The Availability of Priests

[Hidden_One]

I know, I know, it’s not technically directly a Vocations-thread title. But hear me out: for those members here studying for the priesthood or otherwise discerning in that direction, it matters a fair amount. And it’s come up - in this specific forum - a lot, at least lately. Here, I figure, we can discuss this issue without being off-topic… since this IS the topic.

Generally speaking, so far we have had two basic opinions put forth: that priests should always be available, and that priests “have a life” like the rest of us and should not be expected to live their lives on call.

While simultaneously inviting others to put forth their positions on this issue in general, I will start off by hopefully triggering discussion by giving a recent quotation from a homily delivered by Abp. Anthony Mancini of Halifax, Canada, on the occasion the the feast of the patron of parish priests last Tuesday, to a collection of priests from the archdiocese and certain others on the path to the priesthood.

"The scriptures for today are the texts for the feast of St. John Vianney. They
are chosen in order to let us penetrate something of the mystery and wonder of this
priest who was made patron for parish priests. This Year of the Priest is under his
patronage, not because we are expected to do all that St John Vianney did or to
have his style or spiritual practices. He is there as a reminder of what is essential –
and it is the essential of this saint – which is expressed in the Word of God for
today.

"From Ezekiel, we are reminded about the responsibility which weighs on our
shoulders as servants and prophets of God. Our task is to speak God’s Word and
put forward God’s plan for humanity.

"When Ezekiel reflected on his vocation and on what God was asking of him,
he realized that the spiritual lives of those entrusted to him were held in his hands.
This is also true of the priest and so, to be a priest involves recognizing this
responsibility for the spiritual outcome of the lives of those entrusted to our care
and doing everything to be faithful to it.

“This is what motivated St. John Vianney to be available as much as he was
to his parishioners, who had lost sight or interest in all things Christian or Catholic. This is what motivated this parish priest’s prayer life and style, so that God’s will
and God’s plan for his people would be available. We don’t have to imitate St.
John Vianney’s style of prayer or his piety, but each of us is asked to be equally
responsible and available.”

Thoughts?

 

[kyria]

I think priests are entitled to rest like the rest of us. I remember reading someone wanted priests available 24/7. Well I am sure priests know they are a priest 24/7 but I don’t expect them to be physically available 24/7 otherwise I will worry they will burnout. I want them to take time to rest and be happy and not worry they aren’t giving enough or doing enough.

 

[quiet52]

Being “available 24/7” to us is not part of a priest’s job description.

It’s easy for us to dwell on our expectations for priests. We can “objectify” them by deciding what they should do because this is what we think a priest should do, without regard to their unique charisms and/or limitations.

We need to remember that the most important job of the priest is to celebrate the Mass, and to consecrate the bread and the wine. Without priests, we would not have the Mass–or the Eucharist. Without priests, we couldn’t exist in communion as a Church. No matter what we personally like or dislike about a particular priest, no matter how deficient we believe a priest is as a servant to our parish, we need to give God thanks for him and pray for him.

I liked what I heard one priest say – that a priest sleeps for us, not just for himself – in other words, his rest is needed so that he can better serve us.

 

[JReducation]

What I have never understood is why the laity of today seems to believe that it is entitled to be served by priests 24/7. Priests have other duties, besides the duties of a parish.

1. If a priest is a secular man, he still has to pray the Liturgy of the Hours. He has his biological family and friends who also need him. He needs rest and study like any one else. He also needs time for silent prayer and solitude like any other person of faith. His ministry is dependent of his life off stage.
2. If a priest is a religious, he has a family to whom he is accountable. He must pray, recreate, eat, and spend time with his religious commiunity. His religious community is his family. By virtue of his vow chastity he has given to his religious community his life. He belongs to them. He has to live according to the rule of his order or his congregation. He has to take the time to go away on retreat with is community, to attend to community matters, including retreats, meetings and performiong other duties within the community as assigned by his superior.
3. If a priest is married, he has a family. He is a father, husband and head of a household. Like any good Christian, he has duties there too.

I believe that we do not understand the nature of the life of a priest in any of these three states: secular, married or religioius.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I do not think this discussion is appropriate.

No one has a right to tell another person how available they should be.

The laity has no right to put any expectations upon priests about how and when they should be available.

I am sure that the laity would have a fit if priests started to tell them how much they have to give to the parish/community.

It also hurts vocations. Not only the expectation but the way the laity acts when they do not get what they want. The way they treat and talk about priests who do not live up to their expectation of “24/7” availability. The, “I want it now” mentality hurts vocations.

This is also why many priests do not wear clerics or their habits (for religious priests) when they go out on their own time, as people seem to think that the priest must serve them if they request it.

 

[JReducation]

I do not think this discussion is appropriate.

No one has a right to tell another person how available they should be.

The laity has no right to put any expectations upon priests about how and when they should be available.

I am sure that the laity would have a fit if priests started to tell them how much they have to give to the parish/community.

It also hurts vocations. Not only the expectation but the way the laity acts when they do not get what they want. The way they treat and talk about priests who do not live up to their expectation of “24/7” availability. The, “I want it now” mentality hurts vocations.

This is also why many priests do not wear clerics or their habits (for religious priests) when they go out on their own time, as people seem to think that the priest must serve them if they request it.

Br. David makes a valid point. If I were a young man discerning a call to the priesthood and read many of the posts on CAF, I would back off. The demands of the laity are often unreasonable. The critques are often contemptuous. The absence of respect for priests who do not give us what we believe a priest should give us or who do not act as we believe a priest should is uncharitable. Much of what the laity expects and thinks about priests is really based on personal understanding of the priesthood rather than on a theological and pastoral understanding.

I am reminded of a thread that someone started about priests wearing religious habits. That was my first red flag that many people on these threads do not understand priesthood. The next red flag was someone saying that priests are married to the Church. Both are wrong. Only religious wear habits and priests are not married to anyone or any institution.

The point is that when we begin to make statements on these forums without the theology to back them up, we may mislead young men who may be discerning a vocation or we may frighten them away.

I’ll give an example. We were founded by Capuchin Franciscans. The reason that we were founded was because a group of friars was scared to death of parish work. They were treated horribly by the laity. The friars had office hours for three hours a day and the laity were horrified. Well, they didn’t understand that the friars were FRIARS, not Fathers, even though they were all priests. But the laity had not idea that these guys prayed the Office four times a day. That they had a period of silent prayer. That they had to spend an hour a day in community recreation. They had to have an evening meal together. They had to perform chores around the house, such as grocery shopping, laundry, cleaning and other duties or that they had assignments within the community such as superior, counselor, vocation director, etc.

This is just an example of the lack of knowledge about priesthood and the life of a priest. As I pointed out in my above post, there are three possibilities for a priest: religioius, secular and celibate or secular and married. In all three cases, there are other demands and expectations, besides the parish. As the good bishop says, they are there to make available the Gospel as much as they can. But they are not there to live up to the expectations and demands of the laity, just as the laity is not there to meet the expectations and demands of their pastors in the parish.

A parish is a family where there is a give and take. In families people must get to know each other and discover each other’s needs.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hidden_One]

I do not think this discussion is appropriate.

No one has a right to tell another person how available they should be.

Your second sentence is exactly why I think that having this discussion is appropriate. How is “the laity” supposed to know that the expectations of “the laity” are out to lunch if no one says so? And who best to say so but someone who isn’t a layperson (in the commonly understood sense of the term)?

Now, to respond directly to your second sentence: that doesn’t mean that a layperson cannot have an opinion on how available a priest should or should not necessarily be. It’s one thing to have an opinion, another to articulate it, and quite another to dictate it to somebody else as a rule.

I am sure that the laity would have a fit if priests started to tell them how much they have to give to the parish/community.

I’m not holding my breath on that homily, but depending on how it was done, I might mentally give that priest a standing ovation.

It also hurts vocations. Not only the expectation but the way the laity acts when they do not get what they want. The way they treat and talk about priests who do not live up to their expectation of “24/7” availability. The, “I want it now” mentality hurts vocations.

If I may briefly zero in on the phrase I just highlighted from what you wrote: I totally agree, as a layperson. And I’ll admit to having been guilty of it in the past; I try hard not to be guilty of it anymore. From what I’ve seen and heard, the two sets of priests maligned the most are the genuine bad apples (on varying scales - I’d include both molesters and hardcore liturgical/doctrinal deviants) and those who are trying to do their best but not quite capable (for whatever, generally hidden/unknown reason(s)) of doing (and not doing) what they’d prefer.

 

[Hidden_One]

Br. David makes a valid point. If I were a young man discerning a call to the priesthood and read many of the posts on CAF, I would back off. The demands of the laity are often unreasonable. The critques are often contemptuous. The absence of respect for priests who do not give us what we believe a priest should give us or who do not act as we believe a priest should is uncharitable. Much of what the laity expects and thinks about priests is really based on personal understanding of the priesthood rather than on a theological and pastoral understanding.

I will just add to that that I have been in contact, directly, or been in direct contact with someone in direct contact, with current/past members of this forum who are or were discerning the priesthood and have been really hurt on here by stuff that was posted or PMed by other CAF posters. And I have no doubt that at least most of it was with good intentions.

As the good bishop says, they are there to make available the Gospel as much as they can. But they are not there to live up to the expectations and demands of the laity, just as the laity is not there to meet the expectations and demands of their pastors in the parish.

I strongly agree. If any of us are here to meet expectations and demands, then they *would *be Divine ones, not human ones. Apart from the vows and promises and essential duties resultant from our respective states in life and those in genuine authority over us, there is nothing and no one to whom any of us is responsible apart from God, unless I’m really missing something.

 

[JReducation]

I will just add to that that I have been in contact, directly, or been in direct contact with someone in direct contact, with current/past members of this forum who are or were discerning the priesthood and have been really hurt on here by stuff that was posted or PMed by other CAF posters. And I have no doubt that at least most of it was with good intentions.

I have seen that too, mostly on the vocations thread. There are several common errors that I have seen on that thread. I’ll write them in bullets for the sake of clarity.

1. There is an assumption that everytime someone comes in and says that they want to be a priest, that they should go for it. People begin to build up the hopes of the individual with comments such as, “you’re going to be a good priest” or “when you become a priest.” The Church does not want men to assume that they have a call to the priesthood until she says that they have a calling. The Church is the voice of Christ and only Christ, through the bishops and the religious superiors can decide who has a call and who does not.
2. There is an assumption that the priesthood or religious life is a right. When someone comes on board and talks about having been turned down, everyone jumps in to support the person’s desires to be a priest or religious. Priesthood and religious life is not a right, it is a privileged call to a select few. One of the many reasons that we had such a crisis with the priests and religious in the 20th century was because prior to Vatican II seminaries and religious communities were taking in too many people, with very little discrimination. Most of the priest who were pedophiles were ordained in the 50s, before Vatican II. There was a boom of men returning from the War and entering seminaries and novitiates. Everyone got so excited, because there had been a shortage, that bishops and superiors did not do their duty by way of discrimination.
3. Finally, as far as men are concened, the average person on these vocation threads do not know the difference between the priesthood and religious lfie. Many men would make wonderful religious, but horrible priests or wonderful priests, but horrible religious. A man does not have to be a priest. He can be a religious brother and do great work for the Church. Or he can be a secular priest and not a religious and also do great work for the Church. But if you do not know this, the advice that you give may be wrong and it may do more harm than good.

I strongly agree. If any of us are here to meet expectations and demands, then they *would *be Divine ones, not human ones. Apart from the vows and promises and essential duties resultant from our respective states in life and those in genuine authority over us, there is nothing and no one to whom any of us is responsible apart from God, unless I’m really missing something.

I always tell our novices that they have to be accountable to three sets of expecations:

1. What does the Gospel expect from you?
2. What does the Church hierarchy expect from you?
3. What does our holy father Francis expect from you?

Any other expectations, including your own, are worthless. In the case of a married person I would replace St. Francis with the spouse or family, if they have one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[puzzleannie]

a priest who is available 24/7, who never takes a day off or a vacation, who does not protect his own private down time, especially his prayer time and time for rest, is priest who will soon be unable to serve at all because his physical and spiritual health will begin to break down.

sorry I was responding do OP not to the side discussions

 

[JReducation]

a priest who is available 24/7, who never takes a day off or a vacation, who does not protect his own private down time, especially his prayer time and time for rest, is priest who will soon be unable to serve at all because his physical and spiritual health will begin to break down.

sorry I was responding do OP not to the side discussions

You are perfectly right. I always like to share this story, because it drives the point home. We have very few priests in our community. Our constitution says that the Major Superior may allow a brother to receive Holy Orders only if it is necessary for the spiritual good of the brothers. In other words, in places where there are no priests or parishes near our houses, such a mission countries.

So, with that background, one day another brother and I went to mass at the local parish. Brother N. asked the priest to hear his confession. The priest gave him an appointment to come back in two days. He had other commitments that day and the next day was his day off. Brother N. and I took the appointment and returned to our friary. Some lay people would go bonkers over something like this. The point is that unless you’re dying, you can wait or you can find a priest who is available at your convenience. Father does not have drop everything to hear your confession. The other things that he’s doing are for the good of souls too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hidden_One]

The other things that he’s doing are for the good of souls too.

Or, at least, it must (normally) be assumed (even against evidence) that they are or treated as though they are.