variety of ministries—as hospital chaplains, house church leaders, ca= mpus ministers, etc.—despite their lack of official recognition, in fact in spite of a recent Vatican pronouncement = that excommunicated any women ordained and the bishops who ordain them. I have g= reat respect from these women’s work and I attribute only the best of intentions to their efforts. But I have deep reservations about using the language (“ordained,” “Roman Catholic priest,” R= 20;bishop,” and so forth), clothing, and sacramental models of a clerical system to move beyond it. I fear we are reinforcing some of the trappings of clericalism&#= 8212;position, title, presiding at the Eucharist—that I think we need to undo or suf= fer yet more consequences.

&nb= sp; Other recent events clarify the centrality of women in the nexus of religious pow= er. The decision on the part of the Church of England to ordain women bishops in the next decade sent chills through Rome= . It responded reflexively that such a move would make relations between the = two churches difficult because clericalism obviously cannot admit women even if they are not their own. The University of San Diego recent= ly offered a prestigious chair in Catholic theology to eminent Catholic femini= st professor Rosemary Radford Ruether= , only to withdraw the offer under pressure from those who would question Ruether’s Catholic bona fides. Dr. Ruether is a prolific Catholic sch= olar who writes in support of many of the issues that the Vatican fears most: womenR= 17;s ministerial leadership, women’s reproductive choice, women’s se= xual choice, women’s insistence on ecology and justice. How frightening women’s power has become when we are prepared to call a halt to the <= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Vatican= ’s nonsense, articulate other well founded theological views, and persuade our fellow baptized priests that we are church in its fullness

&nb= sp; Perhaps there really is something to fear about baptized Catholic (let’s not = say lay anymore) power. Now that there is a growing cohort of baptized Catholic women and men trained in theology and canon law, we cannot be lied to nor d= efrauded by the hierarchy. Members of women’s religious communities, albeit in reduced numbers and with a median age well over 70, are leading the green revolution on their own properties such that bishops living in mansions have little claim on Gospel values. Young Catholics puzzle over the notion that = they are not “free to be you and me” when it comes to their experien= ce of church. Many move on to religious groups where they can be full members, ministers if they wish, and agents of their own spirituality.

&nb= sp; Baptized Catholics have the power to transform a seemingly intractable institution i= nto a cooperative community. We are exercising it in a variety of ways with slow but sure results. Power is meant to be shared, not feared. Catholic people = do not seek to turn the tables. We seek to open the tables to all who wish to participate, even bishops. This is the opposite of excommunication and interdict. This is an end to clericalism and the start of a church based on shared ministries.

&nb= sp; One of the clearest signs of clericalism is how parishes are being closed around the country with little or no input from the local people who will be most deeply affected. But the response to such injustice only proves that we can live quite well and faithfully without clericalism. Take the case of St. Frances Xavier Cabrini in Scit= uate, MA. The New York Times reported that “for 1533 days the group at = St. Frances has taken turns guarding the building around the clock so that the archdiocese cannot lock them out and put it up for sale. They call it a vig= il but it is more of a lifestyle” (NYT 1/6/09, p. 1, “In a Quiet Rebellion, Parishioners Keep the Faith and a Vigil,” by Abby Goodnoug= h).

&nb= sp; The article quotes one parishioner, Margy O’Brien, 78, who said, “My generation of Catholics have paid, prayed and obeyed, but you get to a point where you’ve had it.” The author observes, “Many of the S= t. Frances holdouts describe being transformed from passive Catholics top passionate, deeply involved members of a spiritual community that they say could be a model for the future of the troubled Catholic Church.” Whe= n we think we of Women-Church are unique, it is nice to know that many a parish-= going Catholic is right there with us. In fact, in this instance women conduct the services and distribute communion that has been consecrated by an ordained priest. But I would bet you that within a year or five they will be doing t= hat themselves.

&nb= sp; Abby Goodnough, the New York Times a= uthor, concludes, “Some parishioners have grown so disenchanted with the Catholic Church hierarchy and so fond of the vigil routine that they cannon= s imagine returning to the old way.” One parishioner, Mary Dean 61, sums it up: "I cannot go back to the priest and the vestments and that, I always f= elt, prince-of-the-church approach.” I conclude: the death of clericalism = is upon us.

&nb= sp; One more element is pushing this new model into being. The New York Times carried a recent front-page three-part series on imported Catholic priests who have been the solution to many dioceses’ priest shortage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/us/28priest.ht= ml

http://www.nytime= s.com/2008/12/29/us/29priest.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/us/30priest.ht= ml

&nb= sp; Three issues stood out in the analy= sis:

1. Most of the priests come from developing countries through arrangeme= nts made by U.S. bishops to basically buy their labor, sending money back to their home dioc= eses for their work. It read to me like the “male order” brides, giv= ing men from developing countries a chance to live in the North/West while buyi= ng them like a commodity.

2. I was scandalized by h= ow the clerics themselves are thought of with regard to their ministry. It is apparently enough that they are validly and licitly ordained. It is not con= sidered necessary that they have the linguistic or cultural skills to minister in settings that are completely new to them. This is clericalism boiled down to its rawest form where a young man who barely speaks English arrives on the scene to be the pastor or the even sacramental leader of a community that h= as plenty of its own baptized Catholics who are priests to handle its needs. C= lericalism is unjust to the priest and unjust to the community but it is what a clerico-centric church requires.

3. To add insult to injury, I always thought such priests came from the surplus of ordained men in their countries. But looking at the numbers in t= he New York Times’ report it is= clear that we in the U.S.<= /st1:place> have a lower priest-to-parishioner ratio than in many developing countries despite their seemingly large number of available priests. For example, US 1510:1; Nigeria 4214:1; Philippines 8478:1. It seems, rather than taking their surplus, we are once more “consuming” all we want because we can pay for it. It is akin to how= we use far more of the earth’s natural resources than belong to us simply because we can pay for them. We have commodified the labor of priests in or= der to keep in place a cleric-centric theology.

&nb= sp; Interestingly, it seems that some bishops in developing countries will not be sending any = more of their priests as they find they need them for their own growing congregations. Since U.S. seminaries are not graduating large numbers of priests, the problem of clericalism will change one way or another shortly. This may be the Holy Spirit’s way of bringing us to our theological senses.

<= o:p>

I conclude with some Frequently Asked Questions about this general approach:<= o:p>

Are we in danger of bec= oming Protestant? There is nothing wrong with being Protestant if we are Christian and c= an learn from Protestants about models of ministry. But not having a cler= gy caste will not make us Protestant. We still have and need ministers, a= nd we are still Catholic.
What about leadership, especially sacramental leadership? We need to name, affirm, and empower leaders who facilitate our sacramental life as well as we affirm teach= ers and counselors, preachers, and administrators. But they all serve at t= he pleasure of the community rather than the community conforming to their pleasure as in the case of clericalism.
How do we explain this = new concept of Catholic priesthood of all believers to people from other religions? Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza tells the story that as a= graduate student in Germ= any she confronted Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then a professor of theology= , on his understanding priesthood. She asked why women could not be ordained since his theological model seemed to invite it. He allowed as to how = she was right, but he asked rhetorically what would distinguish us then fr= om other Christians if we did not exclude women from the priesthood. Likewise, I think we can assume that if we do not ordain anyone for a while until we sort out the theological issues we would no longer be distinguished from other Christians by the nature of our ordination. I submit this might be a good thing!
What will happen to our parishes? It is already happening. Baptized Catholics are doing minist= ry in unprecedented numbers and to great effect. The number of ordained priests is dwindling; importing priests to shore up a model of church = that is over is unsatisfactory. God forbid ordained women or even married m= en step into the gap. Rather, what challenges us now is how to develop new models of church and ministry that are adequate to the needs of the wo= rld, not the limits of Rome.

<= o:p>

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; We are moving into a new paradigm of church whether we want to or not given the shortage of priests, the cost of buildings, the scandal of pedophilia and cover-ups and, let’s hope, some evolving theological ideas about what= it means to be a Catholic in a pluralistic world. We have choices: the Ratzing= er approach which is to shore up more power in the hands of a few and create a= leaner/meaner church, or a women-church approach which is to socialize the ministerial responsibilities and develop models of shared ministry. The question for us= is how we are living a post-clerical church ourselves and what we can do to br= ing it about gracefully.