Reflecting on the sex scandal comments, I'd like to propose a different way of thinking about problems within the Church. Before we, the laity, start criticizing bishops and priests, shouldn't we ask what we have done to prepare the ground for a scandal? Have we supported good priests and bishops? Worked to make our parishes, schools, and institutions worthy of the name "Christian"? Striven to consecrate our culture to God, or at least to make sure it doesn't offend him?
I'm not suggesting that bishops who covered up serious sins and crimes should not be punished, either by civil or canon law, nor am I suggesting that blame should be shifted from the perpetrators. The Church doesn't operate franchises that provide holiness on demand, it provides houses of worship for sinners. The conditions within those houses are largely determined by those who inhabit them, and that means us, dear laymen. If our local house is out of order, perhaps the place to start the renovation is within our own souls.
We trusted the bishops and priests too much; we were naive. In no way did laypeople and our children deserve this betrayal.
The scandal is rooted in the demolition of Catholic culture that was carried out by bishops, priests and religious in the wake of V2. The laity acquiesed largely out of a misplaced sense of trust and obedience.
Forty years later we have a Catholic laity that is ignorant and obedient only to their unformed consciences.
We have a priesthood that is riddled with heretics, dissenters and sexually dysfunctional men. The same could be said of relgious orders.
Our bishops who are for the most part bureaucrats trying desperately to hold the show together.
So what is our duty under these circumstances as laity who understand the faith and see the situation in this way? It is, first of all, to live a Catholic life ourselves with the graces God gives us. Secondly, it is to pray for the renewal of the Church. We need to protect and nurture the faith of those entrusted to us as well.
So, finally, how do we relate to those in authority over us in these circumstances? This is a complex question. Our response at times must include active and passive resistence. At the same time, we need to avoid self-righteousness and disrespect.
How come nobody blames the laity? To some extent the laity is an abstraction that is difficult to get hold off. I think the answer is that for the most part the laity doesn't know any better.
Lynn, I don't think you individually deserved a scandal, but the laity, taken as a whole, has gotten the clergy we deserve.
Vatican II didn't see the laity as an "abstraction," Charles, but as a part of the Church with an important and definite mission: consecrating the world to Christ. We have failed to do that; it's a mission that won't be completed until the Second Coming, yes, but in far too many cases we haven't even bothered to try.
You're partially right that the clergy and religious participated in a "demolition of Catholic culture," but it was with the active participation of far too many laymen. Use of contraception is at the heart of the problem, because it feeds other sins and damages family life by enthroning selfishness at the center of a marrage; its widespread use among Catholics is not the fault of the bishops.
The laity liked it when priests made up excuses to let them engage in sexual sins yet were somehow shocked when the priests made up their own excuses to sin as well.
There is something to what you say, Eric.
Divorce, abortion, contraception at the same rate as non-Catholics, our kids (and us down from our own parents) poorly catechized because we don't spend the time caring or paying attention to what they are being taught in religious classes and something small but telling... how many homes of Catholics do you walk into and never see a crucifix or anything "Catholic" around?
Just had to comment. In this article you want the laity to take part of the blame. In the Lauryn Hill article, she speaks up, that isn't good either. What do you want? Be responsible, but don't criticize.
I am Catholic and shocked and appalled by the church's handling of its priets abuses. Father Law is still honored at Vatican events. The laity has no say except with its wallet or its feet. There is no forum, so I vote with my wallet. I take the money I used to give to my parish and give it directly to Catholic charities.
Sorry for the rant
Lauryn Hill isn't Catholic and so isn't properly a part of the laity.
I'm not dismissing your concern, Andrea, nor do I think your actions are incorrect. My opinion isn't "Be responsible, but don't criticize," it's "Criticize, but be responsible AND charitable." Realize that the pope can't control what goes on in every diocese, much less every parish, and that we, not he, are the ones "on the ground," who are supposed to be doing the heavy-lifting of the Church: raising families, helping friends, etc.
Why do people like Andrea not realize, that if used properly, they also have the power of the pen. How many of us write our priests and bishops with our concerns on a regular basis? It only sounds like whining to me to say that the laity have little to no power. The laity has formidable power, but it has to put it to good use first.
Robert, the problem is that good Catholics like Andrea do not speak up enough -- heterodox Catholics rarely hesitate to share their views, and often.
Thank you for your comments, Eric.
In my experience, laypeople who question actions or decisions by clergy, receive ridicule and the "conservative"
label.(What's wrong with conservative)?
There are priests who, in fear to "offend" anyone (Jesus never did)? and are vague about issues such as abortion.
It is easy for people in the pews to become angry and discouraged not only by the lack of leadership from the clergy, but by what we perceive as betryal of our trust.
I think more of us want to respond to the scandal, not by anger and bitterness, but by trying to be prayerful witnesses to our faith, and by contributing to organizations such as Catholic Charites and pro-life groups instead of to parishes whose leaders we do not trust.
We also have the responsibility to continue to educate ourselves and others about what the Church teaches.
All of this is very interesting to a recovering Episcopalian. I found the Catholic Church this past 2 Nov. The same day a spanking new bishop was made in New Hampshire. We also allowed these problems to fester without uproar. I am wondering if the changes in the EC USA 1928 Prayer Book 25 years ago was not a Wooden Horse. We took down the walls of the city to allow the trophy in. We didn't look inside. Now that I am going Catholic I am wondering if Vatican II and the New Mass is not at the heart of your complaints? Any thoughts?
1. The heart of disorder in the world is sin, which wasn't invented by Vatican II.
2. There's no such thing as the "new Mass," and don't let any "more Catholic than the Pope" Catholic tell you different. It's the same sacrifice that was offered on Calvary 2,000 years ago, no matter what surrounds it.
3. Welcome home.
1. I very much agree that sin was not invented by Vatican II
2. The Catholic Church itself refers to it as a new litergy in latin, Novus Orda (or however they spell it). As to it being the same as the original I can not say but I can tell you everyone claims that. I have had enough grape juice to float the Titanic from Bapt. Presb. and Meth. churches that tell me it is true to scripture. The latest fashion is whole wheat bread (with yeast). Of course you do not make those errors and I do not accuse you of any other for that matter. I am just looking for answers.
3. I thank you for the welcome but I will stick with the Trenatine Mass, it made an impact that was missing at the regular RC churches. I do not wish to offend but the the truth is they were a disappointment (I went to several) The Latin Mass impact was evident to me the second I walked in the door. Besides they consider themselves under Papal authority just in crisis which is what I read in your messages.
4. Conservatives in all churches are under attack, maybe a sense of "common cause" without surrendering core values is in order. We have enough people out to undermind us without doing the same to each other.
On #2, Mark: the Church really doesn't call the new form of Mass a different liturgy.
While the term "novus ordo missae" (new Order of Mass) was used when the text was first announced, the official name for the current text of the Roman liturgy is simply Missale Romanum (Roman Missal). The current form of the Mass appeared as the 1970 edition of the Missal, and since then there have been two more editions with minor adjustments and clarifications, most recently in about 2000. The older form of Mass authorized under the papal indult (which I attend) is the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal.
Most of the differences that you or I observe in practice between the Tridentine Mass and the current form of the Mass are not required by the officially approved Roman text of the revised rite. Rather, they were adopted by clergy and bishops out here, taught by would-be experts, and imposed by local authorities: the wholesale abandonment (a) of Latin; (b) of Gregorian chant and other classic sacred music; (c) of celebration ad orientem; (d) of signs of reverence such as kneeling for communion; and (e) of traditional church architecture.
None of these abandonments of our liturgical heritage was required by the Roman texts, and some are even contrary to the express wishes of the Council. Thus a "reform of the reform" is necessary in order to bring the Mass (in practice) into line with what the Council and Pope Paul really envisioned.
I must caution you about the rather radical traditionalist folks who run unauthorized chapels or even use the services of illicitly ordained bishops: they tend to exaggerate the differences between the old and new forms of the Mass in order to justify their disobedience or (de facto) schism. You must make a conscious effort to resist the anti-Roman ideology that many such priests teach their followers, portraying everyone but themselves as neo-Modernists.
Give us some indication as to where you are, and perhaps we or our readers can find some church to recommend.
The problem of the laity is what it has always been for the last 100 years as far as I can see. They are usually passive. Imo they are passive because most of them are not self-consciously and passionately Catholic. They are unconverted. I think it is more than simply that the laity have not been catechized (which is true). They have not been converted. Most of the laity listen to and follow the "gospel of the media" which is hedonism in all its forms.
Thank you for your trouble. I believe I was lead to the church I am attending. The location is Virginia and the recently retired Bishop has made such a mess that it will take years to straighten out the other churches. Even the Episcopalian Bishop called +Sullivan liberal.
I am wondering why this small band who stick to the Trentine Mass upsets you so but priests driving fork lifts during a church procession is only midly critized? Is not this happy band standing closer to the ground you wish defended than so many priest and bishops?