End the bottleneck to grace: An alternative way in which to form and deploy new priests

[PetraG]

We had a great blessing in having that saintly man as Pope.

 

[commenter]

We have smaller “bottlenecks” to vocations, here and there, in parishes and dioceses. If you read the bulletin of a nearby parish a couple years ago, you would see the occasional blurb from the diocesan vocations office. OK. But if you look down a few inches, there was, for 8 weeks in a row, a series of brief teachings about “the Eucharist”

One week it featured the unity that Mass fostered within the congregation present at that service. Next week it focused on Diversity, that all must be welcome to the table. The following week it described how this brings about unity, not only with all Christians, but with others too. The next week about how hypocritical it is to take communion, then go be selfish on Monday.

The following week it was about how Communion should propel us to serve food to the needy, and support government programs like Food Stamps. And so on.

None of the teachings referred to the Real Presence. None of the teachings described the Consecration. None of the teachings mentioned the Crucifixion, or Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or Sin, or Confession. The only reference to the priest was as “presider” as in the sense of master of ceremonies, whose job is to make everyone feel welcome.

With this teaching in many parishes and schools, it is not surprising few young men seek out the priesthood, no matter how many “vocations blurbs” they see.

 

[Duesenberg]

After reading and thinking a bit more about this subject, there’s no question to me that there will be alternate processes of forming priests in the future – including ways which were once common in the Western Church. Failure to do so would be a grave misstep.

The negative naysayers are to be expected – they’ll attack anyone with a (relatively) fresh perspective. The Council of Trent’s 1563 decree Cum Adulescentium Aetas which directed that formal institutions of priestly formation be established in every diocese no doubt received more than its share of attacks when it was promulgated.

I don’t think many can grasp just how positive a true abundance of priests would be to the Church. I think most envision a few extra priests per diocese at most. They really can’t warp their minds around the concept of perhaps several more priests per parish. It simply does not compute for them.

In real terms the Church is going to have to deal with:

• First, the impact to the seminarian-formed celibate priests – the Western Church’s only source of candidates for the bishopric. This single consideration is greater than all the others combined.
• Second, the impact (almost all positive) to the Church of transitioning from a priestly shortage to an eventual priestly abundance.
• Third, the process of maintaining quality assurance of priests formed in alternate manners. Even the traditional seminary system has struggled mightily in this area over the ages.
• Fourth, (a distant fourth) of the impact to the permanent diaconate.

This change will also require the right pontiff. While I think Francis embraces such change – as evidenced by this comments regarding South America/Amazon Jungle, I don’t know that he has sufficient gravitas to make such a change successful for the long term.

In the end I believe there is little question that the Church will one day have its warrant officers (married and celibate priests formed outside of traditional seminaries) along with its existing commissioned officers (traditionally formed celibate priests), its flag officers (bishops), its non-commissioned officers (permanent deacons) and of course its enlisted members (the laity.)

 

[Augustinian]

After reading and thinking a bit more about this subject, there’s no question to me that there will be alternate processes of forming priests in the future – including ways which were once common in the Western Church. Failure to do so would be a grave misstep.

I think that people might really want to have more priests, but I am not convinced that a lot of men would want to sign on to actually be priests. It does require a lot of commitment to classes and formation and once you’re ordained, you and your family are committed to serving in an area that might prohibit you from relocating later.

But there is only one way to find out. Launch the program as a pilot in a single diocese, and if it works out expand it.

 

[Duesenberg]

It does require a lot of commitment to classes and formation and once you’re ordained

So does the formation for the permanent diaconate.

…once you’re ordained, you and your family are committed to serving in an area that might prohibit you from relocating later.

That’s not really true.

But there is only one way to find out. Launch the program as a pilot in a single diocese, and if it works out expand it.

Definitely start small. I think it would be especially interesting to see this program tested in an archdiocese like Chicago that not only has a priest’s union, but also the largest number of permanent deacons (yes, an entirely different vocation!) in the entire US. It has more than many countries.

 

[StephieNorthCo]

Ya know Chicago Archdiocese is a pretty good idea in a number of ways. There are a lot of different sub communities within the diocese which gives you the possibility of seeing what catches where.