Indeed! A commenter on yesterday's post has expressed some confusion at my use of both the terms "feudal" and "bureaucracy" to describe the institutional church (sometimes, I think, I've even used one to describe the other), and accused me of equating the two concepts. He correctly pointed out they are very different.
My use of both is not wrong or contradictory, however, it has actually been quite intentional. I started to write a response in the comments there, but I'll post my response here instead, as I think I ended up making some important observations:
As a medieval studies major, I know the difference between feudalism and bureaucracy quite well, thank you; I simply think the Church has somehow managed to maintain the worst aspects of both!
The negative aspects of feudalism found within the institutional church that I refer to are the culture of obeisance, servility, and co-dependency between superiors and their "vassals" within the institutional Church's bureaucracy.
That aspect of the hierarchy is very much a holdover from the feudal period, where the bishop was lord of his ecclesial domain. And while the rituals associated with it (for example, by newly ordained priests) are a quaint and harmless accretion from that era...the political dynamic is much outdated, especially when weighed down by the bureaucracy of the post-Tridentine era.
These are not healthy adult relationships in the democratic sense, which are a good thing, and which can in fact still have an authority differential, at least when it comes to the project at hand; ala the boss/employee relationship (which doesn't, you will note, extend into the employee's private home life). Rather, as I have seen personally, the relationships between clerics appear to be the relationships of resentful and often cowering serfs with petty lords.
It's not a good thing. Especially not when you throw into the mix the Renaissance-court ambition, intrigue, and machinations, the ultramontane absolutist monarchism, and then all the modern byzantine bureaucracy. Add to that the compromising inefficiency, unctuous politicking, and corrupt appeasement of modern democracy (the latest system these whores have cuddled up with), and it's a recipe for...well, what we've got today!
The two things, in that sense, are not mutually exclusive. The institutional church has found a way to keep alive the worst of politics from every era!
My use of both is not wrong or contradictory, however, it has actually been quite intentional. I started to write a response in the comments there, but I'll post my response here instead, as I think I ended up making some important observations:
As a medieval studies major, I know the difference between feudalism and bureaucracy quite well, thank you; I simply think the Church has somehow managed to maintain the worst aspects of both!
The negative aspects of feudalism found within the institutional church that I refer to are the culture of obeisance, servility, and co-dependency between superiors and their "vassals" within the institutional Church's bureaucracy.
That aspect of the hierarchy is very much a holdover from the feudal period, where the bishop was lord of his ecclesial domain. And while the rituals associated with it (for example, by newly ordained priests) are a quaint and harmless accretion from that era...the political dynamic is much outdated, especially when weighed down by the bureaucracy of the post-Tridentine era.
These are not healthy adult relationships in the democratic sense, which are a good thing, and which can in fact still have an authority differential, at least when it comes to the project at hand; ala the boss/employee relationship (which doesn't, you will note, extend into the employee's private home life). Rather, as I have seen personally, the relationships between clerics appear to be the relationships of resentful and often cowering serfs with petty lords.
It's not a good thing. Especially not when you throw into the mix the Renaissance-court ambition, intrigue, and machinations, the ultramontane absolutist monarchism, and then all the modern byzantine bureaucracy. Add to that the compromising inefficiency, unctuous politicking, and corrupt appeasement of modern democracy (the latest system these whores have cuddled up with), and it's a recipe for...well, what we've got today!
The two things, in that sense, are not mutually exclusive. The institutional church has found a way to keep alive the worst of politics from every era!
3 comments:
Recently I've been chillin' with my Anglo-Catholic friends. One benefit of studying in an heavily Protestant theology dep't is the ability to get a good cross-sampling of other Western Christian traditions. Also, it's really really tempting to worship with the AC's (and their pseudo-Tridentine liturgy) when the only other option is an ad-libbed four hymn sandwich NO straight out of 1974. Leo XIII deemed the Anglicans "null and void", but the choir sure beats the pants off of most anything an average Roman parish can muster.
Anyway, the AC's are bound together by ritualism. They all read from the Prayer Book and love their hymnal, but interpret most everything else differently. Still, everyone is bound a moderating liturgical force. Sacramental unity above organization chaos, I suppose.
The inverse is true in the Roman Church. We "serfs" of Rome (including her clergy) mouth magisterial and party loyalty on the hierarchical level. No peeps from EWTN, CNA, USCCB, the official stuff. The closing of ranks at the top (nobility?) hastily spackles over the chaos right below the surface. I don't just mean the divide between EF Catholics and the bongo and tambourine set. The ongoing sex abuse and PR disaster, bald clerical hypocrisy, deep lay skepticism, and general ennui that bubbles under the lid will eventually boil over. Something very very wrong is afoot in the manor house, and the serfs will either leave or blow the roof off.
We Romans must abide by collegiality, infallibility, and the magisterium. Yet there's something to be said for the free union of ritualism and thought-anarchy. Dunno which I prefer, honestly.
Excuse me, Mr. Medieval Studies Major. Would you kindly allow me to state that I think you are still confusing your terms?
You compare the relationship between clerics to that of "resentful and often cowering serfs with petty lords." What you describe, though, is certainly not unique to feudalism, and indeed applies just as well to bureaucracies. In fact, in Germany they compare middle managers in bureaucracies to bicyclists (I am forgetting the exact term at the moment), because they bow down to those above them and step on those below them.
As for "ambition, intrigue, and machinations," do they not exist in bureaucracies, or did they exist only in Renaissance courts? Most of the news that comes out of any nation's capital is nothing but ambition, intrigue, and machinations, regardless of the form of government. Church intrigue today, I would suggest, isn't essentially different from bureaucratic intrigue.
And, if you really want to concentrate on "obeisance, servility, and co-dependency" within the Church hierarchy, you need to recognize that those words more aptly describe the dynamic in an absolutist regime that levels the social hierarchy by gathering all power in the center than they do to a feudal regime where power is dispersed throughout the hierarchy. Where all power in one relatively large region rests with a sole individual, obeisance and servility toward that sole individual are the only ways to advance; there is no possibility of maintaining one's authority in one's own fief.
As for co-dependency, you're now using a modern psychological term, which, as far as I can see, doesn't belong here at all. Unless you can convince me that the feudal relationship was one of co-dependence, I must vehemently object to your dishonest rhetoric.
"What you describe, though, is certainly not unique to feudalism, and indeed applies just as well to bureaucracies."
But in the Church, it clearly comes from the feudal era. You just need look at the origins of the rituals surrounding it all and cloaking it with legitimacy. Even the way the hands are held during liturgy is derived from the ceremony of homage.
"did they exist only in Renaissance courts?"
Maybe not, but it's hard for me to attribute their origin in the Church to any time except that era when the men involved are all running around in palaces wearing funny robes and hats.
"Church intrigue today, I would suggest, isn't essentially different from bureaucratic intrigue."
Politicians in a modern democracy are willing to call each other out publicly and fight face to face.
In the Church, however, we mainly see just a lot of passive-aggression and little manipulative tactics behind each others' backs.
If they were men, they'd air their divergences publicly and allow for a vigorous public debate. Instead, to preserve the illusion of unity, they snipe and undermine behind closed doors and always with plausible deniability. They're cowards.
"Where all power in one relatively large region rests with a sole individual, obeisance and servility toward that sole individual are the only ways to advance; there is no possibility of maintaining one's authority in one's own fief."
Papal monarchism is a problem, but so is the way priests are treated in the dioceses. They're both problematic.
"Unless you can convince me that the feudal relationship was one of co-dependence"
Well, it could often be co-dependence for the serf.
Many Catholics, trying so hard to be goody-two-shoes towards The Authorities...sacrifice their own well-being and sense of worth for the sake (they think) of the institution, trying to help or serve others (with the best of intentions) who are merely taking advantage of them.
This is different from healthy selflessness. The institutional church has socialized such a dynamic into many of its good followers and priests.
Post a Comment