Catholics: What is your opinion of why we do not have enough Priests?

[JReducation]

I think the reason is bad preaching and bad praying: in essence - we no longer radiate a sense of reverence and holiness so as to attract many people and convince them that the life totally dedicated to God is not one of loss, but one of the greatest gain.

I would agree with that if the numbers agreed. But the fact is that the mendicant orders and the missionary orders are thriving does not support this. Not only are the older order and congregations of mendicants and missionaries thriving, but new orders and congregations of men are born every year around the world. In the USA alone we’ve had at least 15 new mendicant orders born in the last 20 years. They are not hurting for vocations. Granted, most of them are brothers who are not ordained; but some are ordained brothers and friars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[chicago]

It think that it is easier for religious to recruit men because our presence is often more palpable. We live in communities; therefore there is the advantage of numbers. We are engaged in diverse ministries; therefore we’re exposed to a broader segment of the population.

I also think that it may be in some ways easier for people to approach a brother or sister over a priest (which could be seen as sometimes intimidating.) I’ve found, for instance, that someone who serves as a simple porter, for instance, can open up a conversation and come to know a person in ways which a priest might not.

Perhaps we ought to bring back the minor orders as a sort of entry point of people encountering those on their way towards ordination?

 

[chicago]

I believe that these are all valid points, especially for secular seminarians. Remember, they are not entering a family. They are leaving their family and circle of friends to enter a system where they are individuals. The relationship between diocesan priests is not the same, nor should it be, as that between religious brothers in a community. In religious communities, we tend to get the younger men. Even though there is not always a guarrantee that a young man entering a religious order will be a priest, because it’s up to the order, not up to him, many young man are willing to take the risk of being told by a superior that they cannot be ordained, but must remain a religious for life. What makes this “risk” doable is the community life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And, yet, the priesthood is, in some sense, a fraternity of its own essence since the priests share in a common priesthood and mission of Christ with their bishop.

Older priests (I can hardly believe that I am saying that as I knew some of them when they were late 30s/early 40s) have noted to me how they lament the sense of fraternal support which used to be stronger among the presbyterate. With smaller numbers of priests and increased responsibilities it is sometimes challenging for them to continue fostering such relationships for strength and support in their life and ministry. I do know some priests who make a sincere effort to do what they can to build up such solidarity.

I must also say that something I have often found disheartening is that when a man may leave seminary (or religious life for that matter) they are not always assisted to transition back into lay life during what is often a difficult time.

Perhaps if seminarians simply knew that there would likely always be support no matter what comes it would make taking that risk a little less scary.

 

[JReducation]

I also think that it may be in some ways easier for people to approach a brother or sister over a priest (which could be seen as sometimes intimidating.) I’ve found, for instance, that someone who serves as a simple porter, for instance, can open up a conversation and come to know a person in ways which a priest might not.

Perhaps we ought to bring back the minor orders as a sort of entry point of people encountering those on their way towards ordination?

First you have to bring back brothers who are porters. That was banned by most religious orders years ago. There was a mistaken notion in many religious orders that those members who were not ordained were to serve the ordained, when that was never on the mind of the founders or in any of the four rules that govern male religious life.

Brothers today are theologians, pastoral counselors, psychologists, medical doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, spiritual directors, retreat masters, religious superiors, carpenters, mechanics, cooks, farmers, engineers, missionaries, and other, depending on the charism of their religious community. In most religious communities brothers are apostolic. Among the mendicant communities you find non-clerical friars who are given a choice between contemplatives and apostolic. Some switch on and off, several years of the contemplative life and several of the apostolic life. In the monastic orders they are usually skilled laborers, theologians, scientists, religious superiors, formation directors, or do some kind of technical work to support the abbey.

Second, minor orders never had anything to do with brothers. Among religious the minor orders were never used. The only reason that religious orders received minor orders was because it was a universal requirement of the Church for those who were going to be clerics. But in fact, they were never exercised. The duties that allegedly went with minor orders were shared by all members of the community at different times. They usually took turns.

In my own community, our brothers must all have at least an MA in theology and another academic degree, usually a BA in philosphy or another subject with a minor in philosophy. However, most of our brothers, ordained and non-cleric are all over the continuum. Some are simple and some are not. Trust me, we have some PhDs who all they do is serve as porters. But the reason they get that assignment is because they are very warm and approachable men. They are very special people, usually very holy.

We also have another ordained brother, at another house, who is the community maintenance man. His only priestly assignment is to help with mass and confessions on weekends. He has never baptized, witnessed a marriage, burried anyone, preached a retreat, done spiritual direction or the traditional parish priest duties. But he is the holiest man I know. However, he is not someone whom I would describe as approachable. He is polite, but very reserved.

Maybe people are intimdated by the idea of a man being a priest, which they should not be. Most priests are rather friendly guys. Those who are not friendly would be just as distant if they were pizza delivery men. It’s their personality, not the priesthood. There are non-clerical brothers who can be equally intimidating. I was educated by Franciscan Brothers. Some were very warm and outgoing, others were as friendly as fish. I’m remembering one our high school principals. He was a brilliant administrator, but I don’t think the man knew how to say anything other than “Good Morning” and “Good Afternoon.” If he did, I must have missed it. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[chicago]

First you have to bring back brothers who are porters. That was banned by most religious orders years ago.

Second, minor orders never had anything to do with brothers. Among religious the minor orders were never used. The only reason that religious orders received minor orders was because it was a universal requirement of the Church for those who were going to be clerics. But in fact, they were never exercised. The duties that allegedly went with minor orders were shared by all members of the community at different times. They usually took turns.

Regarding “minor orders” I had intended that comment in relation more to the diocesan priesthood than within religious orders. And I certainly have met men in religious life who serve something of the role of porter. Or office clerk. Or any number of other roles which are a first point of contact with the public - even if they don’t hold the formal ecclesiastical title.

My basic point being that a lay man who encounters someone who represents religion in more everyday activity may find a greater entry point to opening up conversations and appreciation of life in service in a friendly, non-intimidating manner.

Maybe people are intimdated by the idea of a man being a priest, which they should not be. Most priests are rather friendly guys. Those who are not friendly would be just as distant if they were pizza delivery men. It’s their personality, not the priesthood.

I think that people are sometimes intimidated by the office and some sense that judgment resides there - not in the individual personality so much as in its essence of incarnating religion or religious institution in a particular way. The priest is seen as “on high” or maybe even (for the less serious or lapsed in faith) “Will want to threaten me with going to hell!”

Add to that the fact that the priest often is being mobbed when he does become available (say, after Mass, for example.) The ability to readily establish a relationship with him, therefore, can be practically more difficult for an average parishioner or religious seeker.

The brother who happens to be near the entrance of some ministry or the sister who serves at a soup kitchen that you always instinctively say, “Hi!” to and open up with casually over time is likely to make a more direct impression on many who encounter them than many a priest is now capable of doing. As such, it serves as an entree to exploring their way of life. It might be nice and helpful, then, if more diocesan seminarians were readily identifiable in similar positions (such as porter.)

 

[JReducation]

And, yet, the priesthood is, in some sense, a fraternity of its own essence since the priests share in a common priesthood and mission of Christ with their bishop.

Older priests (I can hardly believe that I am saying that as I knew some of them when they were late 30s/early 40s) have noted to me how they lament the sense of fraternal support which used to be stronger among the presbyterate. With smaller numbers of priests and increased responsibilities it is sometimes challenging for them to continue fostering such relationships for strength and support in their life and ministry. I do know some priests who make a sincere effort to do what they can to build up such solidarity.

I must also say that something I have often found disheartening is that when a man may leave seminary (or religious life for that matter) they are not always assisted to transition back into lay life during what is often a difficult time.

Perhaps if seminarians simply knew that there would likely always be support no matter what comes it would make taking that risk a little less scary.

As I went through my own formation I noticed that secular priests in the USA, more than other countries, were often trained in a conventual enviornment. Diocesan seminaries were run like religious houses. Therefore, many diocesan priests came out with that sense of fraternity. The Church eventually realize that this was a mistake. A diocesan priest is a secular man, not a consecrated religious. Therefore, his formation should not take place within a conventual culture.

The reality is that when he leaves the seminary he is going to be assigned to a rectory. A rectory is not a community house. If you’re fortunate enough to be assigned to a rectory where the guys become friends, you can build some kind of fraternity. But if that does not happen, it’s every man for himself. Each priest has a job description, certain duties that he must perform for the parish, a sacrament schedule and that’s it. His life is his business. Each one comes and goes on his own schedule, eats, prays, sleeps, recreates and so forth on his own and with his friends or family, if they live in the area.

Today, diocesan seminaries are reclaiming the secular state, which is proper to a a diocesan priest. These seminaries operate like graduate schools with resident students. For example, they have scheduled times for the Liturgy of the Hours, meals, recreation, study, etc, but the seminarians are not expected or mandated to follow that schedule. It’s there for those who want to take advantage of it, just like any other graduate school. In the past, the expectation was that they attended all of these exercises together. That was an immitation of the life of a friar, what we call the conventual life. Some diocesan seminaries even had the Divine Office in choir. Today, some diocesan priests wonder why they ever had to learn that, if they were never to do it again once they left the seminary. They often wonder why they were not taught more practical things like courses in administration, finances, human resources, which are often necessary skills for running a parish.

I know diocesan seminaries that have removed the study of spirituality and mystical theology from their curriculum, because it’s really an area of study for those who are going to be religious or who are going to be spiritual directors, which is a very specialized field in pastoral studies. There was a time when diocesan seminarians took these courses just like their counterparts in religious houses of formation.

The same thing happened the other way around. Many religious orders trained their men in seminaries. This is rarely the case today. A seminary is a suitable culture or enviornment for a religious, even those who will be ordained. The proper place to educate a religious is among other religious in a house of formation attached to a near to a theology college or university. The university has always been the proper academic domain of religious men since the early monasteries. Today, as we reclaim our religious identity, we train our men in enviornments where we did in the past, a religious house near to a theologate. A school of theology can be at a university or a free standing one for religious only, such as the Washington Theological Union or The Catholic University of America. Only when there is no such a school accessible do religious allow their men to attend classes at a seminary, but even then, they are not allowed to live there. They are commuters. They have little contact with diocesan seminarians. This keeps the diocesan secular and the religious monastic.

This may sound strange to many older people (over 30), because we grew up with the idea of priests being religious men, not knowing the difference between a religious and a diocesan or believing that because a man was a priest he had to have a “religious air” to him. This has taken longer to take root in some dioceses than in others, especially with the laity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Regarding “minor orders” I had intended that comment in relation more to the diocesan priesthood than within religious orders. And I certainly have met men in religious life who serve something of the role of porter. Or office clerk. Or any number of other roles which are a first point of contact with the public - even if they don’t hold the formal ecclesiastical title.

My basic point being that a lay man who encounters someone who represents religion in more everyday activity may find a greater entry point to opening up conversations and appreciation of life in service in a friendly, non-intimidating manner.

I think that people are sometimes intimidated by the office and some sense that judgment resides there - not in the individual personality so much as in its essence of incarnating religion or religious institution in a particular way. The priest is seen as “on high” or maybe even (for the less serious or lapsed in faith) “Will want to threaten me with going to hell!”

Add to that the fact that the priest often is being mobbed when he does become available (say, after Mass, for example.) The ability to readily establish a relationship with him, therefore, can be practically more difficult for an average parishioner or religious seeker.

The brother who happens to be near the entrance of some ministry or the sister who serves at a soup kitchen that you always instinctively say, “Hi!” to and open up with casually over time is likely to make a more direct impression on many who encounter them than many a priest is now capable of doing. As such, it serves as an entree to exploring their way of life. It might be nice and helpful, then, if more diocesan seminarians were readily identifiable in similar positions (such as porter.)

There is a lot of validity to this. If I understand you correctly, it’s like the receptionist at the dentist. If that person is engaging and gives you a good feeling, it reduces your stress and increases your comfort level.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[chicago]

There is a lot of validity to this. If I understand you correctly, it’s like the receptionist at the dentist. If that person is engaging and gives you a good feeling, it reduces your stress and increases your comfort level.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Exactly! And proves inviting.

For example, in my childhood I was at a local Franciscan run ministry one St. Nicholas Day which happened to have a gift shop. As my grandmother browsed, the friar behind the counter, seeing this intrigued 10 year old (or whatever age I was) quickly wrapped something and handed it to me as a gift. Upon opening it, I discovered a wonderful picture of the nativity. I still have it. (And appreciate it much more at this age than then, admittedly.) The experience helps solidify my appreciation of their life and work to this day, many years hence.

I suspect that this friar touched many other lives in similar fashion, also, in ways which no priest possibly could have - just because of his position and manner with the public.

Sometimes, I feel that priests get stuck in particular tasks (Sacraments, meetings, administration) to such an extent that it doesn’t allow them an opportunity to truly get to know the people who they are called to serve. I’ve speculated that they ought to be occasionally reminded of their diaconal ordination which preceded their becoming priests, and the need to simply serve with a closeness to man. Indeed, I’ve posited the desirability of having transitional deacons serve longer terms than is typical. Perhaps something akin to a three year cycle rather than the several months to year which is now so common. The encounters which could come through this part of their life might, additionally, offer opportunity for more people to encounter ministers of the Church whose life is related to the sacred priesthood in a way which gets boys and men asking whether this could also be a worthwhile life for them. In decades past, this often occurred via young priests who were starting out in parish work and encountered many people during their early years of service in continued formation of experience. Now, that isn’t so frequently a possibility as a newly ordained priest gets quickly tossed into a lot of hustle bustle and responsibility, perhaps even being made immediately a pastor, with all its attendant duties.

 

[JReducation]

Exactly! And proves inviting.

For example, in my childhood I was at a local Franciscan run ministry which happened to have a gift shop on St. Nicholas Day. As my grandmother browsed, the friar behind the counter, seeing this intrigued 10 year old (or whatever age I was) quickly wrapped something and handed it to me as a gift. Upon opening it, I discovered a wonderful picture of the nativity. I still have it. (And appreciate it much more at this age than then, admittedly.) The experience helps solidify my appreciation of their life and work to this day, many years hence.

I suspect that this friar touched many other lives in similar fashion, also, in ways which no priest possibly could have - just because of his position and manner with the public.

I know what you mean. I had a similar experience early today. It was the last day of CCD before the Christmas break. I teach grade six. I had gone down to the supply room to get some crafts for the kids to make an ornament and was coming down the hall, back to grade six. The little tykes, first graders, were walking to their classroom. I knelt down in the middle of the corridor to say hello to them and wish them a Merry Christmas. Before I knew it they were pulling on the chord of my habit, yanking my side rosary, and sticking candy canes in my cowl.

I don’t teach the little tykes. In fact, they terrify me. Therefore, I don’t teach anyone shorter than 3 ft. But I always make it a point to say something to them when I see them. As a result, they are always very nice to me when they see me around. I have sugar and candy stains on my habit to prove it, LOL. One little one pulled on my beard. I asked him why he did that. To which he answered, “I don’t know.” I think they are fascinated by the friars’ beards. They think that we’re either God or Santa.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[chicago]

Today, diocesan seminaries are reclaiming the secular state, which is proper to a a diocesan priest. These seminaries operate like graduate schools with resident students. For example, they have scheduled times for the Liturgy of the Hours, meals, recreation, study, etc, but the seminarians are not expected or mandated to follow that schedule. It’s there for those who want to take advantage of it, just like any other graduate school. In the past, the expectation was that they attended all of these exercises together. That was an immitation of the life of a friar, what we call the conventual life. Some diocesan seminaries even had the Divine Office in choir. Today, some diocesan priests wonder why they ever had to learn that, if they were never to do it again once they left the seminary.

A man I know who spent some time both in community and seminary once complained about the rigors of his seminary life. As he put it, he felt that it was well suited to younger men who needed to learn a certain discipline to life. Being a bit older, however, than some of the common population and better established as an independent adult (though not old enough to be considered an “older” vocation who might reasonably attend a seminary for such men) he felt that the rigor was stifling. “Why can I not simply pray the Hours on my own at the time and personal schedule which is most appropriate?” he speculated. “Am I not an adult who can make his own decisions responsibly about such matters - just as I would have to do once a priest?”

They often wonder why they were not taught more practical things like courses in administration, finances, human resources, which are often necessary skills for running a parish.

When I was in minor (high school) seminary and we were being recruited/encouraged to continue on in attending college seminary (which here in Chicago is its own institution, but with relational attachment to a Jesuit University from which students formally receive their diploma) we were told that any major was acceptable as long as it fell generally within liberal arts. I suppose I can understand that, to a point. Perhaps they felt that this was just a practical matter since you would be required to take a certain emphasis in courses to prepare for theologate (philosophy, biblical studies, etc.) that commonly fell in this area. (It was not required at that time - as I believe it is now - that a college seminarian for the Archdiocese major, specifically, in philosophy.) And, also, just the idea that a liberal arts education gives one a solid overview for life in a traditional sense. However, I found it odd that one (like myself) who had an interest and gifts for business or administration could not take his major in business. “Does not the Church need priests who can manage budgets and oversee offices?” I was left wondering.

This may sound strange to many older people (over 30), because we grew up with the idea of priests being religious men, not knowing the difference between a religious and a diocesan or believing that because a man was a priest he had to have a “religious air” to him. This has taken longer to take root in some dioceses than in others, especially with the laity.

I think that there is a need to find a certain necessary balance. The priest may not be a "R"eligious man, but he is still called to be a “religious” man in a particularly notable way which is somehow special and beyond that of the average lay man. And the priesthood (especially for any particular diocese) is, by its nature, a fraternity even if the priests are not called to live a formal life of "F"raternity. Effectively finding and striking that balance, of course, is the difficult trick to try to turn.

 

[chicago]

Therefore, I don’t teach anyone shorter than 3 ft.

Wonderfully put! lol

But I always make it a point to say something to them when I see them. As a result, they are always very nice to me when they see me around. I have sugar and candy stains on my habit to prove it, LOL.

Hospitality, friendship, kindness, and welcoming are so often the keys to evangelization.

One little one pulled on my beard. I asked him why he did that. To which he answered, “I don’t know.”

Poor guy probably thought he was about to get into trouble. At least he didn’t quip, “Good luck!”

I suppose its his own friendly way of saying, “Hello!” Or even, “I like you!”

But beards are sort of like pony tails. They’re just irresistible.

I think they are fascinated by the friars’ beards. They think that we’re either God or Santa.

Well, the beard is what attracted, in part, Padre Pio!