(Ad)Ministering to the faithful

[muckefuck]

So the Parish of St. Stanislaus Kostka in the Archdiocese of St. Louis had sorta fallen off my radar until the Trib published an update last weekend. The article provides a sketch of the situation: The parish has administered its own finances since 1891 through a board appointed by the archbishop. (This isn't as unusual as it may sound. The Sacred Congregation of the Council officially endorsed this type of arrangement back in 1911, just after the Archdiocese of New York had instituted it for all of its member parishes.) Several times, the board has tried to rewrite the by-laws to reduce the power of the archbishop and each time they've gotten the slapdown. The most recent one has been the nastiest with the parish going a year-and-a-half without a pastor until the board found a priest to take the position, thereby causing the excommunication of themselves, the priest, and any Catholics who continue to attend the church.

Since then, the size of the congregation had doubled.

Part of me supports them wholeheartedly. The ongoing clerical sexual abuse scandal has made it utterly clear what a piss-poor job the clergy are doing of fulfilling their most basic responsibilities to their flocks. It's not just a case of individual moral failings (although Jesus knows these are not in short supply) but of lack of oversight at all levels. Imagine if a corporation had demonstrated the nationwide systematic failures of the RCC. Would it still be running? Even if it were, would any of the original officers still be in place? Fat chance. Yet the bishops want the rank and file to believe that their tardy, haphazard, inconsistent, and inadequate fixes are enough. (Working a like a charm for the Chicago Archdiocese, aren't they?) It's not an institution that I would want to manage anything important to me, that's for damn sure.

On the other hand, I keep thinking back to a nasty little point that princeofcairo drew my attention to over a decade ago: If you don't believe in a powerful clerical hierarchy, then why be a Roman Catholic? On some level, if you remain with the Church, then you accept the fact that you will have virtually no say in the running of the organisation and that disobeying a direct order from a superior risks excommunication. It's not like you can't find virtually the same theology in a less authoritarian structure; this is precisely the issue that the Old Catholics, the Polish National Catholic Church, and other minor schismatics split over. If autonomy is what they want, the PNCC will give them all they can handle.

But that's not really my concern. Frankly, I'm simply glad that someone is raising this issue and keeping a spotlight on it. As American Protestants have been warning us for centuries, the RCC is at heart a deeply undemocratic institution and there's a huge unexamined irony in the fact that so many Americans accept restrictions in their interactions with it that they would never for a moment countenance accepting in dealing with the civil authorities. Honestly, the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority exhibits more openness. I can't think of anything short of massive defections on a unprecedented scale that would prompt the hierarchy to instigate substantive changes in governance, but every little bit of accountability and diminution of moral hazard that those who rely on the organisation can inject into it helps.

Edit: Looks like the parishners are considering exactly the options I mention above. From the FAQ on the parish website:

What will St. Stanislaus do if no resolution on this with the Archbishop is possible?

The Archbishop and archdiocese place our dedicated Roman Catholic Parish in a position that we may not desire to take or want to take, but may be forced to take. There are other religious organizations willing to serve our religious needs.

Good on them!

Comments

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Yes, the Church is completely and utterly undemocratic. Why shouldn't it be? Morals are not a popularity contest. The Catholic Church was not founded to do whatever interested people at the moment, but to uphold the foundations set by Peter centuries ago.

And of course I would accept things from the Catholic Church that I wouldn't accept from a governmental authority. That's one reason why separation of Church and State is important. They are two entirely different organizations operating under two entirely different sets of rules and assumptions. The State is based on carrying out the will of the People, and the Church on carrying out the will of God. I wouldn't want my church run like my government, or my government like my church. (Not that I really want my government run like my government).

If people flaunt the rules of Catholicism, they should be excommunicated, and then they are welcome to follow the teachings of a more lenient religion.

I don't believe in everything the Church says and does, and I doubt many people do. However, I do believe in the Church's right to be what it is - a very conservative, change-resistant, and authoritative organization.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

It does not follow that because some areas of religious life (e.g. morality) should be insulated from the will of the masses that every aspect of the Church--down to the nitty gritty of ecclesiastical administration--should be "completely and utterly undemocratic".

Confusion reigns among Catholics and non-Catholics alike over the distinctions between dogma, doctrine, law, and tradition. These are by now means on an equal footing. The unchanging moral law that you are defending is enshrined in dogma and doctrine. But the details of parish administration? These have changed countless times over the last two millennia. Do you think the government of the early church looked anything at all like what we have now? Archbishop Kenrick gave the parish its autonomy; Cardinal May approved the changes to the bylaws granting the board financial control. What does Archbishop Burke know about the deeper moral principles of Catholicisms that these men (not to mention all members of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation of the Council) didn't?

I'm amazed to hear that you have no issue with the preservation of a governance structure that allowed hundreds of priests to molest thousands of children over a period of decades resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars being taken from the collection plate to pay damages to the victims and continues to allow such abuse to take place. I'm even more amazed to hear that you think that those who do have a problem with such a structure should be given no other choice but to leave. If I've misunderstood you, please clarify. I just don't see why it's not possible to be conservative, change-resistant, and even authoritarian without spectacularly failing in one's overriding moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable people in one's charge.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

Confusion reigns among Catholics and non-Catholics alike over the distinctions between dogma, doctrine, law, and tradition.

Maybe because this sort of thing is still an open question among theologians: the hierarchy has in recent years made increasing use of the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium mentioned in Lumen Gentium 25, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis caused some questioning of more than a few theories of the magisterium.

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

I've boning up on the history of SW France. One author pointed out that the Catholic Church replaced the hierarchy of the Roman Empire in the absence of stable civil forms. Ie Pope/Caesar, Cardinals/Senators, Bishops/Consuls.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Exactly right. And--from a spiritual point of view--things have been downhill ever since.

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

I don't know about downhill, but they certainly managed to maintain the status-quo.

[bunj.livejournal.com]

If people do start voting with their feet, I don't know if the Church will do much to stop it. The current Pope has basically said that he regrets many of the Vatican II reforms (which he helped to enact). On the one hand, the U.S. represents a great deal of revenue to the Church, but the current administration is focusing more on growth areas (such as Africa and Latin America), where a hard line is more expected. As long as enough Catholics remain in the rich areas of the world to support activities in the poor areas, the Church may just write the rest of us off.

[luckymarty.livejournal.com]

Of course, there's no particular reason to expect people to start voting with their feet. It was understandable that some people expected massive defections when the scale of the recent scandals became clear... but it didn't happen. If that didn't do it, it's hard to see what would. I mean, an absolute majority of the U.S. bishops were involved in some cover-up or other.

And frankly, if massive defections on an unprecedented scale actually did start, I doubt that the sort of changes in church governance that tend to be proposed would be much of a help. (The last significant change in Church governance, the institution of national episcopal conferences, does not to my mind offer a particularly encouraging precedent. My own experiences with those in favor of making the Church more democratic have also left me with a jaundiced view of the whole concept.) The obvious draconian solution -- which is also unprecedented, I believe -- would probably be a massive change in personnel rather than altering the system as it exists.

It's also imprecise to say that B16 has said he regrets many of the Vatican II reforms, since the argument he makes is that many of the "reforms" were neither actual reforms nor actually authorized by the Council. Even those who disagree with him on the specifics have to admit that he has a pretty good basis for argument, what with his personal involvement with the Council and his current status.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

Indeed, the U.S. contributes something around a fourth of the Vatican's operating budget. (Germany contributes nearly as much, I think, but that's probably because of the Kirchensteuer.) On the other hand, American generosity seems to be pretty inelastic, so it's not like the Church is going to fall over themselves to cater to their needs. Sociologists like Greeley have pointed out that defections from the Church have been pretty constantly low for most of the century, and that's probably not going to change.

Incidentally, when has B16 said he regrets many of the reforms? I know he's been critical of the state of the liturgy in much of the world, but that's not necessarily inconsistent with his pre-Conciliar position of being in favor of liturgical reform.

[luckymarty.livejournal.com]

It's not like you can't find virtually the same theology in a less authoritarian structure

That's a dubious statement, since the Church actually has an important role in Catholic theology. Hence the minor schismatics' rather desperate attempts to persuade themselves that the rest of the Church has actually gone into schism from them.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

The splinter groups he mentioned generally have a more "branch theory"-ish ecclesiology, unlike some of the antipopes (like the one whose conclave consisted of his parents and various neighbors).

Also, it's not like much of the current structure of the Church is dogmatically defined. Even theologians as impeccably orthodox as Cardinal Dulles have called for a more "participatory" magisterium. This would also be a way of supporting greater involvement of women in Church governance for those who have theological objections to women's ordination. Let's not forget that at one point the people of Rome at large had some say in the election of the new Pope.

My friend used to work with the Archdiocese of Montreal, and says it's common knowledge that dealing with the Roman Curia is a pain. Less than three thousand people manage the spiritual affairs of over a billion people, and it's obvious they're not doing a very good job of it. John Allen had a good article on the Vatican's interactions with the American church.

[luckymarty.livejournal.com]

My point was that leaving the Church for a different group is a different sort of deal for a Catholic than it is for (most) Protestants to switch denominations. Being part of the visible Church, in full communion, matters a great deal: breaking away from that has religious and not just social meaning.

Unlike many conservative Catholics, I have no problem with people advocating changes to Church structures. I'm not persuaded that the alternatives on offer -- the genuine ones, I mean; I dismiss those that trespass on areas of defined teaching -- are good ideas, but I admit I haven't looked at the subject in depth.

Dealing with any bureaucracy is a pain, and it would be beyond astonishing if the Roman Curia were an exception. If anything, I should think they do a better-than-expected job given how few of them there really are and the size of the organization.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

I think I still owe the Illinois Highway Authority 35 cents from the last time I was over there.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Fortunately, they're not in a position to impede your everlasting redemption.