Introduction

"Clericalism" in the traditional sense is often used to denote the application of the formal, church-based, leadership or opinion of ordained clergy in matters of either the church or broader political and socio-cultural import.   Outside of Catholicism, clericalism is used to denote the divisions between ordained clergy and lay leaders in some churches while the older meaning of the term—an application of church-based theory or thought to secular issues—seems rather lost in most current uses of the term.

Much debate in recent years over the sexual-abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church has brought about charges of "clericalism" in the sense of bishops and other leaders covering up the misactions of clergy under their leadership. In this application of    the term, clericalism has come to imply a division between ordained church leaders—that such leaders have an exclusive society unto themselves—and the lay followers. Doyle argued that the Catholic Church is a 21st century monarchy, suffering from the "disease of clericalism." Doyle is the Dominican priest and canon lawyer who authored a 1985 report on sexual abuse for the Catholic Church.

Clericalism is dysfunctional

Clericalism is always dysfunctional, crippling the spiritual and emotional maturity of the priest, bishop, or deacon caught in its web. The laity instinctively resists the patronizing and dominating tendencies in priests who have succumbed to it”. The Conference    Major Superiors of Men, 1983 held in Washington D.C. made the following observation about clericalism :“ It constitutes the world in which clergy live and work, and to a great extent, the world in which they play. Clericalism involves: “The conscious or unconscious concern to promote interests of the clergy and to protect the privileges and power that have traditionally been conceded to those in the clerical state. There are attitudinal, behavioral and institutional dimensions to the phenomenon of clericalism. Clericalism arises from both personal and social dynamics, is expressed in various cultural forms, and often is reinforced by institutional structures. Among its chief manifestations are an authoritarian style of ministerial leadership, rigidly hierarchical worldview, and a virtual identification of the holiness and grace of the church with the clerical state and, thereby, with the cleric himself. As such, clericalism is particularly evident in the ordained clergy, though it does not pertain exclusively to it”.  

The same document recognizes the clerical dysfunctionality even in lay ministers and nuns belonging to the Catholic Church. The document states that persons other than clerics can also exhibit the traits of clericalism. Lay people, religious men and women are liable to the pitfalls of clerical in certain situation. Generally speaking, exclusive, elitist or dominating behavior can be engaged in by any person or group within the church. Such behavior is properly termed clericalism when it rests on a claim to special religious expertise or ecclesial authority, based on role or status in the church.

In this context it is to be acknowledged that all the priests are not affected by this dysfunctional condition. For many priests, clerical privileges, even passing, light-hearted references to clerical prerogatives, prove uncomfortable. These men are at home with their identity as priests but even more at home with their identity as baptized disciples. They are able to feel with the laity as equals as baptized disciples and do not feel they are separated from them as human beings. They certainly feel that they are set apart to witness the values of humility and universal brotherhood. They do not feel that they are ‘set apart' in a sense of superiority.   When shown respect they feel uneasiness and they have learned to return the same to the individual expressing it. Clericalism, they have understood, weakens a parish's sense of community – and they see community building as one of their primary responsibilities. Without asserting their authority, without the slightest trace of an authoritarian manner, they are perceived by parishioners as profoundly authoritative. The authoritarian priest, on the other hand, is always angry and frustrated. Clericalism may command a superficial deference, but it blocks honest human communication and ultimately leaves the cleric practicing it isolated.

Episcopal clericalism

Speaking about his Episcopal ministry Saint Augustine said, “If I am in fear because I am for you, I am consoled to be with you. Because for you I am a Bishop, with you I am a Christian. The first name is one of responsibility, the second, one of grace. The former is the name of a danger, the latter of salvation''. Pastores Gregis , the Vatican document for the Bishops points out that the exercise of authority in the Church cannot be understood as something impersonal or bureaucratic, precisely because it is an authority born of witness. All that the Bishop says and does must reveal the authority of Christ's word and his way of acting. Without the authoritativeness of his lived holiness – his personal witness of faith, hope and love – only with difficulty could a Bishop's governance be accepted by the People of God as a manifestation of the active presence of Christ in his Church.  

The word of Jesus is very clear on communion in the Church:   ''You know that those who are supposed to rule over the gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you: whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many'   

In the section on pastoral style of governance and diocesan communion the document deals with the concept of ecclesial communion or spirituality of communion. This document deals with the need and urgency of developing the skills of communication and dialogue. It also recognizes the need to train the personnel in these very essential communication skills.

The document says that ecclesial communion in its organic structure calls for personal responsibility on the part of the Bishop, but it also presupposes the participation of every category of the faithful, inasmuch as they share responsibility for the good of the particular Church which they themselves form.   The document states that bishop will make every effort to develop, within his particular Church, structures of communion and participation which make it possible to listen to the Spirit who lives and speaks in the faithful, in order to guide them in carrying out whatever the same Spirit suggests for the true good of the Church  

In his Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte   Pope Paul II pointed out the need to ''make the Church the home and the school of communion''. The importance of communication and   skill development at all levels of the Church   is emphasized in the following words: “Obviously the Bishop, in his own spiritual journey, has the primary duty of promoting and encouraging a spirituality of communion, and tirelessly working to make it a basic educational principle wherever human and Christian formation takes place: in parishes, Catholic associations, ecclesial movements, Catholic schools and youth groups. The Bishop will be particularly concerned to ensure that the spirituality of communion takes root and grows wherever future priests are trained, that is to say, in seminaries and in religious novitiates, in religious houses, in institutes and faculties of theology”

Bishops who treat people without the normal respect, courtesies and rights that they have rightly come to expect in secular society often go unchecked. Some among the bishops blatantly ignore their accountability to their priests and people and do not wish to be challenged. They feel that they are a ‘law' unto themselves. They violate the Cannon Laws and misinterpret it to their advantage. They know for sure that they have absolute authority and there is no mechanism to check their acts. They have succeeded to intimidate and demoralize the clergy with coercive power. They never care for the Church teachings and exhortations when it comes to challenge their dysfunctional pastoral expressions.

A bishop caught up in a clerical mode of functioning seldom enjoys the kind of fraternal relationship with his priests that both he and they need in order to meet the draining needs of pastoral care and to assuage the burden of loneliness inherent to celibacy. Episcopal clericalism often finds expression as arrogance and at times as pompous arrogance in an unconscious manner. The wisdom and humility of Pope St.Gregory   the Great is worth noting: In regard to his office, (Gregory) retained a wholly admirable humility, infrequent enough in his predecessors, hardly ever displayed by his successors. His favorite title was neither ‘Pope' nor ‘Patriarch of the West', but ‘servant of the servants of God'. He admonished the patriarch of Constantinople for styling himself ‘the Ecumenical Patriarch' and objected strenuously when the patriarch of Alexandria addressed Gregory as ‘Universal Papa' (that is, Pope or Father). “Away with these words”, exclaimed the bishop of Rome , “that increase vanity and weaken love!”   A bishop should be ever “a minister, not a master, “one who attempts to subdue himself, not his brethren”.

Titles carried over from feudal and courtly ages long past, tend to overshadow our fundamental, common identity in the Body of Christ. They are hallmarks of clericalism. Titles mean a lot and they are not helpful to the clerics and the believers. It is high time the hierarchies pay enough attention to these and make a concerted effort to abolish these titles and enter into the sublime state of ‘servant of servants' in pastoral ministry.

Clerical ambition

Ambition like sex is a fundamental human instinct. Like sex ambition is to be controlled and sublimated into a project of universal love and service. Sex is controlled by the Church through oaths and legislation. Ambition is tacitly encouraged and patronized. A large number of priests and especially those in major seminaries would like nothing better than to be named a bishop. In the book: Sacred Silence   Donald Bernard Cozzens writes: “Especially in celibate world of the Latin rite nothing quite pleases the soul as the realization that one is thought well of by one's superiors. There are, of course, few human rewards in the priesthood - limited opportunities for promotion, occasional small increments in allowances, little public acclaim other than being made a monsignor. In the clerical world which is fundamentally a feudal world, a priest needs to capture the eye of the bishop if he is to find ‘preferment' “

As ‘ambition' is thought to be in ecclesial culture as unbecoming its urgent longings are carefully guarded and disguised. A thoughtful note or a tastefully chosen gift to the priest's ecclesial superior may really be motivated by ambitious longings the priest himself has more or less successfully repressed. Even when justice and truth beckons a priest to speak the truth to the superiors, he maintains a silence, which he thinks, is best the option for his ambitious climb in the ecclesial career. An ambitious priest is keenly sensitive to the effect an imprudent word might have on his ecclesial career advancement. What his superior's might think is often defining factor that shapes his speech and behavior. This happens among clergy, both priests and bishops, as the fear of the peer group is bound to affect all human beings.

Bishops have their own ambitious problems. They strive and maneuver for to become archbishops and cardinals. Ambitious bishops keep alive the older, closed clerical system with its subtle protocols for advancement and recognition. They cling to even the Roman ecclesiastical dress styles forgetting that they live and work in India , the land of marginalized and disposed people. Unholy ambition in a priest is always a signal that his faith is weak. His belief in dogmas and doctrinal statements from Vatican may be strong, but his ecclesial careerism gives him away. He has yet to take the gospel to heart. He has yet to discover what really matters.   Unhealthy ambition is one of the symptoms of dysfunctional clericalism. It is a symptom that needs prevention and healing. Repressed ambition, like repressed sexuality, eventually erupts in behaviors and attitudes that demoralize and scandalize the faithful. This illness will stay with the church as long as its present structures are assumed to be above review and renewal.  

In this dysfunctional state of denial and minimization of truth and in the grip of fear a priest often surrenders his intellectual life, no longer thinking theologically or pastorally with any kind of creativity or imagination. His principal virtue is a blind obedience and a rigid orthodoxy and his behavior is always that of the proper clergyman. The ecclesial culture in Indian Church is more dysfunctional as the feudal nature of the Church is tenaciously guarded by the hierarchy. Years of indoctrination and unchallenged tradition and practices offer less hope for a change in the mind set of the Indian Catholic laity.

Clerical Power

There is evidence that people respond differently to the various power bases. Influence based on special skills or knowledge is called expert power. Influence based on possession by an individual of desirable resources or personal traits is called referent power. Expert and referent forms of power are derived from an individual's personal qualities. In contrast, coercive power, reward power and legitimate power are essentially organizationally derived. Of all the bases of power available to man, power to hurt is possibly most often used. The State with its military force and claws of law intimidate nations and its own citizens.   Businesses control others by controlling economic resources.   Institutions of learning exercise their power by denying the right to formal education.   Church threatens the members with excommunication and loss of grace.   At the personal level, individuals use coercive power relying on physical strength, verbal facility, or the ability to grant or withhold emotional support from others.

At the organizational level, coercive power is used to dismiss, or demote or threaten individuals. People in power manipulate the behavior of others with granting of rewards such as money, promotions, and preferred work assignments. Coercive and reward powers are actually counterparts of each other.  

Power is attractive and seductive. In the ecclesial culture in which a priest is live, move, and work, it is often the approving nod of the bishop, his warm glance that is the ultimate reward. It is the vestiges of the feudal culture faithfully transmitted to our present times. The secret delight taken in the patron's nod is sweet indeed, but its price is diminishment of soul. Style takes precedence over substance and deferential agreement over honest conversation. The priest is made less capable of living his own life with passion and integrity.  

There are exceptions and they are most encouraging. Some bishops have realized the pitfalls of clericalism and have made a conscious departure from clerical culture. They give the message to their brother priests that they are their elder brother rather than their all-knowing and all-wise ‘father'. They create a spirit in the community of priests that fosters adult responsibility and open discussion of issues that really matter. They create a condition where his priests breathe fresh air and discover that their deepest ambition is to be the disciple and priest God had called them to be.

Christian leadership

To the enslaved Jewish community in exile Moses appeared as the true shepherd. David would be his heir, but his successors distorted the function. The situation of lost sheep, of flocks without a shepherd became a reality. Amos, a professional shepherd, cried out against the false pastors (Amos 1:1; 3:12). Osee announced for the first time that God was the true pastor. Isaiah spoke of the shepherd king while not rejecting the God-shepherd theme. These two traditions joined in the person of Christ, God and Messiah at the same time.   From the perspective of the sheep, the shepherd is its life protector.   He provides them with food, pastures and streams of water. He rescues them from the predators and thieves. At night he gives them shelter and rest.   When injured and unable to walk, he carries them on his shoulder. He knows each and every one of them by name. He is ever watchful and willing to endanger his life for them.   From the perspective of the shepherd, the sheep is ever loving and loyal.   They obey his commands and follow him wherever he leads them. They recognize his voice and appreciate his service. They are grateful and lovable.   They provide the means for his livelihood.   Jesus is the shepherd who has come to save the sheep from the restrictions imposed on them by the Jewish leaders. He has come to give life in abundance.

In the context of Church leadership , the symbol of the shepherd is applicable only if we consciously admit that we are dealing with men and women created in the image of God. Human beings can instinctively discriminate the good and bad qualities of the Church leadership. The Church leadership has to believe in the inherent capacity of men and women for self-direction. The people of God have to be involved in the decision making process for better communion and growth. People expect their leaders to be “prophets of justice and defender of human rights, rights of human beings, made in the image and likeness of God”  

Leadership is a group process, a collective effort, rather than the actions of a single individual. Christian fellowship involves a radical response from its leaders. The Master in the Church will wash the feet of its Servants. Jesus washes the feet of His disciples. Power in the Church is service. Leaders in the Church are Servants. But in reality this perspective is ignored. Human need for domination influences their cognitions and emotions. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is time for the Church leadership to wake up to a Christian understanding of leadership and power.

Conclusion

The disease of clericalism is an age old problem of the Church. We can see its beginnings from the Gospel passages written many years after the death of Jesus and his disciples. The Gospel accounts of the fight for supremacy among the disciples reflect the power struggle experienced by the Early Church . Over the years this malady affected the authentic witnessing of the Gospel of Christ. What is more disturbing to us today is not the disease of clericalism but the denial and minimization of the disease in the ecclesial culture. A holy silence on this disease and its symptoms is a grave matter for concern for the Church in the modern world. In retreats and seminars for clergy this problem never finds an emphasis. This situation of clericalism indicates that it is also a systemic disorder as it has its roots in the ecclesial structures.   Perhaps this problem may continue for ages. What we can do today is to become aware of the ramifications of this personal and collective disorder in our personal lives and strive for an authentic discipleship in the footsteps of Jesus, our Savior.

(This Arrticle was published by  Asian Journal of Vocation &