Idealize or Demonize ?
One way the laity indulges in Clericalism is by ascribing God’s presence and activity exclusively to clergy. Lay Catholics can fall into the habit of treating the priest as a member of a special class, making more of him than what he is because of his higher social standing or because of the sacrament of orders. In times past, the majority of the Catholic population was composed of immigrants coming to America to seek a better life. People understandably overdid their respect for the clergy, since as a class the clergy were better educated than the people who needed their assistance in many areas of life, especially employment and politics. “Father” was also better connected than the parishioner who went to him for jobs or counsel. Today, most people don’t look to the clergy for that kind of assistance. We have therapists, social workers and gurus of all sorts to take care of our problems. Even without the sexual abuse scandal, it is obvious the clergy’s social status has declined.
As a result of the sexual abuse scandal, the laity may also feel the contrary urge to make less of the clergy, i.e. to disparage or even demonize the priest. They may imagine his capacity for sin to be the full realization of who he is. Can you conjure the interior conflict people feel when they experience the urge toward admiration and revulsion at the same time?
Of course it is wrong to idolize the clergy, and assume they can do no wrong; it is equally incorrect to suspect they are always up to no good. What’s so bad about idolizing? Instead of admiring and imitating the goodness we find attractive, idolization idealizes the priest into a false god. Instead of winning people to Christ, the priest becomes the object of adoration. What’s the evil of demonizing? Instead of recognizing the imperfect vehicle the priest is, and praying for him, demonization sees him as the incarnation of evil.
Idolizing the priest enables the people to excuse themselves from the obligation of spiritual growth. After all, “we people are only human”, and “nobody could be holy like Father”. This exaggerated reverence also gives people an “out” if the priest they idolize falls short and scandalizes them by sinful behavior. Then they are able to say, “This is shocking! If he sinned, we can hardly be expected to be holy”. Thus people can have it both ways, and always excuse themselves from the call to conversion and spiritual growth. Since he, the priest, is called to a higher life of holiness, and is unable to achieve it, what can possibly be expected of us laity who are so much less than he is? Also, if he cannot do it, why should we even try? Demonizing him because of his failure excuses one from conversion and growth. “He obviously doesn’t believe and live this stuff, so why should we?” His failure justifies and excuses my sins.
The clergy could also assume the honors, privileges and superiority conferred on him were his natural right because of ordination. The sacrament made the priest an “Alter Christus”. Since he was now a priest, he was automatically a spiritual superman! Didn’t theology (or his misunderstanding of it) back up this exaggeration with the teaching that the sacrament of orders had forever marked his soul and brought about an ontological change in him? “God’s Anointed” could do no wrong. (But of course he could, he did, and would continue to do precisely that.) Assuming the false superiority of class distinction, or divinization by sacrament, clergy can easily condescend and treat lay people as inferiors.
We priests can also go to the other extreme of leveling the playing field. We can misunderstand the spiritual equality and dignity which both priests and people share as a result of our creation and Baptism. We can treat laity as if they were exactly the same as clergy. This counterfeit solidarity results in a false democratization of the priesthood, and a dummying down of the call. This reduction can increase to the point where the priest no longer responds to his calling because he no longer hears or sees it as real. Just as class superiority and an idealized spiritual identity are an inadequate foundation for relationship with the laity, so are counterfeit solidarity and a false equality.
As a priest, I can become two separate persons, with an artificial split between my natural and supernatural self. The result is that I act before others as if my supernatural identity were my whole being, and I can only be my natural self in private or with colluding partners. Privilege enables me to blind myself to my faults, weaknesses, and sins. The longer I do this, the worse my situation becomes. Eventually the sins and blindness became a more permanent feature of my character. Any priest, (like any human being) can live out of his idealized image of himself, and not out of his real self. By blinding himself to his faults, the priest also binds himself to them. Whoever sins is the slave of sin, our Lord says. (John 8:34) Blindness and arrogance mutually reinforce and feed off each other in clergy as they do in anyone else.
When when idolization of priests is part of the cultural landscape, it is not recognized as such but seen as a positive social value, namely as respect for men of the cloth. When demonization prevails, anti-clericalism is seen as a positive social value. In both instances, the codependence keeps the dysfunction functioning.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment