Regarding Ed’s statement that this is a uniquely suburban Catholic situation; I experienced something similar to JD, but I was the person in spiritual crisis. The difference being I was a member of a large evangelical Protestant church. This is one of the many straws that lead me to being in RCIA today.
When I was leaving to go to Iraq with the Army, I asked if I could meet with the pastor for prayer. When we met, I was surrounded by his security team who “laid hands” on me, thereby ensuring that I could not physically touch the pastor.
When I returned from Iraq and was experiencing serious emotional and psychological issues, I called in a moment of crisis and was told that I would need to make an appointment and the earliest available was the following week.
I’m both cases, but particularly the latter, I felt like I absolutely did not matter, and was nothing more than another row on the tithe tracking spreadsheet.
Ed and JD both used analogies of big government to illustrate the issue in the context of the Catholic Church. Given the structure, form and function of the church, I think it is appropriate. For me, in a Protestant church, the impression was one of big business. The head pastor being the CEO and chief entrepreneur; living in a million dollar home, driving six figure automobiles and traveling on their private airplane. The “junior pastors” and administrative folks being the individuals who have positioned themselves close enough to the head pastor to be able to sup from the proverbial “hind teat” of the tithing faithful.
So the issue is a universal one, not just a Catholic one. In both cases, it is a result of the Church existing in an environment of plenty. In both cases, it is something that is immediately repugnant when we encounter it, and something that one intuitively understands to be counter to “the way things aught to be”.
Another great episode! I think parish life is failing in a lot of places and I think both Ed and JD articulate a lot of the issues contributing. One other thing JD’s experience reminded me of, is the attitude sometimes found (often found?) in the “old guard” in many parishes. I wonder if Marjorie’s (or was it Gladys?) frustration wasn’t encouraged by the mentality that this is “her parish and they do things a certain way”. This is the idea that the parish sort of *belongs* to the folks who have been there the longest, or spend the most hours a week there, and therefore anything that goes against “their way” is an affront. This could happen in paid staff but also seems to be very common even in long time volunteers! I wonder if JDs point about the lack of a territorial, (I read: neighborhood) dimension to the parish has meant that 1) lots of families come and go 2) only people who really stick around a long time and get involved get to know each other, 3) the people who HAVE stuck around, and have thus gotten involved over time in many of the administrative or ministry type positions, start to feel like they’re the “true parishioners” and everyone else (including new priests!!) don’t really get a say. That, plus the demonstrably un-neighborhood sized mega parishes or the beaurocratization of the parishes as Ed describes, creates a “church lady class” that just decides how things should run and dismisses anyone that is new or less involved and doesn’t do things their way. In some ways, it’s understandable that there might be some insularity and distrust among those who have really stuck it out at their local parish against those who show up expecting the sacramental vending machine without investing anything. But I do think it is a destructive us-vs-them parish mentality as opposed to the mentality of a family that is helping one another to grow in faith and spread the gospel to those around them. A model like JD describes, where those who are more closely involved in the life of the parish reach out in love to those on the outskirts, not only to demand donations or volunteer hours, but to build relationships that might then lead others to get more involved.
I have to say ("oh, do you?" you immediately think, eyebrows raised)--I think you guys identified the real problem partway through your discussion and then skated over it to dwell on side issues.
In my view, the size and structure of the staff--in almost any form--would not be a problem if it were made abundantly clear to all employees that their primary duty is not administration (even if that fills most of their time) but evangelization. Keeping evangelization as the primary duty means if someone walks in, that person needs to be welcomed, be made to feel cared for (which means first having a genuine interest in their need--which was the main problem with JD's parish interaction, that the receptionist wanted to get him off her to-do list, rather than find out what his situation was), and helped to encounter Christ.
If every person working in a parish operated in evangelization-first mode, the fruits would be abundant and I doubt we'd bother arguing about the particular staffing arrangements of any given parish or diocese. Of course, first we'd have to properly evangelize many current parish employees...
nb to Ed, there really is that much paperwork. I used to have a secretarial job at a big effectively suburban parish, and it's a lot to track down baptismal certificates for First Communion when 1/3 of the kids were baptized at other Catholic parishes and 1/3 of the kids were baptized at non-Catholic parishes but whose families want them to make First Communion at the Catholic parish. Plus things like reminders for parent meetings and all of that. It really is a lot. But I do think there are a lot of unnecessary things that ought to be cut out.
I also think that not every parent is equipped to be a catechist for their own children, and not every Joe Pewsitter is equipped to volunteer for catechizing other people's children or live their lay vocation well or go evangelize. The parish's mission is outward facing but it needs a foundation of inward-facing formation. The mission is both ad intra and ad extra -- that is, equipping parents to be the primary educators of their children, equipping lay people to live their lay vocation in their families, in the cultural, economic, and political spheres, all of those things, *so that* all the Joe Pewsitters are able to do their ad extra mission of evangelizing. A lot of people in the pews are not themselves evangelized and therefore shouldn't really be commissioned to evangelize just yet. Those who are equipped for the Great Commission should be encouraged to go do it, and they need sustenance of the things the parish provides, sacraments, etc. Those not yet equipped for the Great Commission should be equipped, and it seems to me that it's the parish's responsibility to do that.
I ran emergency psychiatry services for a couple of decades. You have missed an issue here.
Since the Gospel this week asks us to check for the plank in one's own eye, perhaps you might consider the following scenario.
We find ourselves outside Denver, in a suburban area where the locals may or may not recall a history of mass shootings. It seems probable that they might.
An unknown, heavily bearded man appears, with no appointment, and asks to speak to a priest -- any priest. He does not identify himself in a manner that discloses his relationship with the parish. He does not explain why he is there, or why he wants to see Father. He appears defensive about his mission and responds evasively when questioned. (He is there, after all, to mooch a package of unblessed, gluten free mass breads, and he himself knows this is a weird request).
He is ushered into a waiting room. When Father's secretary comes in to greet him, he is wandering around the room. Asked to take a seat, he nervously declines. He again refuses to explain himself.
Might this guy be a shooter? One need not be nuts -- or overly officious or self-important -- to wonder. He looks unusual, and is acting strangely -- and is becoming a bit agitated.as the conversation goes on.
What's a parish secretary to do?
Well, at least the guy wasn't armed in the end, but he did go on his national podcast, where he and his buddy spent well over an hour complaining about how poorly he was treated.
So many specks in the eyes of the parish staff. Good of you guys to point them out.
Your podcast has been my favorite for several years. I look forward to listening to it every Friday as I complete my daily tasks. This podcast was the first time I was disappointed. I think the issue you discussed is critically important to our evangelistic mission but I was hoping that at some point you would also get to Ukraine or Knoxville (or just something else). But I was especially looking forward to hearing your thoughts on those issues. I live close to the Diocese of Knoxville and my kids will attend school there. As a former parish employee, I agree the behavior you experienced was terrible and against the mission of the Church but I was also dying inside to think that one day I could have tuned in to my favorite podcast and heard my behavior be publicly ridiculed in such a way that someone could definitely figure out who it was and not also have a chance to respond. It seemed like the kind of thing that should have been addressed directly to the offending person and not first aired in public.
As I said, yours is my favorite podcast and I will still look forward to tuning in on Friday.
Isn't the missing word (which was never uttered by either Ed or JD) nun? (Or rather sister, since I know the true definition of nun is a cloistered nun. No desire to unleash canon lawyer pedantry!
😊) The parish of a century ago did not need a paid DRE since they had instead a school principal vowed to evangelical poverty. And I would not be surprised if sisters were sometimes pressed into service as bookkeepers and secretaries and so forth as well. And yes, also the parish would likely have had three or four priests, which you did mention, but the even steeper collapse of female vocations surely has had a great effect. Not necessarily always for the worse - the laborer is worthy of his (her) hire, after all.
I would have been curious to hear more from Ed about the situation in Europe where the parish is (he said) able to operate without a staff. Since they also have parishes with one or two priests and no nuns, is your average parish priest very overworked?
Regarding Ed’s statement that this is a uniquely suburban Catholic situation; I experienced something similar to JD, but I was the person in spiritual crisis. The difference being I was a member of a large evangelical Protestant church. This is one of the many straws that lead me to being in RCIA today.
When I was leaving to go to Iraq with the Army, I asked if I could meet with the pastor for prayer. When we met, I was surrounded by his security team who “laid hands” on me, thereby ensuring that I could not physically touch the pastor.
When I returned from Iraq and was experiencing serious emotional and psychological issues, I called in a moment of crisis and was told that I would need to make an appointment and the earliest available was the following week.
I’m both cases, but particularly the latter, I felt like I absolutely did not matter, and was nothing more than another row on the tithe tracking spreadsheet.
Ed and JD both used analogies of big government to illustrate the issue in the context of the Catholic Church. Given the structure, form and function of the church, I think it is appropriate. For me, in a Protestant church, the impression was one of big business. The head pastor being the CEO and chief entrepreneur; living in a million dollar home, driving six figure automobiles and traveling on their private airplane. The “junior pastors” and administrative folks being the individuals who have positioned themselves close enough to the head pastor to be able to sup from the proverbial “hind teat” of the tithing faithful.
So the issue is a universal one, not just a Catholic one. In both cases, it is a result of the Church existing in an environment of plenty. In both cases, it is something that is immediately repugnant when we encounter it, and something that one intuitively understands to be counter to “the way things aught to be”.
Another great episode! I think parish life is failing in a lot of places and I think both Ed and JD articulate a lot of the issues contributing. One other thing JD’s experience reminded me of, is the attitude sometimes found (often found?) in the “old guard” in many parishes. I wonder if Marjorie’s (or was it Gladys?) frustration wasn’t encouraged by the mentality that this is “her parish and they do things a certain way”. This is the idea that the parish sort of *belongs* to the folks who have been there the longest, or spend the most hours a week there, and therefore anything that goes against “their way” is an affront. This could happen in paid staff but also seems to be very common even in long time volunteers! I wonder if JDs point about the lack of a territorial, (I read: neighborhood) dimension to the parish has meant that 1) lots of families come and go 2) only people who really stick around a long time and get involved get to know each other, 3) the people who HAVE stuck around, and have thus gotten involved over time in many of the administrative or ministry type positions, start to feel like they’re the “true parishioners” and everyone else (including new priests!!) don’t really get a say. That, plus the demonstrably un-neighborhood sized mega parishes or the beaurocratization of the parishes as Ed describes, creates a “church lady class” that just decides how things should run and dismisses anyone that is new or less involved and doesn’t do things their way. In some ways, it’s understandable that there might be some insularity and distrust among those who have really stuck it out at their local parish against those who show up expecting the sacramental vending machine without investing anything. But I do think it is a destructive us-vs-them parish mentality as opposed to the mentality of a family that is helping one another to grow in faith and spread the gospel to those around them. A model like JD describes, where those who are more closely involved in the life of the parish reach out in love to those on the outskirts, not only to demand donations or volunteer hours, but to build relationships that might then lead others to get more involved.
I have to say ("oh, do you?" you immediately think, eyebrows raised)--I think you guys identified the real problem partway through your discussion and then skated over it to dwell on side issues.
In my view, the size and structure of the staff--in almost any form--would not be a problem if it were made abundantly clear to all employees that their primary duty is not administration (even if that fills most of their time) but evangelization. Keeping evangelization as the primary duty means if someone walks in, that person needs to be welcomed, be made to feel cared for (which means first having a genuine interest in their need--which was the main problem with JD's parish interaction, that the receptionist wanted to get him off her to-do list, rather than find out what his situation was), and helped to encounter Christ.
If every person working in a parish operated in evangelization-first mode, the fruits would be abundant and I doubt we'd bother arguing about the particular staffing arrangements of any given parish or diocese. Of course, first we'd have to properly evangelize many current parish employees...
So you didn’t get your consecrated hosts??
nb to Ed, there really is that much paperwork. I used to have a secretarial job at a big effectively suburban parish, and it's a lot to track down baptismal certificates for First Communion when 1/3 of the kids were baptized at other Catholic parishes and 1/3 of the kids were baptized at non-Catholic parishes but whose families want them to make First Communion at the Catholic parish. Plus things like reminders for parent meetings and all of that. It really is a lot. But I do think there are a lot of unnecessary things that ought to be cut out.
I also think that not every parent is equipped to be a catechist for their own children, and not every Joe Pewsitter is equipped to volunteer for catechizing other people's children or live their lay vocation well or go evangelize. The parish's mission is outward facing but it needs a foundation of inward-facing formation. The mission is both ad intra and ad extra -- that is, equipping parents to be the primary educators of their children, equipping lay people to live their lay vocation in their families, in the cultural, economic, and political spheres, all of those things, *so that* all the Joe Pewsitters are able to do their ad extra mission of evangelizing. A lot of people in the pews are not themselves evangelized and therefore shouldn't really be commissioned to evangelize just yet. Those who are equipped for the Great Commission should be encouraged to go do it, and they need sustenance of the things the parish provides, sacraments, etc. Those not yet equipped for the Great Commission should be equipped, and it seems to me that it's the parish's responsibility to do that.
Guys.
I ran emergency psychiatry services for a couple of decades. You have missed an issue here.
Since the Gospel this week asks us to check for the plank in one's own eye, perhaps you might consider the following scenario.
We find ourselves outside Denver, in a suburban area where the locals may or may not recall a history of mass shootings. It seems probable that they might.
An unknown, heavily bearded man appears, with no appointment, and asks to speak to a priest -- any priest. He does not identify himself in a manner that discloses his relationship with the parish. He does not explain why he is there, or why he wants to see Father. He appears defensive about his mission and responds evasively when questioned. (He is there, after all, to mooch a package of unblessed, gluten free mass breads, and he himself knows this is a weird request).
He is ushered into a waiting room. When Father's secretary comes in to greet him, he is wandering around the room. Asked to take a seat, he nervously declines. He again refuses to explain himself.
Might this guy be a shooter? One need not be nuts -- or overly officious or self-important -- to wonder. He looks unusual, and is acting strangely -- and is becoming a bit agitated.as the conversation goes on.
What's a parish secretary to do?
Well, at least the guy wasn't armed in the end, but he did go on his national podcast, where he and his buddy spent well over an hour complaining about how poorly he was treated.
So many specks in the eyes of the parish staff. Good of you guys to point them out.
Hi JD and Ed,
Your podcast has been my favorite for several years. I look forward to listening to it every Friday as I complete my daily tasks. This podcast was the first time I was disappointed. I think the issue you discussed is critically important to our evangelistic mission but I was hoping that at some point you would also get to Ukraine or Knoxville (or just something else). But I was especially looking forward to hearing your thoughts on those issues. I live close to the Diocese of Knoxville and my kids will attend school there. As a former parish employee, I agree the behavior you experienced was terrible and against the mission of the Church but I was also dying inside to think that one day I could have tuned in to my favorite podcast and heard my behavior be publicly ridiculed in such a way that someone could definitely figure out who it was and not also have a chance to respond. It seemed like the kind of thing that should have been addressed directly to the offending person and not first aired in public.
As I said, yours is my favorite podcast and I will still look forward to tuning in on Friday.
In Christ,
Sarah French
Isn't the missing word (which was never uttered by either Ed or JD) nun? (Or rather sister, since I know the true definition of nun is a cloistered nun. No desire to unleash canon lawyer pedantry!
😊) The parish of a century ago did not need a paid DRE since they had instead a school principal vowed to evangelical poverty. And I would not be surprised if sisters were sometimes pressed into service as bookkeepers and secretaries and so forth as well. And yes, also the parish would likely have had three or four priests, which you did mention, but the even steeper collapse of female vocations surely has had a great effect. Not necessarily always for the worse - the laborer is worthy of his (her) hire, after all.
I would have been curious to hear more from Ed about the situation in Europe where the parish is (he said) able to operate without a staff. Since they also have parishes with one or two priests and no nuns, is your average parish priest very overworked?