Models of Vocation
James Davidson and Dean Hoge have an essay in this week’s
Commonweal entitled “Mind the Gap.” It highlights an emerging gap between the
ways that clergy and laity understand their respective roles in the Church.
The core of this gap is a disjunction between two models of
priesthood. The first is a “servant-leader”
model where priests work in a collaborative fashion with laity. The “cultic” model, by contrast, emphasizes
the priest “as a man set apart” and sees the laity having a more limited role.
Although I’m generally a fan of both Davidson and Hoge’s
work, I don’t find the distinction between the “servant-leader” and the “cultic”
models to be helpful. Adopting this
framework is as likely to exacerbate the tensions they identify as to resolve
them.
First of all, the terminology is problematic. In particular, the use of the word “cultic” as
an apparent synonym for “authoritarian” carries the implicit suggestion that it
is wrong for priests to place great emphasis on their liturgical
responsibilities. This is hardly the
teaching of Vatican II, which argued famously that the liturgy was the “summit”
and “fount” of Christian life and that “no other action of the Church can equal
its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.”
Secondly, the authors deduce the existence of this “cultic”
mindset by the response of priests to statements that are theologically ambiguous. Davidson and Hoge are concerned, for example,
that younger priests respond in the affirmative when asked whether “ordination
confers on the priest a new status or permanent character which makes him
essentially different from the laity.”
While more redolent of scholastic terminology than I might prefer, this
statement is not at variance with
what the Church teaches about the priesthood (see CCC 1547). So why should affirming it be considered
evidence of a “cultic” mindset?
Thirdly, the classification of priests according to these
two models reinforces a simplistic narrative of how the priesthood is changing:
where once we had (good) “Vatican II” priests, we now have (bad) “John Paul II”
priests. I, too, am concerned about
seminarians who seem to know nothing more of the Catholic tradition than what
they have read in the Catechism. On the
other hand, would it be offensive to suggest that there are at least some
laypeople whose ecclesiology owes less to Vatican II and more to a vague
congregationalism absorbed from the surrounding culture?
I am not blind to the problems that Davidson and Hoge want
to highlight. Priests who cannot build
strong collaborative working relationships with lay staff and volunteers will
do enormous damage to the Church. In my
experience, however, petty ecclesiastical tyrants are no longer solely a clerical
phenomenon.
There’s no question that the emerging generation of priests
is different in many ways from those who came before them. That’s true of the laity, too, by the
way. The potential for conflict is
real. Sociology can help us understand
and reduce those conflicts, but not if we insist on stuffing people into the
tired old “liberal” and “conservative” boxes.
We need a broader set of categories.
Mary Ann Reese, the coordinator of Young Adult Ministry for the
Archdiocese of Cincinnati, wrote an article for
in 2003 where she developed eight different categories to help her understand
the diversity of the young people she was encountering. What struck me about her approach was that
she seemed sincerely interested in getting inside the heads of these kids and
understanding their various points of view.
We need more of this kind of thinking. We need diverse models of lay and priestly
ministry that can help the emerging generation of clergy and laity to better
understand each other and their respective vocations. Models that emphasize—and even
exacerbate—polarization are not going to get the job done.
At the risk of going way off topic with this one could I ask if anyone has seen the extremely visually beautiful Italian film about a seminary near Venice – ‘In Memory of Me’, which opened here in the UK earlier this month. Very interesting debate within it about what a priest is meant to be. I went to see it last night in London courtesy of a free ticket from the Tablet. Would be interested to hear what other people have made of it.
Peter,
If Davidson and Hoge’s data conflicted with most anecdotal evidence–cited by liberals and conservatives (I know, I know, you don’t like that language)–I would be more inclined to agree with you. And while I agree that the definitions are inelegant (as is often the case in social science–they have to come up with something measurable), the reality is that while only a small percentage of laypeople will have a parish or diocesan leadership role that could be compared to that of priests, all parish priests have a leadership role by virtue of their state. So I think your complaint that hey, the laity can be jerks too! limps as a criticism of their work in general, and this article in particular. You don’t believe Davidson or Hoge would disagree with you about that, do you?
Here’s the Church Apologist from the article you cite:
The Church Apologist
The “Church Apologist” group is especially filled with awe for the transcendent God, and its members are dedicated to personal prayer, learning and spreading fervor for Catholicism among Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Colleen Carroll explores their faith in her recent book The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy.
To counterbalance the often murky standards of our culture, members of the Church Apologist take comfort in the clarity of the new catechism and the teaching of Pope John Paul II. They see Christianity in combat with evil in the world and their language evokes military imagery, speaking of prayer warriors and soldiers of Christ. Their prayer centers on traditional devotions like eucharistic adoration and the rosary.
Challenges: Church Apologist people can experience tension within less traditional families and faith communities because of their views and the vigor with which they promote them.
Gifts: These young adults are highly motivated and capable of seeking out the many spiritual resources available to them, like Steubenville programs, Youth 2000 and membership in movements like Opus Dei or traditional religious communities. With their wholehearted dedication, the ministries they create can grow and become self-sustaining over the long haul.”
Peter, I think this is a very nice of saying “culture warriors.” if this group produces the priests, how likely do you think they are going to be to want to engage in a search for “Mutual understanding”? And to be fair, how many of her “creative types” are going to have a whole lot of patience for them? Or much of the rest of the categories, for that matter?
It’s not the labels that are the problem; it’s the tensions inherent in the underlying visions of reality.
I agree wholehearedly with Peter’s analysis in terms of content and spirit.
I think the issue of collaboration is in fact hampered, not by the role of priest, or models or any other category that can be altered but is a consequence of the ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church reflected in its canon law which in turn impacts on governance on a local (diocesan) and parish level.
The reality of the situtation is that, according to the existing government model, pastors have bottom line responsibility in the governance of parishes. Parish councils to not serve as corporate boards of directors (following profit and not for profit models).
Consequently, if there is a desire for reform it has to start at a fundamental structural level. This means looking at ecclesiology very, very differently. We are, however, locked into a feudal paradigm. It doesn’t matter how pretty we try to make it, it is what it is.
The RC church does not understand itself according to a congregationalist model (although as Ratzinger pointed out most people due to the influences of democratic culture) feel much more at ease in this structure. So people talk like Catholics but feel instinctively like Protestants.
There are realities underlying the language that go beyond the liberal/conservative divide. Most people have a cultic view of the priesthood, understanding the priests as existing for the purpose of the sacraments. This cultic view may be heightened in areas where priests are in short supply. (Who knows what would happen in other places, since they do not exist.)
Perhaps the best solution is to emphasize the transitional diaconate. The first step of the cult is ordination as a deacon, or servant. This is a permanent character that persists no matter what other ordinations occur.
Jim M
Dear George,
“The RC church does not” but “most people” do? What happened to the church is the people? I assume what you are trying to say is that cultic feudalist people teach the church is cultic feudalist ways, while most people understand the Church according to a different model.
Let’s not forget that “ecclesia” originally meant the governing body of Athenian democracy. It has been the chosen descriptor of the Christian community for 2000 years, no matter what a millenium’s worth of cultic feudalist teachers claim.
Thanks for the responses so far.
One of the points I’m trying to make is that not all priests who would be classified as “cultic” under D&H’s system are hard-core authoritarians who want to drive the laity out of the parish offices.
I have encountered, for example, younger priests who are very traditional in their piety and approach to moral questions, but who are liturgically all over the map. I have encountered priests who love traditional liturgy but who, while still affirming the Church’s sexual teaching, aren’t hyperventilating about the fact that many of the laity are ignoring it. I know self-described “meat and potatoes” priests who are pretty “by the book” but have no patience with the culture wars.
When I was reading D&H’s article, I wondered about the Jesuit seminarians I study with. They are generally more conservative than the Jesuits who are teaching them (although not dramatically so) and might well respond in ways that would classify them as “cultic.” But I’m reasonably confident that most of them will be very collaborative when they actually got out into ministry.
I’ll also say I’m a bit cynical about the whole “servant-leader” thing. I’ve known priests who would say all the right things on that survey, but operationally are still pretty dang clerical.
One final point is that the increasing diversity of the priesthood is going to affect how this plays out. In my experience, the hard core “Church Apologist” is pretty much an Anglo phenomenon. Here in the Diocese of Oakland, I don’t think we have a single man of European descent currently studying for the priesthood. Because of their cultural background, our recently ordained often confound models developed in more monocultural settings.
Social-science surveys always prompt those of us who read them to voice countervailing “evidence.” I’m guilty of it myself (more recently with Christian Smith’s work). Yes, we all know the theologically liberal priest who runs his parish like a tyrant. And who hasn’t met the theologically conservative priest who is deeply collaborative when it comes to parish leadership. But that doesn’t negate the data. It’s worth pointing out that religious priests stack up quite differently against their secular counterparts in Hoge’s–and others’– studies. Though the gap is narrowing, it is still significant.
If I remember correctly, the word “cultic” was agreed upon by researchers (including Hoge and Davidson) on a previous study. It was seen as a compromise term and not exact, because an exact term could not be found for the younger priests.
I wish I had the biblical chops to do this, but someone else might be able to speak intelligently about the distinction between the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods as an interesting parallel to the non-cultic vs. cultic models of priesthood.
But the greater questions remain. First of all, is there an unnecessarily divisive comparison being made? Secondly, could it be that the Catholic Church is in fact regaining its priesthood after a period of undue irenicism?
I found Davidson and Hoge highly germane, even if you don’t like the labels or don’t want to overgeneralize.
If, as in an earlier discussion, young folks are deeply concerned about social justice and also an increased role for the laity, I’d ask how many of the JPII priests are willing to serve in innner city and how man yse themselves as “other” than the laity?
It’sd not a question of the individual goodness of the priest, but how he serves the Christian community and what he perceives his place to be in that.
Jim:
My understanding of the term ecclesia has to do with the fact that it is a called community set apart from and distinct from the rest of the population. The mission of the ecclesia is to continue with the mission of Christ (post-resurrection).
The issue of how this ecclesia organizes itself and understands the role of ministry is critical. If we return to Biblical sources, and early Christianity it is hard to see how the current model of priesthood as understood in the Catholic church coheres with ministry in the Biblical sense.
This is the fundamental issue that drove the reformation and I think that many Catholic theologians, in point of fact, agree with the Reformers.
Thus, the fundamental issue is ecclesiology. I, although a Catholic, fundamentally cannot intellectually accept nor can assent to the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church as enunciated in Lumen Gentium.
But I am not in the seminary nor in a religious house and so do not have to face this issue of conscience in a fundamental way.
That said, I cannot blame new priests for assenting to the teaching of the Church as they are being ordained into a corporate body and so need to accept the corporate’s self understanding. Just as managers in any corporation need to accept the policy and management style of the corporation until they rise in postion and are able to make changes to the structure.
We are a long way from that since the Catholic church asserts that its structure is divinely inspired.
So we are at an impasse and the only way it can be resolved is at the level of ecclesiology.
Roma locuta est, causa finita est – I suppose.
Just my opinion but….. I think we need to bring clarity to the issue as opposed to concealing it behind servant-leader, cultic, etc. descriptions as that is more of a symptom than anything else.
Peter, thanks –that response helped me get your point better.
A couple of quick thoughts:
-I think the asertion that Church leaders don’t take sociology seriously enough is valid and to the point here.
-apropos of Georhe D.’s comment on management, I’m reminded of the old axion; “in every organization there’s an above the line and a below the line, Above the ;ine is by the book policy; below the line is how things really get done.” That’s why successful management has both successful top down and bottom up communication.
Maybe we could have a thread on models of ecclesial management (pace Bishop Bruskewitz?)
All the sociological studies show 1) that the vast majority of younger Catholics are as liberal if not more liberal on moral/social issues as the “Vatican II” Catholics; 2) there is a minority, DEDICATED minority, of Catholics who fit the “JPII” model–Colleen Carroll talks about them. They fit the Apologetic mode described above. These are the people likely to become the “Professional Catholics” of the next generation.
So the question is, what about the clash between these two groups. The JPII Catholics may say the “Vatican II” Catholics will die off soon. The bigger problem, it seems to me, is the Catholics in their own cohort .
The question I think is interesting is whether anybody’s done a study of what form apologetics has to take in order to be effective, particularly with a highly educated target group.
I couldn’t access the article, and maybe this is in there, but here goes anyway. It’s a grave mistake to think that the priest, whatever model you use, can do everything. In years gone by, the “gap” between a “cultic” priesthood (I too hate these labels) and the needs of the laity was filled by religious sisters. Here’s the elephant in the living room: The nuns are no longer here. Yet the Church is very slow to accept lay ecclesial ministry. Mind the gap, indeed. But I would suggest it’s a FEMALE gap, and we would be asking different sorts of questions if we were serious about filling it.
Peter Nixon has, unintentionally, given me a chance to ventilate. I’m going to grab it in this post and in the one I’ll follow with.
In my limited experience, I know of no parish priest, young or old, who doesn’t want to run things his own way without much open discussion. Lay ecclesial ministers and volunteers, as best I can tell, do the jobs the pastor gives them. Some have some discretion about how to do what they’re assigned to, but they have little or nothing to say about which projects the parish will sponsor. I hope that my experience is very atypical.
Maybe there are multiple versions of clericalism. But the name of the game remains, so far as I can see, “Father knows best about every issue he takes it into his head to insist upon his position
Peter,
Thanks for a most relevant post. I would make some distinctions or at least clarify some points. Vatican II is not the last word on things even for progressives. Second, all camps quote VII for their own ends.With reference to prieshood, I do not see how you can reasonably discuss it unless you attempt to explain the absence of priests in the Pauline community.
Labels can be so misleading. I mix in with apologetic communities, believe it or not. The people there have been coopted by JP II affilitates. And this particular community stands out in apparent numbers because most pastors support it. On the other hand the people under the pastors, other than the core of this group, are not in this category. Further, people are more comfortable not contradicting the pastor. In this vein, recall the words of Richard McBrien that this group has the upper hand as to being the “official” voice of the church under Karol and Joseph.
Perhaps more important for working relationships within the church we should not get as excited about differences when engaging and concentrate on what we all want for the Body of Christ. The problem is that it is too easy to retrench into a combative position when bombarded with the opposite view.
Rita brings a most important element into the mix. Women will no longer be subservient nuns but are now leading the way in theology and renewal. I believe we will wake up one day and understand how real this is.
I like the point many are making here that many pastors do not live up to their labels. That has to mean that we need engagement, engagement and more engagement.
Ventilation 2:
It’s all well and good to have lay ecclesial ministers and parish volunteers. But what is the meaning of the phrase “vocation of the laity?”
More specifically, do the jobs that the laity have in society have a Christian significance? Of course, these jobs require moral conduct. But what is the specifically Christian significance of their jobs for the societies in which they live? Can we say with any specificity whether the Christian significance of being a nurse differs from that of being a grocery clerk, a financial analyst, a supply chain manager? I’m not, of course, trying to rank these occupations. But if I were asked to tell both the nurse and the grocery clerk why their jobs have Christian importance, would I have to retreat into generalizations like “You’re serving the community,” or “You’re taking part in God’s continual creative action?”
In the absence of better answers (which I myself surely don’t have), then won’t all of us, clergy and laity think about our religious practice–apart from considerations of morality– as having as its center what goes on in the parish buildings?
It was not always so. In Chicago and elsewhere in the ’50s and ’60s there were lay run Catholic Adult Education programs, lay run publications that talked about the dignity of labor and the role of responsible labor unions, organizations like the Catholic Rural Life ministry, a joint clergy-lay endeavor to talk about issues particularly associated with farming.
The task of developing an up-to-date theology of lay work, a task that Vatican II seems to demand has not yet gotten off the ground, at least in the U. S. Until it does, we’ll have some notion of the vocation of the clergy, but precious little about the vocation of lay men and women. No wonder all of us can do little more than wait for Father to call the shots.
That’s the end of my ventilation. Again, thanks Peter.
Peter,
thank you for your thoughtful and measured comments.
I was reminded of something Christopher Ruddy wrote in his book, Tested in Every Way: the Catholic Priesthood in Today’s Church (reflections inspired by a Common Ground Conference on Priesthood).
“The way forward will involve overcoming, sociologically and theologically, the cultic/servant-leader dialectic that paralyzes much contemporary reflection on priesthood. That way of framing the identity question is spent, for it has outlived the usefulness it once had.”
Ruddy then goes on to sketch a “Eucharistic-centered” approach to understanding the identity of the ordained priesthood. Quoting, as you do, Sacroscanctum concilium, 10.
By chance, over the weekend, I was reading Henri de Lubac’s splendid book on the Church. (I find it hard to believe that I had first read it as a senior in college almost fifty years ago.) Much of Vatican II is already present in the book, Meditation sur l’Eglise (The Splendor of the Church in its misleading English title).
I was struck by this sentence of de Lubac: “The priest is not, in virtue of his priestly ordination, more of a Christian than the ordinary believer; the Order he has received is for the sake of the Eucharist, but the Eucharist is for the sake of everyone.”
Such an interesting thread, as was the earlier one that discussed Fr. Stanosz’s article in Commonweal.
Perhaps this has already been mentioned, and I apologize if it has, but there is another demographic that it seems to me may greatly affect how priests and the laity regard their respective roles in the decades to come. With vocations among American Catholic men at such a low point, the American Catholic Church is becoming a missionary Church that is more and more dependent on foreign priests. In my diocese, for example, there has been a slow but steady flow of priests from Africa and Asia, especially India, to handle the staffing of parishes on a permanent basis. From what I’ve read about this influx, it is predicted that it will grow significantly in the years to come.
I happen to think the increase in foreign priests is a good thing in many ways. They are a visible reminder of the universality of the Church and in many respects an antidote to the parochialism of many American Catholics. Cultural exchange is always a good thing, IMO, but how these foreign-trained priests perceive their roles (cultic? servant-leader? Eucharistic-centered (to use Fr. Imbelli’s suggestion)?), and what other unique attributes and outlooks they bring to their vocations, may be influencing the American CC for a long time to come.
Concerning the different interpretations of the priesthood, I am reminded of an article by the young Avery Dulles about what he called the sacral model and the ministerial/elder model (or something along those lines) of the priesthood. He then postulated a third alternative (hybrid) model whose name also escapes me.
I was unable to find a copy of it on the internet. Perhaps someone here with better googling skills than myself could help. If my memory serves me (there remains a distinct chance that it doesn’t) I found the article initially in the CD that accompanies the latest edition of Raymond Noll’s book “Sacraments”.
Adam
I think both George D and Bob Imbelli were heading down the road that I would like to chime in with . There certainly should be no conflict between the “cultic Priesthood” and the “servant leader” ( both equally terrible terms). I think it is very important to remember that in the church of St Paul once you were baptised all were equal. There was no Jew or Gentile, male or female….
Also for the “Body” to work together the weakest member is as important as the strongest. I thing the problems arise when somebody thinks that sacraments, ordinations, titles make you “more” equal . In our parish, when the Bishop comes, they think the parish should be turned upside down, but nobody can tell you why. This is what leads to conflict. I don’t think they teach this even in the new seminary curricula, but some graduate “more equal” than the rest of the praying community.
I’m not sure I have ever entirely understood anti-hierarchical sentiment.
Do the same people who would like an exclusively servant-leader model also want to abolish tenure? Seniority of all kinds? Editorial control of cub reporters?
St. Paul recognized ranks of service. It’s a motif that really runs throughout his letters–beginning with the respect the communities owed him.
Fascinating thread. I love it when the ole’ binary thinking is challenged.
Two comments of Peter’s that haven’t been commented upon. The first implies that ‘cultic’ priesthood might be linked to a open ended sense of Catholic congregationalism:
“I, too, am concerned about seminarians who seem to know nothing more of the Catholic tradition than what they have read in the Catechism. On the other hand, would it be offensive to suggest that there are at least some laypeople whose ecclesiology owes less to Vatican II and more to a vague congregationalism absorbed from the surrounding culture?”
And what of the race and ethnicity piece?
“One final point is that the increasing diversity of the priesthood is going to affect how this plays out. In my experience, the hard core “Church Apologist” is pretty much an Anglo phenomenon. Here in the Diocese of Oakland, I don’t think we have a single man of European descent currently studying for the priesthood. Because of their cultural background, our recently ordained often confound models developed in more monocultural settings.”
Comments?
also want to abolish tenure?
Yes.
Seniority of all kinds?
Yes.
Editorial control of cub reporters?
Control – yes. Mentoring no.
I do acknowledge differing spheres of accountability however but Privilegeis a gift bestowed by the community, it doesn’t need to be institutionalized as an entitlement. I think that we need to unpack all manner of power relationships and work instead to discuss rules of governmentality (how we organize ourselves) according to a model which works to remove arbitrary power that one set of relations can exercise over another (teacher/student, etc.).
In this Jesus is a clear examplar. He clearly outlined how the community was to organize itself (“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt.
But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.”) Matthew 20:25
In his life he also eschewed all trappings of any power (priesthood, marriage, politics).
Hello George (and All),
Oh dear, not only am I afraid I disagree with you on the tenure issue, but now here I go again possibly starting a tangent to the main discussion. Even though I may be fairly counted a victim of the tenure system in American universities, never having earned tenure despite having exceptionally strong publication and teaching records, I have concluded over the years that tenure is very important for a number of reasons. I’m not attributing these views to you, but some think that the removal of tenure would lead to professors having more accountability to their students and to the wider community. I’m confident nothing could be further from the truth. If there were no tenure, professors would devote even more time to publishing and less time to their students, with the result that the quality of both teaching and publications would suffer. But more importantly in my opinion, tenure protects professors from each other. So far in my career, I have had trouble not because there is any question of the quality of my work but because my reasearch area is not popular in philosophy. I know “academic freedom” is a tired term, but tenure is needed, not so much to insulate a professor from criticism in, say The National Review or First Things, but to allow her to pursue the work she finds the most interesting and important, even if some of her more senior colleagues would prefer she pursue their research agendas.
I’m not sure Kathy, but can there be a rank of services without a rank of people, or is that to Utopian?
If there were no tenure, professors would devote even more time to publishing and less time to their students, with the result that the quality of both teaching and publications would suffer.
What ever happened to being accountable for one’s own choices. Publication should be done not for the purpose of self-aggrandizement (I’m sure not the case for you speaking generally of course) but instead to share the fruits of one’s contemplation in a particular context. One may have a gift sharing those fruits in the written form in journal’s, others in the spoken and dialogical word in classroom settings. One is not better than the other. A good university honours both.
The point is that the space needs to be created for the charism of the prof and student to be lived.
One doesn’t need external structures for that to happen. If there is a concern regarding employment, there are labour laws, employment contracts, etc. that can and should protect you from hidden and not so hidden agendas. If they don’t exist, they need to. I’d say work on that structure. (again not you personally – you in the genral sense of us).
I’d love to see corporations run by the best people, classes taught by the best people, whomever they might be.
But what concerns me is that one thing a good Presbyterian like Dean Hoge might not have as a top priority in his thinking is the apostolic origin of the priesthood. Jesus chose men. He made a class distinction. He said that they weren’t to lord it over the rest of us like a chopping-block CEO, but he also conferred a kingdom on them and gave them authority over unclean spirits and over the forgiveness of sin.
I wish some Catholic priests had the peaceable and generous manner of Dean Hoge; they would be much nicer to work with. But on the other hand, sometimes I really have to wonder how much sociology can tell us about grace, and hence about the meaning of the Roman Catholic priesthood.
“Jesus chose men.”
But he chose (and indeed sent – the traditional understanding of an apostle as distinct from a disciple) a woman to proclaim the resurrection.
Paul is the quintessential egalitarian. Yes, he knew he had authority. But he knew better that the authority was nothing without service and outstanding example. The authority of Jesus is given to the community who exercise it together with the spokespeople.
The church is always, the gathering, the people, and the pastor/priest is always subservient to that.
“Jesus chose men.”
And one of them was Judas, who would betray him. The Gospels make it clear that Jesus had foreknowledge of the betrayal, although I don’t believe it is possible to determine whether Jesus knew at the time he chose Judas to be an apostle that Judas would be complicit in his execution.
In any case, I am wondering if, because Jesus chose Judas, one out of twelve priests (or more appropriately, bishops) should be chosen to be traitors.
Jesus “gave [men] authority over…the forgiveness of sin.”
No, he gave authority (Matthew 18) to his “disciples.” The latter included women as well as men.
All of us, the People of God, are the Lord’s disciples.
Therefore, ALL of us — and not merely priests — are empowered to forgive sin (even “mortal” sin) in the Lord’s name.
We laity must reclaim this biblical authority from the ordained clergy. The Catholic Church rightfully has TWO modes of forgiving sin, clerical and lay. Both are equal; neither is subservient to the other. Both authorities come from Jesus.
>>In any case, I am wondering if, because Jesus chose Judas, one out of twelve priests (or more appropriately, bishops) should be chosen to be traitors<<
I fear that, statistically speaking, one in twelve might be an improvement.