Rock and a hard place: Pope says laity can’t fill priest vacuum
Benedict XVI today announced a “Year for Priests”– a fine idea, though one that apparently also comes with a tough message for lay people dealing with a shortage of priests, and the Eucharist.
First, the announcement. According to the Vatican press release:
“Benedict XVI highlighted the “indispensable struggle for moral perfection which must dwell in every truly priestly heart. In order to favour this tendency of priests towards spiritual perfection, upon which the effectiveness of their ministry principally depends, I have”, he said, “decided to call a special ‘Year for Priests’ which will run from 19 June 2009 to 19 June 2010″. This year marks “the 150th anniversary of the death of the saintly ‘Cure of Ars’, Jean Marie Vianney, a true example of a pastor at the service of Christ’s flock”.
The news release ends, however, with this paragraph, in full:
“The centrality of Christ leads to a correct valuation of priestly ministry, without which there would be no Eucharist, no mission, not even the Church. It is necessary then, to ensure that ‘new structures’ or pastoral organisations are not planned for a time in which it will be possible to ‘do without’ ordained ministry, on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the promotion of the laity, because this would lay the foundations for a further dilution in priestly ministry, and any supposed ‘solutions’ would, in fact, dramatically coincide with the real causes of the problems currently affecting the ministry”.
That seems like a pretty direct admonishment to lay reform groups, such as Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) on this side of the Atlantic, or Wir sind Kirche (We are Church) in Europe–or to the many individual Catholics or groups who are trying to cope with a growing shortage of priests, and of parishes and of the Eucharist.
A couple of thoughts: I don’t think one should necessarily conflate lay initiatives for reform or simply lay-led ministries in the absence of a priest as intentional or even unintentionally undermining the role of the priest. Many if not most of these groups value the priesthood. And some argue that the women’s ordination movement itself reflects a kind of clericalism!
Obviously the laity in the post-Vatican II age of a “priesthood of all believers” and a vocations crunch has contributed to an intense debate over the role of the priest and that of the laity. With or without the vocations shortage there would still be a debate, I believe, about the servant-leader and what is often called the cultic or iconic model of priesthood. (And most will respond, “both/and, not either/or…”)
But the vocations “crisis” (scare-quotes are used to denote doubt about the term–some will see it as a good thing, perhaps, others as non-existent) has also forced the church on the ground into new arrangements–lay people as pastors, even women as pastors, the ordination of married converts, and of course overworked, overstressed circuit rider priests who are used as sacramental machines rather than pastors, and with parts wearing down and no replacements.
The pope rightly stresses the centrality of the Eucharist, but without offering (it seems) viable remedies to the absence of the Eucharist for so many people. Priests are central to the church–I support anything that supports them, as this Year of Priests is designed to do. But the Eucharist is also not just for priests.
So what do we do? Reasserting clerical privilege doesn’t cut it, as the reality on the ground is what it is. Cardinal Egan even raised a discussion of optional celibacy. There are other options, all of which would not undermine the priestly office. I think it would be good to discuss options now before the crisis gets even worse.
The full text here, in Italian, of the pope’s talk today to the Congregation for Clergy in which he made the announcement.
I am in agreement with you on this issue. The priesthood is central to the church. Also, there are hardly enough priests to go around. So what do we do with the lack of Eucharistic celebration by a priest? And what is the right of the laity? To have a priest to celebrate the Mass. We are too easily caught up in what “might” denigrate the priesthood and, as you said in your final paragraph, there are options that “do not” denigrate the priesthood. now someone is bound to come along here and condemn both you and me. Oh well.
“It is necessary then, to ensure that ‘new structures’ or pastoral organisations are not planned for a time in which it will be possible to ‘do without’ ordained ministry…”
This seems like a red herring to me. There are lots of people looking for ways to reform (or just reorganize) the organizational structure of the Church to cope with various realities, including fewer priests — but who is actually planning for a Church entirely without priests?
Am reminded of the saying: “What comes first; the chicken or the egg?”
What came first – eucharist or ordained ministry? Is the current structure part of our doctrinal belief? Is it part of revelation? Did Jesus ordain?
Read any good summation of the years of Vatican II and the debates around Lumen Gentium and Gaudium Spes; read the recent works by O’Malley and McBrien on Vatican II and ecclesiology. In some ways it is parallel to B16′s “hermeneutic of continuity” – Vatican II is both a reform and a continuation of the church’s own self-understanding of revelation. In terms of the document on bishops – exegetes indicated that Jesus did not establish nor ordain bishops; he did call, gather, and appoint coummunity leaders with the charge to go and share the eucharist.
Agree with Ms. O’Reilly – these statements seem to focus on the wrong issue, again!
It would be great if the value of lay-led ministries were explicitly recognized before assuring the Church that they do not supplant the priesthood. I I am struch by the presumption that lay people will forever be willing to put themselves out there in the face of clerical neglect and, sometimes, mistreatment. The clerical leadership of this Church astounds by its self-centeredness and defensiveness.
“Self-centeredness” is a good word. Andrew Greeley refers to it as the sacralization of the priesthood. “The priest is holy even if he is a wretch.” Because he has the faculties. As Bill deHaas points out above the theology is suspect. It is a theology centered on royalty rather than service, privilege and exclusiveness rather than the needs of the church. Whenever there is no priest the Christian people can choose one to preside over the Eucharist. The apostolic succession is a myth of empire and power. It is the Christian people that Christ promised he would be with until the end of the world.
The Canon Law principle “ecclesia supplet” (the Church supplies) applies here. When the gathered people of God are together they can choose a presider to lead them in the celebration of the Lords Supper, which is a reliving of the death, life and resurrection of Jesus. The people may even choose better since they might insist on more than obedience and loyalty.
What is valid and invalid leads to ridiculous conclusions. The Donatists and the Arians were legitimate priests and bishops but the Catholic bishops had no problem ordering them killed. So it is legitimate to murder ordained priests but not valid for the People of God to choose one of their own to lead the Eucharist.
The “Church of the Sacraments” leads to awful things. Like “The people know we are here if they need us.” Because we have the faculties to confect the sacraments. The answer is that you have to be with the people not on a loft somewhere.
There is serious theology here to think through. Benedict may not like the turn it will take. But the problems can be solved as long as Rome gives up empire and power. It is not rocket science. What it is is holding on to control.
Here are two passages that strike me as unusually congruent. The first is from the Vatican news release on Benedict’s announcement of the priestly year , the second from Bishop Fellay’s letter to Benedict responding sympathetically to his apology for the furor that followed Benedict’s efforts to reach out to SSPX. (This one turned up on David Gibson’s blog. And if you follow this link be sure to check out Gibson’s excellent analysis of Benedict’s “apology” as well.)
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/e6_en.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Benedict XVI stressed the need to “have care for the formation of candidates to the priesthood”, a formation that must maintain “communion with unbroken ecclesial Tradition, without pausing or being tempted by discontinuity. In this context, it is important to encourage priests, especially the young generations, to a correct reading of the texts of Vatican Council II, interpreted in the light of all the Church’s doctrinal inheritance”.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/03/sspx-leader-heart-pope-benedic.html#comments
Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and the post-Conciliar magisterium in the light of this Tradition which St. Vincent of Lérins defined as that “which has been believed everywhere, always, by all” (Commonitorium), without rupture and in a perfectly homogeneous development. It is thus that we will be able to contribute efficaciously to the evangelization asked for by the Savior (cf. Matthew, 28,19-20).
They do seem to be thinking along the same lines. . . .
Bill-
“Whenever there is no priest the Christian people can choose one to preside over the Eucharist.”
Sounds like Congregationalist theology to me. Yes, the lack of priests is a most serious concern and since the Eucharist is at the heart of the Catholic faith, we are most certainly in a crisis. But if we move to a model where each congregation gets to decide what is best for it, most especially in the case of who can and cannot preside at the eucharist, then it is pretty clear that one has decided to leave behind the Catholic tradition. This is in no way to denigrate Protestant churches who hold for this kind of theology, but if we are going to hold for a world-wide communion of believers, then we need some sort of central authority (i.e., the pope). Now, how the pope exercises power and how much power he is given, of course, has changed over time and is open to question and debate. but this is pretty fundamental.
And this statement seems beyond the pale to me: “What is valid and invalid leads to ridiculous conclusions.” Does anything go? What about the local Catholic church (congregation) which decides that eucharists presided over by homosexual priests is invalid? Well, we would all find this outrageous, no? Well, then it must be valid then. hence the need for terms like validity and invalidity.
Thanks!
Anthony
I think the current Catholic doctrines about priesthood and apostolic succession need to be revisited. Richard McBrien wrote an insightful piece on apostolic succession
“To say that the church is ‘apostolic’ means that it continues to be faithful to the word, worship, witness and service of the apostles. The church preaches the same Gospel. It celebrates the same sacraments. It is the sign and instrument of God’s saving presence in
our midst. And it carries on the ministry of the apostles on behalf of the poor and those in need.
“But it is one thing to affirm the connection between the present-day church and the church of the apostles. It is quite another to explain the basis of that connection. In what sense is the church of today in ‘apostolic succession’ with the church of the first century of the Christian era?
“Before all else, we must reject the simplistic, mechanistic notion of apostolic succession, what some have derisively referred to as the passing-the-baton theory.
“This understanding of apostolic succession, which many Catholics continue to believe, assumes that each validly ordained Catholic bishop can trace his episcopal consecration in an unbroken line back to one of the original apostles or to the apostles collectively.
“Jesuit Fr. Francis Sullivan, my former professor of ecclesiology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and currently professor at Boston College, offers two reasons for opposing such a view.
“First, the apostles were not bishops in the present-day meaning of the word. They were missionaries and founders of local churches. There is no evidence, nor is there likely ever to be any evidence, that any of the apostles took up permanent residence in a particular
church, or diocese, as its bishop.
“Second, although some local churches had pastoral leaders who were called bishops (see the Acts of the Apostles 20:17-35, especially verse 28), it remains unclear whether these ‘bishops’ were actually appointed or ordained by the apostle Paul or by any other apostle.
“‘The New Testament,’ Fr. Sullivan writes, ‘offers no support for a theory of apostolic succession that supposes the apostles appointed or ordained a bishop for each of the churches they founded.’
“Nor does the Didache (‘The Teaching’), an ancient book of basic instructions for Christians, contain any ‘suggestion that such pastoral officers would derive their authority in any way from a founding apostle.’
“Pope St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, known as 1 Clement, written 30 years after St. Paul’s death, indicates that the church in Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters (priests), with no indication of a bishop.
“Not even St. Ignatius of Antioch, who is a major source for our knowledge of the organization of the early church, suggests that ‘he saw his episcopal authority as derived from the mandate Christ gave to the apostles. … He never invoked the principle of apostolic succession to explain or justify the role and authority of bishops.’
“‘One conclusion seems obvious,’ Fr. Sullivan writes. ‘Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as `an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the
bishops of today.’
“But this is not to say that the doctrine of apostolic succession is without any theological or historical basis. It is just that this particular explanation of it is not valid.
“Consequently, Catholic theologians today would insist that Vatican II’s declaration that apostolic succession is ‘by divine institution’ (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) should not be taken to mean that Christ explicitly determined the episcopal structures of the
local churches, or dioceses.
“Although almost all Christians would agree that apostolicity involves a succession in the faith of the apostles and a sharing in their mission to proclaim the Gospel to the ends of the earth, many Protestant churches and ecclesial communities would not go beyond that.
“On the other hand, Anglicans and the separated churches of the East would agree with the Catholic church that duly ordained bishops are an essential component of the doctrine of apostolic succession, as is the Eucharist itself.
“To be sure, considerable progress has been made since Vatican II in lessening the gap between Catholic and non-Catholic understandings of apostolic succession. Nevertheless, Fr. Sullivan points out, ‘apostolic succession in the episcopate remains a church-dividing issue.’
“Alas, it remains even a source of debate within the Catholic church itself, given the differing interpretations offered by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the one side, and by many Catholic theologians on the other.”
“But the vocations “crisis” … has also forced the church on the ground into new arrangements–lay people as pastors, even women as pastors…”
Hold on now, David, wait a minute here … not just lay people, but … *women*?
Gosh, they must be desperate….
Alas, I don’t think it would be happening without desperate times.
“That seems like a pretty direct admonishment to lay reform groups, such as Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) on this side of the Atlantic”
Does VOTF want to see priestless masses or some such? I thought their whole thing was to be faithful Catholics who want to see more accountability and transparency from the hierarchy?
No, Jim, VOTF doesn’t want that, which is why such critiques seem off the mark to me. They do want a greater role for the laity where necessary and possible, and they have (to my understanding) also recently broached the debate on optional celibacy, seeing that as in fact a topic worth discussing because of the vocations crisis that is putting Catholics in a vise–no priests, no masses, no Eucharist, but no recourse for lay people. It’s a tough situation, and requires hard questions.
60 parishes close in Cleveland this week. 1000 close nationaly this past year.
16000 ordained married deacons are ‘Waiting for Godot’
Who is fiddling while Rome burns?
VOTF is mounting a national call for the end of mandatory celibacy for Latin Rite diocesan priests. How can the call for this non- doctrinal change be initiated from bottom up? Can ‘old mans’ nostalgia be allowed to trump the sacramental life of the laity?
I think it’s important to distinguish between individuals and groups that want to work within “the system” to improve it (like VOTF, I hope) and individual and groups that want to reinvent the system. I suspect it was the latter that the Holy Father had in mind.
Greater lay involvement in the running of the church is inevitable, it’s here, and it’s reality. (And I would add – good!) Undeniably the church has embraced it – cf “Co-workers in the Vineyard of the Lord”; and the many thriving programs to prepare laity for ministry.
As for the priesthood, as we say in business, “it is what it is”. It’s also here and reality. Is it inevitable? I certainly hope so. I feel pretty strongly that we all have a sacred responsibility to our sisters and brothers in faith, and to that end, it’s on us to be God’s voice in calling single males to the priesthood, not tomorrow but today. Inherent to that responsibility is another, to keep the image of the priesthood as it currently exists burnished to a glowing sheen. These responsibilities won’t change if the church revises its discipline of holy orders at some indeterminate date in the future.
Well, at least B16 didn’t say this: “Lay persons have always been enemies of the clergy.” Pope Boniface VIII, Clericis Laicos (1296)
Once again, Catholicism’s essentiality as an Eucharistic community is being sacrified for the DISCIPLINE of mandatory celibacy; a discipline given lie by the paucity of vocations thereto.
What makes this all so very hypocritical is the existence of ordained married priests in the Latin Rite (all of those exceptions that are still touted as “exceptions”) AND the Eastern Rites. Darn it, when will the Eastern Rites’ practices stop being swept under the surplices?
Priorities, anyone?
Jim – wish I could be as hopeful and positive as you. B16 is a man filled with fear; he holds on to “his version” of the past.
Mr. Gleason’s comments have been made since the 1980′s – why is the church sacrificing its sacramentality on the altar of celibate ordination (a man made rule).
This is not rocket science.
Jim – wish I could be as hopeful and positive as you.
No prob – just join me here in my land of unicorns, bluebirds and lemonade springs.
I didn’t know you lived in California – inside joke. Rory Cooney can explain. Taken from one of Royko’s great columns in which he called California the “land of fruits and la-las!”
If “VOTF is mounting a national call for the end of mandatory celibacy for Latin Rite diocesan priests” is correct, then I fell that VOTF is abandoning its original mission. While the issue/question of mandatory celibacy is a legitimate (If I may quote Cardinal Egan), language such as “mounting a national call” feels awfully political to me and I don’t think it will go anywhere with the bishops or the pope. And VOTF will begin to resemble Call to Action, which I don’t think is a good thing.
Anthony Andreass
VOTF’s third goal was and always has been ‘seek structual change in the Church’
You are correct though..on one point it is political.. you know..silent majority… smoke filled back room bosses’ disenfranchized members..
no voting rights and DISCRIMINATION … welcome aboard.
We are looking for a theologian that will defend mandatory celibacy and the resulting sacramental deficiencies. .. mano-mano-
any takers out there?..
Michael Miller gave some appropriate reference to some pretty solid theology. It does not help the aggrandized clergy and those who like titles like Excellency, most holy and prince of the church. But it can go along way in solving the catastrophic pastoral problem that John Paul II and this pope are permitting in the church. They had a great chance for renewal. But they chose to return to Charlemagne and Constantine. That is empire building and the reason the crisis is here.
who is actually planning for a Church entirely without priests?
Let’s be careful not to fall into the typical American presumption that everything is about us. My own experience in Northern Europe indicates that there are not a few people in the Church there that are planning, if not for a Church entirely without priests, at least for a Church in which the priestly role is greatly diminished, reduced to circuit riders who provide consecrated hosts for lay-led communion services. And many of the people making these plans don’t see this as a bad thing, since it empowers the laity (not that there are many lay people left). There are also those who, as in the recent suggestions regarding Eucharist and priesthood made by the Dutch Dominicans, would so radically configure the nature of the priesthood — not only in terms of disciplines like celibacy, but also in terms of the basic theology of the Church — that, to many of us more traditional types, it pretty much looks like a “Church entirely without priests.”
“VOTF’s third goal was and always has been ’seek structual change in the Church’”
But what do they mean by that? I thought it meant stuff like actually having in place and functioning effectively, those canon-law-mandated finance councils, to act as instruments of financial accountability.
Ed Gleason noted well that as this report came on , the Bishop of Cleveland of “poor little man fame” is closing 62 parishes. Therei s much heart rending and editorializing there.
Meanwhile in beautifi; Naples, Florida, VOTF has been told that they can’t have their annual Mass that they’ve been having regularly.
It strikes me that the issue here -described mainly in post thus far as celibacy or what does VOTF want, is really about clericalism.
There is a continued hard edge to the way hierarchy doesn’t want to hear from us laity in the US, or Ireland, or Austria, etc. -just an occasional pat on the head or backslap to good lay ministers.
This is why I noted in a recent thread that BXVI and co. need to learn more about balance.
Now VOTF is gearing up its action plans anyone can read about this on-line. They’ve called for a study of the celibacy issue(which we discussed recently) and I find it hard to think that anyone here beleives it’s necessary to continue as nice as some think it is) I think that’s a relatively gentle call, but all they get is rebuff.
In fact, the curial powers seem to be in lay rebuff mode these days. And it is this “we don’t want to hear you,” approach that worries me – there is a big swath of Catholics who love their Church who see the need for reform and want to be heard.
So I worry, because love turned off moree asily can turn to anger and even hatred rather than apathy or unwillingness to care anymore.And I think that’s where this clericalism fails – it undermines the love of Christ one is supposed to see in the Church and supplants it with power relationships.
” —-reduced to circuit riders who provide consecrated hosts for lay-led communion services.”
I’ve got a better, cheaper and more reliable idea: ship them via UPS from one central 24/7 consecration factory, somewhere in the diocese of Lincoln, NE or Baker, OR.
Get rid of the human element all together prior to the presider of the lay-led communion services. Reducing the ordained to the role of bureaucratic functionary (any more than they already are, unfortunately) simply points out their lack of necessity in the kind of circumstances being described.
Jimmy Mac – resonate with your passion. Fr. F.C. – if you carefully read the proposal by some Dominicans in Holland, you will note that it is a suggestion in the face of an obstinate and ultra-conservative (ultramontane?) hierarchy who would rather do away with eucharist to preserve a celibate priesthood. They do not welcome dialogue and preach this from on high.
The Dominicans (probably out of frustration) are proposing sensible pastoral steps in the face of a power conflict……..the proposal would change if the rules changed. Its goal is not to eradicate the priesthood.
Mr. Anthony – you questioned the motives and goals of Call to Action. Do you know its history? Called and promoted by the USCCC and National US Bishops Conference in the 1970′s with a five year plan. The first meeting was held in Detroit and was overwhelmingly supported by the US bishops…..yes, it raised difficult questions and the bishops engaged in dialogue and did not approve some of these proposals. But, the goal of collegiality, sensus fidelium, addressing vital social ills met with great excitement. Unfortunately, a new pope, new ecclesial appointments, and cardinals such as O’Connor, Cody, Law, etc. pushed Call to Action to the edges and made them irrelevant except as an outsider voice. There was real potential present in the original purpose/goals if only the hierarchy had been willing to engage in dialogue.
Another rebuff story at NCR today on the fing of ruth Kolpack in Madison WI.
Somebody read her theseis and turned her in to the bishop who then had to turn the screws, cause that’s what episcopla loyalty demands these days.
Not only sad, but destructive.
Pre-Vatican two I was taught that when we were baptized we were baptized into Christ who is priest, prophet, and king so that Christians shared in these qualities. Perhaps we should go back to more fundamental qualities such as servant, teacher, and leader. To me these are closer in meaning to Jesus of Nazereth and things all Christians should aspire to rather than “moral perfection.”
“Another rebuff story at NCR today on the fing of ruth Kolpack in Madison WI.”
Here is some info on Ruth Kolpack. Like the bishop, I haven’t read her thesis, but based on her resume, she sounds like my kind of woman.
http://chrisy58.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/make-your-voice-heard/
I did a quick check of the Madison website to see if they had their side of the story up, but didn’t see any mention of it. However, I did learn that their bishop has recently suspended a priest, so apparently he is an equal-opportunity terminator:
“Bishop Morlino wishes it to be known that Father Gerald Vosen does not have the faculties to celebrate Mass publicly or privately in the Diocese of Madison as he has been placed on suspension. Baptized Catholics or those who have made a profession of faith who purchase Fr. Vosen’s book are at risk of participating in this breach of the Pontifical Secret. Catholics who may have purchased Fr. Vosen’s book prior to this notification and while unaware of the breach he committed have not incurred a canonical penalty but are advised to destroy the book or return it to Fr. Vosen. Once informed, continued support of Fr. Vosen’s book may result in a canonical crime being declared on the individual involved.”
You may wonder, what the heck is in that book that merits this kind of treatment? The bishop explains, “Rev. Gerald Vosen has recently published a book named, “Pick a Number: Stories of Faith.” In the book, Fr. Vosen makes explicit mention of what occurred during a penal trial, which was initiated to investigate allegations against him involving the abuse of a minor. As Fr. Vosen knows, the entire penal investigation is under the Pontifical Secret and no mention of its proceeding is to be made.”
http://www.madisondiocese.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dTPvtA7iHsc%3d&tabid=325&mid=1191
So, to summarize: A priest was investigated for sex abuse. We fervently hope that the accusation wasn’t credible, inasmuch as he was apparently still in active ministry. But because he talked about the investigation in a book, he has now been suspended – not for abusing someone, but for writing a book about being investigated for (allegedly) abusing someone. Furthermore, anyone who hears about this and goes ahead and reads the book anyway is also committing a crime. But there is still an out (who said the church isn’t merciful): if you burn the book, you’re ok.
Remind me not to move to Wisconsin.
Jim P: That’s a wild story. Thanks for posting it. I too wish I knew the “other side” if there is one of the Kolpack saga. It seems she’s not averse to knowing publicly either.
Re Vosen: OSV recently had a very good story on exonerated priests (I can’t find it right now, and it may be behind a firewall) and how difficult if not impossible it is to recover. This is where secrecy doesn’t help either.
re: VOTF
I’ve been a non-active member of VOTF for several years . My opinion of it is based almost exclusively on the almost daily emails I get from the national office. I have learned not to trust the media reports about it. For instance, in today’s email from VOTF we are told that a paper in CT has misrepresented its goals. I have every reason to think that that is true. VOTE says it’s in contact with the paper trying to get its real message out.
My impression of the organization is this — it is a group born in outrage at the bishops in Massachusetts. We all know that the outrage was justified. But I am very impressed with the Group’s attempts to change the structure of the Church so that there can be meaningful communication between the laity and the hierarchy. Communication is what VOTF is mainly about.
It is also my impression that there are a large contingent of liberals who would like to push the organization to join their crises for married priests, women priests, etc. However, they are apparently outnumbered, and the middle-of-the road folks remain dinane. The one sisnificant goal that has indeed been added is foe fiscal transparency. In other words, it thinks the laity has a right to know where theChurch money is going.
Do visit tge home page. Sorry I cant give you the site address – i can only use the phone at the moment. Bit do take a loikz.
Oops. — that should be “the middle-of-the-road folks remain dominant” .
I might add thecit does not seem nearly as liberal n spirit as the current Call to Action. It’s not about dogma but a out a means to talk about dogma and practice and whatever else the laity thinks is important. (not that the laity agrees about everything — but hopefully all factions in the laity could eventually get hearings on matters they think are importamt.)
p.a. Somebody asked what VOTF means by “structural change”. I don’t think it has ever defined it. But it is my understanding that what the group is looking foe is a canonically recognized right of some sort to demand a hearing from the hierarchy whether or not the ishops want to listen. In other words, a means to force the. Ishops to listen. We have no such right now.
And , of course, “to listen” also needs to be defined.
The VOTF in Naples Florida was denied permission to have their annual Mass there because they wanted “structural change.” (according to a report at NCR on line today.)
I think it would be a mitzvah if someone would do a case study or studies of how VOTF has tried to relate to the hierarchy.
Chicago might be interesting.
As I recall, they felt that they were first getting into a relationship with Cardinal George -the the McCormick case and the call for resignation (I think they were right.)
Or Rockville Center, or Boston, or Los Angeles etc..
Like many (to my mind unfortunate)managers, Church leadership seems so heavily invested in pererogatives that they really don’t wan to listen, which is at the heart of what VOTF hopes to do.
But those who think that where we are are the pwerfect model of what the Church should be will call them divisive, dissenting or worse.
I just re-read the header to this posting.
From where, pray tell, does the pope think that priests come …. the laity! Women don’t give birth to little ontologically appropriate celibates, you know! The laity will always “fill the priest vacuum.” They still want to, but not necessarily on the currently ineffective terms of mandatory celibacy.