Ok
How does this keep going on ?
I'm beginning to think this isn't a systemic problem as much an institutional one.
What I mean by that is that it isn't how the church is managed (the systems) but that the institution of the priesthood is fundamentally flawed.
I'm not talking about married priest vs unmarried vs women priest vs. homosexual priest. What I'm saying is this (I'm trying to make this very clear, forgive me)
Something is tragically wrong with the way the priesthood is and how priests view themselves and each other.
Like cops. The good one would never rat out the bad ones. Why ?
Because they're all cops and cops don't rat out other cops.
Same thing only with god-like powers. Priests can loose sinners from sin, change wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ, create unifying bonds between people that can't be broken.
Do they view themselves and each other as above review and reproach because of what they are?
I'm seriously beginning to think yes.
I think we need to work toward more of a balance between clerical authority and self-governance from lay people in the pews. We are all the Church, not just the bishops, priests, and deacons. Congregationalism, where lay people basically control everything in each congregation, as some Protestant groups have, has it's own problems and I wouldn't want to go to that extreme.
However, could there perhaps be a middle way here? The Episcopal Church, as an example, has an elected vestry (parish council) that makes the financial decisions for the parish and, provided that the parish is self-sustaining (i.e. needs no funds from the dioceses and is able to tithe 10% of their parish revenues to the diocese), have the vestry hire the priest in consultation with the bishop. Then the priest is in charge of spiritual matters. And in practice the vestry and the priest wind up collaborating a lot, and the vestry can be voted out if the parish doesn't approve of how they are running things.
At the diocesan level in the Episcopal Church, the bishop is elected by the people of the diocese when there is a vacancy, and then must be affirmed by the majority of other bishops in the country and a majority of lay leaders representing other dioceses before he is consecrated and installed. There are representatives from every parish who vote in diocesan conventions on matters that effect the diocese.
Decisions at the very top of the Episcopal Church are made at a national convention every three years, which has two "houses"- a house of bishops with all the nation's bishops, and another house that has lay people, priests, and deacons. All decisions and changes must get majority votes in both houses.
I like that dynamic of a mixture of clerical and lay authority, and the interactions between them and also between the parish, the diocese and the national church. That's not to say it's perfect. I can't help but think in a world where parishes get a big say in picking their own priests and dicoeses get a big saying in picking their own bishops, and then those clerics share control with lay people, it would be much harder for a scandal like the sexual abuse thing to really take hold. You think a priest who abuses children would be allowed to stay around for long or hired by another parish if the parish had a say? How about a bishop who shuffles around priests who abuse children?
Also, in general, the culture of clericism is replaced by a culture of servant-leaders where there is accountability.
I am not saying the Roman Catholic Church should straight out adopt the Episcopal Church's mode of government, but I think that they should look at moving in that direction or something along those lines.
Clearly, a circular system where the Popes appoint bishops and the bishops assign bishops, and at each level clerics have absolute authority is not working. And, you're right, there are cultural issues where clerics have the equivalent of the old police blue code of silence and protect each other even when they commit crimes. I also think there are some Catholics who have it so deeply ingrained in them that priests are above them and holy that they will excuse anything. There are Catholic priests who've abused children who's parishioners want to "give them another chance" at times, according to articles, and you just wonder what in the world is wrong with these parishioners? We need to get rid of the days of pray, pay, and obey; and make parishioners players in determining how things are run. Respect for priests is good, but blind obedience and an inability to see when they are preying on innocents and the severity of that behavior indicates that things have gone too far and the culture has become toxic in some respects.
The Spirit of Vatican II is that the baptized are the Church. If that is ignored by the people in charge for too much longer, they may face a second Reformation. The last one was a Protestant Reformation, this one may be a schism. Alternately, in this day and age, people may just walk away from church and never come back at all- to any church. I think that last scenario is what's happening in many respects. The large number of Catholic immigrants to the United States is papering it over here in some respects, but look at how many ex-Catholics there are and what mass attendence numbers look like relative to the number of the baptized. Instead of nailing thesises to the door, people are just saying "You know what? I'll be back when I get married for the wedding, when my baby is born for the baptism, and when I die for the funeral. Other than that, I'll practice my religion at home." or "You know what? Who needs church anyway?".
Clerics seem to think because there hasn't been a large scale schism that the people are buying into their stuff, but people don't really do schism anymore, they do sleeping in on Sundays.
