This says that we should have job descriptions, there should be a "clear procedure" for resolving disputes, there should be personal support and "ongoing development" and individuals should be kept informed of and consulted about changes affecting them.
My answer to that would be to supply the Department for Trade and Industry with a copy of the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law. A note could add that further information could be found at www.vatican.va
I don't deny that clergy are sometimes treated unjustly and sometimes have poor working conditions. These things should be addressed within the Church, not by a secular Government. To insist that clergy are not "employees" is not merely a technical legal distinction: as priests, we are men configured to Christ the High Priest with the sacramental character of the priesthood. We have voluntarily undertaken to follow Christ and to live in his service. The living of that priesthood cannot be legislated in terms of employment law.As it stands, much of the "Model Statement of Good Practice" is harmless enough although stated in the ghastly management speak that seems to be compulsory in such documents. However the DTI has no business in principle interfering in the way that clergy are "managed." Once we have allowed them in with a relatively harmless statement, we will have opened the way for further interference. The trend of secularisation in Britain should make us very wary indeed of allowing any encroachment by the Government on the rights of the Church.
St Thomas Becket. Pray for us.
23 comments:
You are absolutely right Fr Tim. This highly secular anti-Christian government wants to stick its nose into every Catholic nook and cranny so it can legislate away our precious Catholic Christian values that have been fought over for some 1500 years.
We should be under no illusion that this is the thin edge of a very deliberate and agenda-loaded wedge. As a Catholic Priest faithful to the Magisterium how would you fill in the job description box???
No sooner would you sign the bottom of the page than be whisked off by the 'hate police' for being homophobic! Please may our English Bishops be given courage to stand firm, united and opposed to such government interference.
No doubt there is a similar document for Jewish Rabbis, Muslim Mullahs, Buddhist 'clerics', etc... etc.... Oh? There isn't??
as priests, we are men configured to Christ the High Priest with the sacramental character of the priesthood.
But father, I'm not sure that there is a priest in fifty, or a bishop neither, who would say this, catechism or no. When priests and bishops have this understaning of the priesthood then they can tell the government to go jump, but having spent who knows how many years now treating their own priesthood as a 9 to five job, they are really in no position to complain when the government does the same thing.
I saw this article:
The Church hopes that its manga comic, with pictures of nuns and monks playing pool and surfing the internet, will help to improve the image of the vocation, which leaders believe is seen as "monotonous and boring"...Fr Paul Embery, the Church's Director of Vocations, admitted that persuading teenagers to commit to a life of poverty, chastity and obedience was not an easy sell, but said that the Church was desperate to reach younger candidates for ordination.
It showed me that the people in charge in the Homeland really do not have the first inkling of a clew what they are doing. And do not seem to care one way or another about the Faith.
I also suspect that this "harmless" interference is a little like the open maw of a certain hunting fish. It disguises itself as an appealing looking cave with a little wriggling thing that looks like a worm. Another fish swims in to investigate if there is something nice to eat, and...chomp!, becomes lunch himself.
not sure that there is a priest in fifty, or a bishop neither, who would say this
- there are not many over fifty :-) Many of the younger clergy have a very sound understanding of the priesthood. You're right though - we are not in a strong position to defend ourselves on this one. But it might be a first step if we were to realise that we do actually need to defend ourselves!
George - in fact, the statement is for what the Government calls "Faith Groups". But you can bet there won't be much enforcement in the case of imams
"Many of the younger clergy have a very sound understanding of the priesthood"
I am baffled, given the chaos in the Church, that you can make this strange and uncharitable comment. The implication of it being that older priests are the problem today and not the younger ones.
Thanks Fr. I did have a look at the document later and noted that it was geared at 'faith groups'. The more I read the document the more absurd the whole thing is when taken within the context of what it is to be a Catholic Priest.
The DTI clearly have not an iota of a clue what vocation or sacrifice means.
To them it's nothing more than another job description and well 'yer've got to 'ave yer 'uman rights protected mate'!
It's worrying though that they are talking about a 2 year consultation document - then what??
My understanding is that this Working Party was formed at the request of the Church of England and I believe the United Reformed Church was also involved. Although it refers to faith communities I do not think it is aimed at the Catholic Church in particular. Well I am ready to give the benefit of the doubt until proved wrong.
Any document that uses the quasi-word 'anonymised' doesn't get my vote!
I have a feeling there is currently some proposed EU amendment of the working time directive that would affect priests' hours of work and pay too.
Also, I am more shocked by this no smoking signs on public buildings. The fact that English Heritage (or whoever they're called) have an exemption makes it even more suspicious as to why churches haven't.
However, we must also question why the Church's government affairs people have not picked up on these developments. It's a two way process - if the Government is ill-informed because the Church hasn't been explaining to civil servants how it would be affected by legislation etc then the Church must hold some responsibility too.
For across the pond this seems a little too close to the "job description" your King Henry once laid down....no? Better luck this time around! Keep The Faith!
The implication of it being that older priests are the problem today and not the younger ones.
I think that about summs it up.
Indeed. A couple of years ago the Chair of the American Association of Priests' Councils (not someone who would self-identify as a trad:-)) suggested that the watershed is about the 1984 ordination year. After that, the younger clergy have become generally more trad (or whatever you will).
Those who were ordained in the 1970s are now well into their sixties and are sometimes baffled by the younger clergy - although most are getting used to the phenomenon now.
If laity have been in a particular parish for years or had contact only with one, shall we say, "model of Church" it can come as a bit of a shock to find out what is really happening among the younger clergy and laity. You know - like they actually welcome Pope Benedict and what he says.
Yes, anonymous - as far as I can see, the only chaos in the Church is where the clergy and parishioners are stuck in the rigid mindset that everything has to be "in the spirit of Vatican II" instead of according to what the documents of Vatican II actually said...
Fr Tim,
Is this DTI document part of the secularist conspiracy, or is it merely an uninformed inference on the part of non-believers about the employment status of priests based on the way the Catholic Church in the UK portrays itself?
If you look at the website of the English Bishops’ Conference, you have titles on drop-down menus such as “departments,” “agencies,” “consultative bodies,” “vision, mission and values,” “news services,” “public policy,” “publications,” “statistics,” and — amazingly — “accounts.” Yes, the Bishops’ Conference even has audited accounts and a consolidated balance sheet!
How can you blame the average non-believer for forming the impression that the Catholic Church in England and Wales is basically a PLC? No wonder people think that priests are just employees.
Don’t get me wrong — I firmly believe that secularist forces are pursuing an actively anti-Catholic agenda, but in this particular case is this not a (self-inflicted) misunderstanding?
I think it is part of the secularist agenda - I don't think they are necessarily influenced in this by the bureaucratic nonsense you highlight. But you are quite right that it leaves us in a very weak position.
This was all kicked-off when a number of Anglican clergy joined the AMICUS trade union. Several Catholic Priests also joined and started to agitate with the DTI. The DTI has been engaged with the Catholic Church on this matter for about three years now and the Bishops' Conference has a working party under Abp Smith and including both civil and canon lawyers.
The DTI's line is that the framework provided by the Code of Canon Law is perfectly acceptable but the fact that bishops habitually ignore it and clergy are ignorant of its provisions is not.
In response to this, the working party has produced a "handbook" setting out the canonical framework and this received the consent of the Conference at the Low Week meeting. If this handbook is used and the procedures and provisions of the Code followed, the DTI have said they'll be satisfied.
Much as I'm happier looking for secularist agendas everywhere, I actually think that this is more about the DTI properly being concerned that clergy are the objects of episcopal caprice and need proper protection. Whilst I have no doubt the anti-christians in the department, the Trade Unions and the Labour movement were delighted to have an opportunity to have a go, the Church has no-one to blame but herself if she doesn't operate according to her own rules.
"Many of the younger clergy have a very sound understanding of the priesthood"
I recall that this was said in 1982 at the time of the Papal visit. They were the new kids who were going to change things. (Cut to film of students singing in Latin at the VEC.) Since those heady days the numbers going to church have halved. The seminaries finished the 20th century in a shambolic state complete with a paedophile receiving a glowing pastoral report from said VEC.
Since V2 we have been promised so many times that the revival would occur. Well, we are still waiting.
Hmmmm - said in 1982 was it? Not where I was sitting (as a seminarian), it wasn't.
I stand by my comments about younger clergy.
"I stand by my comments about younger clergy"
You can stand by your comments for all you are worth but you can't defend them.
For your information, 1978 - 1986 represented the great counter attack by conservatives presumably including yourself.
Inspired by JP II (plus the shift to the right by secular goverments) we were promised a revival but it all fell away as will the current neo-conservative driven movement "rightwards".
JPII was in an impossible position: attempting to defend a catastrophic vatican council to which he had himself contributed including the ill-fated "Gaudium et Spes" from which B16 is trying to distance himself.
In my view the current shift to right will also fail as this current Pope is facing the same problems: defending the impossible namely the 2nd Vatican Council.
So what happened in 1986 - did it stop? Trads (or neocons) in the seminaries in 1978 were a small minority and they were often persecuted - cf. Michael Rose's "Goodbye Good Men".
"It all fell away" - che? Two measurable indices by way of example - numbers of priests willing to say the traditional Roman rite and numbers of priests actively defending and promoting Humanae Vitae: increasing all the time, especially among the youger clergy.
But if V2 is the problem then perhaps you're right. That's where we really disagree, I think.
I agree with you that the conservatives were bullied and intimidated into silence during the mid-80's. (Some of the behaviour by seminary and episcopal authorities bordered on the illegal and is still happening although it is not as bad).
The notion that somehow, out of this mess, young people are going to revive the Church is pure fantasy. I see no evidence of it as the memorable article in the Telegraph last year about young catholics at Lourdes reminded us.
We must stop kidding ourselves that renewal is around the corner or that it will be initiated by the clergy. The Catholic church is in terminal decline in this country and unless this reality and truth are faced up to, nothing is going to change.
I agree that there are major problems in the Church in this country. (I've been speaking and writing about them for 30 years.) The original point that was made was that if you are looking for orthodoxy, you are more likely to find it among the younger clergy and laity than among those my age and above.
Nobody said that this crisis is going to disappear overnight. But there are some good things happening. The packed sessions of "Call to Youth" at the Oratory are one good example among many others.
As a priest I am guardedly in favour of this DTI interest. I cringed it was said that the Church already has sufficient protection of priests` rights in the Code of Canon Law. In my experience canon law is often ignored by bishops or vicar generals in their dealing with priests and instead they invoke `obedience`. This is tyranny.
Post a Comment