Pope to clergy: “After God, the priest is everything!”
Benedict XVI, in his letter today proclaiming a “Year for Priests,” puts forth Saint Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney–the Cure’ d’Ars–as the model, since this year is also the 150th anniversary of the death of that remarkable French pastor.
On the other hand, centering the Year for Priests on Vianney gives the celebration–and the pope’s letter–a decidedly nineteenth-century caste, which may not quite resonate in the twenty-first century. As Benedict writes of the Cure’ d’Ars:
Explaining to his parishioners the importance of the sacraments, he would say:
“Without the Sacrament of Holy Orders, we would not have the Lord. Who put him there in that tabernacle? The priest. Who welcomed your soul at the beginning of your life? The priest. Who feeds your soul and gives it strength for its journey? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, bathing it one last time in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest, always the priest. And if this soul should happen to die [as a result of sin], who will raise it up, who will restore its calm and peace? Again, the priest… After God, the priest is everything! … Only in heaven will he fully realize what he is”.
Benedict acknowledges that these words “might sound excessive.” And to me they do. But he explains, saying:
“…they reveal the high esteem in which [Vianney] held the sacrament of the priesthood. He seemed overwhelmed by a boundless sense of responsibility: “Were we to fully realize what a priest is on earth, we would die: not of fright, but of love…Without the priest, the passion and death of our Lord would be of no avail. It is the priest who continues the work of redemption on earth…What use would be a house filled with gold, were there no one to open its door? The priest holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods…Leave a parish for twenty years without a priest, and they will end by worshiping the beasts there…”
So is that an argument for ordaining married men to boost vocations? Probably not. But again, I’m not so sure how this letter will resonate with lay Catholics, or priests. I’m all for a Year for Priests–for supporting them, and encouraging more vocations. Will this help?
On another note, much media attention has focused on Benedict’s welcome recognition of the failures of some priests in scandalous ways:
“…situations which can never be sufficiently deplored where the Church herself suffers as a consequence of infidelity on the part of some of her ministers. Then it is the world which finds grounds for scandal and rejection. What is most helpful to the Church in such cases is not only a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers, but also a joyful and renewed realization of the greatness of God’s gift, embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors, religious afire with love for God and for souls, and insightful, patient spiritual guides.”
What is not made explicit is whether he is including bishops among these priests; most people would read it as just priests, “ministers,” I think. Maybe that’s what he meant. If so, it once again puts all the onus on the “lower” clergy to be saints, it seems.
From CNS’ Vatican buro, Cindy Wooden has coverage here.
This is precisely what is wrong with the Vatican and Constantine’s church. Andrew Greeley and others have warned that one of the most harmful practices is the sacralization of the priesthood. St Peter would have laughed at this while Paul would say are we getting into creature worship again.
It is the hierarchy’s continuing plea for perpetual employment and usefulness and yes, idolatry. With all due respect for Vianney who was a true Christian, he is wrong.
This kind of stuff gives us endless quotations from the pope and bishops whether they make sense or not. It is the self propagandizing that Damasus made popular (while murdering his rivals) and Augustine continued in a most harmful way.
Sadly too many priests deplore the lack of respect following the pedophilia scandal while they continue the self exaltation which laid the groundword for the clergy exploitation of children. The “little ones” of whom Jesus said that it would be better for the person not to be born who hurt these litttle ones. Yet almost the entire hierarchy stonewalled on this because of faulty sacralization.
Yet Rome, the bishops, still minimize the pedophilia crimes while perpetually aggrandizing themselves.
This is not just a bad letter. It is most repugnant.
Finally, yes Jesus said that preachers must preach him to others. But he never said they need them to make him present once they have known him.
Bad theology. Nonsense. More self glorification for a privileged class that still have not learned to seek the lowest place which is the center of the message of Jesus.
If we operate under the assumption that the Holy Father is no fool, then I believe the way to read this is that he is aware that he is being provocative in choosing the Cure d’Ars as the model.
I see this as the very welcome beginning of a conversation that is critical to the future of the church. Somehow we need to recover an authentic appreciation for the parish priest.
Certainly John Vianney lived in another era. At the same time, Therese of Liseaux, Maria Goretti and Frederic Ozanam are 19th century holy ones who still resonate powerfully today and seem quite contemporary (and timeless). Perhaps there are aspects of Vianney’s life that can cast a fresh light on our situation.
Questions:
If there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with clericalism within the Church, how does this move the dicussion along?
-If folks are becoming more and more unhappy with episcopal leadership, how does this move the conversation along?
-What does Jim mean by an “authentic appreciation of the parish priest?”
( A lot of folk love their priests but also see their at times too human side. They do not perceive them as “above”. And maybe or even hardly not “ontologically different.”
I think what really resonates powerfully today is the declining number of priests and the needs of the faithful and the lack of will to tackle the problem outside of the standard brands box.)
Good post, Mr. Gibson – provokes reactions and thoughts. Would have chosen Vincent dePaul as a model for all priests (my own bias). The Holy Father may be no fool but he continues to mix his metaphors, analogies, and examples so much so that his message is lost.
A few reactions:
a) link to how the 2003 Dallas Charter compromised the rights and duties of priests – declaring a year of the priest in words but not action….does it really mean anything? http://www.elephantsinthelivingroom.com/Abusive_Bishops_and_The_Destruction_of_Priests.doc
b) it is good to “emphasize” priest but B16 seems to have missed some valid highlights he could have drawn by distinguishing between the ministry of priest and professional clerics – link:
http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=1048
Quote: “Clericalism has fascinated me for almost fifty years. It is hardly an exaggeration to call it a cult. Those who at age 17 or 18 were quite normal are now transformed into strange creatures I do not understand. Among the chief appendages of clericalism are celibacy, authority and control.”
c) reaction to B16′s overall approach….link: http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=944
Quote: “The age of the infantilized Catholic laity is past; the day of the deified clergy is past, except in the factories cranking out Legionnaries and OD’ers; the day of loving Fascisti popes is over – their death-knell was the eighteenth-century Enlightenment.
In a way, the most symbolic expression of this papacy’s mind-set is the recent comment by a Curial minion that respect for the sacred started to diminish when Communion began to be given in the hand and so a solution would be to once again give it on the tongue. Only a priest is holy enough to touch the sacred species. What about the priesthood of all believers taught by Vatican II? The truth is Ratzinger & Co. never accepted it and now he is using the biggest religious bully-pulpit in the world, the Papacy, to remove the traces of Vatican II, bit by bit by bit. One of the Medici popes is reputed to have said “Since it has pleased God to make us pope, let us enjoy it.” Pope Ratzinger’s variation on that might be “Since it has pleased God to make us pope, let us use it” – to undo all the liberal mistakes of the last forty years and restore the Church to its pristine purity. Those who don’t like it can leave.
In Pope Benedict’s imagined scenario, the bishops, priests, and laity meekly accept the will of his magisterium. That was barely true even in the late 1930′s of his childhood in Bavaria. Now, it’s well on its way to being only a memory. Sorry, Pope Ratzinger: your small, if vocal, groups of supporters notwithstanding, you are two centuries too late!
A characterization of the Holy Father that I regret hearing too late to include in my book was the protest of a curialist to someone accusing B16 of being conservative:
“He’s not conservative! He’s old-fashioned!”
I think that is a very good summation (though he’s conservative too, in what I would describe as the classic sense of small “c” conservatism.)
Vianney is a remarkable figure, as are many of that era…But such figures, esp in France, have the scent of their age around them, and Benedict chose extracts that highlight the era, I think.
BTW, I have always preferred the Cure’ in “Diary of a Country Pritest” as opposed to the young priest himself, but that’s my taste.
Heavy sigh. When will the Holy Father ever catch a break from you people?
When will you stop using the abuse crisis as an excuse to bash anything you disagree with?
Many of the recent posts have started me wondering exactly what Church many of the commenters attend. Clericalism? Not 1 Catholic in 100 probably knows what you are talking about if you use that term, yet we are told “the people” are fed up with clericalism. I don’t see it. Are there people who object to the priest asserting authority? Sure, but in my experience the faithful with such objections usually only mean they don’t want anyone telling them what they should do. Maybe I attend mass with a bunch of rubes, but somehow I don’t think they would have the problems you have with the Pope’s statement.
David, thank you for this reference. The letter itself is great. I’d agree with the old-fashioned-not-conservative description of Benedict, but would add that he’s not fusty either. I liked this excerpt’s references to “pious escesses,” for example, and the kind of activities that the pope recommends aren’t at all limited to the Vianey era or locale:
“The pious excess of his devout biographer should not blind us to the fact that the Curé also knew how to “live” actively within the entire territory of his parish: he regularly visited the sick and families, organized popular missions and patronal feasts, collected and managed funds for his charitable and missionary works, embellished and furnished his parish church, cared for the orphans and teachers of the “Providence” (an institute he founded); provided for the education of children; founded confraternities and enlisted lay persons to work at his side.”
Have to say that for me the new spelling “buro” for bureau is not old-fashioned enough!
Everybody has the scent of their age–post-60′s Americans no less–arguably more. The great thing about Pope Benedict is that he sees the objection in advance, and he confronts it head on. He is clear and direct. And Jim is right, he is pushing us to rise above the scent of our era. What would Christianity be if it did not challenge our present “resonances”? That’s what history, and in sacred terms, the communion of the saints, helps us do–exceed the prison of our age. But Pope Benedict challenges in such a non-threatening way. And let’s not overlook the fact that the truths to which other ages challenge us, are by virtue of their truths also things that we, by lacking them, long for. The lack of resonance is both a clash with our perspective and an answer to our unexplored yearnings. This is why Pope John Paul II’s effect on young people was so strong, and why people were so surprised at it–becasue it’s only half true and therefore inadequate to say that outreach must be limited and must in some ways affirm the hearer’s rejection of truths made unpopular by the scent of our own age.
Make that pious excesses and Vianney. Maybe the same thing happened to bureau.
Sean – here is a link to a very valid article by a “young catholic” (that is part of your objection, right): http://ncronline.org/blogs/young-voices/don%E2%80%99t-tell-pope
Highlights: “Pope Benedict has declared June 19 as the beginning of the Year of the Priest. He has proclaimed that “without priestly ministry, there would be no Eucharist, no mission and even no church.” I hate to be the one to inform him, but Eucharist, mission and church existed long before the rise of priesthood.
According to the Gospels, Jesus was not a priest, nor were his disciples. We do see reference to Jesus as a priest in the Letter to the Hebrews. The author uses the word to refer to Jesus as the new and last “High Priest,” ending a long line of Jewish leaders. The author claims that priests are no longer necessary because no more sacrifices are needed. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and is our final high priest.
Perhaps the pope has forgotten that Jesus was not focused on priesthood. He was focused on ministry. He called people to minister alongside him, regardless of their status in society. He called out to fishermen and tax collectors and the woman with seven demons. Everyone was responsible for engendering the kingdom of God.”
Sean:
I don’t want anyone telling me what I should do: I do want someone helping me change my own mind about what I should do.
I don’t want a substitute for my conscience: I do want help forming my conscience.
Sean’s just back in his anti-progressive Catholic bubble.
If the priest is everything, what about the poor nuns getting their “visitation.?
They’re just women, of course.
Says Pope Bennie: “Without the priest, the passion and death of our Lord would be of no avail.”
Says Joe: “Tell that to the earliest Christians who had no priests! I guess they’re all in hell.”
I’m only sorry that this pope — in particular — had to reference the wonderful Cure’ d’Ars. John Vianney deserves better.
“When will the Holy Father ever catch a break from you people?”
Good question, Sean. For now, I can only reply “When Benedict stops being his own worst enemy. Seriously.
I just did a quick read of the Pope’s letter. The post shows only a tiny section, and in fact, with the exception of that quote the letter is really very nice.
The post is but a selection, though one that I think sets the tone. The bit about scandalous behavior and reckoing is also important. And I think it’s important to see this as the pope talking to his fellow priests–that is the forum Benedict feels most comfortable in, using the language he speaks most fluently. His most expansive public remarks come each summer when he meets with priests of Rome or his vacation spot in nrothern Italy for a Q&A. I’m not sure how much this is meant for lay people; it is a shot in the arm to clergy, I think. For something beyond an exhortation to holiness, the papal Q&As with priests are more accessible to most folks, I think. But Beendict always has a very high view of the priesthood; that may be his intellectual orientation or the fact that he has almost no experience of parish life or daily Catholic life as a priest.
“Sean’s just back in his anti-progressive Catholic bubble.”
Personal attacks like this shouldn’t be countenanced here.
Sean’s original post could be considered a personal attack as well, but let’s just have everyone chill out as far as charatcerizing each other before it goes too far.
When I was a kid, I remember our pastor, Father Heider, telling what appeared to him to be humorous stories about the encounters between the Curé of Ars and the devil. They scared the wits out of me.
I found this:
Are we to believe the devil can harass people and set fire to their beds?
Answers (or at least attempts):
“If there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with clericalism within the Church, how does this move the dicussion along?”
Among other ways, by holding up St. John Vianney as a model of what priests should be. The church acknowledges sainthood/sanctity for a nunmber of reasons; this modelling is surely one of the best.
“-If folks are becoming more and more unhappy with episcopal leadership, how does this move the conversation along?”
It’s a letter to priests about the Year of the Priest … not sure if it’s intended to move that conversation along. Although I’m sure that bishops (all of whom are also priests) would find much that is profitable in the letter, and in the life of John Vianney.
“-What does Jim mean by an “authentic appreciation of the parish priest?””
In some ways, it’s easier to say what it isn’t. It isn’t blindly putting them on pedestals. It isn’t denigrating or minimizing the priesthood (probably the greatest danger in this age). It isn’t lumping all of them into a wholesale condemnation of the holy order because of the sins of a few.
It is appreciating them for their gifts. It is appreciating that the priesthood is constitutive of the church. It is acknowledging that we need them, we value them and we love them. It is proclaiming the truth that the priesthood is an honorable calling, one that should be encouraged and supported by the laity, including and especially by inviting our sons and grandsons to discern if they are called. It is helping and loving and encouraging priests who are struggling with their ministry or their vocation. It is remembering priests with gratitude after they retire, and seeing to it that they don’t face financial burdens or worries. it is helping them as they do their best, on the ground, to adjust to a rapidly changing church.
“( A lot of folk love their priests but also see their at times too human side. They do not perceive them as “above”. And maybe or even hardly not “ontologically different.””
In one sense, they are “above”, as in, ” … on the org chart”. That’s just a fact. In another sense, they are sinners in need of forgiveness and healing, just like us.
“I think what really resonates powerfully today is the declining number of priests and the needs of the faithful and the lack of will to tackle the problem outside of the standard brands box.)”
Absolutely. Again, I applaud the Holy Father for initiating this discussion.
I agree with Jim Pauwels.
I think the Holy Father is being deliberately controversial in order to provoke the necessary discussions that need to occur bout the priesthood within the Church.
I also think that Vianney was an excellent choice because his model can be used to hit exactly the point the modern priesthood needs to find. I think any honest analysis can see that, at least from a Catholic perspective, a key problem in the post-conciliar Church is the growing distance between Catholics and their pastors/parishes. This snowballs to a decline in mass attendance, a decline in reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, a decline in the number of priests.
Vianney’s quote, and his example as a whole, is a brilliant display of the priest at the center of the community, acting as a constant draw to Christ. And, yet, his centrality in the community is through a very personal connection. He welcomes you as a baby, brings you to Christ each week, helps you draw close to your spouse, visits you when you’re sick, and sees your body cared for when you die. He is almost a part of your family, and he brings you closer to the Church family.
This kind of priest brings people closer to God and the Church. He’s present, he’s spiritually close, but he is not despotic.
I think that’s exactly what we need.
Here is an interesting passage from the Holy Father’s letter:
“His example naturally leads me to point out that there are sectors of cooperation which need to be opened ever more fully to the lay faithful. Priests and laity together make up the one priestly people[9] and in virtue of their ministry priests live in the midst of the lay faithful, “that they may lead everyone to the unity of charity, ‘loving one another with mutual affection; and outdoing one another in sharing honour’” (Rom 12:10).[10] Here we ought to recall the Second Vatican Council’s hearty encouragement to priests “to be sincere in their appreciation and promotion of the dignity of the laity and of the special role they have to play in the Church’s mission. … They should be willing to listen to lay people, give brotherly consideration to their wishes, and acknowledge their experience and competence in the different fields of human activity. In this way they will be able together with them to discern the signs of the times”.[11]”
I think this notion of the one priestly people, within which there is a division between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood, is one that needs to be unpacked and elaborated. I would think there are very few folks who haven’t been the recipient of priestly ordination who really believe that they share in the priesthood in any meaningful way. And for folks who have heard of this teaching, I think quite a few don’t actually buy it. ‘We’re all priests … but some of us really aren’t, or a few of us are more so”. This relationship (is it overlap? a clear distinction?) between priest and laity – who also, in a sense, share in the priesthood – underlies a number of problems in the priesthood today, I suspect.
Jim Pauwels:
I agree with you very much. In fact, if I pay close attention to Mass, pray every word of the Eucharistic prayer, say in my head what the celebrant says out loud, try to make a self-offering as well, and generally participate as fully as I can manage it, then, really, what’s the difference between me and the priest at the altar?
It’s not completely clear to me and I would be very interested in an elaboration on the “division between the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood”.
The year of St. Paul was a very good idea. And the idea of having a year devoted to consideration of the priesthood in itself could also be worthwhile. Certainly there are many serious, even urgent questions to be raised about the priesthood: its scriptural background, its historical development, its present, its future.
But Benedict’s letter, with its extravagant praise of the priesthood, its choice of Curé of Ars as role model, and its quite needless quoting of the rhetorical excesses of some nineteenth-century biographers, doesn’t promise well that many of those important questions will be on the official agenda.
Still, that’s not to say that there couldn’t be an unofficial agenda to run alongside the official one for the year of the priesthood. The subject having been broached, so to speak, the conversation might be nudged in interesting directions…
An item from the latest Tablet seems to reinforce the stylistic theme of the Year:
If it starts a study and change in mandatory celibacy, I’ll be willing to say it was brilliant….. see, hope is still extant.
In my arrchdiocese Church marriages declined over 50% in ten years… a more accurate picture of decline. then other half measures. Check your own Kennedy.
Most of the priests I know would be embarrassed by the words quoted in this post. (I can already see the merriment this is likely to provoke at parish staff meetings.) They did not go into the ministry to be regarded as “everything” but rather to serve. They wish to imitate Jesus, not to relativize his saving work by placing their calling above his own — which is what it means to say that his “passion and death are of no avail” without them. Pope Benedict should know better. Unrealistically high expectations and impossible standards are what drive people to drink.
Susan Gannon –
I agree it is excessive. It’s so excessive it’s heretical — unless it was intended as rhetoric. But if he meant it as rhetorical, then then it doesn’t sound like his rhetoric. I fear he might have had a stroke, or maybe is becoming senile.
I love most of what I’ve read by him. And I my reaction is, poor Pope, poor old man.
Joseph
Please, stop calling the Holy Father “Pope Bennie.” You don’t need to be disrespectful to make your point. I am not sure if you are Catholic, but I think most Catholics would find that moniker offensive. I know I do. Also, how is the Holy Father doing a diservice to the Cure of Ars by quoting him?
Bill,
Your response proves my point which is that articles from NCR and the New Catholic Times and The Tablet don’t necessarily represtent “the faithful.” They represent what some liberal Catholics think, but I would venture to guess that it doesn’t reflect what most Catholics think. Is there really evidence that Catholics, writ large, are concerned about clericalism, or that they would read the Holy Father’s words to mean – hey we’re better than you.
Clare,
Really? You don’t want anyone telling you what you should do? Ok, but I know that I would be in a world of hurt if I didn’t have people, from my parents, to my teachers, to my priests, to my wife, to my bosses and co-workers telling me what I should do. When I read the Gospels, should I be thinking – who’s He to tell me what I should do. Certainly, what I actually do is up to me, but it’s nice to have a little guidance on the way.
David, wasn’t aware I attacked anyone – sorry if I did.
Back to the bubble.
As Rita points out many pastors would be embarassed by the pope’s words. Perhaps Benedict is losing control. The words do have a distinctive curial flavor. Those guys love to be grandiose.
Sean, this is not rocket science. If you follow the history of the popes they were into vanity, riches and domination. It is astounding that followers of the crucifed Jesus would deck themselves out in all that splendor. Just plain wrong.
Even Ratzinger pointed out how many bad popes we have had. Usually they could not control the Curia. Neither can he , it appears.
I’ve been reading John O’Malley’s book, The First Jesuits, and he writes this about the early Society and holy orders ….
“[...] much of the ministry in the Society was in fact done by persons who were not ordained. More fundamentally, was the warrant for all the ministries derived in their opinion not from ordination but from acceptance of the call to be a member of the Society of Jesus. The Jesuits discussed that call frequently and at length, but rarely, if at all, did they speak of a “call to priesthood” …. When Nadal in his exhortations reviewed with his fellow Jesuits the outline of Ignatius’s life, he therefore had practically nothing to say about his ordination, reflecting Ignatius’s Autobiography in this relative silence. On one occasion Nadal began an exhortation with a telling apology for his narrative about what happened in Venice in 1537: “I must mention, by the way, that yesterday I forgot to tell you that Father Ignatius was ordained a priest.” …… Some young Jesuits thought ordination brought with it the danger of honor and special privilege and, hence, said they did not want to be ordained unless their superiors expressly ordered them ….”
This just sounds to me like a strategic effort to put priests on a pedestal again. Get the laity back in line by reminding them how special (meta-message: “and superior”) priests really are. This glorification of ordained priesthood is exactly the sense of exemption and privilege that underlies clerical narcissism — the real attitude behind the sex scandal’s abuse of authority.
Must it always be about THEM, the clergy? B16 says the expression, “After God, the priest is everything!” MIGHT sound excessive? Maybe it does; maybe it doesn’t. I’m afraid it shows the backdrop for his real mindset that still prevails. Thinking a priest would never________ (fill in the blank) because he is called to holiness in a unique way is dangerous.
B16’s resort to euphemisms is maddening: to “situations” which can never be sufficiently “deplored,” and frank and complete acknowledgement of the “weaknesses” of her ministers. “Situations, deplored, weaknesses?” Is that all? What about the plain simple truth of sexual molestation, criminal assault, and grievous violation of vows, deserving condemnation and censure. That sounds far more “frank and complete” to me. B16’s “recognition of failures of priests” is quite pallid.
The timing of B16’s letter is unfortunate. Is he tone deaf? Would one dare hope for a “Year of the Survivor?” That such a thing sounds so off base is itself a clue to the atmosphere. Actually that would have been an appropriate initiative, come to think of it. Then, a Year of the Priest would be more palatable.
For those sick of any mention of the crisis, yes, it is the most searing development in the church in our time: the unspeakable evil within. The impact is ongoing (Dublin archdiocese investigation due out soon) as country after country begins to face the truth.
Grant it, I am not representative of the typical lay attitude (deference was and is deadly), but I am curious how B16’s letter will be seen by the majority of Catholics. It leaves me with a tired groan.
BTW, I do pray for priests in their struggles – being a mother of a loving, committed monk and priest does that. I have the greatest respect for those with the humility and heart for service in ministry. God bless and protect them, every last one.
Maybe God does have a sense of humor if one of mine entered (as a former pastor noted), but please, cut the exaltation.
Even St. Benedict warns in RB60 about being too quick to admit priests to a monastery: “no elevated rank, no special attention, no official place,” comments Joan Chittister. “They who had given so many orders would have to take some.” The tone in RB60 and RB7 on humility sound more apropos than B16’s letter in light of where we are today.
Claire wrote:
Reading Claire’s words, I was reminded of what Archbishop Oscar Romero said about the need for a change of mind and heart, and about how to find help in achieving that change and in forming one’s conscience. As his country drew ever closer to the outbreak of a civil war which he was trying desperately to stave off, Archbishop Romero said,
This letter was positively embarrassing to read. All the signs are that it is Benedict’s own composition, especially the topic of the priest’s Power — this is probably what naively pious first-year seminarians of the late 1940s got high on. I remember an elderly clergyman preaching on this topic in Rome in 1972 and being shocked by the anachronism (for our ideas about priesthood were of course shaped by the Vatican II document on the subject). But why is Benedict writing in the style of his own adolescent? I think he has had an access of Proustian memoire involontaire, perhaps sparked off by reading a life of St John Vianney. Perhaps the depression induced by having to deal with sexual scandals in the contemporary presbyterate has sent him fleeing back to an utopia of happier times. The regression is powerful and palpable.
corr: his own adolescence
“Grant it, I am not representative of the typical lay attitude (deference was and is deadly), but I am curious how B16’s letter will be seen by the majority of Catholics. It leaves me with a tired groan.”
Alas, even on this liberal site the reception has been over-charitable. One can expect the rightwing sites to revel in this. Mind you, since reading Henri Gheon’s life of Vianney many moons ago I never regarded him as a praticable model of priesthood (the same goes for the tortured priest in Bernanos’s “Sous le soleil de Satan” — what a title! — who is modeled on Vianney).
Fr. O’Leary –
I agree that the letter sounds like a regression, a desperate one. But can one be too charitable? It seems to methat the poor Pope is confronted with the terrible scandal involving priests, he is himself scandalized out of his mind, and he simply has no way to handle it given his old assumptions about priests as superior.
It’s been 50 (?) years since I read it,but I thought “Under the Sun of Satan”. I thought it was was a fine novel. I would be happy to have such a priest as pastor. Maybe I don’t remember it accurately, but why the objection to such a priest as St. Jean Vianney?
Well, we were told in seminary that the primacy role of the priest is to preach the Gospel (the celebration of the Eucharist taking its meaning within this horizon). Would you really like a priest who would focus on sin and Satan in an inward spiritual battle (with sex as the standard exteriorization of Evil), not opening up wide horizons of social concern etc.? It was just such a stifling narrowness of focus that Vatican II was trying to get away from. Should the priest be the prisoner of the confessional? Is that a healthy image of priesthood?
We may have the Pope around till the end of 2020, if he lives as long as Leo XIII, or even longer. I think we must indeed show charity to the man, in his weakness, but we must not be so indulgent as to overlook the badness of his theology and the major role he has played, as chief intellectual architect of the restorationist regime of John Paul II and the new Movements, in putting the Church in its present position.
About four years ago, there appeared a television documentary crafted by a man from Lynn, Massachusetts. I’m trying to recall the title. However, the basic story was that he and his brother were abused by a parish priest. In one scene, the present bishop of Cleveland, then auxiliary in Boston, chases the camera crew off the seminary grounds in Brighton, using some strong language. In other scenes, the closing of the parish is shown. The most pertinent scene, however, is one in which the cameraman asks the abuser about the priesthood, and he replies with several sentences stating the superiority of the priest above the faithful. Later, it turns out that this priest was convicted. Later, the priest died. Can anyone recall the name of this documentary? Thanks.
corr: primacy SHD BE primary
The papal letter quotes Vatican II twice, but this is mere tokenism, for the entire horizon of the letter is not only pre-Vatican II, it is the narrowest form of pre-Vatican II piety, not representing the breadth that the Tridentine Church could have when it was not locked in entrenched warfare with the secular world.
What most priests will gather from the letter is that the Pope has no pastoral experience whatever. His vision of the priesthood is an assortment of pious cliches from another age. The extreme narrowness of his vision is simply astonishing. Neither John Paul II nor Paul VI could have penned a document so far out of touch with pastoral realities.
Joe McMahon:
The film you are referring to is “Hand of God.” It was directed by Joe Cultrera and was about the sexual abuse of his brother, Paul, and the impact it had on the Cultrera family.
I just read the letter, and I was stopped short by the line you quoted above, David — “Leave a parish for twenty years without a priest, and they will end by worshiping the beasts there…” Maybe one of those quotations it would have been better to leave out? Especially since he ends that quotation with “The priest is not a priest for himself, he is a priest for you,” which is a clearer and stronger summary of his reasons for pointing to Vianney in the first place (at least as I understand them).
I’m not sure how to square the “beasts” stuff with this paragraph:
Vague, and a little out of place, but I’m glad it’s there.
Overall I think the pope was trying to give his “brother priests” a pep talk — to say the things that he thinks need to be said (put more emphasis on the True Presence; encourage confessions; be holier) in a way that comes off as positive reinforcement rather than scolding. It is certainly old-fashioned, though, and I’m not sure what I’d make of it if I were considering the seminary myself.
My sense is that the Pope’s letter has shed light on the fact that a dichotomy exists in the Church. I don’t think the letter made the dichotomy exist.
The question is not whether or not the priest is ordained for service. The question is whether the service is primarily cultic in character or not.
When Dean Hoge et al were trying to find a term to describe the generation gap that exists among priests regarding priestly identity, the term they used, with reservations, for the young priests was “the cultic model.” This sounds right to me. Is the priest acting of himself as a servant? Or is the priest acting from the heart of the Lord?
My own sense is that the dichotomy, like most, is false. The priest becomes of himself more generous through years of service–and this service is primarily as an intermediary for the activity of God.
The reason the Vatican gets away with many abuses is because too many buy the fantasy rather than the reality. They do not realize how isolated and conscious of their turf the curia and the Vatican are.
Strangely enough a book , To Catch a Thief, commissioned by the Vatican to clear any doubts about John Paul 1 being murdered, gives one an amazing picture of the Chruch of Rome. The book was written by Cornwall, a later and present nemesis of the Vatican. Yet Cornwall did clear the Vatican of all wrong doing.
In the process, however, a formerly conservative Catholic, became quite radical. http://italian-mysteries.com/JCO01.html
VOTF regularly honors “priests of integrity.”
A while back Church magazine noted five ezxmplary priests in the uS.
Clearly there are men who represent both clear devotion to the sacramental life and its natural outcome in serving the community about them.
They aren’t company men!
And, i fear therir numbers will continue to decline because that is what the Pope expects -company men (and women) giving “loyalty” to everything up the line.
Sando Magister is reporting how the Austrian Bishops were taken to the woodshed by BXVI. Loyalty oaths to the non-infallible is what matters.
BXVI is no fool, but I think he’s out of touch and it’s not moving us forward.
So in San Antonio, if Allen’s report is accurate, they couldn’t pass the liturgical translations, but clearly most cast their eyes to Rome, while others (save Trautman who was blunt) care about the needs of the people.
As it goes in Tehran, Ayatolagh locuata est, causa finita est -or does it?
So too I fear in my Church.
In my darkest moments I think we should change “Ubi Caritas” to Where power and Control prevail…” The priest is everything …
“I think most Catholics would find that moniker ["Pope Bennie"] offensive.”
Sean, to which group of Catholics are you referring?
I am Catholic, btw, just no longer by formal affiliation, and I can thank Ratzinger for my decision to leave the RCC. When I saw him step out onto the balcony after his election to the papacy, I could hear myself saying in a dreaded tone of voice, “O my God.” I was still a practicing Catholic at the time.
Given Ratzinger’s treatment of theologians, his attempts to revive Tridentine practices conducive to the clerical culture, and his pronouncements on gay priests and seminarians, etc., my use of the “moniker” is mild compared to what I’d like to say of him — but for considerations of basic politeness.
I have no use for this pope.
“I have no use for this pope.” Lovely
Good morning, Fr. O’Leary –
Thanks for the more detailed picture of the Cure’ of Ars. I was taught he was a sweet, kindly priest who loved everyone and was very wise in spite of his mental limitations.
One of my takeaways from reading the letter is that it does seem that the Holy Father is centering the life of the priesthood – at least for parish priests – in celebration of the sacraments and pastoral care.
While I’m sure this is the norm in my archdiocese, at the same time, as more priests are called to be pastors earlier in their career, I think many of them become enveloped in parish administrivia that takes them away from the sacraments and pastoral care.
A characterization of the Holy Father that I regret hearing too late to include in my book was the protest of a curialist to someone accusing B16 of being conservative:
“He’s not conservative! He’s old-fashioned!”
I think that is a very good summation (though he’s conservative too, in what I would describe as the classic sense of small “c” conservatism.)
I submit that a slight improvement on either of these is to call Benedict an Augustinian. Augustine had a decidedly pessimistic view of the human condition and he was generally opposed to institutional reforms. For example he regarded slavery as unjust but saw no hope of getting rid of it, the human condition being what it is. V2 was generally inspired by optimism about reform. Benedict came to reject that optimism, if he ever shared it. Hence his attachment to or weakness for so many remnants of the unreformed Church.
When asked about institutional reform in the Church Benedict either suggests that the reformers are merely seeking to acquire power–as if in interest in power were utterly alien to the present governers of the church–or that they lack purity of heart, as if anyone could ever be sure of anyone’s complete purity of heart.
As long as bishops and priests and evern deacons are imposed upn the laity from above without any say on their part there will tend arise an inevitable distance which can easily become distrust and and lack of confidence. This is especially true in a relatively egalitarian society in which people expect those in a postion of authority to prove themseves and be accountable to those whose needs they serve.
“But Pope Benedict challenges in such a non-threatening way.”
I think not.
Jim Pauwels — interesting insight — that helps me see the connection the pope may intend between renewing the priesthood and acknowledging the “sectors of cooperation which need to be opened ever more fully to the lay faithful.”
Re: Fr. O’Leary’s suggestion that Benedict in writing this letter might have been subject to one of those Proustian floods of memory, taking him back to his own adolescence, might it be relevant that Vianney was conscripted into Napoleon’s army while a seminarian, and spent some time in hiding as a deserter before a decree of amnesty allowed him to return home and resume his studies? And then there were all those academic setbacks that were not his fault, but trials to bear. . . .
“V2 was generally inspired by optimism about reform. Benedict came to reject that optimism, if he ever shared it. ”
In general, his papal writings strike me as brimming over with optimism. I see it running throughout his encyclicals and a number of his homilies. Optimism seems to be a native component of his character.
At the same time, I suppose that 40 or so years of experience with the post-Vatican II church may have tempered whatever enthusiasm he had for reform. He seems to be from the “we need to get the reform back on track” school.
For another view, see Dr. Moynihan in “Inside the Vatican’, June 19 0n BXVI ‘ s meeting with the Austrian Bishops.
I must say I’m bemused aboiut thinking of him “brimming with optimism.”
Would be nice to know too how reform fell off track – might be a large debate.
As a priest, I ask for your prayers.
As a brother disciple, I ask for your prayers that this Year for Priests not be an attempt to dispel honest pain by means of propaganda.
I suppose the Pope is reforming the liturgy in a big way, nowadays.
I read his letter more carefully and highlighted his direct, explicit advice to priests. Here is an attempted synopsis, paragraph by paragraph. I was hoping that some clear overall picture would emerge, but I think I failed.
———————————–
1. “deepen the commitment of all priests to interior renewal for the sake of a more forceful and incisive witness to the Gospel in today’s world.”
2. No explicit point. [stories of dedicated, suffering priests]
3. “What is most helpful to the Church in such cases [of scandal] is not only a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers, but also a joyful and renewed realization of the greatness of God’s gift, embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors, religious afire with love for God and for souls, and insightful, patient spiritual guides. Here the teaching and example of Saint John Mary Vianney can serve as a significant point of reference for us all.” [followed by the bizarre quotes highlighted in the blog post]
4. “Dear brother priests, let us ask the Lord Jesus for the grace to learn for ourselves something of the pastoral plan of Saint John Mary Vianney!” [followed by bizarre story of Vianney living in the church building all day]
5 and 6. Vianney’s pastoral plan: included a hodgepodge of charitable activities. “His example naturally leads me to point out that there are sectors of cooperation which need to be opened ever more fully to the lay faithful.” [followed by Vatican II quote]
7. Vianney’s pastoral plan: praying the Mass. “Saint John Mary Vianney taught his parishioners primarily by the witness of his life.” [followed by stuff on prayer and the Eucharist]
8 and 9. Vianney’s pastoral plan: confessions. “Priests ought never to be resigned to empty confessionals or the apparent indifference of the faithful to this sacrament.” “We priests should feel that the following words, which he put on the lips of Christ, are meant for each of us personally: “I will charge my ministers to proclaim to sinners that I am ever ready to welcome them, that my mercy is infinite” ”
10. Vianney’s pastoral plan: asceticism. “Aside from the actual penances which the Curé of Ars practiced, the core of his teaching remains valid for each of us: souls have been won at the price of Jesus’ own blood, and a priest cannot devote himself to their salvation if he refuses to share personally in the “precious cost” of redemption. ”
11 and 12. Vianney’s pastoral plan: poverty, chastity, and obedience. “the lives and activity of priests need to be distinguished by a forceful witness to the Gospel. [...] we need to ask ourselves ever anew: “Are we truly pervaded by the word of God? [...] Just as Jesus called the Twelve to be with him (cf. Mk 3:14), and only later sent them forth to preach, so too in our days priests are called to assimilate that “new style of life” which was inaugurated by the Lord Jesus and taken up by the Apostles”. “It was complete commitment to this “new style of life” which marked the priestly ministry of the Curé of Ars.”
13. “I would like to invite all priests, during this Year dedicated to them, to welcome the new springtime which the Spirit is now bringing about in the Church, not least through the ecclesial movements and the new communities.[...] This communion between priests and their Bishop, grounded in the sacrament of Holy Orders and made manifest in Eucharistic concelebration, needs to be translated into various concrete expressions of an effective and affective priestly fraternity.”
14. Very short. “[Christ] died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them” (2 Cor 5:15). Could a finer programme be proposed to any priest resolved to advance along the path of Christian perfection?
15. No explicit point. [Vianney's devotion to Mary]
16. “awaken in the heart of every priest a generous and renewed commitment to the ideal of complete self-oblation to Christ and the Church [...] It was his fervent prayer life and his impassioned love of Christ Crucified that enabled John Mary Vianney to grow daily in his total self-oblation to God and the Church. May his example lead all priests to offer that witness of unity with their Bishop, with one another and with the lay faithful”
One frankly bizarre quote: “[Vianney's] chastity, too, was that demanded of a priest for his ministry. It could be said that it was a chastity suited to one who must daily touch the Eucharist, who contemplates it blissfully and with that same bliss offers it to his flock.”
“Heavy sigh. When will the Holy Father ever catch a break from you people?”
Ready response: whe he stops making embarrassingly unsupportable statements such as: “After God, the priest is everything!”
When will the Pope get a break? When will the church get a break from his policies? Today I read of yet another Spanish theologian silenced http://www.golias-editions.fr/spip.php?article2911
When the new English translations of the liturgy are imposed there will be yet another wave of Catholics sent fleeing from the Church by the destructive. divisive, myopic papal policies. Reactionary restorationism and neurotic inquisitorial control is NOT what the People of God need or deserve but it is what John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been thrusting on them since 1978. The hungry sheep look up and are not fed.
Kathy, this pope may be re-forming the liturgy, but he’s certainly not re-newing it.
Jim
I was not suggesting that Benedict was pessimistic in all respects any more than Augustine was, but that he shared Augustine’s pessimism about the human condition and that he along the same lines shared Augustine’s pessimism about the usefulness of structural reforms.
Sure, I understand, Joseph. I wasn’t meaning to contradict you, not sure if that’s how it came across. Just adding a comment.
Interesting discussion and linked articles. I liked Chrystal’s linked excerpt.
My basic intuition is that Pope Benedict is basically an idea’s man. However, the position he occupies automatically makes those ideas become a reality in the lived experience of the universal church given the role of the papacy in the modern world. JP II was, as one article mentioned, focussed externally on reconciling with other groups or at least beginning a process of dialogue. Whatever one thinks of specific policies or leanings, he oriented the Church in the media and global age as a credible voice.
I think Pope Benedict needs to take a critical look at the negative consequences of some of his ideas in terms of exacerbating polarization in the Church. And I hope he isn’t one to favour sycophants around him. I think liturgy is a good area of emphasis, and a personal interest of his, but it is not necessary to highlight the sacramental or ministerial priesthood to the exclusion of the broader issue of ministry in the Church to do so.
The Church should simply follow the rhythms and flows of its liturgical seasons publicly and ritually without superimposing extraneous celebrations or focusses like year of priest or Pauline year (or year of laity, year of religious, year of this and year of that).
Yes, the anniveraries, holy years, etc. that dotted John Paul II’s reign were huge distractions, undermining any continuity in the task of renewing the curia and the Church, as Alberto Melloni pointed out. The Pauline Year was a bit of a damp squib, as the Vianney year will be as well. The Vatican interpreted Paul in terms of saccharine piety, making a song and dance about Indulgences — so that the Pauline year became yet another opportunity to bury Paul. As to Vianney, his wonderful holiness in some lost parish in the depths of 19th century France hardly intersects at all with the priesthood today; as a man pestered by anticlerical slanders at one phase in his career he may be held up to priests who feel “outraged in their dignity” and give them a soothing sense of self-righteousness — but is this really a helpful message?
“I think Pope Benedict needs to take a critical look at the negative consequences of some of his ideas in terms of exacerbating polarization in the Church. And I hope he isn’t one to favour sycophants around him. I think liturgy is a good area of emphasis, and a personal interest of his, but it is not necessary to highlight the sacramental or ministerial priesthood to the exclusion of the broader issue of ministry in the Church to do so.”
Absolutely! But can you change the habits of a lifetime? And who were the greatest sycophants if not the Cardinals who elected him?
Here’s a scary thought: A colleague, who has dealings with Rome, tells me that the Vatican act quietly, stealthily to put in place their very conservative agenda — in appointments throughout the world — so that anything that may hit the radar screen of public attention will only be a faint reflection of the seachange that is afoot. Benedict talks of the “movements” as a new dawn in church life; all around he sees only dissent and decay, which he believes he must root out, even at the cost of making the Church smaller (a cost he actually has welcomed).
“After God, the priest is everything” —- but without the members of the Church, the priest is nothing!
In the same way that the parish priest may be trying to convert his parishioners, the members of a parish can also try to convert their parish priest. By the witness of our humanity, we can help put him in touch with reality. Priests, too, can change! As long as we don’t leave, there is hope: we participate in the construction of the Church.
Once upon a time the claims of scientists were thought “bizarre.” Einstein’s theory, the atom–bizarre. It’s bizarre to think that a watermelon and a piano fall to the ground from the same 30-story window at the same rate of acceleration. But this is reality, discovered.
Anyone having the slightest inclination to giving this Pope the benefit of the doubt might consider the possibility that he is aware of a science that they do not yet understand. What if there is a connection between chastity and the love of God, as Thomas Aquinas also said? What if this is the true life?
Kathy, I don’t think Benedict’s expressions in this letter would be analagous to scientific claims that could be proved or disproved, or vindicated.
Giving people the benefit of the doubt is important, but believing or defending everything they say all the time can turn into credulity or ideology.
If by chastity St Thomas meant permanent virginity/continence I think he is part of a tradition that needs to be reviewed critically. The cult of virginity in the Church has been wildly excessive.
A student asked St Thomas if one could pray while making love and received the reply: There’s a time and a place for everything.
Marriage is no longer presented to the faithful as an inferior vocation to virginity, so some progress has been made in moving toward a more integral view of salvation.
Continence has a value in monastic settings. at least on a temporary basis. I fail to see that the mandatory celibacy of the diocesan clergy has had a wonderful effect, and I doubt if many priests would be able to follow the amazing but rather eccentric example of Vianney or Padre Pio.
David,
I think there are such experiments. For example, my piano teacher, who has played the piano well for 50 years, says that if I begin with scales I will soon play sonatas. Personally I don’t see the connection. Should I believe my piano teacher? Should I play scales for a few weeks and see how it goes?
Kathy, I’m sure you’ll be a fine pianist.
Thank you, David.
Kathy:
In this instance, the science being analyzed is the science of ministry, and the science of leadership or governance in the Church.
The two sciences are closely related.
In his inaugural address Benedict said:
My real programme of governance is not to do my own will, not to pursue my own ideas, but to listen, together with the whole Church, to the word and the will of the Lord, to be guided by Him, so that He himself will lead the Church at this hour of our history
I haven’t seen evidence of that. Sorry. That doesn’t mean I don’t support or respect him.
I haven’t seen evidence either, but I have witnessed actions and statements of a pope who is genuinely working for a “smaller but purer” church. As I’ve noted elsewhere, it’s the “purer” part that concerns me.
Several things:
1) Report from the Netherlands at Abuse Tracker that a large number (400) abuse cases by clergy, Catholic and other denominations, had occurred. What I found significant that the comittee established by the Catholic Church there had resigned en masse in protest because they felt they were pressured to protect the institution!
2)A wonderful report at NCR on the talk of Fr. Tilley, outgoing president of the Catholic Theological Society on attempting to resolve the impasses in today’s Church. His approach would involve lots more openness anmd discussion than we see from Rome and the Holy Father.
3) It’s just my opinion, but I’m glad I’m not alone in reading Sr. Maureen Fiedler writing about how the actions in Iran of misuse of power makes her think of Rome and the Vatican.
Blood won’t run in Church streets but folks will be discredited and marginalized or tossed out for not following the party line.
Surely, dedixcated priests deserve to be honored, But I think Fr. O’Leary, taklking out of the depths of real experience – not apologetics of some sort – has it right that more than a “Year Of” is needed for many who soldier on, sometimes well, sometimes not.
And all of the religius women who aren’t in line don’t get a year despite some enormous sacrifices and excellent work of bring the Gospel out -visitations/loyalty oaths are the name of the game.
We just noted the Commonweal Editorial (and, I also, America and Fr. Reese in the washington Post) about the need of our Bishops to be uniters.
Bottom line: here’s another non-uniter from BXVI, despite lots of nice phrases.
I hope priests read the letter and take it as a serious challenge to interior conversion. Renewal in the Church always invloves–perhaps even begins with–renewal of the clergy.
Does renewal in the Church begin with clergy renewal? Always? Proof!
The Tilley talk in Halifax notes one of the current “malignant”(his word) impasses in the Church involves a shrinking and in places dispirited clergy whose problem can’t be solved under current rules (as well as an educated laity that don’t listen to their bishops anymore and loyal and dedicated religious women “disgusted” by investigations and interference in their governance.)
Seems like not long ago CTSA at least wanted to try to promote greater harmony and dialogue with hierarchical folks?
Did they get anywhere?
We’d all be better off deepning our spirituality, but even so, is that going to solve the problems not only of the clergy but our deeply divided Church?
George D. –
Good point about Pope John Paul II trying to be a reconciler of opposing groups. His success was most notable in his efforts to work out a detente with the Communists in Poland. HE began, apprently,, by rshowing respect for Col. Jaruselski, then then Communist head of Poland. His success in reconciliation extended later even to the Kremlin, and the VCommunist empire fell.
We really have only one choice in the hot button fundamental issues –respectful dialogue and patience in trying to change hearts = and votes – or armed revolution. The latter is not a real option. The George Weigels of this world don’t seem to recognize this fact.
Ann, what do you think of Jonathan Luxmoore’s piece (6/20) in the Tablet on the Church in Poland snd JPII’s work there in its aftermath now?
I agree patient dialogue and listening will help us move toward what’s better, but how possible is it with the current situation?
Claire –
I agree — we mustn’t leave the Church. m from New Orleans, and when I was young there were some people who left because they “just couldn’t stand” the terrible faults of the South. I always felt they were rats deserting the ship. It was those who stayed and changed things whom I admired.
Claire –
About changing the Church — It is my understanding that it was the nuns, with the encouragement of Cardinal Suenens, who agitated for fundamental changes in the Church even before Vatican II, that we can thank them for the courage to talk back to their bishops. I’m not sure this is so, and would like to know whether it is.
Given some of the great nuns I’ve known, I really shudder thinking of the coming “visitations” (another Vatican euphemism) that are about to take place. God help the Church if the Curia people can’t open then eyes to the reasons that the nuns are still so impatient with Rome. They made headway with John XXIII but I doubt it will be the same with POpe Benedict.
By the way, anybody notice that though the young priests have become extremely conservative, the young nuns (all three of the) have not?
Bob Nunz –
I don’t subscribe to the Tablet so I can’ get to the Luxmore articale. What’s the gist of it?
Hi,Ann
Luxmoore’s article “Silenced Polish Disidents” posits ther eis a serious deepening credibility gap in the Church in Poland dating to the silencing of leading/theologians/academics by JP2.
The policy of no internal criticism of Holy Mother by Rome, the curia and Bishops who have their feet held to the fire is part of the problem we see here.
It’s no ta matter of giving BXVI a break, it’s a matter of serious discussion of policy by Church leadership and being able to talk about and, yes, if wrong headed, dissent from it.
Kathy: I am fully willing to give Pope Benedict the benefit of the doubt. That’s why I wrote “bizarre” instead of “wrong”. Questioning is not the same as rejecting! That’s why I did read and re-read his letter: I am listening, waiting for him to speak at my level so that I can understand what, to me, looks like nonsense. What more do you want?
Ann: interesting broader perspective. I have no idea of the possible role of nuns as catalysts of change in the twentieth century. Do you suspect that they convinced their bishops to look at the world a little differently?
Claire, my apologies. I presumed that by “bizarre” you meant not only wrong but weirdly wrong. I shouldn’t have jumped to that conclusion–sorry.
Some interesting threads and thoughts. Just returned from a funeral of a long time friend, a Daughter of Charity, who suddenly passed away in her sleep at the age of 68. The province is in shock because she was one of the younger and more active sisters. A few of the leadership folks at the lunch after the funeral where talking about their discouragement with the Rome approach – they face increasing retired, elderly, and infirm sisters in the hundreds; worried about finances, support, medical & assisted living care, etc. as their actual “working” numbers drastically decrease. It is a real morale issue – they barely have enough sisters to talk much about ministries or missions?
At the same time, attended with priest friends who reacted to this announcement in a very mixed way – understand intellectually what the Vatican is trying to do but see a huge disconnect between B16′s words and actions; his dearth of pastoral experience; he comes across as out of touch with the rank and file (agree with Mr. Gibson’s remindeer about the August northern Italy meeting with diocesan priests but this is almost a “token” affair). Had to smile at this coincedence – the Vincentians established and staffed a college and then theology seminary in Denver for over 100 years. Archbishops Stafford and then Chaput basically took over the seminary; made it diocesan and changed the name to St. John Mary Vianney from St. Thomas. Linking this to the 19th century setting of Vianney; his writings/words which, of course, fit into a very different context, history, and church.
Any way, wanted to share those thoughts. Not sure that priests will really see much in terms of this year – is it connected to USCCB or diocesan efforts to support their priests? ongoing support via retreats, conferences, additional help in this year so they can take time to rejuvenate?
The spirit is nice but actions make a difference.
Bill, I think some solace can be found in the words of Tennyson: “The old order changes, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways, lest one good custom should corrupt the world.”
And more consolation from news about groups that are actually growing:
http://www.sistersofmary.org/article.php?id=397
http://nashvilledominican.org/Vocations/The_Vocation_Director
http://www.communityofstjohn.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57:princeville-sisters&catid=34:princeville&Itemid=54
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/dec/27/living-joy-lawrence-boasts-four-female-modern-day-/
The June edition of The Furrow has some interesting material on Irish priests and their sense of being manipulated and treated dismissively by the hierarchy. The head of the national priests’ association, set up by the bishops to counter a more independent association, was called in by the Papal Nuncio because of some statement the association had made. When he told the nuncio that the statement represented the thinking of the priests of Ireland and should be given a hearing he was told: ‘You’re a nobody, representing nobodies!’ The association has since dissolved itself.
If there is great discontent among priests (who especially feel they are being handed over to the wolves in the case of abuse allegations) how can a Year for Priests, which nobody asked for, and a message that has no relationship to any listening to real-life priests, do anything but exacerbate the situation? According to A. Melloni bishops dread dealing with the Roman curia. which they call ‘the bureaucracy of nothing’. The solutions offered by the Vatican to the church’s problems are poorly thought out, ineffective court dramas that are a mere distraction.
One last point: The Pope is notorious for sealing the rejection of Liberation Theology by the Catholic Church. His reading of the Gospels in his Jesus-book eliminates their thrust toward a just society and cuts their connection with the social message of the Prophets in a crypto-Marcionite manner. In his presentation of priesthood he downplays even the social dimension of Vianney’s message and apostolate, and offers no example of socially engaged priesthood; many will have asked why he could not hold up an Oscar Romero as a model of priesthood. For decades Christians have been casting a cynical eye on Buddhism. regarded as an unhealthily otherworldly and disincarnate religion. Well today Engaged Buddhism is one of the most dynamic reiigious movements in the world, while Catholic engagement is being reduced to an ideologically shrill and destructive campaign against abortion. Papal blindness is being reinforced by the uncritical reception his utterances have garnered, and the whole Church is paying the price.
David, you included a question about whether the pope intends to include bishops among priests when it comes to responsibility for the abuse scandals. Bishops are part of the priesthood, of course, but it is curious that Benedict speaks of “the sacrament of the priesthood” as though it were different from Holy Orders. Really curious.
A couple of excellent comments about this Year of the Priest:
a) Fr. Clooney, SJ – http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=47885015-3048-741E-9099775421894181
b) Enlightened Catholicism – http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/
Highlights: “From the tone of this letter, we can expect no change in celibacy, no real change in transparency in the management of the priesthood, no change in the Trentan theology of the priesthood, no change in how the laity is perceived, no change in direction with regards to ‘secular relativism’, no change in governance, and a continued repression of the theology of Vatican II. The magical priesthood will stay magically above us with their ordained power to command God to appear on our behalf.
This means the seminaries will continue to present the Church with a certain percentage of well educated but emotionally and spiritually stunted priests. Young men will continue to be indoctrinated into a stage II kind of spirituality which is incapable of fostering meaningful internal spiritual maturity because the theology is based almost exclusively on externals.”
3) OR – you can watch Fr. G interview Archbishop Dolan on EWTN as Dolan tries his best PR manners to spin this to look like the greatest idea since sliced bread.
The papal monologue would be impossible if he had listened to the wisdom and experience of priests (do even their bishops listen?):
Fr Clooney writes: “Some of the key issues surely must include questions like the following (in no definite order): 1. Why are there so few vocations? [Pope would say: spiritual deficit of communities that are unable to generate celibates] 2. would it be good to allow married men to be ordained [Pope would say; that would be a surrender to spiritual mediocrity] ? 3. what is the best way for the Church to extend pastoral care to gay individuals and gay couples? [Pope would say: penitential struggle with this orientation to an intriniscally evil act can be promoted in the confessional] 4. how do priests think about their celibacy in a society where our understanding of sexuality is undergoing so many changes? [Pope would say: priests should be a counter-cultural sign of contradiction, not influenced by such alleged changes] 5. are we fully welcoming and making use of the pastoral gifts of women in the Church? 6. how can the Church best speak out on issues of violence, poverty, racism and sexism in today’s society? 7. what was most and least valuable in seminary training? 8. what are the best theological resources that help the priest do his job? 9. if we could change three things in how the Church is organized and run, what would they be? 10. where is the piety of parishioners most alive and vital today? 11. which kinds of liturgy work best, how have recent changes in liturgical form and language affected parish worship, and how do we help people to pray better, by the way we pray on Sundays? 12. how, from the parish priest’s perspective, are the bishops doing? 13. given that John Vianney was a famed confessor, how do priests today think sin is understood in their congregations? 14. what might be done to rejuvenate the Sacrament of Reconciliation, to revitalize its role in Church life again? 15. what if anything are priests and people angry about these days? 16. what are the best and worst things the Church does for, to, its priests? 17.
The Pope did have a nice meeting with Roman priests and some good questions were presented to him. But the Generals in the great army of the diocesan clergy never think of broader consultation of the mere infantry. The Church is not a democracy after all.
Thanks to Bill D. for linking to Fr. Clooney’s questions from rthe America website.
Of course, it would be nice to hear from the “infantry” in an unvarnished fashion.
Strikes me that a fortiori, it would be even better to hear from the whole community – yes, even further down the pecking list , the laity especially women (whom Fr. Clooney ultimately notes there’s some problematic about.)
For those of us who think the social sciences can tell us something, Dr. Davidson will give the Common Ground lecture this Friday night about “What American Catholics think about the Church.”
Might shine a little light.
The current CARA report talks about parish renewal being the hope of future renewal where at times, ‘observers seea Catholic Church rife with discouragement, division and dissent…”
Reminded me of the Tilley talk in Halifax.
I’d juat posit that solving that problem cannot be just “top down” but requires a balance
in which hearing the priests, and Nuns and laity, are all integral parts of moving forward.
Is anyone listening?????
What about the priests that are not of the Latin rite? Are they included? Or are they to be passed over in embarassed silence?
One frankly bizarre quote: “[Vianney’s] chastity, too, was that demanded of a priest for his ministry. It could be said that it was a chastity suited to one who must daily touch the Eucharist, who contemplates it blissfully and with that same bliss offers it to his flock.”
Claire is right about this strange sentiment. Has Benedict considered that today many married people daily touch the Eucharist , too? Is blissful contemplation reserved for single clerics? (And Joe Gannon is right, above. What about married Eastern Rite priests? )
Mr. Gannon – good point but, if you see this “year” as spiritual in nature – then it would apply to all rites; Eastern/Western. OTOH, doubt that this “new” pattern of worldwide themes is meant to apply to the eastern church; another loss by the way.
Here is one last piece called the Morale of Priests – very interesting – Nov.,2007 Commonweal – keep in mind that this is Milwaukee and their bishop is Tim Dolan:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=2068
Highlights:
“First, our bishops must be honest about the crisis of health, morale, and collegiality among priests. At a recent Milwaukee Council of Priests meeting, the vicar for clergy announced that “the wheels are falling off the wagons,” and that he was overwhelmed with the problems of priests under fifty years of age. Such bluntness is rare. Many people are afraid that speaking about the problem will affect vocational recruitment.”
” In any case, simply ordaining more priests will not resolve the malaise. Bishops in recent years have been too quick to fill seminaries with fervent men who may or may not have genuine vocations. As a result, our seminaries now house a new breed of unsuitable candidates, men with poor relational and leadership skills. Ordained into a U.S. church that is losing its vitality, these men often seek to turn back the clock by embracing disciplines and devotional practices that flourished in the middle of the last century.”
” Though much will change in the U.S. church and its priesthood in coming decades, these changes need not bring additional stress, depression, overwork, heart attacks, early death, or intergenerational conflict for priests. As I see it, the greatest threat to priests’ well-being is denial. We priests know we are in trouble, even if bishops are reluctant to admit it. The problems are embodied in the worn, torn, aging, and overweight colleagues I observed at my diocese’s recent assembly of priests. The crisis is right there in front of us, and the forced optimism of those afraid of appearing insufficiently orthodox-or disloyal to Rome-strikes me as a failure of perception, honesty, and faith. Overcoming such denial will be the beginning of a renewal in the church and in the morale of its priests.”
” It could be said that it was a chastity suited to one who must daily touch the Eucharist, who contemplates it blissfully and with that same bliss offers it to his flock.”
Actually Christ seems to have said “Take this and eat”, not “Take this and contemplate.”
Joe Gannon is right, above. What about married Eastern Rite priests?
I haven’t seen the untranslated version of Benedict’s letter, but if he referred to Vianney’s “chastity” (and not “celibacy”) then he isn’t there excluding married people.
Anche la sua castità era quella richiesta a un prete per il suo ministero. Si può dire che era la castità conveniente a chi deve toccare abitualmente l’Eucaristia e abitualmente la guarda con tutto il trasporto del cuore e con lo stesso trasporto la dona ai suoi fedeli. Dicevano di lui che “la castità brillava nel suo sguardo”, e i fedeli se ne accorgevano quando egli si volgeva a guardare il tabernacolo con gli occhi di un innamorato.
Sa chasteté était aussi celle qui était demandée à un prêtre pour son ministère. On peut dire qu’il s’agissait de la chasteté nécessaire à celui qui doit habituellement toucher l’Eucharistie et qui habituellement la contemple avec toute l’ardeur du cœur et qui, avec la même ferveur, la donne à ses fidèles. On disait de lui que « la chasteté brillait dans son regard », et les fidèles s’en rendaient compte quand il se tournait vers le tabernacle avec le regard d’un amoureux
Auch seine Keuschheit war so, wie sie für den Dienst eines Priesters nötig ist. Man kann sagen, es war die angemessene Keuschheit dessen, der gewöhnlich die Eucharistie berühren muß und der sie gewöhnlich mit der ganzen Begeisterung seines Herzens betrachtet und sie mit derselben Begeisterung seinen Gläubigen reicht. Man sagte von ihm, „die Keuschheit strahle in seinem Blick“, und die Gläubigen bemerkten es, wenn er mit den Augen eines Verliebten zum Tabernakel schaute.
Mollie
Good point, but chastity is required of all of us, period, and he speaks of of the chastity that is (either “required” or asked for”) for the priest’s ministry, and one would naturally take that, in its particularity, to be celibacy.
Claire
Thanks for the texts. According to my Dictionary “richiesta” could mean either “asked for, requested” or “required”. The French translation (demande) takes the sense to be the former, the German (noetig) takes it to be the latter. Bendict does not succeed in being perfectly precise. But absent some further notice I would take the reference to be to celibacy.
Much of the last discussion reminds me of Richard sipe’s research on priest sexuality and that, at any given time, 40-50% of priests are in some sort of relationship.
In approaching the needs of priests, without sacrificing ideals, it’s important to not be delusional and also as, Bil D. noted, to provide training that emphasizes personal maturity (including -sorry- ability to question and grow.)
But much more is really needed (as I’ve tried to say) across the whole church!
The crisis of the clergy and of the Church as a whole is an objective datum, not a matter of subjective perception. Benedict’s nostrums for dealing with it are totally inadequate. A paradigm shift is taking place and Benedict is clearly incapable of opening up to it and undergoing the transformation of thinking it prescribes. He refuses to dialogue with those who could show him what is happening and prefers to process all the data within the frame of a narrow orthodoxy and moralism.
“Leave a parish for twenty years without a priest, and they will end by worshiping the beasts there…”
I cannot imagine a more haughty and gratuitously insulting denigration of the People of God.