[After some thought and debate, I've decided to reinstate the comments. I reckon that if anonymous posters want to make ludicrous accusations, I'll let them]
A friend forwarded a column written by Regina Brett of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I include the text:
How far can church downsize?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Regina Brett
Plain Dealer Columnist
Regionalism has hit the Catholic Church.
You've heard of cities sharing fire trucks, water and taxes?
How do you share Midnight Mass, choirs and church bulletins?
Alternate years for Midnight Mass? Borrow the choir every other Sunday?
Print one side of the bulletin for St. Malachi and the flip side for St. Patrick's?
Like it or not, full-service parishes will soon perish.
All 231 parishes in the Cleveland Diocese will soon change. The diocese will organize all parishes into groups that will share resources and priests.
I can see the bishop flipping through a thesaurus to find the right word to describe what he will do with the churches to combat the dwindling priesthood.
Hmm. Let's see . . . Reorganize. Reconfigure. Reconstitute. Merge. Consolidate. Collaborate. Cluster.
That's it.
Cluster sounds much better than Share A Priest, which is what clustering amounts to. It also sounds better than closing churches, which is bound to happen next.
We should've seen it coming. The trend has swept the nation as fewer men join the priesthood and more priests die and retire.
I still remember the letter from the bishop more than a decade ago addressing the shortage of priests. Our pastor read the letter and said we were to have meetings and talk about how to get along with fewer priests.
When he told us we were not allowed, however, to discuss the issue of married priests or women priests, you could feel a breeze as heads shook collectively in disgust.
We all knew there was a solution. Actually two of them:
Women priests.
Married priests.
End of shortage.
Unfortunately, every pope is deaf in one ear and can't hear out of the other when it comes to ordaining women and married clergy.
Protestant churches use the same Bible, yet they ordain married priests and many of them ordain women.
Fewer priests mean fewer services. We all know that.
It means the folks who paid for the pews and sat in the same one every day for 7 a.m. Mass won't receive communion from the priest once they end up in the nursing home.
It means the engaged woman who was baptized, who celebrated her first communion and confirmation in one church might not get married there because the church is down to one matrimony a week.
It means the troubled soul who lost God can no longer knock on a rectory door and confide in a priest before doing something desperate to find God.
But who knows, it could be part of the master plan.
Maybe in time, we'll end up where we started: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20)
Maybe we never were supposed to depend upon a hierarchy of celibate men.
After all, Jesus promised a comforter, the Holy Spirit, to guide us. He didn't mention popes and bishops and priests.
He kept it simple. As simple as it gets: Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs. Love one another as I have loved you.
The original church wasn't a building. It wasn't a hierarchy. Just people. Two or three, breaking bread.
I guess you could call that a cluster.
As some of you know, blogging Jesuits are to avoid hot-button issues. I feel no need to rehearse the various arguments, pro and con, concerning the male-only priesthood. What I do feel inclined toward is just offering a few thoughts concerning her sentiments:
1. Her argument seems to presuppose that the shortage of priests is the exclusive reason for the clustering. She fails to mention that there are many parishes that are unable to sustain the parish based on its numbers. On Fulton Road, in Regina's own Cleveland, there were two enormous churches built decades ago to accommodate the then-booming Irish and Italian immigrant populations. As these immigrants aged and moved away, the size of the parishes shrunk and these churches were unable to sustain services/programs, leading to church closings.
2. I'm all for nostalgia and tradition. Yet, her appeal to emotion is just glaring: the church building as marriage locale isn't a great reason to keep churches open. Even if we had an excess of priests right now, unless we had the congregations to sustain and support them, it would be utterly foolish to keep some waning parishes running.
3. Her column is a public temper tantrum: complete with a Burger King mentality of "my way, right away." It does not become her. It is true that fewer priests will probably mean that Father won't be able to visit every parishioner in every nursing every week. Or month. But her allusion to a church of "just people. Two or three, breaking bread" seems to suggest that she'd like to see greater participation of the laity in the life of the church. But, if that's the case, why is it so necessary that the it be the priest who brings communion? If "WE" are the church, then shouldn't we step forward as church and minister to one another?
4. Unrealistic. The "priest shortage" is a symptom of a much larger problem, what that far outstrips her facile solution of ordaining "women priests and married priests." Again, I'm not arguing for or against this, but really, Regina, look around. The schism in the Episcopal church concerning the ordination of women/gays should certainly be a reason to tread most carefully. A recent article in the New York Times indicates that even Protestant denominations are having a hard time staffing their churches - their seminarians can find work in other venues (non-ordained ministry, business, education, etc.).
Parish mergers are not, as far as I can tell, a major problem. Yes, there is the pain and grief associated with the loss of someone/something important to you. But I often get the feeling that the "church" as parish has supplanted the Church; there is certainly a temptation to idolatry. Pooling resources and priests eases the burden on already-stretched pastors, perhaps freeing them TO PASTOR rather than administer a parish. Instead of worrying about making mortgage payments, the priests in these 'clustered' parishes might have time to spend with one another and with their parishioners doing what they signed on for in the first place: pastoring the flock.
I think Regina Brett has a benighted vision of reality. Even if she were writing on behalf of *every* American Catholic, she would still represent but 6% of the Roman Catholic Church. The tone of her conclusion about the simplicity of Jesus' message reduces Christianity to little more than collection of do-gooders: so why am I a Christian when I could be in the Elk's Club or a Shriner?
It's because that in Jesus I have met God most fully. In my confession of Jesus as the Christ of God, I am called to live out this confession in the world. This draws me into communion with others, women and men who pray with and for me, who also confess with me that Jesus is Lord. We don't gather together, do good things, and then break bread and *WHAMO* there's Jesus. We are part of a much larger and still-unfolding story of a pilgrim people nourished by Christ's own body and blood, who derive strength and sustenance from it, and continue in their labors to help bring about God's Kingdom. The Eucharist is the source and the end-point of our labors. Nourished on his own body and in response to the love I have known, I go out into the world where I struggle to "feed my sheep. Feed my lambs. Love one another as I have loved you." And I fail. And I return again to the table of the Lord. And I try again. And again.
No, Jesus did not mention priests and bishops. But as a human institution intending to pass down the gospel, to re-create and re-member the Christ in history, they are necessary as teachers and promoters and safeguards.
My fear is that Regina would have the entire church conform to her will. This might well be her image of perfection. A church built around Regina Brett, and not the Christ who continues to invite people to "come and see," is, however, anything but my image of heaven.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Over the last few weeks, I've begun to notice a common refrain from my Hebrew Scripture and New Testament students. Very often, they wil...
-
I'm not a big spender, really. Apart from dining out (my favorite activity) I don't really spend very much money (just look at the w...
10 comments:
Bravo.
p.s. Yes, you read the time correctly.
"Burger King mentatlity"...I like that.
I must be a Burger King kind of gal because Regina speaks to me. I think you purposely emotionalized and misinterpreted her message. Until the elephant in the room (gender/orientation/celibate status of the ordained)is allowed to enter the discussion of the admittedly many factors forcing closures/clusters, the solutions will be based on incomplete truth. You write that a parish is perhaps a false idol for some and clustering may recenter us on Jesus. Perhaps so. I fear more that the disenterested and disenfranchised will not even notice the change! To say the laity can just do what needs doing while the pastor can pastor is patronizing and does not acknowledge the men and women doing more priestly service than some priests! Many wish to do more but do not have the financial and institutional supports given clergy. Jesus, blameless scapegoat, bless all blameful scapegoats, including our Bishops, priests, those not allowed to be ordained,and Regina - and all those with whom we hope to share the good news of Jesus! Bring us to full truth, goodness, beauty and communion. Let us all "Come and See". Janet Lehane
Ryan - Have no fear of ever gaining entry into that camp! I love reading your blog - I voted today for it. I think I see your point. Certainly Church as a business proposition isn't very appealing. Global and socio-economic realities certainly hurt. I don't know how priests have survived some of what all that entails. Actually I might be too aware of some who have not survived it well.
FYI - I have one more chapter to read of Rahner's Foundations of Christian Faith (Of course, I saved the longest chapter for last). It was just something I wanted to prove to myself I could read. Next goal - to understand it!
Take care and keep writing,
Janet
[Originally this post appeared as a reply to Janet's first response]
Dear Janet,
Thank you for your response. True to form, you cut right to the heart of the matter!
"What" Regina says I do not find terribly problematic - she is saying nothing new. What I find difficult is her mode of argument; frankly, I find it completely unconvincing.
She clearly points out that there "is a solution. Actually two of them." What I've pointed out is that I think it's problematic to try to reduce a complicated and unwieldy issue down to two issues. As I indicated my response, I don't find convincing the idea that these are the two solutions - they have not worked in other denominations.
I do not intend to sound patronizing. My suggestion is that in allowing the "pastor to pastor" we free them to do what they wanted to do in the first place: work with and for people. I don't know many who wanted to be administrative functionaries. My hope would be that they would be able to help mobilize and envision new directions and ministries intending to reach out to the disinterested and disenfranchised.
Regina is a talented writer and columnist. I have read her columns for years. So it is dismaying when someone of her acuity fails to highlight the complexity and depth of the situation. The priest shortage, as you pointed out, is a contributing element to parish closings. But there are so many others that she doesn't mention.
Janet, you know I respect your opinion (and I would hate to think you would now place me in the camp of our former classmates at JCU!!). If there is something positive to emerge, it might be a healthy dialogue aimed at clarifying some very thorny issues.
Ryan
Comments are off, comments are on, post appears, post disappears...oy! The spinning! The twirling!
That said, I agree with your take on it AND so does the Curt Jester, who took it upon himself to ordain you as "Fr." Ryan Duns, SJ. Thereby doing his bit to alleviate the shortage. If you'd like to be elevate to the episcopate let me know and we'll talk to him. Apparently he has "pull."
-J.
I am neither RC nor Episcopalian, tho' I used to be the latter.
I was also briefly a Unitarian-Universalist.
But re the issue of "women/gays" in the Episcopal Church, I think that the hullaballoo over ordaining women has died out, so the two issues--women + gays, the latter a BIG problem, shouldn't be linked together. After women started being ordained, a bunch of old white bishops, priests and communicants left, to retire, become Orthodox or RC, whatever. The waters quickly closed over them. Episcopal seminaries are full and their churches well-staffed, which is also true of the mainstream Protestants who ordain women.
My impression is that women make excellent church leaders at all levels and that churches which ordain women benefit by it. I have experienced this in UU directly and observed it in other denominations.
And ordaining married men/women would not solve the priest shortage but it certainly alleviate it. No question that many married deacons and women, including sisters, would like to be ordained.
All of this is an aside, as the ordination of these groups isn't in the cards.
kate's right. The current mess in the Episcopal church stems from raising a practicing homosexual to the bishopric. For the most part, the ordination of women hasn't ruffled any feathers in years. At this point you'd have to be in your 50s to be able to remember what the Episcopal church was like with an all-male priesthood. It corresponds to the age of Catholics who can remember what things were like pre-Vatican II.
However, this is all moot. The underlying understanding of the priesthood is completely different in the Anglican Communion, so there is simply no point in comparing the two flavors of priesthood.
What I'd like to know is 1) what the African and Asian Churches are doing right, and 2) how this could be replicated in Western Europe and in the United States. As far as I know, they're not suffering form a priest shortage.
I agree with many of your points, namely that the issue is a complex on, but I cannot help but disagree on several.
My home parish is expanding the size of the church itself to anticipate a future without a pastor; with an addition, we will be able to have fewer masses with more people.
When I heard this, I was astounded because not only are we going to spend money on an expansion which will need to be expensively maintained for years to come, but we are going to water down the pastoral care because the Vatican has its head in the sand about one of the reasons there is a shortage of priests: celibacy.
I had seriously considered the priesthood once and I did much investigation about what went on behind closed doors, and what I found turned me away forever; compensatory and addictive behaviors (alcohol and food) to compensate for the lack of normal and natural human relationships and in general, many unhappy men trapped in worlds of obsessive hell brought upon by living such a strict life.
I have been told many of the problems do not stem from celibacy, that the priesthood does not attract men who think the priesthood will be some life long cure for what's wrong with them; oh no, there are other reasons.
Yes, this is an area which needs to be treaded upon carefully, but I feel one of the reasons the Vatican refuses to address this elephant in the room is a simple one; practicality. It has been the reason for universal celibacy since after Trent.
If the gender and celibacy requirement were changed, we would have to deal with much greater problems than we have to now with celibate men (of course we have had to deal with many an issue because of celibacy); divorces among clergy, extramarital affairs, the use of birth control by married priests, a demand for female ordination, etc. To not tread into these waters because it will bring complications is foolish.
You say the priest shortage is a matter of a larger problem. A secular culture is on top of that list. Even the protestants are having problems, yes very true. But after what I have seen goes on behind closed doors, celibacy should be included as part of the much larger problem. If the church for expects young men to give their lives to an ideal which drives many to alcohol and food addiction and general misery, then they should reconsider whether this is an ideal worth persuing.
If the Pope overturned celibacy tomorrow, the thousands of deacons in the US could get further education and be fully ordained priests in several years time; also, there are thousands of men who have left the priesthood in the United States, who, correct me if I am wrong, are still technically priests, they just cannot perform priestly duties. If the Church is to be a Eucharistic, sacrament centered church, then the refusal to allow married men, deacons, and former priests to be ordained, then it will fail to do this and the Eucharist will not be the source and summit of our christian life.
I am perhaps being offensive to you, as you have chosen a life of celibacy, but these are the things I have seen and observed, and I am sure you have observed them yourself in your training.
Continuing, the church as a marriage locale is perhaps the best argument for a bishop to try his hardest to keep parishes open. Yes, demographics shift, yes, people move away, but the parish does not belong to the bishop, it belongs to the faithful. Parishes are a life locale for many. Every major event in a person's life can happen in a church; the parish is a resevoir of generations, of memories, of tradition, and famaily.
I read in the NY Times about Egan closing parishes that had willing parishioners who wanted to run the parish, but he insisted on closing them because no priest could be staffed there. That simply boggles my mind. This is not the priest's Church any more, this is the era of the laity, and we are capable of running things without a priest.
Like I said, I agree with you that this is a complex issue. Blaming only celibacy is foolish. Like I said, times change, people move away, orders die out and are born; parish, monastic, and other ecclesial closers have been a part of the church from the beginning, one only need travel to Europe to see ruins in the countryside to see proof of this, but I still maintian the celibacy is huge part of this complext problem.
Post a Comment