The statistics mean something, as I see it. First, a group of priests is permitted only with limited ministerial functions. Either there is a need in the archdiocese or there isn’t. If not, then why bring them in at all. If there is a legitimate need, then why restrict their ministry? Now it is said that the archdiocese has no need for them. The suggested alternative that I gave was that they should be replaced by another order of priests. Additionally, when the archbishop brings priests in – he might consider letting them act as priests so that they can offer Mass and hear confessions and thus minister to the hundreds of thousands of additional Catholics who have fewer priests to serve them.
I’m not there, but from what I understand they were not invited. They asked and were given permission to enter the Archdiocese to serve their own. They expanded their reach without the permission of the bishop. They were told to scale back. They didn’t. That’s the issue. No one has accused them of anything else other than not following the restrictions that the bishop put on them as he does with every religious order. I also understand that they were promoting vocations to the Legion without the permission of the bishop or the parents. That’s not allowed. No religious community can recruit in a diocese without the permission of the bishop. Vocations by their very nature belong to the local church, unless the bishop releases them to the religious orders. If an individual seeks out a religious order, that’s one thing. If a religious order promotes vocation in a bishop’s territory, without his permission, that’s another story. We religious cannot do that.
I wouldn’t and have not defended the LC in this situation at all. Without any additional information I conclude that the archbishop made the right decision to ban them. But my question as a follow-up was about what he planned to do to replace them. Now I hear that he doesn’t need the help of more priests.
I think the statistics show a radically different story. Each of his priests has thousands more Catholics to attend to, since 1990. Why not bring in another group of priests to replace the LC?
A bishop cannot mandate a religious order or religious congregation to enter his diocese. He can invite them, but they don’t have to accept the invitation. Currently, there are three religious communities that have priests in the archdiocese. There are more religious communnities of brothers and religious communities of sisters. They do a fair amount of parish work and other ministries. You also have to remember that many religious orders no longer take on parishes. I can speak about my own Franciscan family. Our reform mandated that we not take on more parishes, but we move into the area of street ministry, respect life, communication ministry, contemplative life, and ministry of presence. The focus right now is to leave parishes that are middle class and higher. Even in the other ministries that I listed above, the reform calls for the friars to move out when the neighborhood’s economic level rises to middle class.
Running parishes is not the role of religious. It is the role of secular priests. Most religioius institutes were founded for other missions: missions, sick, education, preaching, street ministry, communication, study, contemplation, youth, seniors or fraternal life.
Then you have another problem in many dioceses and that’s financial. Many dioceses cannot afford more priests, because they can’t pay them. Many parishes do not generate enough income to pay for more priests on their staff, be they religious or secular. You can’t invite a religious institute into a diocese if you can’t afford them.
Bishops have a big challenge when it comes to staffing with religious communities. The communities do not want to take on more parishes or the parishes cannot afford more than one or two priests. Most religious communities will not staff any ministry where they cannot have a community.
I know that the OMI are in that diocese. But they have a religioius community with five priests assigned to one parish. This allows them to live a religious life. The OCDS also have religious there, but they have five and seven to a house, to allow them to live religious life. If I’m not mistaken the OFM are also there, but they too have five to a house. The problem is that unless a parish can afford to support an entire community, religious won’t take the parish. It’s not as simple as simply inviting a community of priests.
In addition, there are few religious communities of priests. The only religious communities of priests are Clerks Regular and they don’t have as many men as to the lay communities: mendicants and monastic. We go back around the circle. The mendicants and monastic will not take parishes that cannot afford an entire community. Finally, there is the issue of religious brothers. The mendicant and monastic communities are religious brothers. They will not take parishes that do not make room for lay brothers on their staff.
You can’t just ask a bishop to invite a religious community into his diocese unless he has something to offer them that is for the good of their community. It is not fair to religious to ask them to take on a ministry for the benefit of the laity and the expense of religious life.
In conclusion there are two important points to keep in mind when you have a religious institute in a diocese. The religious institute must abide by the rules of the bishop and the bishop must abide by the charism of the institutte. What happened here was that the LC and RC did not abide by the rules of the bishop. The communication broke down somewhere at the top of the organization of the Legion.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
