|
Exceptional misfortune or ecclesial
mendacity?
In most dioceses across the country,
Catholics have been led to believe that the current "shortage of
priests" has been a wholly unexpected and rather unexplainable
curse. They have been asked to pray for an increase in vocations which
have mysteriously dried up in these modern times.
 Rather then objectively evaluating the
possible causes of this "shortage" 1 and coming
up with solutions, many bishops are focusing on accommodations of how
to function with less (or possibly no) priests. Certain measures which
would otherwise be cause for outrage are accepted as appropriate
measures in the current "vocations crisis".
This is not to say the "priest
shortage" is not very real and very serious, but so are its
underlying causes, two of which will be examined here. The first is an
indirect attack that has been waged through the various reforms put in
place since the Second Vatican Council. The second is an explicit
screening process that has allowed progressive bishops to prevent the
ordination of even slightly orthodox Catholic candidates. Strictly
speaking, the first is a more formal cause, while the second is a
means to propagate and extend the "shortage" for certain
aims. The first explains how we've come to this point, while the
second exposes the dishonesty (and outright treachery) of those with
no intention of reversing the trend.
The numbers
Like every other Church vital sign
subject to statistical measurement, the number of Catholic priests has
significantly decreased since the close of the Council. Such a
widely-recognized fact should not need much supporting argumentation,
but it is useful to consider just how significantly the U.S. alone has
been effected:
-
From 1965 to 1998, the Catholic
population of the United States rose from 47 million to 62 million
(32% increase) while the number of active diocesan priests has
dropped from 35,925 to 23,857 (33% decrease).
During that time, approximately
12,000 priests is the U.S. have abandoned their vocations (out of
50,000 defections worldwide).
In 1962, there were 46,189
seminarians in the US but by 1992 the number had fallen to 6,247.2
With the average age of priests constantly
increasing, it is not uncommon for a diocese like Seattle to see more
retirements than ordinations in a given year.
Novelties take their toll
The modern novelties which have plagued
Christendom since Conciliar days have arguably been the greatest
contributing factor to the "priest shortage". This can
primarily be seen in the Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI. With
what has come to pass for "active participation" in the
modern liturgical rites, the priest is no longer seen to occupy an
exclusive role.
At one time, only the priest would have
access to the altar. His alone was the privilege and responsibility of
proclaiming the Word of God, administering the sacraments, holding in
his consecrated hands the Body of Christ and drinking the Precious
Blood. His duty could not be replaced by a committee, nor his
functions consigned to the laity. These days, in pretty much every
parish in America, any member of the laity can read an epistle, become
an extraordinary minister (distribute the Body of Christ) and receive
communion in the hand. In some of the more
"forward-thinking" parishes, properly termed
"disobedient" (for now, at least), any man or woman can read
the Gospel, deliver the Homily, recite the "opening prayers"
or completely lead a priestless "communion service".
So what is so special about being a
priest? Why would a young man want to take a vow of celibacy and
dedicate his life to serving God in the priesthood if those priestly
functions most visible have been consigned to the laity? Why not just
be a layman who "actively participates" in the liturgy? It
is not insignificant that what was once the exclusive domain of a
consecrated priest, is open to all. Fr. James McLucas provides an
excellent analogy:
"The liturgical legislation of
the post-Conciliar era has eliminated the Eucharistic exclusivity
that marked the office of the priest. The celibate priest no longer
possesses the unique corporeal relationship with God. He is not
denied the relationship, but others have access to it. Consider a
parallel situation: i.e., within the Sacrament of Matrimony. The
possession of an exclusive bodily prerogative with one's spouse is
primary; in fact there exists no greater convergence between the
Divine Law and the instincts of even fallen human nature than on
this point. Violate this pact, and one risks murderous rage. If a
celibate priest, however, reacts with even the slightest resentment
towards the loss of what was his corporeal exclusivity within his
Sacrament of Holy Orders, he is considered a candidate for
psychological evaluation. "The fact is that many priests do
have an instinctive reaction against the presence of the
non-consecrated hand touching the Body of God. A non-consecrated
hand in the tabernacle, or reaching for the Sacrament at the
reception of Holy Communion, violates an intimacy that was, before
the engineering of liturgical "roles," exclusively the
priest's. A dynamic equivalent to what would fuel the emotions of a
husband who realizes another has shared the exclusive intimacy with
the one to whom he has permanently committed himself, is present
within priests. The sense of alienation is more intense for the
traditional celibate priest because he is aware that his spouse, the
Church, has arranged and promoted the nonexclusivity."
3
Apart from the liturgy, modern
collegiality and lay ministries have allowed for laypeople to take on
a greater role in parish and diocesan administration. Vanishing is the
parish run by a single priest attending to all the pastoral needs of
his faithful. We have seen the emergence of "committees" of
every sort whose sudden necessity, we are told, is beyond question.
Worse yet, clerical pastors are being replaced by "Pastoral Life
Directors". In Seattle, these are typically "nuns"
performing duties and donning liturgical costumes frighteningly
similar to priestly vestments (or the modern alternatives). Even in
such instances when priests have been available for pastoral
assignments, they have been passed over in favor of such
"nuns" and committees. While it's doubtful that Pope Paul VI
foresaw such aberrations, the foundation was laid when he opened
various "ministries" to the laity:
"The catalyst that oriented the
Latin Church towards the married priesthood was the introduction of
the concept of 'collaborative lay ministry.' This began with the
elimination of 'minor orders' by Pope Paul, and the tearing away of
the substitutions, the 'ministries' of lector and acolyte, from an
exclusive orientation towards the ordained priesthood. ...
"Once that hurdle was cleared, it was only a relatively small
step to the erection of full-time lay 'pastoral administrators' that
currently 'lead' anywhere between 10 to 15 percent of the
priestless parishes in the United States. Curiously, in 1995 the
Vatican declared that no lay person who administered a priestless
parish could have the word "pastoral" attached to his [or
her] title."
4 (emphasis mine here and
throughout)
As with any sociological issue, an exact
"cause" cannot be absolutely determined with scientific
certainty, but that does not eliminate all reasonable hypotheses. No
doubt there have been other factors contributing in the decline of
ordinations to varying (and I'd argue lesser) degrees. These include
novel theology, modern ecumenism, clerical perversion and scandalous
behavior.
Seminary screening
If the post-Vatican II orientation and
New Mass provide the implicit disincentive force working against
vocations to the priesthood, seminary psychological screening is the
impenetrable wall. The hundreds of stories of young men being
dismissed from seminaries and blocked from ordination cannot be
ignored. In 1995, Archbishop Elden Curtiss, a former seminary rector
and vocations director, commented:
"It seems to me that the
vocation 'crisis' is precipitated and continued by people who want
to change the Church's agenda, by people who do not support orthodox
candidates loyal to the magisterial teaching of the pope and
bishops, and by people who actually discourage viable candidates
from seeking priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church
defines these ministries. ... I am personally aware of certain
vocations directors, vocations teams and evaluation boards who
turn away candidates who do not support the possibility of ordaining
women or who defend the Church's teaching about artificial birth
control, or who exhibit a strong piety toward certain devotions,
such as the rosary."
5
Many seminarians are dismissed for what is
judged to be undue "rigidity" on such "issues" as
homosexuality, the "ordination" of women and married clergy.
This is all done under the guise of necessary "psychological
evaluation" to determine whether an individual is considered
"fit" for the priesthood. This practice is justified as a
measure to catch perverts and pedophiles but is more often used to
screen out orthodox Catholics, often completely ignoring any
homosexual tendencies. Sister Kathy Bryant of the Los Angeles
Archdiocese (and formerly of Seattle) is perhaps the most notorious
for ensuring Catholics don't get into the seminaries for which she
works. According to one former seminarian:
"Sister Kathy had an agenda
about what kind of priest they'd be sending out into the field and
what kind of seminarian they wanted at St. John's — you know,
'collaborative ministry,' 'empowered laity' and all that stuff.
[Seminarians] were asked, 'do you receive communion on the tongue or
in the hand?' 'Do you genuflect?' 'Do you say the rosary?' 'What do
you think about the pope?' 'How do you feel about women priests?'
'What would you change if you were pope for a day?' ... If he
indicates in any way that he's loyal to the Magisterium of the
Church, or to the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ, that he
doesn't have any problem with defending the moral teachings of the
Church, that would definitely make him suspect. He wouldn't even
make it past the starting gate."
6
Such claims have been reported around the country and verified by both
bishops and priests. This is much more than unfounded rumor or
paranoia. The situation has been so bad that just over two years ago,
the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) deemed it necessary to release
the following guidelines to the U.S. bishops:
"There are numerous reports
that mental health professionals who do not support the teachings of
the Catholic Church on sexuality have been chosen to evaluate
candidates for the priesthood and reject candidates who do accept
the Church's teachings on the grounds they are 'rigid'. There are
also reports that some mental health professionals do not report
homosexual attractions and conflicts in candidates for the
priesthood to diocesan officials or religious superiors.
"Mental health professionals
chosen to evaluate candidates for the priesthood ... should be
Catholics in good standing who support the Church's teaching on
sexuality, life, contraception, homosexuality, celibacy of the
priesthood, the Ordination on only men, and the hierarchical
structure of the Church. ... Non-Catholics and Catholics who do
not support the teaching of the Church should not be employed in
this task." 7
In the event that the Catholicism of a
seminarian was somehow overlooked in the initial screening, not to
worry. It was always caught later on in a "retesting"
procedure. The CMA report continues:
"There are reports that
seminarians who during the course of studies expressed support for
the teaching of the Magisterium, the Catechism, and Sacred
Scripture, particularly on issues of sexuality and homosexuality, were
told they were rigid and divisive and needed new psychological
evaluations. A number of these seminarians were either told that
they should go to a Church-related treatment center for evaluation
or were sent there even though only a few years earlier they had
passed their psychological testing. Some of the seminarians who were
retested were diagnosed as having serious psychological problems and
were dismissed from the seminaries.
"Unless there are signs of a
severe mental breakdown, there should be no need to retest a person
who has been evaluated within the past five years. The basic
personality structure does not change.
"No seminarian should be
referred for retesting because he supports Catholic teaching. No
seminarian should be retested unless they showed clinically
significant evidence of a serious mental disorder."
8
What basis does a bishop whose seminaries
systematically screen out candidates for being too Catholic have for
using the "shortage" of priests as an excuse for unheard of
novelties and liberal agendas?
The "shortage" as a
justification for further aberrations
In many dioceses, the current condition
may have been the plan all along. With a celibate male priesthood
coming to be seen as merely a necessary (rather than ideal) component
of the Church, one wonders if some bishops would just as soon do away
with priests completely and have parishes run by "lay
committees". The first steps have already been taken by
appointing "nuns" as "Pastoral Life Directors".
Priests are just brought in for certain parts of the Masses and to
occasionally hear confession (which often amounts to little more than
a free therapy session).
These new measures are defended as
"necessary" due to the "priest shortage" which,
remember, is beyond the bishop's control or understanding. But are
these such measures unfortunate or regrettable? Not according to
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles:
"What some refer to as a
'vocations crisis' is, rather, one of the many fruits of the
Second Vatican Council, a sign of God's deep love for the Church,
and an invitation to a more creative and effective ordering of gifts
and energy in the Body of Christ."
9
It is ridiculous to believe God is showing
His love by withholding priests, but at least Cardinal Mahony is
willing to admit that this crisis is one of the "fruits" of
the Second Vatican Council. On this point, the Cardinal and I are in
complete agreement. However, the fruit I see as clearly rotten, he
will happily dine upon and then demand more!
At the beginning of 2001, Seattle
Archbishop Alexander Brunett announced his intentions to commission a
"study" to investigate new ways to utilize the
"gifts" of the laity in response to the vocations crisis.
Does anyone doubt what the results of this "study" are going
to be? Certainly not a strong repudiation of the questionable steps
already taken, particularly the use of lay "Pastoral
Administrators".
Calling a laywoman a "Pastoral
Life Director" rather than "Pastor" (or
"Pastress"?) does not avoid the serious disruption of
authority it incurs. This also applies whenever "pastoral
committees" are put into service. The usurpation of the priestly
role is not without its cost:
"The loss of the priest's unique
intimacy with the sacred has subtly, but mightily, contributed to
this development. While insisting that nothing has essentially been
changed for the priest because he is still the one who consecrates, the
liturgical engineers have made his presence optional at the most
intimate moment of holy communion between the flock under his care
and Our Lord. The majority of Catholics receive the Eucharist from
the hands of a lay person. The act of shared intimacy that is at the
heart of shepherding ('Feed my lambs, feed my sheep') is absent. The
Church, echoing an increasingly feminized society, is telling
priests: 'Once you have consecrated, you are no longer
needed.'"
10
These new structures are not as temporary
as one may think and undermine the priestly role of
"pastor". This is all contrary to the words of Pope John
Paul II:
"For a parish to have a
priest as its own pastor is of fundamental importance. The title
of pastor is one specifically reserved to the priest. The Sacred
Orders of priesthood represent, in fact, for (the priest) the
indispensable and necessary condition to be appointed as a valid
pastor. Other faithful may actively collaborate with him, even full
time, but, as he has received the ministerial priesthood, they
can never take his place as pastor. ... The ecclesial community
absolutely needs the ministerial priesthood to have Christ Head and
Pastor present in it. ... [the non-ordained] must be faithful to
their proper function as consultants and care must be taken that no
office or person deprive the parish priest of his authority."
11
The "vocations crisis" has
not only allowed feminists to come to positions of power in the
Church, it has succeeded in convincing an increasing number of
Catholics that liberal agendas are acceptable as
"solutions". We've already seen this in lay-run liturgies
but it goes much further, as shown in surveys of those calling
themselves "Catholic":
Respondents were asked about the
acceptability of possible changes in their parishes if there were a
reduction of priestly activities in the future. They were also asked
about their views toward including previously excluded groups into
the priesthood...
We asked respondents if they would be
willing to have parishes run by a lay administrator and visiting
priest instead of a resident priest. Over time, the laity was
more willing to accept that change in parish administration. In
1985, 39 percent thought that a lay administrator and visiting
priest were satisfactory. By 1993, 56 percent agreed...
The laity increasingly accepted
the option of ordaining women. Gallup poll data were available
from 1974 through 1999 on the statement that "it would be a
good thing if women were allowed to be ordained as priests." In
1974, about 30 percent thought so; by the 1990s, over 60 percent
assented... 12
Where to go from here
Since I'm regularly derided for making
criticisms without proposing any solutions, this article will end on a
somewhat positive note. Not that I acknowledge that clear
demonstration of a solution is a necessary prerequisite for making
obvious observations or necessary criticisms. Just because I can see
the immense crater where a city recently stood and recognize it was caused
rather than just happened though a natural geographical
development, doesn't mean I know the guaranteed method for repair or
have a magic "quick fix". Even such, the restoration of
traditional Catholic beliefs and practices is an obvious place to
start.
The re-establishment of the pastor as
the head of the parish is a necessary step against the growing trend
towards laity administration, but is much less important than the
re-establishment of the traditional liturgical rites. We should return
to (or at least propagate) the Tridentine Latin Mass which emphasized
the special nature of the priest and his exclusive role in offering a
Holy Sacrifice rather than just a "presider" of a
congregation.
What to do about seminary screening is
less of an issue, particularly if the priests are going to go from
their ordination to a role of "Mass priest" for three
parishes run by feminists in Jedi costumes. How will traditional
Catholic seminarians ever make it through to their ordinations without
being screened out? Deception was the method used by Modernists and
Communists to get through seminaries, but for Catholics, that's not an
option. The first (and best) means is through the prayer and sacrifice
of all Christ's faithful. We should continually keep in our thoughts
and intentions the simple truth that the restoration of the Church
cannot come about without faithful Catholics entering the priesthood.
The second option is the establishment
and expansion of traditional priestly orders like the Priestly
Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) which are outside the normal diocesan
structures. This addresses both of the main problems and allows for a
seminary training not influenced to the same degrees by the liberalism
infecting the Church. Although such orders have the problem of being
shunned by local bishops or receiving undue scrutiny and intervention
by Vatican officials, they are successful in their mission of turning
out truly Catholic priests.
Those who deny the New Mass could have
anything to do with the "priest shortage" and don't believe
their bishop could possibly screen out acceptable seminary candidates,
can still easily witness the refusal of bishops to bring in a priest
from a traditional order. In Seattle, it has been deemed preferable to
have laywomen "pastresses" and priests who "cover"
multiple parishes than an FSSP priest. It's not that priests are
unavailable, it's that the ones available are not in-line with
progressive agendas.
The correlation between traditional
practices and ordinations can clearly be seen in the seminaries of
traditional orders. While bishops across the nation struggle to
attract new seminarians, the FSSP receives more seminary applicants
than they can accommodate. This correlation can also be seen in
certain "conservative" dioceses (e.g. Lincoln, Nebraska)
which receive much more vocations than their "liberal"
counterparts. Although this is a step in the right direction, the
state of vocations in "conservative" dioceses still does not
represent any sort of "renewal" of pre-Vatican II days, but
a slight recovery after decades of a horrible free-fall. While these
examples are useful for demonstrating an important correlation, they
should not be held up as the new acceptable standard and praised as
the "solution" to all the Church's problems.
To those who claim the return to
pre-Vatican II days and restoration of Christendom are not possible, I
ask why not? We've already seen how much change can happen in fifty
years, and the Church is still standing (albeit weakly). Could
changing back possibly do more harm than we've already endured? If
"communion services" run by laywomen and parishes run by
committees can all be justified by the current "priest
shortage," can not the restoration of traditional Catholic
beliefs and practices also be justified?
Peter W. Miller
Seattle, WA
1/11/2002
-------
Footnotes:
1 "Shortage" is put in quotations not to
suggest no such shortage exists but that it is not entirely
accurate and suggests the Church hierarchy has no culpability
in the matter — that the "shortage" occurred
about in normal operation because the well just dried up.
2 K. Woodward, "An Acute Shortage of
Priests," Newsweek (4/18/1983)
3 J. McLucas, "The Emasculation of the
Priesthood", The Latin Mass (Spring, 1998) [EOP]
4 Ibid.
5 M. Rose, "Priestly Vocations: A Self-Imposed
Shortage" (09/2001)
6 R. Kumpel "It was us against them; Does
Mahony Want a Priestless Church?" DailyCatholic.org
(3/19/2001)
7 Catholic Medical Association, "Statement to
U.S. Bishops" (11/1999)
8 Ibid.
9 R. Mahony, "As I Have Done for You, A
Pastoral Letter on The Ministry" (2000)
10 [EOP]
11 Vatican Information Service, "John Paul II
Profiles the Parish Priest" (11/23/2001)
12 K. Meyer, "Accommodations to continuing
priest shortage", National Catholic Reporter (10/29/1999) |
