Original article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/to-save-the-church-dismantle-the-priesthood/588073/
The article being reviewed here was written by James Carroll, published in The Atlantic’s June 2019 print edition. Carroll has strongly addressed the notorious problem of child-abuse in the Catholic church, and as well suggested what he thought to be the justifying solution for this whole situation: the abolition of priesthood. This essay is a humble attempt to a substantive dialogue with Carroll’s positions on whether the abolition of priesthood in the Catholic church is the answer.
In Carroll’s five-part story, clericalism, which he fervently associated with priesthood, is castigated for being both the cause and consolidation for the evils done by the church’s clergy.
Part I – “The murder of a soul” – Carroll accused the head of the church, particularly Pope Francis, for his rather meek and insufficient actions upon the situation.
Part II – The trappings of empire – From Carroll’s observation, the Vatican II, though did reform the Church for better, had failed to address the issue of clericalism, which, in his words, “is at the root of Roman Catholic dysfunction.”
Part III – A tiny opening, Part IV – A culture of denial and Part V – There I am – Clericalism, Carroll claimed, is the underlying drive which allows, encourages, and attaches priests – be they predatory or full of integrity, to mendacity and willed ignorance.
However, I’ve observed some problems with Carroll’s argument: his denial of all theological identity of priests as he condemned priesthood merely to being the tool of clericalism; and his self-referential positions.
First and foremost, priesthood does not establish clericalism. Priesthood is not an artificial instrument to power. Clericalism is. “Clericalism’s origins lie not in the Gospels,” said Carroll, to which I agree. However, that of priesthood, be it of old or new covenant, does (1). Therefore, how come abolishing priesthood has anything to do with fighting clericalism?
To someone this influential, Carroll has taken things way too literally, saying:
When I became a priest, I placed my hands between the hands of the bishop ordaining me—a feudal gesture derived from the homage of a vassal to his lord […] Following this rubric of the sacrament, I gave my loyalty to him, not to a set of principles or ideals, or even to the Church.
Even bishops themselves have taken the vow of obedience to their superiors which ultimately points to THE superior that is God. In their ministry, priests and bishops act in persona Christi: with this basic doctrine in mind, it is obvious the vow of obedience does not compromise any sorts of selfish power-takeover by any individual.
On the Church’s suspension of predatory priests, Carroll claimed that this reflects the pompous perception that a priest is ontological superior than a lay person, to the point that the most severe punishment for a fallen one is to be laicized: to be stripped off of his authority and simply be one of the laity. As Catholic we believe that one goes through ontological changes through the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and that in The Holy Orders once again one’s ontology changes. But, ontological superiority does not mean “moral betterness”, and laicization of priests does not belittle any layperson. Here, to be like a layperson is a punishment to suspended priests in a sense that they can no longer perform actions grounded in their being (since the ordination leaves in them a mark unable to undo no matter what happens), and therefore could hardly come to life fulfillment (2).
Next, it is not really wise to take one’s own service of a few years to condemn a centuries-old holy sacrament. Carroll’s interpretation of the situation is based on what he himself experienced during his 5 years of priesthood. I find it disappointing that Carroll’s judgement has clearly been distorted by his pessimistic perspective on the clerical hierarchy. Actions have been taken (3), law has been issued (4), dialogues are welcome, and thousands of men and women of the Church are out there consoling and fighting for the victims. Though one might not be satisfied with the improvement just yet, it’s undeniable that efforts are being made.
Carroll has been haunted since once pouring his admiration on a heroic-turn-predatory priest. It is true that our limited and clumsy judgement is complicit in the cover-up of these evils. The thing is when no one is to blame, everyone is to blame (as how I see it in this case, for even the greatest minds have things they do not know of), but since Carroll has placed the blame on priesthood, it becomes what’s bound to capital punishment.
In Part IV, Carroll expanded this view by saying:
At a deeper level, Catholic clerics may be reluctant to judge their predatory fellows, because a priest, even if he is a person of full integrity, is always vulnerable to a feeling of having fallen short of an impossible ideal: to be “another Christ.” Where in such a system is there room for being human?
Here Carroll’s point seems to me invalid, because striving for moral perfection and being human do not mutually exclusive. Instead, the journey of perfecting one’s self matures human. Particularly to priests, to follow the call to be an Alter Christus is an enormous travail which necessarily entails moments and even subsequent actions of vulnerability and helplessness. However, such an invitation to constant moral fights enables one to, first be aware of, and then commit to eliminate one’s natural inclination to evils. Among priests and priests-to-be, there are misunderstandings of the idea of being morally perfect, but I believe it is more of a problem of education and spiritual orientation, rather than priesthood itself. On the other hand, Carroll might once again have taken the bible phrase literal, while “to be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” works out in gracious love and compassion (5), rather than in being sinless.
In Carroll’s words, priesthood is, at the same time, a reprehensible and piteous life in which one cannot escape from the manipulation of clericalism. While Carroll’s loathing for clericalism is sensible, and even admirable, he has made a mistake assimilating holy priesthood to mundane clericalism. And that alone makes his whole argument invalid.
Notes
(1) Among the many, we can confer Act 10, 1 Peter 2, and Romans 12.
(2) Agere sequitur esse (action follows being) is a principal of Thomist ontology. According to this principal, “fulfilled being derives its meaning from the act of existing according to our design”
Cf. https://www.catholicman.uk/agere-sequitur-esse/4594409013
(3) On December 2019, Pope Francis lifted Pontifical Secrecy rule for sex abuse cases. Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50824842.
(4) Vos Estis Lux Mundi
(5) Cf. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible and Expositor’s Greek Testament Commentary on Matthew 5:48.
καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι 