The time to build : Three papers presented at a national meeting of Priests' councils / Vincent A. Y the time to build Reprinted from the April 1958 issue of The Priest, Noll Plaza, Huntington, Indiana 46750 Printed in the U.S.A. by OUR SUNDAY VISITOR INC. Huntington, Indiana 46750 Introduction A MEETING of Priests’ Councils from throughout the United States was held at the Sheraton-O’Hare Motor Hotel, Des Plaines, Illinois. Attending the two-day meeting, February 12- 13, were 328 representatives from 113 diocesan senates and associations. Three papers delivered during this meeting form the con- tents of this brochure. Reverend Robert Kennedy of the Dio- cese of Brooklyn presents a review of a survey he had con- ducted concerning the present status of priests’ councils. Rev- erend Raymond G. Decker of the Archdiocese of San Francisco offers some goals and guidelines as well as a clarification of terms. Reverend John J. Hill of the Archdiocese of Chicago presents a rationale for a national organization. A constitutional convention is scheduled to meet May 13- 14 in order to draft a constitution for a National Conference of Priests’ Councils. OUR SUNDAY VISITOR is both pleased and privileged to offer this brochure to every diocesan priest in the United States. It is our hope that it will facilitate com- munication among the Catholic clergy of our nation. VINCENT A. YZERMANS Editor Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/timetobuildthreenull Chapter 1 A Review of Priests’ Councils Rev. Robert Kennedy often happens when a subject is discussed at an agenda meeting what is supposed to be said seems clear and quite simple to put together. Once an attempt to put it down on paper begins, the clarity of the idea begins to fuzz and the difficulties become much more apparent. The topic of this paper suffered this very proc- ess. Information about Priests’ Sen- ates is hard to come by and still harder to reduce to generaliza- tions and simple clear ideas. The source material is quite diverse. Three Regional Meetings gave much of the detail and the neces- sary flavor to keep it from being a dry and abstract gathering of statistics. The Mid-West meeting held in late September, and a New England meeting held right after Christmas enabled me to meet with Senators and Association officers from two of the most populated regions of our country. Extensive minutes of the meeting in New Orleans were forwarded to me. Be- sides this a five-page question- naire was filled out by the Presi- dent or Secretary of 63 Senates. The newsletter Crux, published a four-page tabulation of facts about the status of senates in our coun- try. Senates have been most coop- erative in sending minutes of their senate meetings and some fifty constitutions have been analyzed. Probably the most important sin- gle element in putting this paper together has been the opportunity to meet people who are involved in this very wonderful work of put- ting collegiality at the diocesan level into practice and by discus- ing with them their work, their hopes and their successes. This is the way one is able, in a sense, to get the pulsebeat of what is hap- pening throughout the country. According to the survey made by Crux, the first senate in the country was established in Spring- field, Massachusetts on January 20, 1966. Worcester, Massachusetts, 5 claims to be the first, using March 1965 as their birth date. Sioux Falls, S.D., had its operating in March, followed by Galveston, Texas in April, Grand Island, Ne- braska and Norwich, Connecticut in May and Albany, New York and Dubuque, Iowa by June. All this took place before the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae was is- sued on August 6, 1966. Forty-five senates were in operation by the end of 1966 and 135 by the first of the year. In other words there was a most eager response by the bishops and our country to de- crees of Vatican II and the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae, at least in regard to senates. Started in 1966 In many dioceses Associations of Priests had also sprung up, along- side the Senates. Chicago and Brooklyn having founded theirs by June of 1966 and now more than 40 of these exist throughout the country. Not satisfied with a gen- eral type of Priests’ Association, Associations of Priests active in In- ner City or Negro work have been established in several dioceses and at least two organizations exclu- sively for pastors exist. Senates are now finally estab- lished and strongly organized in al- most all of our dioceses. Some 80 examples of the constitutions are available upon request and have been swapped back and forth and the Senate in Brooklyn alone re- ceived 200 requests for copies of its constitution. Most dioceses, however, claim to have written their own without outside borrow- ing; only in one diocese did the chancery do it for the senate. The thing that is most interest- ing about this, is that the develop- ment is almost completely outside the law, concerning senates as ex- pressed in the Motu Proprio and the Conciliar Decrees. There was a vacuum not covered by law even though there was much talk in the Motu Proprio about “the form ex- pressed by law”; the revision of Canon Law has just not been com- pleted. American principles of de- mocracy moved in and filled the void. Due to our political history, it is hard for us to envision a group of people working together with- out some form of constitution or by-laws to guide them. Interesting- ly enough, the encyclical Pacem in Terris in paragraph 76 expresses the need for written constitutions. “The constitution of each should be drawn up, phrased in correct juridical terminology which pre- scribes the manner of designating the officials along with their mu- tual relations, the spheres of their competency, the forms and systems they are obliged to follow in per- forming their office.” Continuity As senates are made up in most cases by representatives elected by the priests of each diocese and are solidly organized by a quasi-juridi- cal constitution, they tend very strongly to have a group life of their own, which seems to be in opposition to the concept of the 6 senate “dying with the bishop.” A very long debate on this subject at the New England meeting of senates was held, but came to no conclusion; basically because there is a saving clause in the Motu Proprio allowing for the continua- tion of senates in exceptional cases and it was felt that this was not yet used. Others that have the as- sociation or whole presbytery as their base with an executive board as the senate avoid the problem in this way. Some 15 Sees have be- come vacant which had senates. Many of them have been asked by the Apostolic Administrator to keep some of their committee func- tions alive. Discussion Point In the Camden Diocese, when told they were to dissolve them- selves, the senate voted to reorgan- ize itself as an Association and keep in operation. In Wilmington, the senate was confirmed in exist- ence by the Apostolic Administra- tor and this was agreed to by the Apostolic Delegate in Washington. The survey indicated that nine sen- ates throughout the country had debated this issue and one senate has considered a strong letter ex- pressing its desire to stay in exist- ence to be forwarded to the Apos- tolic Administrator of the diocese by its President as soon as the See is vacant. The National Conference of Bishops will have to discuss this topic as part of its agenda at some time and it is hoped that some national representation of priests’ senates will be available to discuss this point with them. Related to this is the question of election of bishops itself. When the See in St. Louis was vacant, two priests signed a petition along with several laymen of the diocese asking for a voice in the selection of the next archbishop. Five hun- dred and sixty-three priests of the New York Archdiocese recently petitioned for the same thing. The new Priests’ Association in that diocese was very instrumental in gathering these signatures. In Wil- mington, the petition for a voice in electing the Bishop was for- warded by the Priests’ Council to Cardinal Sheehan, the Metropoli- tan of the See of Wilmington and he has responded by setting up a procedure by which suggestions could be received as to who their new bishop is to be. First Step It has been suggested by several sources that priests’ senates be given the function of diocesan consultor in voting for the Apos- tolic Administrator who governs the diocese during the inter- regnum. As this would be a very open indication of the will of the priests of the diocese if their senate would pick a man truly episcopa- bile the Congregatio Episcoporum would be under pressure of public opinion to take this fact into con- sideration. This might be a very logical first step toward a more general scheme for the election of bishops by the priests of the dio- cese. 7 Organically most senates struc- tured themselves into various committees and then started to prepare proposals. Two facts evolved that are very important for understanding where Priests’ Councils now stand. First, the most popular committees dealt with per- sonnel problems and problems of the continuing education of priests. That while most senates feel their area of competence is governing of the whole diocese, they have as a matter of fact placed the largest amount of their emphasis on priests’ problems. In the reports in the survey 20 dioceses have established personnel committees as a result of senate action. An ad- ditional 1 1 have some sort of griev- ance committees. Many dioceses have committees on the education of priests and in at least 25 they are part of the senate. Of the 63 who reported, in only 8 does the senate have any structure by which they can have something to say on seminary training. One-third of the dioceses an- swering questionnaires have def- inite programs for the retirement of priests. Only 8 of these reported that the diocesan retirement plan was due to senate action. The favorite retirement age was 75 with only a few having 70 as a man- datory age. Raising Morale Thus we see when the senates have taken on responsibility for many priests’ problems this has had the effect of raising morale in many areas, enabling priests to feel a deeper concern of the Church for them as persons. What many of the senates have to learn from this is that by taking person- nel out of the hands of the Chan- cery Office, they are in a sense performing the same function that Civil Service does for people who work for Federal, State and Local Government. Once patronage is removed from an organization, the organization becomes much more open to the demands of public opinion in achieving its purpose. Legislative The second fact is that the way most of these proposals are pre- sented showed that the senates were really performing a legislative role, despite the fact that almost uni- versally they considered their role to be consultative. The form their action took most often was that of a legislative body sending a law to the executive branch for ap- proval or veto. In this the senate filled a vacuum. Until Pastoral Councils are established and begin to function in terms of a steering committee for a synod which will legislate for the diocese, the legis- lative function has to be filled. This has led to a change in the way the senate was supposed to act according to the spirit of the Doc- uments of Vatican Council II. In- stead of existing as an advisory body with the bishops in their midst, it became a group in- dependent of him, making propos- als and legislating for the needs of the priests of the diocese. This function is a necessary one, but 8 it is important to realize that if we wish it to remain, steps must be taken to protect it. It really is not envisioned in the structure of the present law. There is also a tendency to ex- clude the bishop from the opera- tions of the senate. Sometimes this is done deliberately with the open declaration that it is better for the bishops not to participate for the sake of freedom. Sometimes it is more subtle and the bishop is de- clared to be welcome in the senate if he would like to come. The bishops receive the results of the senate meetings in all cases. This seems to come from a vision of the senate of priests as a voice from outside the diocesan struc- ture. Not being part of the system, the senate can propose ideas and plans to the bishops which are not being and would not be proposed by those within it. It can aim at altering the functioning of the existing diocesan policies and agen- cies. Role for Bishop In an article prepared by Father Walter Mitchell, Chairman of the Research Committee of the Asso- ciation of Brooklyn Clergy, and a senator of the diocese, he states, “It is this tendency which is dis- turbing. It gives strength to the false dichotomy between authority and the man under authority in the Church and it can lead to the failure of priests’ senates to be- come truly effective in the govern- ment of the diocese.” This com- ment is borne out by the fact that the senates that have been most successful in having their proposals accepted are those in which the bishop plays an active role and undergoes the same educational ex- perience as the senators do in their debates and committee reports. Regardless of how this is viewed by various senates, it is most cer- tainly a fact of life and the tend- ency to have a dichotomy between senates and bishops must be faced squarely in determining future operations of senates. We might ask how successful senates are? In answer, they run a very wide gamut. Some are not successful and there are internal reasons for failure. Democratic processes are often hard to make work. A lack of understanding of power structure and decision making as it actually exists in a diocese was often not understood. The senates become frustrated as so much time was spent in writing a constitution and setting up the structure that some sort of a paralysis set in in their ability to function. They began to feel they must justify themselves by some sort of a success and successes were hard to come by. Projects have been delayed and proposals turned down. The morale in many senates is low. Swapping Information It is important for the senates to realize that a great deal of work and a great deal of understanding must take place before they are capable of fulfilling their function. This points to the need of a great 9 deal of help and manual assistance. In too many cases the same mis- takes have been made over and over again; the same work dupli- cated. There is need for a great deal of swapping information, of combining research projects, and sharing proposals around. Also, nothing succeeds like success and the ability to have a proposal buttressed by the information that has already been accepted in 20 or 30 or 40 other dioceses, very often is a most telling argument. Failure also happened because of external causes. The one most often mentioned was the non- cooperation and the lack of trust of diocesan officials. Often pro- posals are refused because it was claimed they were outside the present structure of law or that it was something that had to be de- cided on a national level. These factors are important and show the need of priests’ senates being able to function at a level above that of the diocese. The future of the Church will be to a large extent in the hands of National Conferences of Bishops and the senates will have to be able to relate to them to be effective. In the future, law is going to be written at the na- tional level. It should be written with a vivid consciousness of our American experience with priests’ councils. Total Concern The future of senates lies in the broadening of their concerns to a total operation of the Church in all its details. If they are to help in the government of the diocese, the pastoral needs must be looked upon as a whole. The field of so- cial action as a concern of priests’ senates is a very important point. The Church must face up to prob- lems and there should be some vehicle through which the priests of a diocese or a nation must take a stand on important issues. The place of the layman in the Church should normally be taken care of by his own associations. However, until they are formed very often it is going to be a voice of priests’ senates which will speak up for his place in the Church. Pastoral Councils, as we already mentioned, will function in the future, but until they do, the senates should concern themselves with the new structures by which the diocese can move ahead to solve modern problems especially pertinent to the laity. Fraternity Exists Many senates at the present moment are facing the problem of how to set up parish councils. This is especially true in New England where this seems to be the most popular response to lay needs. Also, senates have moved into the question of liturgical renewal, and we can expect a greater response in this area and we hope one that will be national in scope as it must be and with the cooperation of the National Liturgical Con- ference. The things that have been men- tioned show a great vitality exists in the Church in America. The 10 vitality stems from the fact of the fraternity that exists among priests. They seek common problems and are willing to work for common solutions. A sense of dignity has developed because they are now speaking to their bishops and con- ferring with them about the prob- lems that are common concerns. There is also a deep-felt need of senates joining together sharing information and sharing in a com- munity that meetings like this can bring about. The Church must function as a whole in our nation and for priests to take their full share of responsibility in this, some sort of national grouping of priests’ senates and associations is impor- tant. Before ending the paper, I would like to point out tho de- velopment of priests’ associations alongside that of senates. Father Decker will point out the dif- ferences, but in over 40 dioceses associations of priests are a fact of life. Senates perform the impor- tant consultative function of help- ing a bishop govern his diocese. Associations exist as an independ- ent voice for the welfare of the whole people of God. The senate should be a wonderful example of representative democracy. The as- sociation can function as an example of the town meeting type of participation that played such an important part in this nation’s early history. Personally Involved The reasons why associations have sprung up are many. Basical- ly, they enable individual priests to communicate with one another. The priest can feel he is per- sonally involved. He has a sense of belonging. Also, through the operations of associations all of the priests can share in the edu- cation process that goes on as priests collectively look at the concerns and the affairs of the Church. They are also an impor- tant aid to the senate as they sup- port it in its dealings with the bishop and can play a vital com- munication link in bringing in- formation to the senate and also from the senate. This is how the situation of priests’ senates and associations appears to me at the present. So, in a sense, this is a type of state of the union message. Very briefly, the state of the union is good. But, it can be made much better. 11 Chapter 2 Goals and Guidelines for Priests’ Councils Rev. Raymond G. Decker DEFORE I begin, let me define Priests’ Councils, Priests’ As- sociations and Priests’ Senates. I do not submit my definitions as final, because these institutions be- ing so new are still in a state of flux. ‘ Council' as we are using it at this conference seems to apply to any organization of priests within a diocese. It can be applied to either an association or a senate, al- though in some dioceses the word ‘council’ has been used to desig- nate what some would call a ‘sen- ate.’ The present gathering is called a Meeting of Councils because it is the coming together of all kinds of priests’ organizations from various dioceses — some are senates, some are associations, and others are an amalgam of both. The term *priests1 association’ can be defined as an organization of priests within a diocese to create among themselves a genuine spirit of priestly fraternity, and based on this spirit, to develop a mutual ap- preciation of and desire for pro- fessionalism. As a grouping to- gether to develop fraternity, an association has as one of its main functions that of creating the re- ality of community within the presbytery. In realizing this fraternity an association should develop a genuine interest in professionalism. I do not mean creating a sense of alooftness and technical expertise which would tend to isolate priests as a professional group; I mean rather developing a genuine com- petence in theology and pastoral techniques which would help make each priest a more effective serv- ant of his people. In a word, I would consider a priests’ associa- tion as an organization of priests, by priests, for priests so that 13 through mutual assistance and col- laboration they might better serve the people of God. On the other hand, I would view senates as being quite different. Instead of being a fraternal and professional organization among the priests themselves, the senate or council is a representative body of the presbytery which forms a part of the official policy making structure of a diocese by being of- ficially an advisory body to the bishop in expressing the consensus of thought and opinion of the presbytery. 1 Effective Assistance This body of priests is explicitly provided for in the documents of Vatican Council II: Presbyterorum Ordinis, Article 7, 2 Christus Domi- nus, Article 273 and in the Motu Proprio: Ecclesiae Sanctae, Articles 15 and 17. As seen in this light and as explicitly expressed in the Coun- cil documents, the senate is “to give effective assistance to the bishop in his government of the diocese,” which, in effect, means that priests forming a senate must assume the responsibility as co-workers in the episcopal order by assisting the bishop in his role as shepherd of the diocese as a whole as defined by Dr. L. M. Weber in his paper at the European Episcopal Con- 1 L. M. Weber, “The Council of Priests,” mimeographed copy of an address at the Conference of European Bishops, Amster- dam. The Netherlands, July 12, 1967, p. 3. 2 Walter M. Abbott, S.J. and Joseph Gallagher (Eds.), The Documents of Vatican 11, (New York: Guild Press, 1966) p. 547. 3. ibid. p. 416. 4 Weber, op. cit., p. 6 14 ference held in Amsterdam, July 12, 1967: The Council of Priests is an institution which represents the presbytery as such and is, thereby, the more specific nucleus of diocesan (episcopal and presbyteral) government.4 In view of this distinction be- tween priests’ associations and senates, ideally every diocese should have both or some com- bination of both, since each has a unique function and each has its particular contribution to make to the Church as a whole. Before proceeding, I would fur- ther distinguish between ‘goals’ and ‘guidelines.’ By ‘goals’ I mean the substantive aims of associations and senates; that is, what they should accomplish within the near future. By ‘guidelines’ I mean the procedures by which these goals are achieved. With these basic definitions un- derstood, we can now proceed to outline the ‘goals’ and ‘guidelines’ of associations and senates, keep- ing in mind, of course, that the goals and guidelines for each will often differ because of the distinc- tion already mentioned between the two. I will first discuss associa- tions and then senates. Associations The very first goal of priests’ associations should be establishing communication within the presby- tery of a diocese. This means ‘dialogue,’ and here I use the term in that hard dynamic sense as de- scribed by Philip Scharper and quoted by Bishop Lawrence B. Casey of Paterson in his address to his Priests’ Senate in its in- augural meeting on September 20, 1967: . . . Dialogue obviously is a delicate undertaking — a dangerous one. . . . Dialogue means an authentic encounter between persons striving, at least to be authentic. . . . Dialogue therefore is a func- tion of creative love — that love which hopes all things, bears all things and seeks not its own. Being creative, it makes the possible real and the impossible possible. It can always make, even of seem- ingly rotten timbers, a bridge across that abyss which per- manently separates us from the other.5 Professionalism Among many of the European theologians this spirit has been termed bruderlickheit; that is, a brotherliness which is realized in the mutual support of helping one another to adjust psychologically and to effect structural changes in the Church so that the unique challenges of our age can be met. Hopefully, once this level of brotherliness is achieved within the presbytery this same spirit will permeate throughout the entire community of the people of God. In addition to establishing an arena for communication, however, 5 Documentary Service, Press Department, United States Catholic Conference, Sep- tember 22, 1967, p. 4. the association of priests in any diocese should develop genuine professionalism characterized by competency in theology and pas- toral techniques which enable the priest to function more effectively as the servant of his people, which is his true profession. In the pur- suit of this professionalism it is required to keep the priests in- formed on the currents of theo- logical, scriptural, pastoral and secular thought, which will enable them better to understand the great resources at their disposal and the needs of their people. Hold Institutes This, of course, can be ac- complished only by associations taking upon themselves the re- sponsibility of establishing institutes —highly intensified programs of education in which experts are en- gaged to expose priests to the present currents of thought and knowledge. These institutes can then be supplemented with sem- inars — discussion and study groups which serve as a followup on the institutes, and provide for the continuing education and in- tellectual stimulation of its mem- bers. From the basis of a well formed and speculatively alert clergy the association should then be the medium through which the priests can speak up responsibly with a public voice, addressing themselves to the pastoral and social problems of their locality. Speaking through an association, unattached to any formal ecclesiastical structure, 15 there can be the articulation of a consensus which is most important both as a constructive witness of the Christian conscience of the presbytery and as a con- sequent leadership for the com- munity of the Church as a whole. With the accomplishment of these goals there can be instilled in a presbytery the concept of shared obligation in which all within the presbytery must assume the responsibility of service and leadership to the Christian com- munity. This is not simply the task of the bishop or the chancery. All should be given the experience of sharing in responsible decisions. This concept of shared responsibil- ity through communication and the expression of opinion was well ex- pressed by Father James A. Lau- bacher in his address to the San Francisco Senate of Priests on Jan- unary 16 when he said: It is through this commu- nication, participation, re- sponsibility, information, mu- tual advice and counsel that the community actively re- alizes itself in the conscious and responsible exercise of faith. It must be admitted that in the past, in practice at least, authority was on one side of the fence and the sub- jects were on the other. Com- munication, responsibility, in- 6 James A. Laubacher, S.S., “Theology of Church and its Relation to the Concept and Role of Priests’ Senates,” mimeo- graphed copy of an address delivered at the Two-day Conference of the Senate of Priests, Archdiocese of San Francisco, Menlo Park, California, January 16, 1968, p. 5. formation was then the priv- ilege of those who governed. The subjects were told what the rulers thought they should be told. With the rediscovery of the Church as community, authority in obedience to its faith, is at the service of the community and ‘participation’ of all members in the pro- phetic, priestly and governing mission of the Church is the accepted law, stemming from the very nature of the Church. 6 Guidelines The first guideline for any as- sociation should be to establish as full a representation of the pres- bytery as possible, so that it can truly reflect consensus. A means for achieving this is the plenary session. At a plenary session priests experience the dynamics of mutual support, and profit from the exchange and conflict of opinions and ideas. They ex- perience solidarity with their fel- low priests in the diocese. To achieve this, however, associ- ations must keep a tight rein on their organizational procedures. Moreover, they must strengthen their committee structure and they must clarify and enforce proper rules of meetings in order to as- sure all an equal opportunity to express themselves. In setting goals and establishing procedural guidelines for associa- tions it becomes more and more apparent with conferences such as this one, that we are aided and assisted by one another. To keep 16 in communication with other as- sociations, therefore, is vitally necessary for the purpose of ex- changing information. It is even more important, however, to achieve a broader consensus of thinking than that limited to our own individual dioceses, because there are few things which threaten to narrow our viewpoint more than provincialism. This exchange between associa- tions is becoming increasingly nec- essary as the thinking and feeling of one part of the Church in the United States affects the entire American Catholic community. Consequently there is need for priests to be associated with one another on a national as well as a local level. I am confident that the value of this will be experienced here during these two days as we mutually benefit from our ex- change. Senates We pass now from associations to senates. I should like to remind you of the working distinction made between the two, emphasiz- ing here that senates are a part of the official governmental structure of a diocese, which presents them with unique problems in their re- lations with the bishop, their re- lations with existing commissions, departments and other canonically and legally established diocesan structures. Many of these prob- lems will naturally have to be re- solved in a revision of canon law, which will more clearly reflect the spirit of collegiality as expressed and manifested in Vatican Council II. But for our purposes here to- day, and prescinding for the mo- ment from these deeper questions, certain goals can be established for senates until such time that their exact nature and function hope- fully become through experience more clearly delineated in law. As indicated in Presbyterorum Ordinis and Christus Dominus, a senate shares in the policy making function of the diocese as an ad- visory body to the bishop. A first goal of a senate, therefore, should be the hard evaluation of diocesan needs of a diocese. On the basis of this evaluation priorities should be established. Without priorities a senate will flounder and lose valu- able time searching out its own role and identity and as a result, not address itself to the urgent pas- toral needs of a diocese. In the experience of many sen- ates one of the areas of highest priority is personnel. I mean the location of priests according to their talents and self-evaluated pref- erences, and provision of sound retirement programs, rotation of pastorates and a multitude of oth- er personnel needs which in many dioceses have been egregiously neg- lected. To provide a successful program of that kind, a personnel board is indispensable. Collective deci- sion making and expertise can be brought to bear on this important concern. This is particularly true in the larger dioceses of our coun- try, where often talent lies un- 17 tapped, positions are filled out of desperation or expediency, and per- sonal favoritism plays no small part in the placement of priests. The creation of an effective per- sonnel board should be one of the goals of highest priority for the senate in a diocese of any signifi- cant size. Constant Contact Since the senate is to represent the presbytery in an advisory ca- pacity to the episcopacy, it is nec- essary for the senate or council to maintain close communication with all the priests. This can be achieved through close contact with the As- sociation of Priests (if there is one in a diocese). It can also be achieved through direct contact with the constituents which would reflect the thinking particular to the priests of a certain age or lo- cale. Regardless of the procedure of communication, the very con- cept of senate necessitates the es- tablishment of open and continuing communication between the senate and the presbytery of the diocese. In the words of Professor Weber in the paper cited above, the senate must be compre- hensive, free and democratic. It is comprehensive when per- sonal horizontal and vertical channels of communication are given so that the serious wishes formulated in dis- cussion groups with priestly brothers are left untouched in their course from the bot- 7 Weber, op. cit., p. 7. 18 tom to the top where they are to be heard. It is free when it comes into being ac- cording to personal points of view and not according to functional considerations of sort simply imposed from above. . . . The council is democratic when the way of election and of speaking to the bishop are such that they include the voice and word of all . 7 Creative Programs Because the senate is to function in the words of the Ecumenical Council “as an advisory group on all matters especially pastoral,” it has the responsibility of providing for programs of research and de- velopment in all areas of concern to a diocese—personnel, financial, and pastoral. Most especially is it true that a senate has the responsi- bility to set as one of its priority goals that of providing research which will lead to creative pastoral programs which will be genuinely responsive to the human and reli- gious needs unique to the inner city, rural areas, minority groups and poverty pockets of our society. As a pastorally-orientated advi- sory group to the bishop, the sen- ate should devise every means pos- sible to bring the resources of the people of God to bear on the so- cial and economic problems of the society, and this can be done only through realistic research and plan- ning—using all the modern tech- niques of the social sciences so as to direct effectively the well intentioned and religiously moti- vated resources of the Church toward meeting the often inter- related social and religious needs of our society. Open and Frank In effect the main goal of any senate is to be an effective advi- sory body to the bishop—one which is characterized by creativ- ity and initiative. But to be a truly effective advisor, one must be in- dependent of the one he is advis- ing—independent in the sense that he has different sources of infor- mation and that he speaks his mind in honesty, openness and absolute frankness. As Cardinal Suhard re- minded us in his great pastoral let- ter, Priests Among Men: One of the priest’s first serv- ices to the world is to tell it the truth . 8 And, if this is his service to the world, how much more should this be his service to his bishop? To safeguard these qualities in the senate, it is necessary to keep it independent from the bishop and the chancery in its thinking and deliberations. Then what it brings to him in an advisory capacity will be fresh and unincumbered. Although the senate is intimately united with the bishop in the gov- ernance of the diocese, at the same time it must maintain a healthy independence in its deliberations if it is to give effective, realistic and meaningful advice. This is a sub- 8 Emmanuel Cardinal Suhard, Priests Among Men. (Notre Dame: Fides Pub- lishers, Inc. 1960), p. 40. ject which I think should be seri- ously considered in your work- shops, because it is at the very heart of the concept of collegiality. This goal of independence is so greatly to be desired that senates should petition to remain in exist- ence even after the bishop dies, as provided for in the Motu Proprio, Christus Dominus. The senate is to be truly representative of the pres- bytery of a diocese and the pres- bytery does not change with the death of a bishop. Assist Laity In keeping with its nature as a body representing the presbytery concerned with pastoral matters, another main goal of senates should be to assist the laity in the creation of pastoral councils. Sen- ates should wish these councils to be representative of the full spec- trum of thought in the diocese. The senates should try to develop a relationship with the pastoral council which would insure the council’s autonomy. Thus the council could freely reflect the thinking of the laity and partici- pate in the decision making areas where they are so pre-eminently competent. Moreover, this will help to in- sure a spirit of collaboration and cooperation will characterize the re- lationship between these two bod- ies. The laity at this particular point in the history of the Ameri- can Church needs the understand- ing and leadership from the priests’ senates and councils if they are to overcome their psychology of sub- 19 servience and to take the initiative in bringing their frequently su- perior knowledge and talents to bear in the creation and operation of these pastoral councils. There are no magic formulae or tested techniques which will iner- rantly bring these goals into being, for as Bishop Casey of Paterson so well expressed it in his address which I cited above: We are walking along a new road and it is likely we may at times take the wrong fork. But no need to turn back. Those who act out of love of God have His guidance and assurance that they will reach their destination. It is better to be wrong occasionally than to be always irrelevant . 9 Guidelines There are no guidelines to insure a senate’s success. But there are soqie guidelines which, if they do not insure success, at least make the task easier. For any senate it is indispensable to have regular meetings with the bishop. Thus it can communicate its proposals to him and explain the reasons for its conclusions, and, inturn, can re- ceive the bishop’s reaction to these conclusions. This establishes a for- mal arena for dialogue between the bishop and his priests which is so important for the Church as a whole. To proceed with effectiveness to- ward the goals so far outlined, it is necessary to conduct senate 9 Documentary Service, op. cit., p. 5. 20 meetings with genuine profession- alism and at times parliamentary precision. If the matters discussed are as important as indicated, they require serious attention at meetings. Coordination Moreover, if the senate is to ad- dress itself effectively to the problems indicated, it will be necessary to provide adequate com- mittee structure. In committee structure much of the tedious work of research and planning is ac- complished without paralyzing the senate as a whole with excessive detail. As the work load of senates in- creases it will become imperative for the priest chairman or execu- tive secretary to be given full time to coordinate the work of the various committees and to handle the routine procedures. Such an ar- rangement would relieve the sen- ators from these mechanical and administrative details which are, nevertheless, so important for the smooth operation of a group of this size. The success or failure of a senate will depend almost exclu- sively on how seriously the sen- ators consider their responsibilities, a fact that will be concretely manifested by their willingness, and that of the bishop, to provide a full-time priest who will co- ordinate the vast scope of its work. Needless to say, just as in the case of associations, so too in the case of senates, there is need for continued communication, so that each can share in the experience of others. How especially true this is at this moment in history, when the form and shape of these sen- ates and councils are being deter- mined more by trial and error than by any preconceived plan. We, therefore, have need of one an- other, so that we can profit by one another’s failures and success- es—understanding that what suc- cess any of us enjoys has been achieved only through repeated tri- als and frequent failures. At this time, perhaps more than any other time, we must keep in mind those sage words of John Henry New- man: In a higher world it is other- wise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often. 10 Area of Collaboration Before I conclude this morning, I should like to make one final suggestion concerning a matter which I think is of the utmost im- portance as we move into a new era in the history of the Church of the United States—a matter which offers a singularly significant op- portunity for mutual collaboration of all priests councils whether as- sociations or senates. It is this, that all of us in and through our priests’ organizations should be moving to- ward having a more significant voice in the selection of bishops. In the past few months we have witnessed the request for such a 10 John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 10th edition. (New York: Longmans, Green & Company, 1897), p. 40. II John Tracy Ellis, “On Selecting Ameri- can Bishops,” The Commonweal, LXXXV (March 10, 1967), p. 643. voice from priests of lesser or greater number in the Archdioceses of New York and St. Louis and in the Dioceses of Green Bay and Wilmington. At first this seems to be a somewhat startling innovation, but it is not without precedent in the history of the American Church, and certainly not in the Universal Church. According to Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, the noted historian of American Ca- tholicism, in his article “On Select- ing American Bishops,” which appeared in the March 10, 1967, issue of Commonweal, in 1788 a committee of three priests acting in the name of all their number . . . addressed a petition for a bishop to Pope Pius VI. The request was granted and on November 6, 1789 the priests’ choice, Fa- ther John Carroll, was ap- pointed Bishop of Baltimore. 11 Selection of Bishops Likewise the next two men ap- pointed to the American hierarchy, Laurence Graessl and Leonard Neale, were also choices of the priests in an election. Moreover, from 1885 to 1916 the diocesan consultors and irrevocable rectors of American dioceses had the right of drawing up a terna when their bishop died, resigned or was trans- ferred, but they lost it in 1916 when too many of them leaked the names on the ternae. Based upon this early American experience, and in keeping with the growing need of collegiality of the presbytery with the episcopacy in the United States, 21 it can scarcely be denied that great benefit would accrue to the total Church if priests in their respective associations, senates, and councils were to be given a significant voice in the selection of bishops. A device of this kind could conceivably con- tribute more effectively in the choosing of bishops more pastoral- ly minded than curial and canoni- cally oriented. Nor is this beyond practical so- lution, for it would seem conceiv- able that priests could submit their ternae, and that an accumulated terna could be made up from these, or the senators could submit ternae which would reflect the choices of their respective constituents. Once the principle and value of having the priests contribute more sub- stantially to the choice of bishops are admitted, then the mere pro- cedural formalities could be easily devised. Conclusion This morning we have consid- ered many facets of priests’ coun- cils, associations and senates both in terms of their brief history in 12 Mathew, 20:27-28 (Jerusalem Bible) the United States and in view of their future. Perhaps we have at- tempted to consider too many sides, and as a result we may have be- come somewhat confused and over- whelmed. Oddly enough, however, in this very confusion and perplex- ity, we are witnesses to a mag- nificent time in the Church’s history as the Spirit of God works not only through Vatican Council II on a universal level, but as He also breathes in the Church of this country as a whole and in the various churches in different parts of the nation. And, indeed, the Holy Spirit at times does breath in confusion with sound and fury as He did on that first Pentecost Sun- day. In faith and hope we can see in this fury the Spirit of Christ re- newing His priests in keeping with His admonition: Anyone who wants to be great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. 12 22 Chapter 3 Rationale for a National Organization Rev. John J. Hill IT is a secret to no one that the Catholic priesthood is in the midst of agonizing self-appraisal. The questions being asked about the nature and role of the priest- hood today are basic. It is even asked if the priesthood as we know it presently—a sort of elite caste in the Church—should continue to exist. Some who have observed priests disagreeing with each other are be- wildered. They say that the priest- hood used to be a bulwark for their own Catholicity. But now, they say, priests have begun to sort out their vocational problems in public and no longer present a united front to the world. For these observers, the image of the priesthood has considerably deteri- orated. In their minds, the decreas- ing number of vocations and the increasing number of priests leav- ing the priesthood are related to this deterioration. They point to the statement made recently by Father Edward Schillebeeckx that within three years 10,000 Ameri- can priests will leave the Church. That statement, they say, is evi- dence that the situation of the Catholic priest in the United States is worsening. We are assembled here tonight to comment on these pessimistic predictions. We affirm that they shall not come to pass. For the priesthood will be shaped not just by historical currents, but by priests themselves. We stand in soli- darity with other priests of our age whose lives testified to the capacity of priests to shape events and times —yes, to shape history. I think of Virgil Michel, John Ryan, Jospeh Cardijn, Teilhard de Chardin, and John Courtney Mur- ray. In their spirits this evening we say: “We have qome together so 23 that we might work and plan to- gether. We look forward to an exciting new priesthood whose lines are as yet unclear to us, a priesthood which underscores serv- ice, challenge, imagination, vision, freedom, and professionalism. We shall move toward that priesthood by taking steps which are coordi- nated and deliberate, changing those things which we have a re- sponsibility to change.” That we have come today from every major urban center in the United States, including Honolulu, is an expression of our desire to collaborate on a national level; for we shall not let it be said that in these uncertain times we failed to come together, that we failed to act. Nationwide We have already taken the first step toward national collaboration by coming together at this meet- ing. The second step will be to bring into being an organization which will enable the senates and associations to work together. To- gether with the laity, the religious sisters and brothers, the hierarchy, and—in many cases—with our fel- low Christians of other churches, we shall plan and build. We shall help to build for the Church struc- tures, systems and programs. We shall help to build whatever will be needed for the Church to meet successfully the challenges of these precarious times. In a report to be given tomor- row afternoon, guidelines for a national organization of priests’ councils will be proposed. This as- sembly willing, the committee shall invite the priests’ councils of the United States to participate in the formation of this organization. Such a nationwide organization would act through a board elected by the councils themselves. It would recommend a plan for co- ordinating the workload of mem- ber councils, and arrange for the exchange of position papers and other technical materials useful for the operation of priests’ councils, recommend new programs of re- search and action, give periodic reports to the National Conference of Bishops, speak publicly about matters of concern to the Church, whenever it deems it appropriate to speak thus. It would enable the priests to form their own consen- sus so that when they collaborate with the laity, the hierarchy, and with religious sisters and brothers, they would be able to collaborate more effectively. In short, a na- tional organization of priests’ coun- cils would enable the priests to act and speak as a body. Efficiency Such an organization will make it possible for priests’ senates and associations to operate with great- er efficiency. Duplication will be avoided. Instead of fifty priests’ councils addressing themselves to the problem of developing person- nel boards, the matter would be considered by a much smaller number of councils. The results of their research would then be con- veyed to all. 24 Senates and associations will find that their proposals will more like- ly meet with success. For the pro- posals will often have behind them an impressive measure of research and the general approval of priests’ groups throughout the country. Such proposals are easier to im- plement. Assist in Theology Because the efficiency of priests’ councils will be improved, they will be able to achieve their goals more easily—and sooner. We refer to the educational programs to help priests absorb the great volume of theological content of the last five years, preparing them for the new forms which the priesthood may take in the years to come; other programs to facilitate communica- tion between the bishop and his priests and among the priests them- selves; the whole range of social action programs which profession- al priests’ councils can address themselves to—programs dealing with civil rights, housing, educa- tion, and employment—and with other critical areas; retirement boards with sound planning to en- able priests to retire with purpose and with dignity; personnel boards so useful for the reasonable place- ment of priests in the work of the diocese. A national organization of priests’ councils, because it would improve the efficiency of the par- ticipating councils, would make it possible for the goals we have just described to be accomplished more easily and sooner. But a national organization of individual priests’ councils would do more than improve the effec- tiveness of individual priests’ coun- cils. It will also enable them to work in concert on problems which transcend the capacity of an individual priests’ council. Though there are many such problems, let us speak about four. Personnel First, the problem of personnel seen from a national viewpoint. Several questions must be asked. Should there be personnel boards —not just in those dioceses which presently have them or are plan- ning them, but in every diocese? Should they have access to the finest national expertise available to the field of personnel? Should a priest who wants to serve in a ministry other than the parish min- istry be able to do so with facility? Should a priest who wants to work for periods of time in an area of the country other than the one in which he was ordained, be able to do so easily? Should a study be made to determine if priests are placed where they are most needed? A national organization of priests’ councils would make it possible for the priests’ councils of this country to study such ques- tions and effect answers to them. Secondly, there is the matter of the priests’ role in the Church. For priests around the country are ask- ing basic questions about their lives. How should they spend their time each day? How meaningful 25 will it be for them to become trained in secular skills and in- volved in secular fields? What should the contribution of the priesthood be in today’s technical- ly sophisticated world? Should there be a particular competence for the priest today? If so, what should be the nature of that com- petence? Experimentation The task of determining the role of the priest cannot be solved by priests alone, for it is a problem of the whole Church and it must be solved by the whole Church. But it will not be solved without the effort of priests to solve it. Critical to the solution will be co- ordinated pastoral experimentation of sufficient volume to be valid. Experimental ministries dealing with present parochial structures, experimental ministries dealing with other than parochial struc- tures, team ministries, personal ministries, all will be useful. Such experimentation will pro- duce answers to such pragmatic questions as “How can a priest use his time most productively?” “What things are possible and de- sirable for him to do?” “What forms of the ministry create the best relationships with the people of God?” “What kind of training is needed for those preparing to be priests?” With such a quantity of action and evaluation, today’s theologians will have something of substance to work with. Little by little, the shape of a new priesthood will be- come clear. The next generation of priests will take their direction from this large effort. It will be our contribution to them. Such experimentation, to be ini- tiated and carried on by the whole Church, will be impossible without the cooperation of the priests of the country. Their contribution to this effort must be reasonably or- dered. A national organization of priests’ councils would help it to be so. New Modus Quo Let me introduce a third impor- tant goal to be achieved by a national organization of priests’ councils. I refer to professionalism in the priesthood. The American priest a half gen- eration ago could describe himself as a professional man. Before he entered upon his career as a par- ish priest he had mastered an im- pressive amount of highly technical material. We all know this. But that kind of professionalism is dis- appearing from the priesthood. The times, the new problems, the new complex modes of looking at the world, all indicate the need for a new modus quo, a new style for the priesthood. The style must be professional. Professionalism calls for particu- lar competence. Professional peo- ple do not consider themselves ex- perts in every area of life; just in one area. The idea that a priest’s competence can at the same time include liturgy, psychology, youth organizations, education, commu- nity organization, civil rights, and 26 several other areas is not profes- sional. Professionalism calls for self- determination. For professional people working together as col- leagues determine the direction of their careers, the priorities of their careers, and the standards by which their performance is judged. Professionalism calls for frater- nal respect and collaboration. It makes one professional man call another professional man his col- league. Finally, professionalism calls for excellence of perform- ance. The goal of the collaboration of any group of colleagues must be to develop the capacity to per- form well. Excellence in Service All these elements should flow into our priesthood. As the role of the priest becomes clearer to us, we should be aiming toward that particular competence most appropriate to the priest. We should be working together in a new professional relationship as colleagues. We should be deter- mining, as far as we can, the cir- cumstances under which we can best operate— and the goals which seem to be most judicious. The goal of our collaboration must be the growing excellence of our service to the people of God and to the bishops. Such professionalism must be felt not just in the priests’ councils of the nation, but in the life of every priest. He must be able to organize professionally his hours, his days, his years, his life, his living space, his working space — so that there is about them all the characters of order, purpose and excellence. Priests must be able to experience a new pride in their collegial cooperation and in the increased excellence of their per- formance. This task of introducing a new professionalism into the priests’ councils and into the life of the American priest would be greatly expedited by the establishment of a national organization of priests’ councils. There is a fourth goal to which a national organization might ad- dress itself. Since both papers this morning explained this point, I will just touch on it. Several dio- ceses in the United States have al- ready indicated their desire to have something to say about the ap- pointment of a bishop. The ques- tion implies three minor questions: First, what should be the qualifi- cations of bishops? Secondly, what should be their tenure? Thirdly, what place should the laity, the clergy, and the hierarchy have in the selection of the properly quali- fied one? These questions, while they might be touched upon by senates or associations of particular dioceses, would be more thorough- ly treated by the appropriate com- mittees convened by a national or- ganization of priests’ councils. Priest/Bishop Relations One result of a national organi- zation would be the improvement of the relationship between priests and their bishop. I now address 27 this point. Sometimes this relation- ship, on the part of the priest, is unmanly, unprofessional, and un- truthful. Sometimes is is marred by crippling fears and hostilities. Priests are not to be blamed for this poor relationship; or are bish- ops. The blame is to be placed on an administrative system which makes a priest completely depend- ent on a bishop for the direction and scope of his career. In most cases, it is the bishop who decides what assignment a priest shall have, and for how long he shall have it. In many dioceses, to this day, priests are not con- sulted about their assignments. This point does not have to be expanded. Everyone here knows what we mean when we say that priests are often in a relationship of total dependency on their bish- ops. Hurts the Church This system had its merit at one time in the history of the Church. It was a serviceable instrument for dealing with the complex task of appointing appropriate people to their work in the Church. There was even a kind of military effi- ciency to the system. So the sys- tem should not be treated as though it never had any merit. But that system must be consid- erably modified, if not replaced, today because as it is now, it hurts the whole Church. It hurts the priest because it inclines him to say only those things which please his bishop, for he does not want to displease the man on whom his entire career depends. No one does. As a result, he sometimes feels he is not a man. To compen- sate for this, he assails the bishop behind the bishop’s back and blames him for all the woes of the Church. Such an administrative system obviously does not challenge a priest to use his own judgment and to be imaginative. Much is lost to the Church because of this. The system we presently have also hurts the bishop because it deprives him of his right to know the full truth about his diocese. The loss of truth in a diocese is a serious thing. It goes without saying that the laity also suffer from the system. They are deprived of the imagina- tive and aggressive leadership of their priests. And they can sense the nervous tension between the bishop and his priests. Through a national organization of priests, the priests’ councils of the United States would be able to address themselves to the system. It can be changed. It has already begun to be modified in those dio- ceses which have effective person- nel boards. But much work—much work—remains. Freeze Status Let me mention parenthetically that if there were a priests’ union, the priest/ bishop relationship would worsen. A union implies that a bishop is the employer of a priest. Such a relationship would freeze the priest in a status which he, giv- en the nature of his calling, would 28 find demeaning and wholly unsatis- fying. It would intensify the priest/ bishop polarity which is at the heart of the problem. Another unacceptable factor in the idea of a union of priests is that a union’s reason for being is the advancement of the members’ condition. Our own calling indi- cates that we must have a larger sense. If we are interested in the life and problems of priests them- selves, it is for two reasons. When men first come together, they come together to talk about those things which they have in common. Such issues as personnel boards, retire- ment boards, are quite appropriate now. But we are also interested in these matters because we know that until we sort these problems out we cannot address ourselves to the larger matters before the Church and society. Our view is not myopic. We are looking to our- selves now—but only that we might later look to the Church and the world. Such an expansive outlook would not obtain in a priests’ union. Not against Unions It goes without saying that these comments are not meant as a criti- cal judgment against unions. We have referred to many prob- lems which contribute to the de- teriorating morale of many priests. But the morale of the priests in this country will be substantially im- proved when they understand that priests have come together in a professional organization to ad- dress themselves to these problems. And as these problems are an- swered—and problems do have an- swers—a large measure of hope will return to many priests who have lost hope in recent years. The morale of lay people will also be raised. They will see that we are not letting the times get worse. We are not letting the con- fusion grow. We have come togeth- er and are beginning to form our consensus. They will see that we are building, and that what we are building is beautiful and full of hope. To the bishops of the United States we say: We are united with you in the mission of the Church. We are anxious to collaborate with you, with the laity, and with the religious communities of men and women. Together we can achieve what has to be achieved. Accept Challenge To all who observe our action, we say: We have not lost our sense of priority. We know that there are problems of more importance than whether or not there is a per- sonnel board in a diocese. We have not forgotten Vietnam, Detroit, our decaying cities, the massive in- justices meted out to black people in our day. But it will take a little time to get them in our sights. We do not recoil from the tasks which face the Church today. We run to meet them. Together we shall meet them with the energy and intelligence which the prob- lems demand. Others may com- plain that they are living in the anguish of transition. We rejoice 29 that the challenges which face us are arduous. We shall move delib- erately. We shall not move with the assumption that we have all the answers. We shall not move in hostility to any person or any group of persons in or out of the Church. We shall not move think- ing that all problems will be an- swered soon. We shall not move thinking that the going will be easy. But we shall move. Finally, let us not mislead any- one into thinking that we are about something we think of only moderate value. The work of uniting the priests’ councils of the United States is a seed, the seed of democracy. We intend to bring to the life of the Church in the United States the richness of the democratic tradition so that the Church in its structures and sys- tems will be less medieval and monarchial and more relevant to the needs of our very modern day. We are about a very serious effort to enrich the Church profoundly. We would have no one think we were planning anything less. In Ecclesiastes we read that there is time to tear down and a time to build. What we say tonight is that now is the time to build. 30 757**5