To have an official 'clergy' is to have some organizational structure with authority to say who is clergy and who is not. But organizations tend to become corrupt, confusing their interests with the interests they are supposed to serve. It happens everywhere, but is particularly tragic in religious organizations.
The past, recent and apparently ongoing moral depravity of many in the Catholic hierarchy (NOT Catholics in general) supplies one reason why I oppose even small steps towards institutionalizing Pagan practice through official 'clergy' UNLESS it is crystal clear that this term ONLY reflects their capacity to offer counseling or other secular professional skills. This is my sole concession to what I have learned since first making my case against it in Pagans and Christians.
Consider the hideous behavior of Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Brazil who recently excommunicated the doctors who performed an abortion on a nine year old girl who had been repeatedly raped by her father. He also refused to excommunicate her father because his crime was not as bad. Just the actions of one man? No. The Vatican came to his defense when decent people were appalled.
Consider also the record of the Church hierarchy covering up the records of pedophile priests. I live in northern California, where pedophile priests were actively protected by former Santa Rosa bishops Mark Hurley and John Steinbock. The abuses went on for two decades. I wrote about them in the early 90s. They continue.
Consider Bernard Law, Cardinal and Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts, resigned after Church documents surfaced suggesting he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese. Earlier when the media began emphasizing these scandals, Law spoke out powerfully: "By all means," he said at the time, "we call down God's power on the media, particularly the Globe." For reporting on the scandals. This was supposedly "anti-Catholic." After his resignation, Law moved to the Vatican, received a new post, and later gave a funeral Mass for Pope John Paul II.
My point is not that pedophilia occurred in the Catholic Church - abuses like that happen in any large organization and the number of priests involved is small. This issue is not unique to the Catholic Church. According to Christianity Today it happens in many other churches. My point is the organization's complicity in covering up the crimes, protecting the perps, and when discovered, blaming others.
Consider the current Pope's lifting the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying right -wing Bishop. Days before his being readmitted to the Church, Richard Williamson said on TV that the historical record indicated that there had not been any gassing of 6 million Jews. Defend excommunicating doctors who performed an abortion on a nine year old who had been raped, and welcome back a so-called 'bishop' who was a holocaust denier.
My point is not anti-Catholic - this is my second explicit statement on that issue - but a much more interesting one. Organizations tend to become corrupt. (See my Why Organizations Lie. ) Religious organizations are no better, and possibly worse, than secular ones. As we grow in numbers and influence there will be demands for Pagans to become more institutionalized, more organized, more "like everybody else" so Christians can better relate to us.
This is but one reason among a number we would be making a serious mistake to follow that beguiling logic.
Consider the hideous behavior of Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Brazil who recently excommunicated the doctors who performed an abortion on a nine year old girl who had been repeatedly raped by her father. He also refused to excommunicate her father because his crime was not as bad. Just the actions of one man? No. The Vatican came to his defense when decent people were appalled.
Consider also the record of the Church hierarchy covering up the records of pedophile priests. I live in northern California, where pedophile priests were actively protected by former Santa Rosa bishops Mark Hurley and John Steinbock. The abuses went on for two decades. I wrote about them in the early 90s. They continue.
Consider Bernard Law, Cardinal and Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts, resigned after Church documents surfaced suggesting he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese. Earlier when the media began emphasizing these scandals, Law spoke out powerfully: "By all means," he said at the time, "we call down God's power on the media, particularly the Globe." For reporting on the scandals. This was supposedly "anti-Catholic." After his resignation, Law moved to the Vatican, received a new post, and later gave a funeral Mass for Pope John Paul II.
My point is not that pedophilia occurred in the Catholic Church - abuses like that happen in any large organization and the number of priests involved is small. This issue is not unique to the Catholic Church. According to Christianity Today it happens in many other churches. My point is the organization's complicity in covering up the crimes, protecting the perps, and when discovered, blaming others.
Consider the current Pope's lifting the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying right -wing Bishop. Days before his being readmitted to the Church, Richard Williamson said on TV that the historical record indicated that there had not been any gassing of 6 million Jews. Defend excommunicating doctors who performed an abortion on a nine year old who had been raped, and welcome back a so-called 'bishop' who was a holocaust denier.
My point is not anti-Catholic - this is my second explicit statement on that issue - but a much more interesting one. Organizations tend to become corrupt. (See my Why Organizations Lie. ) Religious organizations are no better, and possibly worse, than secular ones. As we grow in numbers and influence there will be demands for Pagans to become more institutionalized, more organized, more "like everybody else" so Christians can better relate to us.
This is but one reason among a number we would be making a serious mistake to follow that beguiling logic.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
To Mariele - those are some of the wisest comments I've heard anywhere. I agree with you. Any need I can see for a Pagan clergy is only for the service of handfasting, funerals and counseling. NOT to become controlling entities.
My own practice and preference revolves around direct experience of deities and the divine here and now on planet Earth. That's why I'm a Craft practitioner. If Craft insisted (formally and organizationally) on clergy and laity, then I wouldn't be a Craft practitioner. But I would be some sort of Neo-Pagan whose practice grew from direct experience.
I don't need or want any intervening mediation from anybody or for anybody.
Organizationally, I think the emergence of a Pagan clergy class is unfortunate. Not just because of potential for abuses and bureaucratization but because, spiritually and magically, such a class makes access and activity hierarchical in a manner that defeats an essential Pagan vision of who practitoners are and how they may appreciate the world.
Yes, the state regulates some activities and demands a "clergy." But that does not means we ought to have one.
Chris,
I live in New York State. Before I performed my first legal wedding I wrote to the Attorney General of the state to ask what the law said about who could perform weddings. I got back a nice letter saying that the Attorney General's office is not allowed to give legal advice but they sent along copies of all the relevant laws.
New York State does not recognize marriages performed by captains of ships at sea (unless the people getting married think it does).
Before I performed the wedding I asked some of my fellow community members if they would be willing to testify that they considered me qualified to perform the ceremony. They said yes. It never came up but I was glad I had asked anyway.
Section 11 of the New York State Domestic Relations Law.
Article 3 : Solemnization, Proof and Effect of Marriage
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=29&a=4
"S 10. Marriage a civil contract. Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential."
"S 11. By whom a marriage must be solemnized. No marriage shall be valid unless solemnized by either:
1. A clergyman or minister of any religion, or by the senior leader, or any of the other leaders, of The Society for Ethical Culture in the city of New York, having its principal office in the borough of Manhattan, or by the leader of The Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture, having its principal office in the borough of Brooklyn of the city of New York, or of the Westchester Ethical Society, having its principal office in Westchester county, or of the Ethical Culture Society of Long Island, having its principal office in Nassau county, or of the Riverdale-Yonkers Ethical Society having its principal office in Bronx county, or by the leader of any other Ethical Culture Society affiliated with the American Ethical Union."
"7. The term "clergyman" or "minister" when used in this article, shall include those defined in section two of the religious corporations law."
Religious Corporations Law
ARTICLE 1 : SHORT TITLE AND DEFINITIONS
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=103&a=2
S 2. Definitions. A "Religious Corporations Law corporation" is a corporation created for religious purposes to which this chapter applies under section two-a of this chapter. Unless the context otherwise requires, whenever "religious corporation" or "corporation" is used in this chapter, such term shall mean a "Religious Corporations Law corporation".
An "incorporated church" is a religious corporation created to enable its members to meet for divine worship or other religious observances.
An "unincorporated church" is a congregation, society, or other assemblage of persons who are accustomed to statedly meet for divine worship or other religious observances, without having been incorporated for that purpose.
The term "clergyman" and the term "minister" include a duly authorized pastor, rector, priest, rabbi, and a person having authority from, or in accordance with, the rules and regulations of the governing ecclesiastical body of the denomination or order, if any, to which the church belongs, or otherwise from the church or synagogue to preside over and direct the spiritual affairs of the church or synagogue."
"To have an official 'clergy' is to have some organizational structure with authority to say who is clergy and who is not."
Structure by itself is not evil. Having a person designated as the "leader" of the ritual, moment, whatever does not by itself create a Pope. A cultivated garden is going to grow stronger plants then a wild one.
Religion is meant to inspire individuals. We are social creatures. We interact and work off each other. Sure, the spiritual experience is a personal one. But why does that have to be a lonely venture? Yes, some people, in positions of authority wield that power wrongly. Does that mean that all people are bad? Surely there are clergy models that give the power to the masses ie the Jewish synagogue model were the membership can depose the Rabbi (meaning teacher) at any time.
"But organizations tend to become corrupt, confusing their interests with the interests they are supposed to serve."
Sure, you will get bad apples. Human nature is that ambitious people will tend to gather more power. But if they serve the group interest and do their job AND WORK, who is harmed? In any organization, but especially a religious one, the membership has the keys and ability to dictate what it's Leaders do. If they perform poorly, they can always be made leave.
The fact is that Everyone can be Clergy. If they do the work. Those who Gift of themselves to the Gods and the Community, should be Gifted with honor.
Rules and Institutions are Dogma. So what? Don't like them, then do your own thing. But to suggest that it's all for nothing seems like, at best, that you are decrying the hard efforts of some without a viable alternative. And, at worst, comparing pagan leadership to popes, pedophiles and holocaust deniers.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that - but it won't if we don't give Pagan clergy absolute power.
I think it is worthwhile having people properly trained and accredited in counselling skills and having a good overview of Pagan understandings of birth, life, death, and rebirth, ethics and the nature of reality (so they can do chaplaincy work in prsions, hospitals, universities etc). But that does not mean that they thereby gain authority over other Pagans, or authority to speak for other Pagans.
A lot of people want to take part in Pagan rituals and spirituality, but not to become a dedicated priest or priestess. Unless we are going to turn these people away, we will need people who are skilled facilitators of ritual and who have an understanding of group dynamics.
There are many different models of clergy, and I think we would do well to examine them all before dismissing the whole concept. I look forward to reading the other posts in this series though.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.