[Talisker]

The problem is that you are arguing as if laity opinion is equal to the clergy’s decisions and teachings, and within the Catholic Church, they are not.

That’s why it’s simple, within its complexity. Whatever the laity believes or decides for whatever reasons, they are simply not authorized to decide upon doctrine. They are issued doctrine, and expected to study, understand and obey it. There is a very strict hierarchical division between laity and clergy in Catholicism, and this is the underlying dynamic in this entire issue. Under the guise of research and learning, an implicit claim of authority is being made by (mostly) American Catholics to decide doctrine. This claim of laity authority, implicit or not, quite simply, is not valid within the Catholic Church.

Laity can offer their understandings to the clergy, yes. But the doctrine of the Church is that the clergy will review any such understandings and issue a pronouncement of either conformity and acceptance, or error and correction. And the flow of power is one way - from the top down.

I understand that a lot of people don’t like this situation, especially Americans who grew up with ideas of freedom and democracy. But the Catholic Church is also a vehicle of penance, of spiritual humility and obedience. And it will never, ever surrender its claim to absolute authority in matters it deems its jurisdiction and under its auspices of control. Because without that it would not longer be the Catholic Church.

It’s not the middle ages. If people don’t like it, they can leave. But people who want to stay in the Church in order to challenge its teachings have motives ulterior to being “good Catholics.” The presumption of the Church is that the clergy are more learned and particularly blessed to interpret the true doctrines of Jesus Christ. Accepting that authority is what it means to be Catholic.

[cothrige]

I run across these ideas all too often, and they are promoted with zeal, but never backed up with Church teaching. For instance, consider Canon 212, section 3, from the Code of Canons, which reads as follows: "They [i.e. the laity] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals." And then, of course, we could look at the example of such great saints as Catherine of Siena, obviously not a cleric, who criticized the clergy and even had the audacity to instruct the pope. Did the Church condemn her for this gross error? No, she was instead elevated to Doctor of the Church. And there is also St. Thomas Aquinas who advocated "fraternal correction" of one's superior, which he rightly saw as a work of mercy.

It really is unfortunate that so many modern Catholics have so lost their way and adopted these very uncatholic notions as factual. And it is in great measure because they do not look to their own history, and no longer see it around them. There are, however, still examples of the real Catholic approach to be found out there. The Franciscans are such, and in that order there is no authoritative distinction between priests and non-clerical brothers. They do not allow priests in their orders to even distinguish themselves from the other brothers in any outward way. When meeting Franciscans you would never know whether one is a cleric or not. And Franciscan priests must be obedient to the authority of their superior who may not be a cleric himself.

At one time this was not unusual in the Church in terms of teaching and spiritual development. Religious brothers and sisters were given their appropriate reverence and respect, and it was never suggested that somehow they would be more authoritative as teachers if they were priests. Abbots were ordinaries of their communities, and likewise Abbesses were of immense authority and influence, though they could obviously never be clerics. And the Desert Fathers were by and large not clergy and yet their teachings have come down to us as anything but of a second class nature. But, now, people push their clericalism and tell us it is not only requisite, but even sometimes go so far, as you have, to claim it is what actually makes us Catholic. Not even close. We are Catholic because we hold the Catholic faith, whole and entire, and that has nothing to do with being ordained. Arius, the arch heretic, was a priest. I promise you that any orthodox Catholic lay person's opinion was of more value and authority than were his.