Read on Twitter
A quick word on why insisting on (archaic) titles for ministerial work is a manifestation of a clericalist bias but using the title Doctor or professor is not. 1/
Let’s start with some basics. M. Shawn Copeland writes that bias refers to “the more or less conscious and deliberate choice, in light of what we perceive as a potential threat to our well-being, ... 2/
to exclude further information or data from consideration in our understanding, judgment, discernment, decision, and action.” 3/
Sociologically, George Wilson notes, the word clergy refers to any group within a community that performs a particular function at the service of the rest of the community—the laity. Clericalism results from a bias. 4/
A clericalist bias reflects the more or less conscious decision to protect the privilege & rights of the clergy within a community to the exclusion of the well-being and rights of both the community as a whole & those members of the community who are not members of the clergy. 5/
This bias suggests a way of living together in which the clergy holds a dominant or superior role in relation to the rest of the community. 6/
Thus, as a structural reality, clericalism describes a situation in which a person or group uses their particular expertise or gifts that are meant to be put at the service of the common good to protect, maintain, or establish their own privilege or superiority ... 7/
... in relation to the rest of the community while refusing to acknowledge how that behavior might affect the rest of the community. 8/
The clericalism affecting the Catholic Church involves a bias maintaining that the clergy of the ministerial priesthood (those ordained to the offices of priest-presbyter and bishop) holds a superior role in relation to the laity in the life of church. 9/
The bias at work in ministerial, Catholic clericalism involves the more or less conscious decision to refuse the corrective insight that all members of the church (including those exercising a ministerial priesthood) share a fundamental equality. 10/
Titles like “father”, “your excellency,” “your eminence,” etc., in this context reinforce a deeply problematic, theological bias that, through ordination, the priest or bishop is ontologically changed and conformed to Christ. 11/
Setting aside most of theological problems with ministerial theologies of ontological change, let’s just focus on the fact that it undermines the baptismal dignity of the whole church called to share in the life and mission of Jesus as equal members of his body. 12/
The tiles listed in tweet 11, especially when used in the patriarchal system of the Catholic Church, reinforce a separation between the ordained and non-ordained. They suggest absolute authority over—even possession of—the non-ordained. 13/
Due to the poor theology of ministry noted above, those titles reinforce a belief that the priest or bishop is distinct from others in their very personhood, not just in the exercise of a charismatic and ordered ministry at the service of the church. 14/
Moreover, it reinforces patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny since the system explicitly maintains that only men can be ordained, hold those titles, and undergo such an ontological change 15/
Are there certain titles that could be used appropriately in the context of ministry without reinforcing a clericalist bias? Absolutely. But they are not the ones currently used to refer to priests and bishops in the Catholic Church. 16/
Those titles would be rooted in the nature of pastoral ministry while also avoiding any sense of superiority or power-over the non-ordained. They would speak to the charismatic, ordered, and theologically trained ministerial gifts and skills required to exercise that office. 17/
Can the use of “Doctor” or “Professor” be misused by some (overwhelmingly white male) academics to abuse power and reinforce a type of clericalism? Yes. 18/
But the titles are not build into a system that seeks to draw an ontological distinction between people otherwise called to live in a communion in which each person contributes equally through their varied charismatic gifts. 19/
Moreover in academia, being embedded in racism & misogyny, using titles like Doctor & Professor to refer to all professors undercuts clericalist biases of white supremacy and patriarchy by reaffirming that they all share a base-level of subject matter expertise and authority. 20/
Women and scholars of color are often quickly dismissed by students as less authoritative subject matter experts. This shows up in class discussions & written assignments when students are assigned reading from women and scholars of color and even more in direct interactions. 21/
When white male academics say, “Just call me Mike,” they undercut women and scholars of color whose use of the titles work against racist and sexist attempts to undercut their earned recognition of expertise. Those using titles become “uptight” or “uppity.” 22/
So white male academics who insist on not using the titles with their students only end up reinforcing misogynistic and racist attitudes among their students. The words doctor and Professor, etymologically, affirm one’s role as teacher and expert within the community. 23/
Using titles that affirm gifts, expertise, and/or training is not clericalist. It’s affirming one’s presumed subject matter expertise (see tweets 16-17). 24/
Affirming subject matter expertise is a good. It cannot and should not be conflated with the (sinful) use of titles to reinforce a distinction of ontological types of personhood, which lead to valuing one set of persons over another. 25/25
