Yuku free message boards

Question: Are the Bishops the only members of the RCC who have decision making powers? To make a long story short: do they decide on the kind of music, the language of worship etc. in the liturgy? Is this what "hierarchy" means in practise? What they decide, the Church members have to docilely swallow? And, do the priests have any influence/say in the RCC? I know they have to follow the Bishops.

The crux of my inquiries comes down to this: if the liturgy has deteriorated to such an extent that many of the faithful feel offended, unhappy etc. (especially in the US, it seems), who is ultimately responsible for this state of "dumbing down"? If the Bishops allowed this to happen, and if it reflects their view, the concept of hierarchy seems a dangerous thing to me!
On the other hand, if perhaps the RCC has become somehow more "democratic", although it is supposed to be hierarchical, and the dumbed down language, music et al is a reflection of the wishes of the imaginary "man in the pew", then a counter request and constant petitions could come from other people in the pew. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Does someone like you, for instance, rcesq, together with many others who share your views, have any opportunity and "power" at all to contribute to decisions made re: language and style in the worship, liturgical music, and all the rest?

Mag6nideum:

Like most things in the Roman Catholic Church, your questions have no simple, straightforward answers. My answer is based upon my personal experience in one diocese in the Western United States where I have spent most of my adult life. It is also informed by my residence in the Eastern U.S. in the years immediately following the Second Vatican Council and in Holland immediately before and during the Vatican Council. It's shaped by my travels throughout Europe, in countries bordering the Caribbean, the Middle East, China and India. I have no doubt that the answers you will get from Unicorn and Benodette and Canisiusgrad and PaxTibi and Budwud, for example, will be different from mine because their experiences of the Church are very different.

That said, my perhaps intemperate outburst arises from my very personal background as a former college English professor and, now, an attorney who works for the Church with some regularity. I have day-to-day dealings with auxiliary bishops, priests and religious who are well-read, well-rounded, culturally aware, intellectually curious, stimulating, challenging, and in service to the Truth. Alas, I also deal very often with those who are quite the opposite. They seem to fall into two categories: those whose aim in life is not to offend and to be liked and whose pastoral approach seems to be "only God can judge, so I won't" and those who place their own selves at the center of what they do. Sometimes those two traits come together. I'm also involved with predominantly lay organizations within the Church whose members are amongst those who frequently are quite influential in their parishes and dioceses. I regularly get together with fellow Catholics (religious and lay) professionally and socially, but I'm not on any parish committee that has anything to do with the liturgy or catechesis. I have, however, shared my views with all of the above, including -- in a very tentative and mostly allusive way -- with the archbishop.

So, with that little sketch of "where I'm coming from," here is my answer.

Technically, after Vatican II, the conference of Catholic bishops in each country has the authority to decide which translation of Scriptures, liturgical texts, prayer books such as the breviary, and common prayers are "authorized" for the dioceses within the conference. Here is a chart showing what the English speaking conferences have decided in this regard. I note that South Africa uses the poetic Jerusalem Bible, while the U.S. and the Philippines are afflicted with the New American Bible, 2^nd edition.

The bishops' conferences also decide such matters as whether to allow lay preachers; celebrations granting general absolution; female altar servers, and other female participants in liturgical ceremonies such a worship services conducted in the absence of a priest. They set the liturgical calendar and determine which feast days will be celebrated when, and a variety of other matters. They may issue general exhortations about music, but in the U.S. the conference has not issued any "norms" on that subject. For a full set of the Complementary Norms specific to the U.S., go here. Now, except in certain limited instances (such as determining which is an authorized translation), bishops conferences usually decide that the issue under consideration is left up to the discretion of the individual diocesan bishop. This is where confusion and differences begin to spread even further.

As I noted, bishops vary as widely as people vary. Their training and tastes are far from uniform. In a diocese as large as where I live, the day-to-day life in the parishes falls under the auspices of auxiliary bishops and the deans of the deaneries within their regions. So, depending on the region and the temperament and involvement of the bishop, the character of parish and, thus, liturgical life can differ widely. However, as Galantarie noted, within a parish the pastor is king.

Bishops, whether they are auxiliaries acting under the mandate of the Ordinary (i.e. head bishop) or are the Ordinary themselves, may choose to keep close tabs on what goes on in parishes - or not. They may seek out the opinions/tastes of the faithful - or not. They may be receptive and responsive to parishioners' requests, complaints, inquiries - or not. They may discipline wayward priests - or not. They may wish to introduce their own views about liturgy or impose them on pastors - or not. Whatever they do, however, is subject to review only by Rome.

Disciplining a bishop is extremely difficult, if not almost impossible. Just browse the web to see what the Holy See has tried to do about Archbishop Milingo or Bishop Lugo, President of Paraguay. Note the analysis by Canonist Ed Peters about the matter. Disciplining a pastor is a bit easier, but still not a simple matter. A bishop may transfer a pastor to another assignment or impose other penalties, but the pastor has the right to appeal to Rome. So if you've got someone running your parish who thinks that dressing up as Barney the purple dinosaur for a Halloween/All Saints Day Mass is just the ticket for "full conscious active participation" by his victims - oops, parishioners - it's not easy to get rid of him or to persuade him to change his ways.

Or, at least, it used to be.

Curiously, in the age of the internet and blogging, liturgical abuses and gross stupidities are far easier to document, and it seems that some "shaming" of those who perpetrate them is possible. That happened when Bishop Niederauer of San Francisco gave communion to two members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an anti-Catholic "*#!*%" [how odd, I wrote the word that the group calls itself and yuku changed it to symbols; the word rhymes with "here"] group that specializes in acting out blasphemies during the annual Gay Pride parade. The bishop is a very smart and articulate man who quickly seemed to recognize that these communicants caused "scandal" in the Church meaning of the word, and he issued a prompt apology once the video hit YouTube and the blogs.

Now, I don't know how involved parishioners were in devising the Barney Mass or whether any congregants tried to dissuade the Perpetual Indulgence Sisters from going to communion in the Mass that Bishop Niederauer celebrated. In my diocese, parishes run the gamut from having a pastor who decides everything that happens inside the Church, including the music, and who even police what parishioners are allowed to wear when they enter the church, to pastors who willingly surrender themselves to a master of ceremonies or liturgist or liturgy committee or deacon or pastoral associate or cantor or music director or a combination of one or more or all of these. Parishes run by members of religious orders are even more diverse, because those priests cannot even be disciplined by the bishop. All the bishop can do is request that the superior of the order to which the priest belongs take disciplinary steps, or if there's not much cooperation from the order, the bishop can remove the faculties (i.e. refuse to allow the priest or the order from operating in the diocese).

This is not to say that disciplinary techniques don't exist. A pastor can be reassigned to a horrible parish, or be denied an assistant, or be given a deadly dull job in the chancery office. He can be made to suffer social slights and have his calls routed to voicemail that is never answered. You know, the usual bureaucratic techniques to deal with troublemakers. On the other hand, pastors who fall in line with their bishop can have their ways made smooth and pleasant. The same applies to interactions of the faithful with their pastors, priests and bishops. If you're in tune with them, you can get quite a bit done that you want; if, on the other hand, your views are not in harmony, discord can ensue. Most folks I know simply go parish shopping and try to find a priest/pastor/congregation that suits them best. In a diocese with parishes within one or two miles of each other that's possible. In dioceses that do not have such a wide choice, a dissident member of the congregation has the right to petition the bishop and Rome. But I daresay that it's pretty rare that such a person gets any positive action.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the South African bishops' conference website, which did not seem very informative on the questions you asked. But the website for the diocese of Johannesburg tells an entirely different story. Here is the diagram that lays out the inputs for the Department of Liturgy. If you can figure out who decides what in this structure and where to go with suggestions, requests or complaints, I bow to your perspicacity.

So, this extremely long disquisition is intended to explain that it's practically impossible to decide where "dumbing down" begins. But it's not that hard to determine who has the authority to decide that it must stop: the bishops and their conferences. If they take a strong position and teach and exhort and, when necessary, enforce, liturgical practices can focus on what is most critical: the worship of Our Lord and God.

I hope no one ever told you that becoming Roman Catholic was going to be easy! I'm certainly keeping you in my prayers.