#laity

From Frustration To Moral Agression. Celibacy produces moral agression in laity and clergy the same but asymmetrically.

Clergy is the engine. The priest does not merely abstain; he becomes a specialist in abstention.

Clerical celibacy creates chronic, structurally induced frustration. Not occasional repression, but lifelong blockage of sexuality, intimacy, lineage, and ordinary domestic power. This does not dissolve desire; it converts it. The converted form is moral authority, doctrinal rigidity, and obsessive regulation of others’ bodies. Historically, the most detailed sexual moral codes were written by celibate men with no legitimate outlet. That is not an insult; it is a predictable psychological transformation under constraint.

This frustration returns as active moral aggression. Not usually sadistic, but corrective, intrusive, pedagogical, and punitive. Think surveillance of purity, obsession with sin, confessional probing. The priest does not merely abstain; he becomes a specialist in abstention. His blocked libido is compensated by symbolic power. He cannot possess, but he can judge. He cannot reproduce, but he can define legitimacy. He cannot enjoy, but he can forbid.

In the laity, frustration is managed, not produced.

The laity are not required to be celibate, but their sexuality is tightly regulated with when, with whom, how often, for what purpose. Desire is allowed only under narrow conditions and permanently shadowed by guilt. This produces chronic low-grade frustration, anxiety, and self-surveillance. But unlike the clergy, the laity do not gain authority from this frustration. They gain obedience. Their frustration is passive; it stabilizes the system.

So the energy economy works by the laity generating guilt and dependence and the clergy accumulating symbolic power and moral aggression. One produces the fuel, the other burns it. There is also a feedback loop. Clerical moral aggression intensifies lay guilt; lay guilt confirms clerical authority. The system closes on itself. Important clarification is that this does not require bad intentions. Most clergy sincerely believes the doctrine. That is precisely why it works. Internalized belief makes power efficient.

Officials and staff involved in the upcoming Conclave have taken an oath of secrecy.

The oath, administered by Cardinal Kevin Joseph Farrell, Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, was taken by all individuals — both clergy and laity — who will be present for the conclave.

This group includes the Secretary of the College of Cardinals, the Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, seven papal masters of ceremonies, two Augustinian religious assigned to the Papal Sacristy, religious personnel of various languages for confessions, medical doctors and nurses, elevator operators of the Apostolic Palace, staff responsible for dining services and cleaning as well as florists, technical services staff and those responsible for transporting electors from the Casa Santa Marta to the Apostolic Palace, members of the Swiss Guard assigned to surveillance near the Sistine Chapel, the Director of Security Services and Civil Protection of the Vatican City State, and some of his collaborators.

Every diocese is supposed to be involved in preparatory meetings for the Synod on Synodality these days. I found this article by Stephen White to be among the more intelligent, and hopeful, accounts of all this. 

“I have spent an inordinate amount of time thinking, writing, and speaking about synodality in recent months. Mention the Synod on Synodality to any American Catholic and you are likely to receive a wide range of responses:

Some are excited at the prospect of a more participatory, even democratic Church.

Some are skeptical about the prudence of holding a synod at such a divided, even chaotic, moment in the life of the Church.

Some are concerned about the Germany Synodal Path and worry that the Synod on Synodality will be an opportunity for the German model to metastasize.

Some, having seen various synod “promotional materials,” have decided it is likely as not to be an exercise in silliness.

“But in my experience, the most common response among American Catholics to a synod on synodality is polite indifference. Most Catholics simply don’t know what all this talk of “synodality” is supposed to mean. For the most part, they keep this indifference to themselves for fear of seeming less than enthusiastic about something Pope Francis so obviously cares about. As I’ve written before, synodality is a neologism in search of a theology.”

Pope Francis seems to have invented the concept of “synodality” wholecloth, and never seems to have defined it precisely. The impression I have is that, back when he was a bishop, he did not like the way that the curia in the Vatican during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI had taken so many decisions out of the hands of bishops (at least partly, in an attempt to reform the bishops’ dioceses for them). The synods of bishops held in Rome, one of the initiatives of Vatican II, always ended with a “post-synodal apostolic letter” by the pope, which had the effect of making the bishops attending the various synods little more than junior contributors to a papal document. Centralizing too many decisions in Rome, without enough input from the bishops, made it hard for the bishops to do what they thought best. And too many bishops were incentivized by all this to listen only to Rome, and not to their own people. So the original spirit of these synods, which was to have the benefits of Church councils without the high stakes of these councils, has been lost. ‘Synodality’, which Stephen White rightly calls “a neologism in search of a theology”, to my ear evokes something like this line of argument. Or at least, that’s the vibe it gives me.  

In White’s more hopeful understanding, synodality is a way for the whole Church to turn to mission, rather than the Church being focused entirely on the hierarchy:

“The word is meant to describe a particular modus vivendi et operandi for the Church, one in which the entire People of God takes responsibility for the mission we all share by virtue of our Baptism, particularly as laid out by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium. If clergy are expected to carry out the Church’s evangelizing mission while the laity are more or less just along for the ride, is it any wonder that the Church grows sclerotic and evangelical vigor wanes? That this has never been the Church’s understanding of herself hasn’t prevented it from becoming, to a disturbing degree, the status quo in many quarters. The laity need to rediscover the power and promise of their own baptism for the good of the Church – and the world, to whom she is sent to proclaim the Good News...”

I’m not sure that the problem in the Church is that Church officials don’t listen enough to the laity. So I’m not convinced that a bunch of listening sessions is going to be helpful. The problem with the laity tends to be a lack of formation, so that their opinions are not formed according to the mind of the Church. Listening to opinions that are worldly rather than Christian isn’t the way for the laity to “rediscover the power and promise of their own baptism.” There’s nothing worldly about baptism! To rediscover one’s baptism is to think in an extremely supernatural way. While most of the silliness and chaos to which White alludes is actually a result of (a) listening to “laity” who don’t think like lay Christians, and (b) compromising the proclamation of the supernatural vision of the Church in order to appease their worldliness.

Quote of the day, 31 August: St. Elizabeth of the Trinity concludes her Last Retreat on this day in 1906; she writes about death and says that the soul "scorns this natural life and withdraws from it... and flows into God"

“I must stay in your house!” [Cf. Lk 19:5]. It is my Master who expresses this desire! My master who wants to dwell in me with the Father and His Spirit of love, so that, in the words of the beloved disciple, I may have “communion” with Them [Cf. 1 Jn 1:3]. “You are no longer guests or strangers, but you already belong to the House of God,” says St. Paul [Cf. Ep 2:19]. This is how I understand…