In light of the painfully unfolding scandals that plague the Church, while I don't presume to know the answers may I humbly submit the following for fruitful discussion:



1. The People of God should insist upon absolute transparency by the Church - no more secrets, no more ecclesiastical power politics.

2. Open all of the "segreto" files to complete public scrutiny.

3. Complete "vetting" of all clergy appointments, including bishops.

4. In accord with the patristic and conciliar tradition of the Church, Bishops should be "elected" as still done in the patriarchal Catholic Churches and the various Orthodox Churches, chosen from among candidates completely vetted (by Rome or vetted within the other patriarchates and "sui juris" juridictions).

5. Rome is "primus inter pares" (first among equals) not "papa über alles." The Church needs to relook the whole petrine office and restore the patristic understanding as to the role of the Bishop of Rome among the Churches. Patristically, the Catholic Church is a "Communion of Churches."

6. End the "personality cult" that for the last 35-40 years has increasingly engulfed and eveloped the papacy and made the Pope of Rome the prisoner of his own aura, image, and power. It should make us all uneasy, especially the Pope of Rome himself, when there is more adulation and even adoration for the "servus servorum Dei - servant of the servants of God" than there seems to be for the Lord Himself. Much of this sadly borders on the serious sin of plani or prelest.

7. Restore a married priesthood even to the western Catholic Church and reinvigorate authentic monastic life. No, a married priesthood isn't the answer, but it is a needed part of the solution. Since bishops are, from the earliest days of the Church, chosen from the among the celibate or even widowed clergy, isn't it then important that those men from whom bishops are chosen be living a transparent life known fully to those with whom they live? i.e ."true monastic living allows no privacy and secrets" and neither does good family life. Return to the ancient manner of choosing bishops from among monastic and widowed clergy. Sad to say, but a non-monastic celibate clergy is an historic aberration. ("monastic clergy" should be understood in a somewhat broad sense to include "religious order priests" and diocesan clegy vowed to a communal life.

8. Restore the proper sense of conciliar and synodal governance within the Church, and end the misuse, distortion and diminution of this ancient and time-tried concept of what a real synod is. The present use of the term is a misuse and absurd parody that should alarm all of us.

9. As disgusting and painful as the present series of scandals is, it is also an opportunity for rebirth by the power and cleansing action of the Holy Spirit: "Heavenly King, Consoler, Spirit of Truth, present in all places and filling all things, Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life, come and dwell in us, cleanse us of all stain and save us our souls, O Good One".

10. We should all take to heart the ancient adage that "it takes the sun to heal wounds." Expose the filth, corruption and wounds to the rays of the sun and then pray for mercy and healing. Healing and mercy for the victims, healing and mercy for the Church, and mercy and even healing for the perpatrators and their facilitators.

Lord, have mercy.

Christ is in our midst!!

May I add a thought to number 7. I believe that we have ordained men too young to the priesthood. I have thought that a man should be a deacon for a number of years so that his stability can be measured.

There was also--IMHO--a mistake made many years ago when Pope St. John Paul 2 held a synod about the priesthood. A proposal was made for second-career married men to be trained: children grown and independent, marriage stable, already involved in parish activities. The unanimous decision of the synod bishops was a resounding "no" to that suggestion. Again, this may not be the complete answer, but it would bring a new, additional perspective to the life of the Church.

The idea of bishops coming from the monastic ranks would be a good one, except for the fact that many of our orders have been infected with the kind of mindset that allows too many to have private secrets in spite of being in community. There is no better example than the case that set off the Altoona-Johnstown situation--Brother Baker of the Franciscan community near me. Baker was allegedly given so much free rein that he continued to have contact with minors even after his superiors had ordered him not to do so.

IMHO, part of the problem has been the gradual loosening of the Catholic Church's ascetic tradition over the course of the 20th century. I've dabbled in the lessening of the fasting regulations and other practices that were in place for centuries with the goal of having both priests and laymen control the passions. I remember, particularly, a quote in a diocesan newspaper in the late 1960s from a Latin bishop that he was glad the ascetic tradition was gone. The idea of there being no sin has also infected both clergy and laity. I was still in early formation when a bi-weekly confession was expected and woe to the one who told father he'd been a month or longer. We have lost a lot of the tools used to form us at the same time the secular culture has opened the door to loose morals entering the Church at so many levels. I compare my situation to that of my Orthodox brothers and sisters, knowing that we have moved very far from what they would recognize as Church praxis.

I am in agreement with you. However, the so-called "synod" on the priesthood was far from being a synod in the sense and understanding that we have in the Eastern Churches.

Perhaps I should have used "synod" in my reference out of deference to Eastern praxis and thought, but used the term as it had been used by Rome out of the courtesy required by this board.

At the time of the discussion about second-career men entering priestly formation, I was asked if I would consider it if it became possible. I had just been injured on the job and no longer physically able to do the work I had been doing for the previous 27 years. I had been serving in many capacities at my parish and many people thought I should consider it. But it all came to naught. So the problem continues with too few men in formation and too many continuing accusations that are removing so many. Maybe things will change when signs on church doors say, "No Liturgy today; no priest."

There is another consideration about the married priesthood. We have a man in our diocese who is a convert from being a Protestant minister. He has completed formation to be ordained. But there is no parish that generates enough income to support a married priest with spouse and children to support and educate. Somehow we don't think what we have is important enough to tithe or to support financially like our brethren outside the Catholic Communion. Or maybe there is too much spent on trying to support an alternative school system or large diocesan bureaucracies. Don't know the answer.

Bob

Related to # 7: I believe that it is essential for the Latin Church to publicly repent of and renounce the 1049 Synod of Mainz, which forcibly ended Priestly Marriages, sending Priests' wives to convents and their children to orphanages.

This was one of the final causes of the Great Schism.

Some very good points. Amen!

There is one other thing that the Western side of the Church needs as does the East to some degree. The local formation of deacons and even priests through local directed study and praxis. This is something that's not uncommon in some parts of Orthodoxy.

This would be a many years long process in most cases. Men of known good character with years of regular involvement in a parish get selected to become "apprentices" of the local pastor.

Through praxis, directed self-study (there are a great many online resources today), and spiritual direction, men would be formed for the diaconate and ultimately the priesthood.

Here's where things really differ. I think at least in the West, and possibly in the East as well, some men after suitable preparation need to be ordained as a "different class" of a priest. One that can celebrate all the sacraments (particularly the Mass/Divine Liturgy and reconciliation) without becoming pastors.

This would allow some men to continue with their secular work, while also helping out at existing parishes and missions.

It's not terribly uncommon for say a Greek Orthodox Priest to be a CPA, while also being a priest. I know that's unheard of in the West, but having this option would make a real difference in my opinion. No, it wouldn't be a "solution", but it would help.

Exegete:

Deacons are formed locally in each place where married men are being formed to serve. There is an intense program of formation of study and praxis before ordination to what is termed the "permanent diaconate." All of these men understand that they will never take a step to the priesthood. They have regular jobs and that is their source of income. They have ongoing doctrinal and spiritual formation.

The Middle Ages had what were termed "Mass priests"": men trained to celebrate the sacraments but not allowed to hear confessions or preach. They were an answer to the Black Death when a priest could be the next victim by coming into contact with the dead. There were "Simplex priests"--essentially the same thing--until the Vatican Council, but I believe they were restricted to religious communities and served those communities. The practice is no longer in use.

The idea of "worker priests" was in vogue in France for awhile after the recent Vatican Council, but the practice was stopped;I don't remember why.

Many of your ideas were tried and have been rejected. Whether they would be tried again is anyone's guess.

Bob

There are many "part time" Priests in the Antiochian Archdiocese. I know of a Western Rite Priest in the DC area whose primary income is from being an organ tuner; and an Eastern Rite Priest in central PA whose primary income is from being a tenured university professor.

AOA Bishop THOMAS has web published an interview with Fr. Boniface Black of blessed memory in which would-be mission planters are counseled to maintain their "day jobs". This comes from a Priest who established 7 missions which have grown into Parishes and who was planting the 8th at the time of his death.

I would suggest that if anyone is seriously interested in how to plant a mission church they follow Fr. Gabriel Rochelle's early podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio. He and his wife established an Orthodox mission in Las Cruces NM while he worked as a baker in a bakery in Las Cruces. Not only is it a model for how the Eastern Catholic Churches have to start thinking about mission but it also a wonderful primer on the joys and sorrows of being part of a mission.


If the Eastern Catholic Churches continue to try to follow the traditional model of church ministry they will die (which according to some narratives is the plan). There simply are not enough of us in the growing areas of the country to build a $2,000,000 dollar church plant and support a priest and staff. In my city their are at least six Orthodox communities. As far as I know only one or two has a full time priest. All of the other priests support themselves with other secular jobs.

The current policies on establishing missions seem to think that somehow churches mysteriously appear through the good graces of a few scattered Eastern Catholics and suddenly have 30+ families, a church building and an income of several hundred thousand dollars a year. I can tell you from experience that that just doesn't happen and that if their isn't significant and aggressive clerical support and guidance.

Thomas the Seeker:

Christ is in our midst!!

What I don't understand is how a man gets through seven or eight years of seminary education and then trains for a full time secular job. Is that not a financial burden too great to shoulder?

With university education as expensive as it is, how does one add a seminary education to that, financially?

With reference to my comment above about a man who is ready to be ordained as a married priest but who will not be until a parish is found to support him and his family, apparently Rome does not want priests to work outside the parish they are assigned to. That may also have been the demise of the worker priest movement in France that flourished in the mid 20th century.

Bob

Bob,

In some cases the secular job training came first....certainly in the case of the two Priests I mentioned previously.

There is serious discussion taking place in many Protestant denominations regarding what type of education is needed in an era when many candidates/students are in their second or third careers and have significant life experience. On the other hand, many enter Seminary without the lifelong formation that comes from being active in a parish throughout one's life; haveing gone to church camps, having received solid catechetical instruction prior to Confirmation, etc.

One such discussion can be found here.....it is a good read:

https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7051.0

More and more, it seems, the three year Maser of Divinity in a Residential Seminary no longer fits the students or the needs of the church.

Tom:

Christ is in our midst!!

The seminaries I'm familiar with have either a seven or eight year formation program: there is pre-theology for up to three years and then a four year program. My son's friend is studying in SE PA and will have eight years under his belt until he's done.

Needless to say that's a lot of years.

Bob

While I am not at all unhappy about the turn in the conversation to married clergy amd their formation, etc. I had hope that the discussion would primarily center on transparency in the Church and transparency in tne processes by which bishops are elected and leadership is selecged. We are in a severe crisis and it is the precises moment in which we may have some effect in setting forth the Church which our children and future generations will inherit.
As the McCarrick/Wuerl scandal and the Viganò letter have made clear all of us, East or West, have a responsibility for so often failing to insist that the Church "clean-up its act." When we fail to insist upon the purity of the Bride of Christ than we become accomplices and acolytes to the horrors we are seeing.

Protopappas76:

I agree with you 100%. The question is how we get from point "A" to point "B."

There is a call from some prominent Catholic conservative voices for Pope Francis to resign. The writer suggested that Pope Emeritus Benedict be called out of retirement, something I don't think can happen given the way retired bishops are treated canonically. The question about His Holiness' stepping down is a real conundrum. Since there is no synod as it is understood in the East that could remove him, there really is no way to make any change there.

A few bishops that have retired have had their successors restrict them so that they cannot serve publicly or even attend Liturgy in a parish church. A few names come to mind, but I will not publish them here. So the idea of Pope Emeritus Benedict stepping back into the petrine office is absurd.

I remember reading how the Holy Synod of the Church of Jerusalem retired their patriarch a few years back and installed a new man in that office. Problem in the Catholic Church is that the College of Cardinals has become an honorary group whose only legal function is to elect a new pope and provide advice at the pope's invitation. I also remember reading that the College had historically had a greater voice in influencing the pope, but suspect that Vatican I and its aftermath have muted that to nothing. Look at Cardinal Burke who was critical of Pope Francis. He has a sinecure job at what should be the height of his clerical career--sidelined to oblivion.

The idea of voting for one's bishop is attractive, but I wonder to what extent that there would be political fighting like we have in our national life. My question is what should we be looking for in a bishop. should we be looking for canon lawyers--the current scene seems to move them up? Should we be looking for administrators--bricks and mortar men? Or should we be looking to the monastic communities for authentic holy men? And are we ready for a monastic and greater discipline throughout the Church? I had an Orthodox priest remark to me decades ago when the loosening of all restrictions after Vatican 2 was beginning: "Once you eliminate Church discipline, you'll never get it back."

Then we need to take a look at how the clergy are related to the bishop. It seems from my experience that once ordained and given a parish many men are largely allowed to do as they please with little oversight. My spiritual father and I had this conversation awhile ago and he said that he knows Orthodox clergy who have much tighter oversight by their bishops than many Catholic clergy would tolerate. Something to think about.

There is also the area of removing problem clergy. Currently it seems that it takes a Roman approval before that can happen. It should be up to the bishop under whose jurisdiction the man serves with appeals to the metropolitan and then to Rome, but with the man removed while all this is going on. Unlike the Orthodox Churches, we don't have a mechanism to get this all done locally by people on the ground close to the case.

Tangentially--the zero tolerance policy for clergy abuse accusations.

The Vatican Council called for bishops to make use of the insights of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and the other social sciences in dealing with many of the things that have cropped up in the last half century. Problem is that the claims of these sciences to be able to fix problem people have been shown to be overstated. Some things cannot be fixed--like sending problem men to treatment and then putting them back into environments where temptation was present. Now we have these same sciences providing people to make judgments about what accusations are "credible." I don't believe that in either case opinions of these professionals are all that accurate, given the claims of the past which have been shown to be indefensible.

The problem with this whole thing is that an accusation has been elevated to level of truth simply because it has been made. The Pennsylvania grand jury report is a great example. An analysis of it has been made and the whole report is filled with unsubstantiated accusations. The people accused have been denied the opportunity to state their side of accusations against them and their good names have been permanently destroyed.

Bob

Let's be absolutely honest, no system of any sort is going to be 100% succesful. Christ chose his 12 and we all know about a certain evil character named Judas Iscariot who made it through even a divine "vetting" process. But, while no system is foolproof (bishop proof?) the conciliar tradition of the Church gives us a system in the East that seems to work on a much better working solution that has been time proven. Wishopshen we think of "elected" bishops, please don't think of the American or parliamentary systems. Rather, think of a process of vetted clergy from which a synod elects bishops. The laity absolutely need to be part of that vetting process.

Its odd that we still refer to a man chosen to be a bishop as a "bishop elect" even if the man was merely appointed by the pope of Rome. Why? I understand it for those elected by a patriarchal synod or, in a very few cases, by diocesan chapters. But papally appointed bishops is a departure from Holy Tradition, the canons of the Great Councils, and the result of a monarchical concept of
of Church governance which is alien to our own Eastern theology and ethos.

In regards to the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report. I read the report from beginning to end - wanting to retch throughout and wantng to disbelieve. To varying degrees though, I knew eleven of those accused in the report. I was in seminary with ten of these abusers. I served in the military with the other. Frankly, and sadly, its only the tip of the iceberg! While I was shocked with one of the men (whom I would never have suspected) the others were, sadly, no surprise. Reporting blatant homosexual activity to seminary authorities and bishops was met with a very blunt "mind your own business." I know, I was told it repeatedly. As painful as it is, the Grand Jury has served a valuable service. Its time to cleanup the act. and its ony the light of the sun (Son) that will expose the corruption. The worst thing that could happen now is circling the wagons, defending the undefensible and making believe tnat the corruption isn't there. We shouldn't fear, afterall we do have theLord's promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail."

Protopappas76:

I agree with your post 100%. I just wonder how we get form point "A" to point "B" (some improved future). My analysis of the Roman system is that it is a feudal model: every bishop has a personal relationship to the pope and can thumb his nose at any other if he chooses. The conferences of bishops in each country really has no jurisdictional authority and cannot enforce anything without the consent of each bishop.

I think everyone sneared at the book "Goodbye, Good Men" published probably 15 or so years ago. It spoke of many of these things and all the clergy authorities claimed it was all fabrication. I knew of some of the dioceses and situations mentioned so I was not surprised.

This time a lot more people have become disillusioned and the damage is still in its infancy.

I, too, believe what the Lord has promised that the "gates of Hell shall not prevail." I am convinced He will be with us to the end of the age and His Church will be purified by this.

Not long ago I found termites eating away part of my home. I called a contractor and the exterminator. The contractor had to pull out part of a wall. The exterminator then did whatever exterminators do. The contractor came back and rebuilt the wall. And I signed a contract for regular inspections. Was it painful? I'm sure that the termites thought so. And, when I got the bill, I thought so too. But te bottom line was the pain was necessary if I was to have a safe house.

So too, the Church. Painful? Yes! Necessary? Yes! Sadly, there will even be mistakes in the process. But the bottom line is the necessity if the Church is to be restored as the "most pure bride" she is callled to be.

Pray for Christ's Church.

Good metaphor.

But a note of caution: History shows that attempts to "purify" can take on a life of their own and expand their mission in ways that ultimately become as sin-infested as that which they originally sought to eradicate.

Alas, "there is no perfection this side of the pale." Yet, strive we must.

"There was also--IMHO--a mistake made many years ago when Pope St. John Paul 2 held a synod about the priesthood. A proposal was made for second-career married men to be trained: children grown and independent, marriage stable, already involved in parish activities. The unanimous decision of the synod bishops was a resounding "no" to that suggestion. Again, this may not be the complete answer, but it would bring a new, additional perspective to the life of the Church."

I agree completely that this was a mistake. Very few can handle the power assumed to come from an ontological change that happens at ordination at the age of 26 (give or take a few years). A man who has raised a family successfully and has handled the ups and downs of working under good and bad managers, learning from wise and poor financial decisions, maintaining positive relationships with co-workers and families, and known by rubbing elbows with fellow parishioners for years is much more likely to deal with church issues in a healthy way than a young inexperienced person, no matter how dedicated. There are some things that can be learned only by making mistakes or dealing with one's own reactions in situations that parishioners also experience day in-day out.

The addition of married clergy is one part of the overall reform that has to occur to keep clergy and parishes healthy, in my opinion. However, I don't think that the model of priest as CEO, presider, spiritual guide, counselor, and more in a parish is sustainable from a psychological standpoint. It's too much and too demanding, particularly for those who are married. There have to be limits, boundaries, and people available to take over major parts of church operations and ministries in order for the organization to be healthy. Perhaps all clergy should be part-time to keep perspective and balance. All spiritual life and no normal living, especially in isolation, can become a trap and misery. Part-time clergy status would also settle some concerns that the cost of supporting an entire family by a parish may be overwhelming. Eventually, the top-down approach will have to be largely replaced by a conciliar model of equals for the priesthood to function well in a highly educated, diverse society. Psychologists and doctors have learned, often the hard way, to work hard to avoid being overwhelmed by the responsibilities of their positions. Those who fail to do this often report great dissatisfaction with their roles.

From what I have heard from "preachers' kids", being a child in a household headed by a priest or a minister is incredibly stressful because every action is scrutinized (or thought to be scrutinized) by the church community. Thus, I think that married priesthood should be reserved for those whose children are young adults.

Even though marriage would not solve the situation of abuse by clergy completely, I think that there is a certain "radar" that develops when one is a spouse and a parent regarding behaviors that might be overlooked by others without that experience. Such "radar" would be very useful in detecting problematic issues early.

This is following the trend of some other professional education programs (social work, law, nursing, occupational therapy, etc.). I think new models for second career individuals or those who are making a change in career are going to expand and that the residential setting will become more rare or will make major adjustments to accommodate the non-traditional, more mature student.

The trick for all of these new models that involve services to others is the vetting process which is hard to do unless one sees the student and how he or she responds to various events on a daily basis. That's where the parish will have to take a stronger role, because online, part-time, and weekend education will not provide the information that comes from observing the student in a residential setting on a regular basis.

Thomas the Seeker:

Christ is in our midst!!

I'm puzzled by this. The seminarians in my diocese have a six or seven year program that includes pre-theology before a four-year program of studies. An acquaintance of mine at the Archdiocesan seminary in Philadelphia told me his program is a year longer.

I think they still get an MDiv, but sound like it is longer than three years. ???

Bob

LadyBlue:

Christ is in our midst!!

Part time sounds like a solution until you get into a large parish. What happens if the priest cannot get out of work to do a funeral during the week? What happens to emergencies that always come up?

I'm a funeral director by training and profession. After half a century of being on call 24/7, I can tell you that part time just does not work in some professions. I believe that clergy is a profession like mine from the many conversations I have had with clergy over the years, comparing notes about the demands of our jobs and lives. Just as i cannot tell a family whose loved one suddenly passes at home to wait until I get out of my other job, a priest cannot tell a family that a sudden call for someone suddenly hospitalized will have to wait.

The problem with Catholics is that they do not have the habit of tithing and sacrificial giving. Part of that may be the fact that there is no transparency about how much comes in where the money goes. If the laity had the ability to have meaningful input into parish budgets, that might eventually change. But, currently, the big payouts give the impression that the money is going to pay for past sins and people are angry about that.

Bob