Freelance Priests

[Newborn]

I know this may not be received too favorably around here, it may even horrify some people, but a friend is working on a project and wants to get the word out. I remember at least one poster around here who was also discussing something like this, if anyone remembers him, or knows anyone else who would be interested, please pass this along to them.But here’s the important part for Vocations:

Lots of guys I’ve talked to are very much attracted to the priesthood, are even willing to be celibate, but the idea of being kept on a leash like seminarians are…is entirely repulsive to their sensibilities as independent adult Americans. We’ve lived on our own, for goodness sake, managed our own lives. Heck, my parents didn’t even treat me that strictly. But the current system is absolutely obsessed with it.
…

I’m sorry, but I’m an adult man and an American. I’d be perfectly willing to wear the collar, but I will not wear a leash.

…

So, we’re looking for young men who might be willing to approach a bishop with us and tell him where we stand and what we envision. Here’s what I imagine. I see no reason why seminarians have to have this whole boarding school atmosphere. Why couldn’t seminary be more like a regular college: people are expected to show up for class and other program commitments, and then get to handle their own free time and living situation. There are lots of good Catholic Universities. Couldn’t the priesthood program be simply one more Major or Degree-program at these places? Seminarians could live like other students. Maybe they’d have reserved rooms in a special dorm, though I wouldn’t require this; if they wanted to have their own apartment, whatever. They’d go to their theology classes, meet with a formator, be expected to show up for certain retreats or monthly outings with the other seminarians, but otherwise they wouldn’t try to micromanage his life.

That’s a long-term model. What I imagine could be possible right away is simply to allow some young men, if we petition the bishop and show him there is enough interest, would be simply to allow us to commute. To show up for classes and meetings with the formator, maybe certain Sunday liturgies, but then manage our own lives outside, off-campus, like adults. Religious are one thing, but secular priests are, well, secular. They’re going to live in the world for their whole life, have all that independence and unstructured time. It therefore seems counter-intuitive to me to make them live semi-monastically for 5 years, withdrawn from the world. To be honest, many never seem to readjust to civilian life.

Frankly, I’m not even sure the training program need be so intense. Permanent deacon candidates are able to live their lives, with families and other jobs even, going to seminary programs in the summer, on weekends, at night-school, etc. Permanent deacons can do everything a priest can except instead of saying Mass they can merely lead a communion service, instead of anointing the sick they can merely bring them communion, and instead of absolving they can only spiritually direct. Does it really take all sorts of extra years of theology to read words out loud out of a book, rub some oil on someone, or wave your hand over them?? I doubt it, that’s not rocket science.

So, yeah. If anyone else is interested, we’re working on getting a group together to approach a bishop and request a more independent formation program something like one of the ideas described above. Maybe it could take the form of a Secular Institute because that seems like the most favorable model for something like this. But the point is to be a group of “freelance priests” at the service of the Church, not burdened by bureaucracy.

Some might take a contract with the diocese after ordination, for service at a parish for a specified length of time. But many others might not be salaried by the dioceses at all (and at that point, especially, if they were volunteers rather than a paid pastor, might not a Permanent Deacon’s level of training be enough?) Many might simply work some other job in the world, pray their breviary during the day, say a morning Mass somewhere, and volunteer to fill in for a Sunday Mass at an under-staffed local parish on Sundays (the Old Mass, I’d hope). I don’t know the canonical barriers to all this, but couldn’t a priest simply “retire” immediately upon ordination, and yet still take another job?

Such a model might be good for everyone. It could be a shot-in-the-arm for an understaffed dioceses to have even just 10 more men, if only for Sundays, especially if they didn’t have to salary them. And a way to spread the Old Rite, volunteering to do it at parishes where the pastor doesn’t want to learn it himself. In reality, I bet that once the idea was approved, you’d get tons of men attracted to it who aren’t comfortable with the “mainstream” seminary Institutional dynamics.

Please, contact me if you’re interested in such a model or send this post to any young men you know who might be interested. No commitment or anything, we’re just trying to get a “show of hands” for initial exploration. Thanks!!

renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2010/03/casting-wide-net-on-net.html

 

[Ocarm]

I know this may not be received too favorably around here, it may even horrify some people, but a friend is working on a project and wants to get the word out.

The canon law regarding the formation of clerics would not permit this in a number of different respects. See:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PW.HTM

Only the pope - not the diocesan bishop - could dispense from this, and typically the Holy See is very protective of formation.

 

[curlycool89]

The first problem I’m seeing here is the idea of the priesthood. It is not a job or a career that one embarks on, it is a vocation. It is your life. The degree program isn’t just another degree you’re taking, it’s (as far as I understand it, other’s here may understand this better than I do) training you for the life of a priest.

Secondly is the idea of a leash. The priesthood is not a requirement. When you decide to be a priest you give up everything for the Church. If that means giving up the American-style independence then it means giving it up. The simple explanation is that if you don’t like that then the priesthood is not for you.

I wouldn’t really want one of these independent 9-5 priests working in my parish. The Church will live on with the few vocations people are responding to. The last think we need is people who are only willing to live their vocation some of the time.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The basic answer is why can’t it be like any other college degree is because it is not like any other college degree.

There is a level of formation that takes place outside of class.

Plus you must be evaluated by your superiors to see if you actually will be called by the Church to ordination.

You may feel that you are called to the priesthood but there is no guarantee that you are called until the Church calls you to ordination through your bishop (or religious superior).

 

[Theophorus]

I would urge a note of caution though; a vocation is a life of service to God, is it based on what I want or What God wants? I will become a priest if the church changes X,Y or Z. That’s not the best way to approach the situation; the question is whether to do it on His terms or my terms.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

I agree with the above poster. I think the OP’s friend has a serious misunderstanding of the priesthood.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I agree with the above poster. I think the OP’s friend has a serious misunderstanding of the priesthood.

And obedience.

 

[Ocarm]

And obedience.

And the sacraments:

‘Permanent deacons can do everything a priest can except instead of saying Mass they can merely lead a communion service, instead of anointing the sick they can merely bring them communion, and instead of absolving they can only spiritually direct. Does it really take all sorts of extra years of theology to read words out loud out of a book, rub some oil on someone, or wave your hand over them?? I doubt it, that’s not rocket science.’

Hmmmm.

 

[littlequestion]

‘Permanent deacons can do everything a priest can except instead of saying Mass they can merely lead a communion service, instead of anointing the sick they can merely bring them communion, and instead of absolving they can only spiritually direct. Does it really take all sorts of extra years of theology to read words out loud out of a book, rub some oil on someone, or wave your hand over them?? I doubt it, that’s not rocket science.’

That’s an incredibly irreverent letter.

 

[CDNowak]

The idea of “independent” priests is just plain bad… bad ecclesiology, bad Christology.

That said, I sympathize with the desire for a different structure for formation than the present seminary structure. Part of it may be my homsechooled independence, but the seminary life can be condescending. In practice it is too easy to focus largely on the academic formation (I cannot call it intellectual because academia encourages intellectual bulimia) which is a flawed perspective.

The charge of institutionalization is an interesting one (some never adjust, are words the author uses, I believe), and one that I have been wary of in my own discernment. I could adjust to the academic life (I loathe it, but could survive in it). This I think is a serious concern, and one worth being brought to the attention of seminary rectors and bishops.

Despite my concerns and my desire for the consideration of reforms, I acknowledge the necessity of the guidelines and the Church’s duty to make sure priests are properly formed. Therefore, when it comes to discerning priesthood, I submit to whatever the Church chooses to require, and consider it, at the worst, a test of my vocation.

 

[kimmielittle]

Sorry, but I won’t put much stock in your new ‘priesthood’. It sounds like you want to be a protestant preacher.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[walleye8888]

We are all called to preach the Gospel of God. The Cross. The Great Commission is " go into all the world preaching repentence and forgiveness of sins thru the shed blood of Christ. As to whether to become a ordained pastor. That is a calling by God. He calls you. It is not a job, it is not a vocation, it is a calling. If you dont like the Catholic strictness, there are many good denominations preaching the Gospel. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, to create one new man in Christ. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation. I was brought up Catholic, I am called by God to preach the Gospel, my problem is that God has put it into my heart to be married. That leaves me out of the ordained Catholic priesthood, I respect their opinions on marriage, even if I dont agree. God calls some men to different levels of virtures. It is better for a man to marry than to burn with lust. That is from St. Paul. You have to decide what is important. The sad part is that there are alot of good men wanting to give their lives to Christ, but cannot accept the marriage thing. I am one of them. All that matters is that men are turning to God for grace, mercy, and forgivness of sins. May the grace of God be with you as you decide what to do.

 

[ThomasEugene]

priesthood is not a “side-line” or a job. it’s not just a part of life but it’s a life. if you just can’t take it as it is, you can leave it. just my two cents.

i just don’t like the term “freelance”. probably it’s in my understanding, i searched the dictionary and freelance means a person who pursues a profession without a long-term commitment to any one employer

 

[CDNowak]

I actually would be thrilled to explore **one **facet of this: the condition of seminary formation as regards institutionalization.

Feasibility: Much of what the Renegade Trad blogger objects to are matters of discipline not reserved to the Holy See but to the bishop and rector of the seminary(1). Others, including the possibility of a house of formation outside the enclosed seminary are explicitly provided for, under the bishop’s direction(2).

The issue: The PPF indicates the four dimensions of the person the candidates need to be formed in: Spiritual, Intellectual, Human, and Pastoral. It identifies human formation as the foundation, the others must build on the human dimension. The norm of a highly regimented life, perhaps the most restricted outside the monastic life or deployed soldiers, raises issues in this human element of formation: it undermines the freedom, the development of prudence, and even hinders the development of proper communication (all aspects highlighted in PPF).

While this is nothing I can change, it is something that has been an issue in my own discernment, I can well believe I am not an isolated case.

(1) Can. 243 In addition, each seminary is to have its own rule, approved by the diocesan bishop, or, if it is an interdiocesan seminary, by the bishops involved, which is to adapt the norms of the program of priestly formation to particular circumstances and especially to determine more precisely the* points of discipline which pertain to the daily life of the students* and the order of the entire seminary.
(2) Can. 235 §2. The diocesan bishop is to entrust those who legitimately reside outside a seminary to a devout and suitable priest who is to be watchful that they are carefully formed in the spiritual life and in discipline.

edited to add: The OP is not “A Sinner” from the Renegade Trad blog, who is the author of the article.

 

[Newborn]

§2. The diocesan bishop is to entrust those who legitimately reside outside a seminary to a devout and suitable priest who is to be watchful that they are carefully formed in the spiritual life and in discipline.

I noticed this canon also, CDNowak. I can only imagine that it might allow for the sort of thing the article proposes.

I sympathize with my friend, though I understand some of the objections here too.

One comment he just posted in response to another comment on his blog may answer some objections:

I just don’t buy that post-Tridentine “theology” of the priesthood, however.

Because that’s just not how it worked in the early Church. In the Early Church, the bishop was probably the only “full-time” position. The simple presbyters…were volunteers, who worked other jobs during the week and probably only said Mass on Sundays.

That “theology” (it’s really no such thing) of the Priesthood…turns the priest into a Pseudo-Religious. But he’s not. Secular priests are NOT Religious.

This whole “groom of the Church” thing, though a nice idea and true in some sense, also is the product (and a reinforcing cause) of this clericalist notion that the priesthood exists as an end-in-itself, for it’s own self-perpetuating sake.

It doesn’t. The priesthood exists to dispense the sacraments to the People of God. To sanctify them through the sacramental ministry. That’s it. If it is accomplishing THAT goal, it has met its end, and everything else is accidental.

This whole “mysticism of the priesthood-as-such” was (is?) maybe helpful for priests in a clericalist culture. But it must not be dogmatized, for it is the product of that same clericalist ecclesiastical culture that put the priest on a pedestal. Since the abuse crisis, those days MUST be over, those wide-eyed notions MUST be dismissed.

That same culture that made it so that the laity existed only to support the clergy. When really, the clergy exist ONLY for the sake of the laity.

And I find it hard to believe that with all the lazy, lackluster, frankly downright defective priests…somehow energetic young men willing to volunteer for priestly duties AND support themselves with their own jobs…are somehow bad.

As someone who has studied the early Church and the First Millennium of Christianity extensively, I can tell you that most of what he says is true. This notion of the priesthood as almost a form of Religious Life, is very modern.

The priest “giving up everything” is a nice romantic notion. But, really more appropriate to consecrated Religious. In practice, that’s not the point of the Presbyterate as such. The point is to get the sacraments and the liturgy to the people. If that’s being accomplished, it does not really matter whether it’s one priest giving everything up, or 2 priests giving half up.

This is a notion going back only to the Counter-Reformation, and is Latinizing too; in the Ethiopian Church, 10-20% of adult males are priests. Parishes have hundreds. They all take one week a year to do the priestly duties: like the Jewish Temple Priesthood.

That is certainly a valid model.

People in the West are very uncomfortable with it. I sort of am too still. But I know that’s my own cultural bias and am trying to get over it; we need to think outside the box for the sake of the Church. As the article from the blog says, “at a time when there is a vocations shortage, they refuse to experiment with any changes to any of the accidental institutional structures.” And what he discusses definitely are non-essentials. He isn’t even calling for an end to mandatory celibacy (likewise non-essential) in this case, though if you read the blog, he doesn’t support it. I think he’s right about needing to be flexible, about needing to be willing to experiment with innovative new models or risk increasing irrelevancy.

 

[Young_Thinker]

That’s an incredibly irreverent letter.

I agree.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Some religious orders do not use seminaries.

Like my province of the Carmelites. We attend what is called a theologate which is where we do all the academic studies that are done within a seminary. We share this theologate with a number of other orders/communities.

We then have our house of formation where we do the spiritual formation and other forms of formation. Some of those are done with the other religious houses of formation in the area, some are done on our own.

So there is no rector for us to deal with. Also we do not deal with a bishop as our superior is our ordinary for these matters. He determines when we are ready for ordination and has a bishop do the ordination but the bishop gets no say in the matter other than saying he will or will not do the ordination, if he will not then the superior will just find a bishop who is willing.

 

[curlycool89]

I noticed this canon also, CDNowak. I can only imagine that it might allow for the sort of thing the article proposes.

I sympathize with my friend, though I understand some of the objections here too.

One comment he just posted in response to another comment on his blog may answer some objections:

As someone who has studied the early Church and the First Millennium of Christianity extensively, I can tell you that most of what he says is true. This notion of the priesthood as almost a form of Religious Life, is very modern.

The priest “giving up everything” is a nice romantic notion. But, really more appropriate to consecrated Religious. In practice, that’s not the point of the Presbyterate as such. The point is to get the sacraments and the liturgy to the people. If that’s being accomplished, it does not really matter whether it’s one priest giving everything up, or 2 priests giving half up.

This is a notion going back only to the Counter-Reformation, and is Latinizing too; in the Ethiopian Church, 10-20% of adult males are priests. Parishes have hundreds. They all take one week a year to do the priestly duties: like the Jewish Temple Priesthood.

That is certainly a valid model.

People in the West are very uncomfortable with it. I sort of am too still. But I know that’s my own cultural bias and am trying to get over it; we need to think outside the box for the sake of the Church. As the article from the blog says, “at a time when there is a vocations shortage, they refuse to experiment with any changes to any of the accidental institutional structures.” And what he discusses definitely are non-essentials. He isn’t even calling for an end to mandatory celibacy (likewise non-essential) in this case, though if you read the blog, he doesn’t support it. I think he’s right about needing to be flexible, about needing to be willing to experiment with innovative new models or risk increasing irrelevancy.

If you are Catholic, then on matters like this is our job to defer to the Church’s judgement. If the Church decides that a priest should be devoting all his time to his vocation (which is his life from his ordination on) and should not hold a second job then that’s the way it is.

Priests are not permanent Deacons, and I’m not really convinced that whoever this blogger is actually understands that based on that first post. “Spiritual direction” instead of confession, which he describes as just “waving a hand”? Does he not understand that it is through the priest acting in persona Christi that the petitioner is reconciled with God, that his soul is now in a state of grace, and that through the sacrament grace is given to the petitioner? No amount of spiritual direction can do that. There is nothing in this world besides the priests (and Bishops) who can do this duty.
St. John Vianney would spend all day in the confessional to reconcile the lost souls to God. He was a parish priest, not a religious. He is the patron saint of all priests and he is who all priests should aspire to emulate.

Those are the types of priests we need, not the ones who maybe want to be a priest in their spare time. That is what the Church wants and the Church is the last word on the matter. Thank God for that.

 

[CDNowak]

I noticed this canon also, CDNowak. I can only imagine that it might allow for the sort of thing the article proposes.

I sympathize with my friend, though I understand some of the objections here too.

One comment he just posted in response to another comment on his blog may answer some objections:

As someone who has studied the early Church and the First Millennium of Christianity extensively, I can tell you that most of what he says is true. This notion of the priesthood as almost a form of Religious Life, is very modern.

The priest “giving up everything” is a nice romantic notion. But, really more appropriate to consecrated Religious. In practice, that’s not the point of the Presbyterate as such. The point is to get the sacraments and the liturgy to the people. If that’s being accomplished, it does not really matter whether it’s one priest giving everything up, or 2 priests giving half up.

This is a notion going back only to the Counter-Reformation, and is Latinizing too; in the Ethiopian Church, 10-20% of adult males are priests. Parishes have hundreds. They all take one week a year to do the priestly duties: like the Jewish Temple Priesthood.

That is certainly a valid model.

People in the West are very uncomfortable with it. I sort of am too still. But I know that’s my own cultural bias and am trying to get over it; we need to think outside the box for the sake of the Church. As the article from the blog says, “at a time when there is a vocations shortage, they refuse to experiment with any changes to any of the accidental institutional structures.” And what he discusses definitely are non-essentials. He isn’t even calling for an end to mandatory celibacy (likewise non-essential) in this case, though if you read the blog, he doesn’t support it. I think he’s right about needing to be flexible, about needing to be willing to experiment with innovative new models or risk increasing irrelevancy.

I am the commenter on the blog, I am reading up on the priesthood before Trent, but I am fairly certain I largely disagree. From my years of reading on, but not formal study of, the subject matter I am fairly certain that there was a gradual development, but that the ‘modern’ concept of the priesthood emerged about the early monastic period. Like I said, though, I am going going back over my sources so I can post a cogent argument, which I will cross post to here and the blog.

 

[CDNowak]

Some religious orders do not use seminaries.

Like my province of the Carmelites. We attend what is called a theologate which is where we do all the academic studies that are done within a seminary. We share this theologate with a number of other orders/communities.

We then have our house of formation where we do the spiritual formation and other forms of formation. Some of those are done with the other religious houses of formation in the area, some are done on our own.

So there is no rector for us to deal with. Also we do not deal with a bishop as our superior is our ordinary for these matters. He determines when we are ready for ordination and has a bishop do the ordination but the bishop gets no say in the matter other than saying he will or will not do the ordination, if he will not then the superior will just find a bishop who is willing.

I think, to some degree, this sort of arrangement is what the blogger is looking for (coupled with a less regimented rule of life for the seminarians, with which I agree). Unfortunately his theological grasp seems quite weak (as noted in sacramental and ecclesiological dimensions) and his authority issues worse than mine (I wouldn’t wish that on anybody).

It really is a shame because the issue I outlined above, which he raises, needs to brought to the attention of bishops, but with his approach he will only muddy the waters.