Friday, February 25, 2005
On Neorubricism and Rent-a-Bishops
John Allen's The Word From Rome is essential reading for Catholic netsurfers. See the sidebar for a link. This month, Allen reports from LA's Catechetical Congress and summarizes Richard Gaillardetz's grade assessment of the Church since Vatican II. He gives post-conciliar liturgy a C+. You'll be surprised to hear I think he's slightly over-generous. I thought we were at about C+ about ten years ago and have slipped a notch or two since then. Gaillardetz agrees with the slippage, putting the Church at about a B in the mid 90's.
Like Gaillardetz, I think neorubricism is a problem for dioceses. At best, it assumes that legal boundaries will continue liturgical reformation where it may have run off the tracks. We Catholics are not at our best. Neorubricism at worst provides little or no challenge to parishes, dioceses and nations that have yet to embrace Vatican II, and it gives them little impetus to move forward. Little snippets such as the advising against the total absence of liturgical music at Sunday and holy day Masses will be conveniently ignored, and the measuring stick will be how many or how few complaints the pastor or bishop gets.
Speaking of leadership, be heartened (or dismayed) they rated a D. Maybe another generous grade. The curia is a runaway train with little basis in history or theology to be running roughshod over bishops and conferences. Neocon complainers who bemoan the diocesan liturgy office have nothing on curia-bashers. Multiply the problem by a number of questionable offices in Rome and throw in a complete lack of checks and balances, and you have a Church being pulled like taffy in at least a half-dozen directions.
Allen writes sympathetically on the curia, and in theory, I can see the value of having curial offices that provide actual support and direction for the Church. But lacking competence (and admitting, as they have, that competence is overrated) in many theological disciplines, and having poorly assigned leadership is a recipe for disaster.
I was happy to see the theologian hammer away on the Rent-A-Bishop. Allen reports, "Among other things, Gaillardetz wittily remarked that if a small diocese gets a prelate who's even halfway competent and energetic, it's clear from the outset that he's a "Rent-A-Bishop" - in other words, before long he'll be transferred somewhere else."
As I thought about that, the sinister side of the practice struck me. Consider it. A relatively good bishop is appointed in a small diocese and just when he gets to know his clergy and starts to get things going, he's off to a big diocese where the hurdles are higher and the ramp-up to trust is longer. Before you know it, you have bishops who have served in three or even four dioceses who are still merely "promising," simply because they've never been anywhere long enough to make a true impact. Of course, that suits the Congregation of Bishops just fine: they can comb through good shepherds, steer them to careers of minimal achievement, and assure their ministry remains one of getting-to-know-you. Careerists only have to cooperate with the system, and to hell with the sheep.
