Cruel Clergy

It has been 14 years since my ordination to the priesthood, and I'd like to think I have learned some things. One of the largest changes I've seen in myself is that I am less rigid than I once was. This seems to be part of growing older, and a spiritual director once said to me "the Church had to canonize young people at one point because they were the most doctrinaire and idyllic." 

As part of this lessening of rigidity, I'd like to think that I have less time for nonsense. When I was a child, I thought as a child. I would get in theological and liturgical debates. But I have found that these matter less and less as time becomes more valuable. Another thing which becomes less important is knowing about other clergy. I don't mean for this to sound cruel. But, at one time I tried to know extensively about the orders and lineage of everyone in the Autocephalous Catholic field. I also tried to learn more about them so that I knew who I was dealing with if there was inevitable contact. 

I think one of the challenges of getting to know people (and about people) is that I found that the Autocephalous Catholic movement is full of wounded people. Many of our members are people who have had difficult histories. They have been rejected by their former faith traditions because of their sexuality, their marital status, etc. and we were a place of last resort. They sometimes try to recreate where they left except for their own peccadilloes. This can lead to "everything should be as Rome except my situation." Or, frankly, sometimes there are people who have criminal histories or sordid pasts and cannot minister anywhere else. We have a duty to protect the faithful from people who have a proclivity to act harmfully.

The problem with hurt people is that they hurt people. I frankly have grown exhausted with other clergy. I have found some clergy to be among the cruelest people I've ever encountered. They can take great pride in condemning others, denigrating others, and speaking ill of them. There is fighting, there are snipes at others, and there can be negativity. There is a perceived superiority to the interactions of "I'm real and you're not," which is troubling. And, in some quarters, there seems to be just endless anger.

This is particularly apparent when one cleric perceives another as successful. A friend recently posted on social media about jealousy in the movement. It does seem common that when one person gets a church building, or builds a parish there are numerous people ready to tear them down. Now, this does not mean that there is not a place for frank dialogue. I have had serious conversations with people which were not meant to harm them (although I think they were perceived that way), but were meant to be a wake up call. But frank conversation does not need to be malicious. 

This wounding behavior seems to be in our DNA as independent clergy. I, myself, am a sinner in this regard. I have said wounding things. I have tried to make amends where possible, and have left my gift at the altar to address my brethren. And I have had to shake the dust from my feet when someone will  not be converted to compassion. I hope I have learned and grown. Cruelty is never justified.

In the end, we can disagree with each other. We can have sincerely held beliefs about women's ordination, LGBT inclusion, etc. while still being charitable and without cruelty. After all, people do look to us (rightly or wrongly) to be charitable. We can be cautious about each other to protect ourselves, our families, and our ministries. After all, it seems anyone can be ordained in our movement. We can be aware of people's past while giving them a second chance (except in cases where they should be precluded from ordination). We can guard our hearts without reaching out to condemn others. We can support each other and applaud each other when someone is doing well. And we can carry ourselves as people with decorum.

“The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." St John Chrysostom.

The Last Things for Independents

One of the topics no one wishes to dwell on, unless they're particularly morbid, is their own demise. But, it is something we all eventually face. In an ideal ministry world, we receive the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction in the same tradition and there is a great deal of consistency. 

However, if you have ever been involved in the Independent Catholic or Autocephalous Catholic world, one thing you can not expect is consistency. One of the things I counsel new entrants into this wild and wonderful world is--know what you are getting into here. Do not expect that you can show up in a collar at your former place of worship and be welcomed or celebrated. This is an extremely hard journey. Often times, you are alone, reviled, ridiculed, and even at your last moments abandoned. 

This is a real concern for anyone entering the Independent world. At our last breaths, we may not have the consolation of receiving sacramental comfort from our jurisdiction of choice. I think it's telling how this uncertainty has affected us as a movement. If you look at our most prominent figures, many of them returned to their churches of origin or larger churches towards the end of their life. Archbishop Mathew remained an Old Roman Catholic but was buried by an Anglican priest. Archbishop de Landes-Berghes died a Roman Catholic, as did Archbishop Vilatte. Archbishop Carfora was rumored to have reconciled to Rome in 1953 when he became mortally ill in Texas, and there is little evidence of him acting sacramentally from 1953-1958. The Mexican National Catholic Church (which was supported by Carfora) entered the Orthodox Church in America. Even modern day Independent Catholics, such as Archbishop Thuc, died in the bosom of Rome. A notable exception was Archbishop Duarte Costa, who remained ICAB until the end.

The reality is that often times we find ourselves alone, stranded in the mission field. Sometimes our families and friends do not know what to do and call on their own religious traditions to assist us at our end. Hence, many Independent clergy are buried by whomever their family desire and sometimes without the presbyteral dignities. At other times, they can be ashamed and our ministry work goes up into the flames or becomes dust.

While this is a morose topic, that is not my intention. My intention is to bring to light the challenges that we face at the end of our time on this earth. There are, for me, several paths forward.

1. I think there needs to be a very honest discussion with anyone entering this movement about the loneliness we can face, especially at the moment of our demise. It is wreckless for a bishop to ordain someone without being truly honest about the challenges we can face.

2. It seems prudent that we make every effort to make our last wishes clearly known and plan for them appropriately. Otherwise, they likely won't be followed. 

3. It seems beneficial to reach out to other clergy in our area who could help us at our final step to seek their assistance. They could be Autocephalous Catholics or they could be from mainstream traditions. Regardless, it's important to approach these things honestly and ask the difficult questions so we know our final wishes will be respected.

At the beginning of COVID, one of my long-time friends who is a priest in another jurisdiction asked me to do his funeral if something should happen to him. It was incredibly touching to be thought of in such a way, and I was proud of him for taking his last wishes so seriously. May it be so for us all.

“Live so as not to fear death. For those who live well in the world, death is not frightening but sweet and precious.” – St. Rose of Viterbo 

Organizing Liturgical Diversity

I generally refrain from commenting on current events in other churches, but the newsworthiness of the moto proprio Traditionis Custodes cannot be ignored. And, I believe, it has larger implications for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 

If you have not heard, or have been under a rock, Pope Francis recently restricted the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to the local bishop rather than the celebrant as had been the case with Summorum Pontificum. Included in the decision are limitations on parishes utilizing the Extraordinary Form, founding new religious communities, etc. This comes as a deep blow to many who love the Tridentine Mass. And I personally think it is heavy handed. Especially when there are other options available. 

The Roman Catholic Church has flourished with liturgical diversity. In the Latin Rite, Jesuit missionaries received permission to celebrate Mass in Chinese and in Dalmatia and parts of Istria the Mass was celebrated in Church Slavonic. Thus, the Tridentine Mass has been celebrated in many languages and places in diverse ways. Diversity is also present in the regional forms of Mass, such as the Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, etc. Diversity is present not just in the Latin Rite, as there are whole particular churches set up for the Eastern rites so faithful can utilize a rite that is both familiar to them and culturally sensitive. 

In the above examples, each option for diversity exists either locally or is extended to a larger structure. This seems, for me, to be a reasonable step for the Tridentine Mass, too. We have seen it work with the Anglican Ordinariate in terms of creating liturgical cohesion. So why not create a Tridentine Ordinariate? That way, people with an affinity for the Tridentine Mass can be grouped together in different ways throughout the world. There is also a precedence with the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney. 

Opponents may argue that that could create a "ghettoization" or a hotbed for disobedience. But, there is evidence that it can work. The Anglican Ordinariate is made up of former Anglicans who traditionally have not been given the spiritual gift of obedience. But by grouping them together there has been a cohesive way to regulate those who resist authority. And by not creating an Ordinarite for the Tridentine Mass, the Roman Catholic Church is just driving the faithful to outside sources. Maybe that is their point. It's hard to bring in people who tweet "Francis will die, but the Latin Mass will live forever" as was recently done by a popular traddie blog. But, to use an uncouth quote from President Lyndon Johnson, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

There is one key element of these groups which can't be understated. The Eastern Rites, the Anglican Ordinariate, etc. accept the validity and legality of the Ordinary Form. If a mutual flourishing does not exist, to borrow from the CofE, there cannot be cohesion. This is a necessity of any Ordinariate but also isolates those who reject this principle.

Outside the Roman Catholic Church, there have been examples of where it has worked to create a group for a specific need. The Old Ritualists have carved out a place in ROCOR. I think this has implications among Autocephalous Catholics, too. I have often spoken about priests who are ordained and wish to offer the Mass of Saint Abdecalas exclusively (this is a joke). This is often times not realistic to do publicly, because it is a liturgy which is unfamiliar to people who are already unfamiliar with us. Often times, we do have to utilize a liturgy promulgated by other parts of the wider Church so that it is familiar with those who seek us. Then the process of catechesis can begin if you want to offer a wild and wonderful liturgy. 

It does behoove us (size permitting) to create ways for different valid, historical liturgical expressions to flourish. For example, I have a great affinity for the Tridentine Mass in English because it is part of my tradition. But I also realize that introducing it may take easing into it, because most people are unfamiliar with it outside of Anglo-Catholic circles. And while I would have been ok if the changes to the Latin Rite to have stopped in 1965 (as did Msgr. Lefebvre), I realize that it did not. 

In our movement, we can very easily say "I want to belong to this jurisdiction because it only celebrates the Roman Rite." Or, "I only want this jurisdiction because it celebrates the Anglican Rite." But, frankly we are too small to start excluding other groups of people just because we disagree on non-essentials. So why not welcome everyone and create different groupings for those who have certain preferences, so they can build up each other and contribute to the group better as a whole? Perhaps that is a lesson for all churches.

“Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the question "What on earth is he up to now?" will intrude. It lays one's devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, "I wish they'd remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” ― C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer 

Photo: Matthew Doyle

Laying All the Cards on the Table: A History of Independent/Old/Old Roman Catholic Pastoral Accomodation

One of the hallmarks of so-called Independent Catholicism is its emphasis on pastoral practice. It offers a place where people who could not be ordained or receive the sacraments in other traditions are able to do so in the context of Catholic tradition. This venerable history began, in my estimation, under Bishop Dominique Marie Varlet. Varlet confirmed candidates for the Church of Utrecht when it was under interdict from Rome because he understood that it was the right thing to do. 

This tradition continued with Archbishop Arnold Harris Mathew. Mathew was baptized both an Anglican and a Roman Catholic, and flirted with both traditions throughout his life. He even at one point was involved with Unitarianism. When he was elected to the episcopacy, he was married and the Church of Utrecht had not approved married bishops. Ultimately, they proceeded with the consecration. Mathew also separated from his wife, which was a novel thing in the 1900s. He continued to ordain and consecrate married men, and this became part of the Old Roman Catholic tradition. Carmel Henry Carfora, the progenitor of Old Roman Catholicism in America, was married to a former nun (Stella) and he also continued calling married men to orders. Bishop Hodur for the Polish National Catholic Church also opened up his church to married men, as did Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa.

In addition to married men, Carfora was innovative in how he treated women. He appointed Sister Elizabeth Theresa, OSF as his chancellor--something unheard of at the time. Two of Carfora's bishops in the NAORCC, Archbishops Verostek and Pyman, recognized and utilized deaconesses in California. This was taken a step further in some traditions, with the Mariavites consecrating and ordaining women. Bishop Dorian Herbert of the Orthodox-Keltic Church of the British Commonwealth of Nations (say that 5 times fast) began the same in 1943 and other Independent Catholic churches followed suit. However, the practice of admitting women to orders is not universal and depends on the jurisdiction.  

 

Of note is that Independent Catholicism is one of the first traditions to promote and accept people of color. Vilatte consecrated Archbishop George Alexander McGuire (pictured below) after he was stymied in the Episcopal Church due to the color of his skin. Archbishop Carmel Henry Carfora no doubt also understood racism and prejudice due to his being an Italian during a time of anti-immigration. Carfora conditionally consecrated Rogers and consecrated Marchenna, both black men, as well as set up a hierarchy for the Mexican National Catholic Church. 

 

The Independent Catholic tradition was also innovative on the acceptance of LGBT individuals. This began with George Augustine Hyde (pictured at top), who began the first LGBT focused church in 1946 with Bishop John Augustine Kazantks, a former Greek Orthodox bishop who left Greece because he was gay. Hyde was consecrated in 1957 for the American Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church and continued his ministry to the LGBT community until his death in 2010. Archbishop Marchenna of the Old Roman Catholic Church ordained the first openly gay and partnered man, Archbishop Robert Mary Clement, who also championed the term holy unions and began the first gay-focused Catholic church. It was said that Marchenna acted unilaterally without the permission of his superior, but Clement was nominated by Archbishop George Gerard Shelley in 1958 as bishop. Doubtless he had to react when the press became too much. Again, the practice of admitting LGBT people to ministry is not universal among Independent Catholic traditions.

 

Mathew's progeny included members of the Liberal Catholic Church and all branches of independent apostolic succession (Vilatte in particular) include people who adhere to esotericism. Bishops descending from Carfora (using the name Old Roman Catholic) have included a drag queen, a former female impersonator, partnered clergy, married bishops, divorced and remarried bishops, divorced bishops, etc. Bishops descending from Archbishop Vilatte and Bishop Duarte Costa also have clergy with personal backgrounds which would limit them from ministry in a mainstream church, including being gay and partnered, remarried, divorced, etc. This highlights the differences of Independent Catholicism--that different branches have different views on sensitive topics.

 

Besides the personal lives of the clergy, Independent Catholic clergy have ministered in places or ways which were outside the norm. One of Mathew's original bishops served a congregational church while a bishop in the ORCC (and several later functioned in Anglican churches), as did several of Carfora's bishops. Archbishop H. A. Rogers functioned in a Methodist church when he died. Vilatte functioned in the Episcopal Church and Archbishop Thuc called on greater ecumenism--despite being the source of orders for traditionalists. Clergy have buried suicide victims when it was not acceptable, performed holy unions and blessings for same-sex couples, remarried couples after divorce, accepted children called illegitimate, and acted when the other members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church couldn’t or wouldn’t. Previously, these situations could be hidden and not discussed but with the advent of the internet there is more access to information and people are in better connection with each other.

My reason for this post is not to scandalize people, although I have no doubt that it will scandalize some. But these escapades are easily read in Anson, Brandreth, Jarvis, and a number of other sources. It is also no more scandalous than the coverup of child abuse and large-scale financial theft which happens in other traditions (and to my estimation it is far less scandalous than those things). In fact, all of the things mentioned here happen in all traditions. The purpose of writing this article is to emphasize that there is no perfect church which matches all your requirements, because churches are made of people. Extreme traditionalists also have cases of same-sex scandals, esoteric beliefs, and other issues mentioned here--so no one is immune even among the most guarded. The purpose of this article is also not to emphasize that you must accept women's ordination, gay marriage, etc. if it is against your conscience. 

My point is to emphasize that Independent Catholicism (even among the churches which profess to be the most traditional) has always been divergent and tolerant--a tradition which is built on primacy of conscience and second chances. It is a venerable tradition, and one which I love deeply. But we cannot ignore the fact that we have had people of all backgrounds in this tradition and we will continue to attract people who have no other home. Traditionalists have a plethora of options inside and outside of Rome, and progressives have significant options in Christianity as a whole now. Yet, those who attempt to hold some sort of via media are often limited to taking the path less trodden. No church is homogeneous and every one is full of people from all walks of life. And because people have foibles or peccadilloes, it does not mean that they are bad people. They are people, like us all, in need of God’s grace and second chances. And that’s what I believe is our future, too.

On Fleek: Clerical Dress

I realize that in the Autocephalous Catholic world we spend a lot of time on dress. It is a natural human tendency to want to look nice, especially when you're approaching the God of the Universe. But there are a few abuses I feel compelled to address which I have seen over the years. I don't mean to imply that those who have committed them do not know the liturgy and I realize that dress is relatively unimportant. I do think, however, that it is important for us if we claim a Catholic heritage with the corresponding dress that we wear things as they were intended. To not use them correctly risks us being viewed as unlearned or "dressing up."

This article is primarily for those who claim to be Independent/Old Catholic and I will use terms proper to the Roman Catholic Church. Anglican/Orthodox traditions are outside the realm of this article and churches which claim apostolic succession but do not operate as "Catholic" churches are also not included and can do what they want (even if the sight pains me greatly).

Alb 

ALWAYS wear an alb if celebrating Mass or concelebrating Mass (in the Novus Ordo). There is no such thing as not wearing an alb as the celebrant in the Western Church. Especially if you have on a habit or a cassock. I have heard it said "Pope XYZ gave a dispensation to the Franciscans." Nope, nope, nope. Even the Dominicans wear albs with white habits.1

 

Biretta 

If you are the celebrant, the biretta is worn only to process in and out of the sacristy, when seated, and at the homily. It is not worn like a zuchetto throughout the liturgy.

 

Choir Dress

If a bishop is in choir and not participating in the liturgy, they should not wear a mitre or carry a crozier. Choir dress is mozetta (or mantelletta), rochet, and cassock. No extra bits and not a cope over a mozetta. N.B. there are a few times when a bishop wears a mitre with a stole and rochet, like consecrating a chalice, but these are extraordinary and need not concern us.

 

Fascia

The Fascia is only worn with a cassock. It is not a cincture for an alb.4

Chasuble Under a Cope

Don't do it ever. Even for a second. Just don't. In this case, less is more. 2

Zuchetto 

Take off the zuchetto at the preface and return it after communion. Please, please do not wear it with a suit.

 

1. Image PadreRenzo

2 Image: Komanec1

3 Image: Gugganij  

4 Image: Valter Campanato/ABr - Agência Brasil 

What's in a Name: Roman Catholic Edition

The conversation with my friend which spurred the last blog post made me consider another, too. This one has to do with the name "Roman Catholic." There are certain progressive Independent or Autocephalous Catholic clergy who have begun to use the title "Roman Catholic." Some even claim to be charted by a Pope! They come from several backgrounds, including former Roman Catholic priests and clergy who were never ordained within the Roman Catholic Church. Their logic is that "we represent what we want the Roman Catholic Church to be, akin to traditionalist Roman Catholics." However, I find issues this logic.

First, I am a product of traditional Roman Catholicism. So this peppers my thoughts on this topic. I belonged to groups which truly believed they were the remnant of the Roman Catholic Church because Rome espouses heresy. But even these groups have common understandings which I think is important for Indie groups.

1. Traditionalists are more likely to be especially vigilant about union with Rome. In fact, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter was founded by priests uncomfortable with the perceived schismatic actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. The majority of Roman Catholics prefer to remain on the Barque of Peter, even if they feel the boat is going down the wrong stream. The nuances of jurisdiction may not be apparent to the average Catholic, where as the traditionalist is likely very aware of the consequences. This isn't a condemnation of non-traditionalists, but more is a realization that this is an important topic to a certain section of Catholicism. I also think that this exists less with Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. because their faith tradition does not hinge on a central person as the Vicar of Christ. Few people attending an ACNA parish, for example, are terribly concerned that it isn't under the Archbishop of Canterbury.

2. Traditionalists are apt to make it very clear that they are not under the local diocese. Sometimes painfully so by condemning the local bishop, the Pope, etc. They may have apologists who argue that they are not in formal schism, either because they hold the “true faith” or because they regard themselves as Roman Catholics, but most often they are very clear that they are independent of the local diocese. I find it problematic if an Independent Catholic group does not do the same--not just problematic but misrepresenting, the same as if a traditionalist group did not make this distinction. This is especially true, for me, where there is a language barrier. I have heard horror stories of Latino people attending a parish without the realization that it is not a parish under Rome.

There are theological differences, too, between progressive groups and traditionalist groups which cannot be ignored. Traditionalist groups follow the historic books of the Roman Catholic Church. While one can argue about their obedience and canonical status, they do follow the tenants of Roman Catholicism such as existed prior to Vatican II. The same cannot be said of progressives who call themselves Roman Catholics, especially if they are LGBT affirming, ordain women, etc. My mentioning these things is not to take a side on them, but just to say that there is deviation from what can be considered the faith of the Holy Roman Church.

But just because traditionalist groups follow the traditional faith (and liturgy) does not give them a pass as Roman Catholics. I realize some will disagree with me here, but I believe to be a Roman Catholic one must submit to the Roman Pontiff. Vatican Council I occurred whether one likes it or not, and the Roman Catholic Church is an Ultramontanist institution. While there are those of us who espouse the Old Catholic tradition (which is not solely dependent on Papal Infallibility but also is impacted by issues of local control, election of bishops, etc.) and may even consider ourselves to be closer to the historic version of Catholicism in the West, we realize that we are no longer Roman Catholics. To argue differently after 140 years since Vatican I is fantasy. Thus I would actually place many of these groups which are not subject to the Pope but call themselves Roman Catholics into our movement. Because they are not under the jurisdiction of the Pope, something which has been settled by the majority of Roman Catholics for 140 years, they are outside the Roman Catholic Church. 

With these realizations, it doesn't mean that I don't realize the challenges with naming. I was discussing this with a bishop friend: how do we exist in the periphery of Rome and often ministering to Roman Catholics without misrepresenting ourselves. Another bishop friend told me that, for this reason, he is not fond of the word "Catholic" as a church name. And I get his frustration. There are different options--we see this with Orthodox groups like the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Maronite Church which is in union with Rome, etc. But Apostolic in America is traditionally associated with groups in the Black Church tradition, Orthodox has a "whole 'nother" set of issues, etc.

In spite of these naming challenges, I still don't think that using the name Roman Catholic is the way forward. First, it damages our relationship(s) with local Roman clergy. Many of us have been fortunate to have good relationships with local clergy and this puts that in jeopardy. Second, it ignores our Autocephalous Catholic tradition. I remember fondly when a very conservative Roman Catholic said, in response to someone who said my group is just a start up group, "oh no, they have their own history and background." Finally, just because someone uses the name "Roman Catholic" doesn't make it true. The Roman Catholic Women Priests can't claim to the Roman Catholic priests in good standing any more than the groups of Roman Catholic priests who left to marry and are no longer priests in good standing. Or, priests who were removed or left voluntarily for other reasons. 

There are possibilities. A group can call itself "in the Catholic tradition" or use any number of phrases as long as they indicate that they are not under Rome or affiliated with the local diocese. People have to have the tools necessary to decide for themselves--if they will attend the parish despite the lack of Roman approbation. And, frankly, many will.  But clarity is necessary and ethical. I have heard too many stories of laity who attended a parish that did not distinguish itself and left angry and hurt.

“One might say that to the East the pope was chief bishop because he was orthodox, while to the West he was and always would be orthodox because he was chief bishop.” - Jaroslav Pelikan

Clerical Popularity

Recently, I spoke to someone who has become a fast friend. He is actively involved in starting a new church and I am excited to hear about the steps he followed. Starting a new parish in the Autocephalous or Independent Catholic movement is exceptionally difficult. First, people don't quite know how to classify us. They also can be skeptical of us and of our intentions. The logistics of parish founding are also extremely difficult in terms of financial, property, and people resources. During our conversation, I cautioned him against allowing the church to hang on his personality. Thankfully, he was aware of the risks involved with such an option.

I believe this is a real issue in our tradition. We do not have denominations which can appoint clergy and provide for them. We also do not have the benefit of frequent oversight of the clergy because of our distance. So, frequently a person is ordained to the diaconate and priesthood and it is largely up to them to start the parish. Hopefully they are successful, and others join them. A founder syndrome can develop where the person is elevated to an exalted status. Then, if they have to move away or become ill or become too elderly to continue the work, the parish dies off and no longer exists. Instead of being a light to the world it was a flash in the pan.

This doesn't signify that I am against ministries or options that are time limited. There is a season for everything. However, if the goal is to build something that is lasting it takes more than the personality of one person to make it continue. This is especially true of so-called large personalities. These can end up several ways:

 1. The parish was founded by Father X. Father X runs a tight ship and is well liked. When Father X gets too old or infirm, Father Y begins helping at the parish. But he does things differently. People don't like different, so they leave. Soon the parish dwindles and is forced to close. While people can't be chastised for caring for their priest and liking his style, he maybe could have done more to pull back gracefully from the situation to prevent a shock to the parish. (I've seen this happen)

2. Father A is a dynamic individual. He is generous, affable, and funny. He starts new ministries and people really enjoy him. When responding why people like coming to the church, it is because Fr A is there. Fr A ends up falling short sexually or steals money or commits any number of (sadly) too-frequent clerical sins and people are scandalized. They leave the church or the faith all together because they are so disappointed. (This has happened more times than I can count)

3. Father B is viewed as a holy man and, to be honest, he likes knowing that people feel that way about him. He starts ministries to the poor and even gives out expensive gifts to them. He likes the recognition and awards of his work. Instead of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, he becomes a divisive figure. Some think he is flashy and a conman while others venerate him as a living saint. This, too, divides the parish. (This is a mainline example of which I am familiar)

And, of course, these aren't all the scenarios! I don't list these to say that a priest can't be charismatic or beloved or well regarded. Frankly, it is expected that the priest will be an upstanding citizen and that people will regard him with favoritism. But I am saying that the whole operation can't be wrapped around the persona and/or ego of the priest. If the parish hinges on the personhood of the priest, then the priest has failed. He failed in the same way a business or non-profit leader fails when they neglect to implement a succession plan. 

We have to be vigilant against such temptations as recognition. Next, there are a few steps that can be taken to help protect ourselves and parishes. 

1. We have to diversify authority to ensure that others can be called upon in an emergency or in time of need so the pastor isn't the only person. 

2. We have to raise up others in a community to take a visible role so that the priest isn't the only cleric or church official who has the community's focus. 

3. Take away some of the power. The priest should not be the pastor, controlling finances, and making all decisions for the church. These roles have to be diversified so that it is not all vested in one person. This limits temptation for the priest and ensures good oversight.

These are also not an exhaustive list. They are just some ways that can prevent problems. Ultimately, our main focus should be on extending grace through the sacraments and forming people in their faith. We must do this pleasantly and with sincerity, but we also have to avoid against becoming exalted.

"If priests sin, all the people are led to sin. Hence every one must render an account of his own sins; but the priests are also responsible for the sins of others." - St John Chrysostom