OT 'Tb>»^(/\<

THE REPORT OF THE BISHOPS’

AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR

PRIESTLY LIFE AND MINISTRY

AUTHORITY

MATURITY

MINISTRY

SCHOLARSHIP





The Report of the Bishops’

Ad Hoc Committee for

Priestly Life and Ministry

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to

receive the various parts of the following report in their

general meetings of November, 1972, and November, 1973.

This vote, while not necessarily implying approval of the

contents, does signify a willingness to have the report re-

ferred to the permanent committee on Priestly Life and

Ministry for further consideration and development. The

bishops also agreed to have the report made available to

priests desiring copies of it.

1974

Publications Office

United States Catholic Conference

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005



Copyright © 1973
National Conference of Catholic Bishops

All rights reserved



CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

I AUTHORITY AND ITS EXERCISE 4

II EVALUATION AND PRIESTLY GROWTH 17

III PRIESTLY MINISTRY 23

IV RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP 42



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/reportofbishopsacath



INTRODUCTION

By way of background information, the following is offered relative

to the status of the Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Priestly Life and

Ministry.

In April, 1971 the bishops of the United States received the results of

their Study on the American Catholic Priesthood. The Study consisted

of five works, namely: The Priest and Sacred Scripture, The Systematic

Theology of the Priesthood, The Catholic Priest in the United States:

The Historical Investigations; The Psychological Investigations; and. The

Sociological Investigations.

In September, 1971 an Ad Hoc Committee on Priestly Life and

Ministry was appointed and charged with the implementation of the

Study.

In April, 1972 the Conference of Bishops enlarged the scope of the

task of the Ad Hoc Committee from solely the implementation of the

Study to the inclusion of the present experience of priests and bishops

relative to the renewal of priestly life and ministry.

In November, 1972 the Conference of Bishops received the first half

of the Ad Hoc Committee’s report which consisted of two parts:

Authority and Its Exercise and Evaluation and Priestly Growth.

In November, 1972 the Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the

establishment of a permanent Committee of the NCCB on Priestly Life

and Ministry to take effect in November, 1973. This would also involve

representative members of both diocesan and religious priests to act as

consultors and advisors to the permanent Committee of Bishops in setting

its goals and carrying out its functions. It also approved the establish-

ment of a permanent Office within the NCCB to service this Committee.

In November, 1972 the Conference of Bishops approved the publica-

tion of a study of Priestly Spirituality which was done by the Ad Hoc

Committee for Priestly Life and Ministry. The Study is entitled. The

Spiritual Renewal of the American Priesthood.

The Ad Hoc Committee here presents the final Report which reflects

its study and work during the past two years. It consists of four sections:

Authority and Its Exercise and Evaluation and Priestly Growth, which

were previously presented to the NCCB in November, 1972; and. Priestly
Ministry and Research and Scholarship as it pertains to the American

1



priesthood. With this presentation the Ad Hoc Committee for Priestly

Life and Ministry finishes its commission.

While this report is clerically oriented, this is not meant in any way

to reflect on the role of the laity in the Church or the essential relationship

of the clergy to the laity. By charge given the Ad Hoc Committee the

report responds to various studies dealing with the clergy and to the

findings of this Ad Hoc Committee in the course of its own work. The

Ad Hoc Committee did not have before it studies on the laity.

The recommendations presented throughout this report are based on

problems and opportunities revealed in priestly life and work as we find

it today. The Ad Hoc Committee is aware that there are evolving con-

cepts of the very nature of the priestly ministry. It feels, however, that

it is beyond its competence to conceive or judge and “canonize” any new

concepts upon which its practical recommendations would be based.

The Ad Hoc Committee has endeavored to view the priest as an

ordinary man with an extraordinary spiritual call and an extraordinary

role to play. The subject of its work, then, has been how the priest, as

an ordinary man can fill that extraordinary role in the light of his life

style, his training, the structures within which he functions and the needs

of those whom he serves.

It is the mind of the Ad Hoc Committee that this report is not meant

to provide instant solutions. Rather, its approach is to try to create

a spirit and a certain freedom in which, under the Holy Spirit, sound

developments in priestly life and ministry will appear and be encouraged,

monitored or initiated by the continuing action of the permanent Office

on Priestly Life and Ministry.

We are not attempting to offer the last word. Rather, we trust that the

reaction to and experience with our proposals will stimulate further

creative thinking and implementation in making ever more effective the

marvelous priestly vocation we are called to share.

Since the statement about Priestly Life and Ministry is an abstract

expression of principles, the Ad Hoc Committee believes this report will

not be effective unless it is discussed by bishops with their priests so that

it can be interpreted and used in accordance with local and concrete cir-

cumstances. Only through such fruitful dialogue can it have meaning to

bishops and priests.

Gratitude is expressed to Monsignor Colin A. MacDonald who served

in the capacity of Executive Director of the project and to the members

of the Consultative Committee of Priests: Monsignors William E.

Gallagher, George G. Higgins, Robert G. Peters, Alexander O. Sigur

and Fathers Coleman J. Barry, O.S.B., Paul M. Boyle, C.P., John T.

2



Fagan, Joseph A. Francis, S.V.D., Raymond E. Goedert, Manuel D.

Moreno, Thomas A. Parra, William B. Smith; and, to Frank J. Bonnike

and Roberto Flores.

Thankful acknowledgement is also hereby made to those who served

in an advisory capacity: Monsignors Michael B. Gannon, John Tracy

Ellis, and Austin B. Vaughan; Fathers Avery R. Dulles, S.J., Andrew M.

Greeley, Eugene C. Kennedy, M.M., Eugene H. Maly, Raymond H.

Potvin; Doctors Walter J. Coville, Ivan Junk, Talcott Parsons and Karl

J. Armbruster.

The Ad Hoc Committee is highly appreciative for the work of Fathers

Gerard T. Broccolo, Francis X. Callahan, Daniel P. Coughlin, Daniel E.

Danielson, Ernest E. Larkin, O. Carm., James P. Lyke, O.F.M., Francis

S. MacNutt, O.P., Dominic W. Maruca, S.J., and Paul P. Purta, S.S.,

who were responsible for the document. The Spiritual Renewal of the

American Priesthood; and, to Father Neal T. Dolan, Mr. John Donohue,

Sister Mary Finn, H.V.M., Brother Kevin O’Malley, C.P., Mr. John

Pistone and Mrs. Dorothy Tracy for their assistance in the development

of the section on Priestly Ministry.

Bishops* Ad Hoc Committee for Priestly Life and Ministry

Most Reverend Philip M. Hannan, Chairman

Most Reverend Ignatius J. Strecker

Most Reverend James W. Malone

Most Reverend Edward A. McCarthy

Most Reverend Thomas J. Grady

3



I

AUTHORITY AND ITS EXERCISE

AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH ... AN OVERVIEW

Those who stand in the person of Christ and exercise authority in His

name look first, of course, to Christ Himself as their model and exemplar.

To a large extent, the considerations that follow center on episcopal

authority and its exercise, but they are not limited to the episcopal office

for they refer as well to all who act in the person of Christ.

A vast heritage is presupposed and not repeated here concerning the
person, powers and functions of a bishop. While the Council’s Dogmatic

Constitution on the Church describes the theological dimensions of his

office and the Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church

explains the different forms of episcopal ministry, the Code of Canon

Law sets forth his juridical status. Moreover, the Directory on the

Pastoral Ministry of Bishops provides an explicit moral-ascetical-

mystical treatment of the bishop in his day-to-day life and work as

shepherd exercising the care of souls. In effect, this recent Directory is a

kind of handbook for the proper exercise of the pastoral ministry of

bishops. No convenient summary can substitute for a serious and

prayerful reading of that Directory. We hope to highlight the pastoral

spirit and intent of that Directory as the proper context for the considera-

tions and recommendations reported.

Concisely, and with the Council, we repeat that the bishop is a shep-

herd who, in the name of and by the authority of Christ, makes the

person and mission of Christ, The Shepherd, enduring and visible in the

world: “. . . undertaking Christ’s own role as Teacher, Shepherd and

High Priest, they act in His person.” ^ A bishop’s leadership extends to

the entire community as well as to his diocese. It especially extends to the

members of the presbyterium. The bishop’s office confers upon him

authority. He is not true to himself, to his role, or to the expectations of

his priests and people if he abdicates that authority, or fails to give

strong, courageous, decisive leadership.

At the very core of a bishop’s exercise of authority is the manner in

which he relates to his priests. After the model of Christ, the local bishop

4



relates to his priests as servant, friend, brother and model of recon-

ciliation.

Servant: This image is given to us by Christ Himself as the most

significant characteristic of leadership in His kingdom. The availability

of the local bishop to his priests is likewise a significant exercise of his

witness as servant. As such, then, it should become one of his highest

priorities.

“After he had washed their feet, he put his cloak back on and

reclined at table once more. He said to them: ‘Do you understand

what I just did for you? You address me as “Teacher” and “Lord,”

and fittingly enough, for that is what I am. But if I washed your feet

—I who am Teacher and Lord—then you must wash each other’s
feet. What I just did was to give you an example: as I have done

so you must do’.” (John 13: 12-15)

Friend: This is one of the great paradoxes of Christ’s life—a leader,
exercising authority by seeing himself as friend to those over whom he

exercises authority and his subjects responding with their friendship.

“You are my friends if you do what I command you. I no longer

speak of you as slaves, for a slave does not know what his master

is about. Instead, I call you friends, since I have made known to

you all that I heard from my Father. It was not you who chose me,

it was I who chose you to go forth and bear fruit. Your fruit must

endure, so that all you ask the Father in my name He will give you.

The command I give you is this, that you love one another.”

(John 15: 14-17)

Brother: The last quarter of the 20th Century might be called the Age

of Brotherhood. Hence, episcopal leadership can and must become the

epitome of selfless, sincere and complete witness of brotherhood under

the Fatherhood of God. Bishops are in the unique position of bringing to

fruition in these times the high priestly prayer of Christ which begs the

Fatherhood of God to make His disciplines one—in Brotherhood. The
Psalmist envisions a world where this priestly work is done:

“Behold, how good it is, and how pleasant, where brethren dwell

as one! It is as when the precious ointment upon the head runs

down over the beard, the beard of Aaron, till it runs down upon

the collar of his robe. It is dew like that of Hermon, which comes

down upon the mountains of Zion; For there the Lord has pro-

nounced his blessing, life forever.” (Psalm 133)

5



Mover and Model of Reconciliation: The bishop should be seen as a

man who gives support and comfort to those most in need of them. He is

expected to be a model of sensitivity toward the hopes and fears of his

priests and all his people. Through his exercise of forgiveness and recon-

ciliation the bishop comes closest to doing what Christ did best and most

frequently. While all creation groans under the burden of achieving peace

and reconciliation, we find the chasm between priests and bishops widen-

ing. But there is a place of meeting; it is found in the mutualities of

responsibility, commitment, trust and loyalty—the stuff out of which
love grows.

“Love is patient; love is kind. Love is not jealous, it does not put

on airs, it is not snobbish. Love is never rude, it is not self-seeking,

it is not prone to anger, neither does it brood over injuries. Love

does not rejoice in what is wrong but rejoices with the truth. There-

is no limit to love’s forbearance, to its trust, its hope, its power to

endure.” (I Cor. 13: 4-7)

By word and sacrament, the minister’s proper task is to render present

the love of God in Christ for us, and at the same time to promote the

fellowship of men with God and with each other. If such a goal can

locate the priestly ministry within the Church, it surely can provide the

stimulus for promoting fellowship and incentive among the closest col-

laborators within the Church.

THE AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS

I. Authority Exercised by the American Bishops

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Ministry and Life of

Priests and the more recent document issued by the Third Synod of

Bishops on the Ministerial Priesthood stressed the fact that bishops and

priests, being united in their participation in the one priesthood and

ministry of Christ, fundamentally are brothers in the service of the

People of God. This brotherhood of service is not a mere communion of

mind and heart, but is a sacramental reality. It is especially close among

the priests of a given diocese forming one body (the one presbyterium)

under the leadership of the bishop.

The Synodal Document on the Ministerial Priesthood also notes,

however, that this communion, this brotherhood of service, between

bishops and priests, extends beyond the limits of the individual diocese

or local presbyterium and points out, accordingly, that new forms or

6



structures must be found “to facilitate contacts between local churches”

and that “a search must be made for ways whereby priests may collab-

orate with bishops in supra-diocesan bodies and enterprises.”
^

This “search” has already begun in the United States. Priests are now

taking part, in a representative capacity, as observers in the annual

meetings of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and in regional

and provincial meetings of the bishops. In addition, priests are repre-

sented on the Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Priestly Life and

Ministry.

In the context of what has been said above the Ad Hoc Committee

regards the following recommendations as particularly helpful:

1. That the practice of inviting priests to take part in national and

regional and especially provincial meetings of the bishops be continued

and expanded. That the agenda of such meetings be distributed to par-

ticipating priests in ample time to enable them to consult when necessary

with their own priests’ councils and other appropriate organizations of

the clergy. Participating priests should also be authorized and encouraged

to report back to their constituent organizations.

2. That serious consideration be given to permitting participating priests

to have a voice in national, regional and provincial meetings of bishops

at least on those matters which relate directly to the priestly life and

ministry.

3. That, since the Synodal Document on the Ministerial Priesthood, as

noted above, calls for new structures to make it possible for bishops and

priests to collaborate in supra-diocesan bodies and enterprises, a formal

and structured relationship be established between the National Con-

ference of Catholic Bishops and such provincial, regional and national

organizations of priests as may now exist or may develop in the future.

II. Processes and Structures to Foster Shared Authority

The pertinent documents of Vatican II and the Synodal Document on

The Ministerial Priesthood strongly emphasize that the unity of consecra-

tion and mission requires “the hierarchical communion of priests with the

order of bishop” and calls upon bishops to put this principle into practice

through new structures adapted to the needs of the times.

More specifically, the above-mentioned documents call for the estab-

lishment of a council (or senate) of priests in each diocese. The Synodal

Document points out that the functioning of these councils or senates

“cannot be fully shaped by law” and that their “effectiveness depends

7



especially on a repeated effort to listen to the opinions of all in order to

reach a consensus with the bishop, to whom it belongs to make a final

decision.”

Councils or senates of priests have already been established in almost

every diocese in the United States. The studies made by this Ad Hoc

Committee indicate, however, that their effectiveness varies from one

diocese to another and that their future development demands a clearer

understanding by both bishops and priests of the meaning of “con-

sultation.”

Consultation of the kind referred to in this context is a part of the

canonical and cultural tradition in the Church, but now reflects a new

appreciation of rank and file participation in the life of human insti-

tutions. Above all, the fact that consultation is somewhat less than full

legislative action or parliamentary decision-making must not be per-

mitted to denigrate the crucial significance of consultation in the Church.

Thus, it would be misleading to refer to participation in policy-making as

merely consultative, even if, as the Synodal Document points out, the

process does require a complex interaction of dialogue, reflection and

consensus, rather than the mathematical and absolute results of a vote.

Consultation in the Church is not based upon any concession or privi-

lege; it is derived from the very nature of the Church as a people and as

a communion of believers who share in the priestly office of Christ. It

reflects, moreover, our belief in the universality of the gifts of the spirit

of God.3

A bishop must give serious consideration to the views of those whom

he consults and should not act contrary to them without a weighty reason.

Only in exceptional circumstances should the judgment of councils or

senates especially those representative of the ordained ministry or of the

entire People of God in which the Spirit resides be rejected.

Consultation, properly understood, also imposes a corresponding

obligation upon priests vis-a-vis bishops. If it is the responsibility of the

bishop to listen to his priests, obviously it becomes the responsibility of

priests to speak in a spirit of loyalty and fraternal charity about their

bishop. The conciliar Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, in

speaking of priestly obedience says

:

“This obedience leads to the more mature freedom of God’s sons.

Of its nature, it demands that in the fulfillment of their duty priests

lovingly and prudently look for new avenues for the greater good of

the Church. At the same time, it demands that they confidently

propose their plans and urgently expose the needs of the flock

8



committed to them, while remaining ready to submit to the judg-

ment of those who exercise the chief responsibility for governing

the Church of God.” ^

Nor is there any room for the so-called “loner,” who thinks he can

fulfill his pastoral responsibility on his own. The Council document

referred to above declares in this connection

:

“No priest can in isolation or single-handedly accomplish his

mission in a satisfactory way. He can do so only by joining forces

with other priests under the direction of Church authorities.^

Hence it is very important that all priests, whether diocesan or

religious, always help one another to be fellow workers on behalf of

truth. Each one, therefore, is united by special bonds of apostolic

charity, ministry and brotherhood with the other members of this

presbyterium.'" ®

Human nature being what it is, the rights of individuals may at times

be violated or abridged even in the life of the Church. In order that the

rights of all—bishops, priests and laity—be adequately protected, pro-
cedures to guarantee due process must be initiated in every diocese. The

norms published by the NCCB on due process are a means of establishing

a process and remedy that will protect any member of the Church who

claims to have a legitimate grievance. The procedural steps of concilia-

tion, arbitration, and judicial hearing have built into them opportunities

for the rights of all parties to be respected and adjudicated.

In affirming what has been stated we believe that the following should

be implemented in every diocese.

1. That the Council or Senate of Priests become truly consultative

in the proper meaning of that word as delineated above.

2. That the norms on due process issued by the National Con-

ference of Catholic Bishops and formally approved by the Holy See

be put into practice.

THE SELECTION OF BISHOPS

Since the role of bishops is so significant, the method of choosing men

to fill the episcopal office has always been an object of greatest concern.

History reveals constant solicitude among Christians for the process of

selecting their bishops. One of the oldest traditions in the Church is par-

9



ticipation in the process of choosing bishops. Variations in this process

have developed across the centuries for changing reasons, but the testi-

mony of Scripture and the primitive Church is clear. There is a perennial

need to review the process of choosing bishops in the perspective of the

Church’s firm tradition.

The question that has to be faced today is how to involve the faithful

more effectively in the process of selecting their leaders. For priests,

religious and faithful of all stations and walks of life can and should

contribute their grace and insight to the ascertainment of need in

Christ’s Church and to the discovery of leadership. The notion of

co-responsibility has been singled out by many experts as a central theme

of the Vatican Council. Over and over again the laity, religious and

clergy have been reminded of their important roles in the Church, that

they are the People of God, that the mission of the Church is their

responsibility.

As for the clergy, the Ad Hoc Committee for Priestly Life and Ministry

has discovered that few issues are of more vital concern to the priests

than the manner in which bishops are chosen.

Undoubtedly, the expectations of some who think that a broader

participation in the selection of bishops will solve all the problems of the

Church are unrealistic. It is certainly no panacea, nor does it even

offer a guarantee that the best men will always be chosen. On the other

hand, few decisions are of more significance to the local church than the

choice of its leader. If all the People of God share in the responsibility for

the continuation of the mission of Christ, so, too, should they participate

to some degree in the determination of the one who will have the most

to say about how that mission will be accomplished.

If any of the faithful in the United States have been and are still

effectively excluded from such determination, it has been the Spanish-

speaking and black people. Therefore, the Ad Hoc Committee feels it

to be of utmost and immediate concern that Spanish-speaking and

blacks be included in the ranks of the American hierarchy.

The reasons for this special attention are both the fact that traditionally

these minorities have been excluded from selection as bishops and also

because, by their faith-experience, they have a special and most valuable

contribution to make to the mission of the Church.

The manner in which the recent (1972) Norms of the Holy See for

the Selection of Episcopal Candidates in the Latin Church are imple-

mented will determine the degree of confidence and response with which

they will be accepted. There are steps that can be taken which the Ad

Hoc Committee for Priestly Life and Ministry believes are in conformity

10



with the new Norms and which hopefully would give to the process of

choosing bishops a greater degree of acceptability than it presently enjoys.

With this in mind, the Ad Hoc Committee wishes to make some observa-

tions and recommendations which should be given serious consideration

by every Ordinary:

( 1 ) Article I, n. 2, of the Norms permits the Ordinary to consult clergy,

religious, and laity, but does not require that he do so. If the faithful

of a diocese are co-responsible for the local Church, they must be in-

volved in an authentic way in the choice of the one who will lead them.

This cannot be left to chance. Nor should it be contingent upon the

attitude of an Ordinary toward the principle of consultation.

From its findings, the Ad Hoc Committee believes that every Ordinary

should consult representatives of all segments of the local Church in the

choice of episcopal candidates.

(2) The value of information obtained by secret and individual con-

sultation is very limited. Only a healthy exchange of information and

opinion can help the local Church reach a common judgment on the

merits of those who it feels are capable of leading. Without this, one

who is consulted individually and under the oath of secrecy is apt to

propose a name which he would not have suggested had he had the

benefit of. discussion on the qualifications of other candidates who he

would come to realize are superior to his own.

That the Holy See appreciates the value of such corporate discussion

is evident from the fact that the new Norms require that the bishops of

a Province proceed in exactly that manner when they meet to determine

the most qualified candidates. Unless the clergy, religious and laity are

afforded the same opportunity, very likely many will simply refuse to

participate in what they would consider an unintelligent and therefore

meaningless process. In view of the enormous size of the United States,

long before vacancies occur there should have been serious and regular

consultations in every diocese and region of the nation.

It is therefore regarded as particularly helpful that an Ordinary, before

he initiates the individual and secret consultation called for by the New

Norms should, as a preliminary process, authorize his diocesan pastoral

council or senate of priests to supervise a preliminary process on an on-

going basis in which the clergy, religious and laity are invited to delineate

the specific needs of the diocese, the particular qualities with which the

bishop of that diocese should be endowed, and, finally, to suggest the

names of candidates who they would feel are best qualified. To assist

those who will participate in this process, the Ordinary should make

11



known a detailed account of just what he considers the responsibilities

of his office, his priorities, the demands upon his time, etc.

(3) In authorizing the establishment of a special committee of the

National Episcopal Conference, Article X, n. 2, of the new Norms pro-

vides the vehicle for conducting these consultations. If this committee

has broad acceptance by the clergy of the country, the process of choosing

bishops will have a greater degree of credibility than it could possibly

enjoy otherwise.

Furthermore, the principle of subsidiarity would seem to require that

the National Episcopal Conference play a far more important role in this

process than has hitherto been the case. Consequently, the Ad Hoc Com-

mittee suggests to the permanent Committee that it review for possible

implementation the following procedure which would indicate to the

Church of the United States the practice of the aforementioned principle

and would enhance the credibility of this special committee:

(a) That the bishops in each of the twelve regions of the United States

elect one of their number to this special committee and that con-

sultation be made by each bishop with the diocesan pastoral coun-

cil and senate of priests in his diocese prior to casting his ballot

for this committee member.

(b) That in addition to the functions indicated in Article X, n. 2, this

special committee should also study carefully the potential nomi-

nees for a specific diocese which has already, or soon will, become

vacant, so that when the President of the Episcopal Conference

is asked for his opinion, in accord with Article XIII, n. 2, his

recommendation will be a well-informed one.

(4) Important to the question of the selection of bishops is the notion of

a limited term of office. No one can deny that the burdens imposed on

the local bishop in the post-conciliar church are great. Many a capable

man might well shrink from accepting such a responsibility. A limited

term of office would make it easier for a bishop to serve a community

in spite of the great demands made on his time and energies.

However, as vital as this question is, there are too many theological

and canonical implications, as well as human considerations, that would

have to be studied before a definitive position can be taken. There are

many advantages to imposing limitations on an office holder’s responsi-

bilities. But at the same time one cannot ignore the disadvantages that

would result from a possible loss of effective leadership and a lack of

continuity in the diocese. In the light of the difficulties that such a propo-

12



sition entails, the Ad Hoc Committee believes that the permanent Com-

mittee should give consideration to the frequently received recommenda-

ion: that the NCCB establish a competent inter-disciplinary committee

to research this question of a limited term of office for bishops.

AUTHORITY IN PRIESTLY MINISTRY

While there are many important forms of priestly service, this section

will concern itself primarily with the parochial ministry, since studies

reveal that this is the area which requires the most attention. In con-

sidering the exercise of authority in the parochial ministry it should be

kept in mind that the image—and therefore the effectiveness—of au-
thority involves more than just the exercise of power. It encompasses the

entire gamut of interpersonal relations that make the use and acknowl-

edgment of power a reasonable and voluntary experience. It is for this

reason our consideration of authority in the parish involves far wider

matters. Ultimately they are highly important to authority in that area.

I. The Pastoral Ministry

The pastor must be a true spiritual leader, one who is concerned, alert

and sensitive to needs, one who listens seriously, with a clear view of

objectives.

His office confers upon him authority. He has been placed in the role

of a supervisor; he is not being true to himself or to his role if he does not

exercise that authority and show true leadership. He must be conscious

of his role and regularly evaluate his own performance, being responsible

and accountable.

The pastor must lead by example and be a person of faith, of prayer

and personal holiness. The following should be his standard: He must

be able to form a congregation which is truly a community of active

faith, composed of Christians who are living their commitment to Christ.

This means that he must provide: a) effective preaching of the Word;

b) competence in liturgical celebration; c) genuine social concern; d)

ability to stimulate and motivate others in realizing their talents; e) abil-

ity to lead the community in collaboration with other churches and the

wider community; f) skill in pastoral counseling.

The pastor must look upon his brother priests as co-workers, be open

with them, honest, compassionate, willing to share, respecting their rights

13



and dignity as mature men, never being paternalistic. He must respect

their personal freedom and right to privacy.

The rectory should be a true home—with an atmosphere of brotherly
love, of patient consideration and tolerance and a place of genuine

hospitality. The pastor must realize that the parish and the rectory are

not “his.” Although invested with authority and responsibility in his

relationship to the parish and rectory, he shares them with others. Al-

though the Studies on the Priesthood indicate that the majority of priests

are satisfied with rectory living, consideration nevertheless ought to be

given to the possibility of alternatives should circumstances warrant it.

Priests must relate to each other as true Christians before telling others

how to live as Christians. The priests of the parish must give an example

of real unity even though they differ in age, personality, temperament, by

showing their people how to live together in tolerance and understanding.

They must show their unity by sharing—sharing in the work to be
done, sharing in the social life of the rectory, sharing in prayer by working

into their schedule some time for common prayer, sharing in the Liturgy

—concelebrating the Eucharist and other ceremonies whenever feasible.
“Since priests are bound together by an intimate sacramental brother-

hood and by their mission, and since they work and plan together for

the same task, some community life or a certain association of life shall

be encouraged among them.” ^

Yet, they must respect each other’s individuality, each other’s right to

freedom and privacy. “Personal freedom, responding to the individual

vocation and to the charisms received from God, and also the ordered

solidarity of all for the service of the community and the good of the

mission to be fulfilled are two conditions which shape the Church’s proper

mode of pastoral action.” ^

II. Shared Authority

There must be a continuing, on-going communication so that the

priest, in exercising his leadership role, can be open and effective in

sharing the work of the parish. He must be willing to recognize that all

his parishioners have the right and duty, and must be encouraged to

exercise the gift of the Spirit entrusted to them. “Each one of you has

received a special grace, so like good stewards responsible for all these

different graces of God, put yourselves at the service of others” ( 1 Peter

4: 10). St. Paul emphasizes the same obligation, “There is a variety of

gifts but always the same Spirit; there are all sorts of service to be done,

but always to the same Lord.” (I Cor. 12: 4)

14



III. Alternate Ministries

The Vatican II Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church

and the apostolic letter implementing it provide a broad base for experi-

mentation, adaptation, and creative innovation in parish structures.

Ample authority has been restored to diocesan bishops to enable them, in

consultation with their priests and people, to appraise the pastoral needs

of the diocese and make substantial alterations in the traditional forms

of the parish. The bishop is clearly empowered to innovate for the good

of souls.

This new vision of pastoral responsibility in the local church opens the

way for a variety of experiments in parochial ministry. “Team Ministry,”

or the sharing of the pastoral office with its responsibilities and rights, is

one of the forms of parish ministry which is now undergoing experimen-

tation in several dioceses in virtue of the above-mentioned episcopal

authority.

Various other forms of specialized parish arrangements (e.g., non-

geographic parishes, student communities, professional or occupational

groups, etc.) warrant special consideration. None is free of problems,

but many deserve careful experimentation as we search for solutions to

present pressing pastoral difficulties.

What has been said above about the relationship between priests

applies also to their relationship with the people they serve. “Priests

must sincerely acknowledge and promote the dignity of the laity and the

role which is proper to them in the mission of the Church. . . . They

should listen to the laity willingly, consider their wishes in a fraternal

spirit, and recognize their experience and competence. . . . Priests should

also confidently entrust to the laity duties in the service of the Church,

allowing them freedom and room for action.” ^

In the light of what has been said above, the Ad Hoc Committee

strongly recommends

:

1. That participation in programs to develop skills in leadership

and interpersonal relationships should be made available to all

priests.

2. That matters affecting the parochial ministry and interpersonal

relationships be considered at regularly scheduled staff meetings.

IV. Other Considerations

It would be impossible to address ourselves in this section to each

and every problem revealed by the Studies on the Priesthood. What has

15



been said above represents an effort to address those areas of priestly

life and ministry which seem to require more immediate attention

—

namely, authority and its exercise.

Because of the constant changes both in the Church and in civil

society, the Studies on the Priesthood will have to be continually updated.

Moreover, the researchers themselves say that there is still considerable

data in their studies that remains to be analyzed. Many things are being

proposed which will have to be experimented with, watched and evalu-

ated. (An added reason for the establishment of the permanent NCCB

Office on Priestly Life and Ministry as proposed below.

)

After in-depth study the Ad Hoc Committee is convinced that much

of what is said in this section and what will follow, can only be incorpo-

rated into the American Church through the adoption of the following

recommendation. The Ad Hoc Committee, therefore, presents for formal

vote by the Conference of Bishops at its November meeting the following

proposition:

A. That there be established a permanent Committee of the NCCB

on Priestly Life and Ministry in November, 1973, and that repre-

sentative members of both diocesan and religious priests be added to

this Committee as consultants and advisors who will collaborate in

setting its goals and in carrying out its functions.*

B. That a permanent office or bureau be established within the

NCCB to service this Committee, e.g., to help implement its recom-

mendations, to carry on or to stimulate research on the priestly

ministry, to act as a clearinghouse of information in this area, and

to work with religious, diocesan or regional offices in the area of the

Committee’s competence.*

* These two proposals wefe adopted at the general meeting of the National Con-

ference of Catholic Bishops in November, 1972.



II

EVALUATION AND PRIESTLY GROWTH

NEED FOR EVALUATION

Today’s world needs the message of the Gospel. As one called to be a

speaker of the Gospel message, the priest is therefore a most important

member of our society. He deals with the basic needs facing modern

man, giving faith-illumination to the challenges of everyday life—among
them, establishing relationships that are stable and loving, the religious

sense of marriage and family, the problems of racism, poverty, peace,

sickness, aging, and loneliness.

An important goal of the NCCB Studies on Priesthood in the United

States is to help the priest grow to be a more effective minister of this

Gospel to the people. But both the Sociological and Psychological Investi-

gations show that basic to such effectiveness is the personal maturity of

the priest and that continued personal growth is needed for even the

more mature priest.

These Studies and other authorities consulted by the Ad Hoc Com-

mittee strongly recommend some kind of program to enable each priest

to recognize his strengths and weaknesses, his achievements and his

potential, and, consequently, to set realistic goals for his life and ministry.

Such an on-going evaluation of the priest and his work would contribute

greatly to his needed growth and maturity. It would add to work

satisfaction and would help to develop the “support systems” cited by

the researchers.

In recommending such a system of evaluation, we emphasize that it, in

no way, is to be considered the sole or final factor in measuring effective

priestly ministry. Ultimately, it is only one of many important elements.

CURRENT SITUATION

The evaluation that the Ad Hoc Committee envisions has not been

entirely untried. Some American dioceses have already proceeded with

17



such programs in varying degrees. Parish or congregation profiles are

appearing in increasing numbers, and self-studies have been made by

most of the religious communities in this country.

Many parishes have used simple evaluation processes in asking for

pastors with certain basic qualifications that were deemed necessary for

the special needs of the parish in question. A number of religious com-
munities have compiled job descriptions for superiors so that the superior

together with his community might have some standards of measurement.

From the viewpoint of Sacred Scripture, personal appraisal is con-

sistent with the Gospel message, especially in the parable of the talents

(Mt. 25: 14-30). Nor is evaluation as a process entirely unknown to

the congregations of the Holy See, e.g., the quinquennial report re-

quired by every bishop on the quality of Catholic life in his diocese. In

religious orders of both men and women, periodic “visitation” by spe-

cially appointed persons have provided the framework for appraisal of the

quality of the religious community and its members.

The practice of assessing professional personnel is likewise well estab-

lished in the academic community. Throughout the United States ac-

crediting agencies, both national and regional, long ago developed and

put into use evaluating procedures for faculty and staff members at the

level of both secondary and higher education.

But in citing the use of evaluation by many agencies and groups, our

aim is not to adopt uncritically their methods for our own use. On the

contrary, the priesthood is more than a profession, and unique features

are required of a program which proposes to appraise the priest and

his work.

We wish an evaluation process which will radiate the personal concern

and love of Christ for each individual priest felt and experienced through

the action of the Church. We wish an evaluation process which shows a

positive concern for each priest as an individual, which assists him to

proclaim the Gospel, to set realistic goals for his ministry, to provide him

with on-going opportunities for theological updating, to enable him to

perceive himself as always becoming a man who is a meaningful and

needed minister of the Gospel in the lives of his people.

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

The mind of the Church is clear: “Throughout their lives (priests)

should labor earnestly to perfect their spiritual, doctrinal, and professional

development.” It is incumbent upon us to establish an order “which

18



will to an ever better extent serve man and help individuals as well as

groups to affirm and develop the dignity proper to them.”

It would seem that bishops are called upon to provide both the oppor-

tunity and the resources which will enable priests to achieve these goals.

Indeed priests today are quite conscious of the need for their continued

development. The large percentage of priests reading scholarly profes-

sional journals, as shown by the Sociological Investigations, is one evi-

dence of this. It would, however, be unrealistic to underestimate the

initial apprehension with which many priests might view an evaluation

program. It is important, therefore, that the real purposes of evaluation

should be explained.

Evaluation is intended to help the priest to grow, both personally and

professionally. It aims to strengthen the priest through his interaction

with his people and others involved in the evaluation process.

The program of ministry assessment we envision is not one of a

checklist of strengths and weaknesses, plus and minus. It is not a static

or perfectionist set of standards far beyond the reach and hope of the

ordinary priest. It is a process of concern and support for each priest, a

process which takes into account new forms of ministry.

TOTAL PARTICIPATION

For an evaluation program to be truly effective for any persons in any

diocese, it must be introduced only in full consultation with all the people

involved. The programs that have failed to gain acceptance have usually

been those that were planned by specialists and then, with little or no

preparation, imposed on those whose task it was to implement them. It is

basic that any program must be drawn up, set in motion, carried out and

regularly reviewed by those who will do the evaluating and those who are

to be evaluated.

As for the method of evaluating priests, we deliberately offer no

details. However, we cannot emphasize enough that those who have

professional experience with this topic insist that priests to be appraised

must be part of any such plan from the very beginning, especially in estab-

lishing the criteria and goals of the process.

Some possible designs for the evaluation of bishops would include a

self-evaluation profile based on the Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of

Bishops, issued by the Holy See for the guidance of diocesan bishops.

It would be the responsibility of the NCCB to devise an adequate sup-

19



port system to assist the local bishop in accepting an accurate evaluation

of himself and his work.

Professional persons familiar with goal setting, program planning and

priority setting must also be a part of the plan from its inception. Of

ultimate importance in any such program is some sort of professional

training for the person designated to discuss the evaluation results with

the one being evaluated. And such results will have been obtained on

the widest possible scale, from all those whom the priest serves, keeping

in mind the needs and aspirations of the total Christian community.

BENEFITS TO THE INDIVIDUAL

Of the many benefits stemming from the evaluation of bishops and

priests in the Church, the principal benefits go to the individual himself

and to the Christian community which he serves.

Benefits to the priest himself include meeting his psychological need

for recognition and appreciation realistically. The Sociological Investi-

gations show work satisfaction is a special problem for associate pastors.

It is the feeling of psychiatrists and sociologists with whom the Ad Hoc

Committee has consulted that evaluation would go a long way toward

increasing this satisfaction with one’s work. Even a somewhat critical

discussion of one’s performance is psychologically speaking preferable

to working in a vacuum.

Evaluation would give the priest evidence that others are interested in

him, especially his bishop. It would mean a periodic review of potential

and achievement. It would help him accept change and the reality of his

status as a cleric.

Above all, evaluation will promote the growth and maturity so essential

to personal well-being and effective fulfillment of the priest’s apostolate.

The Psychological Investigations commissioned by the NCCB repeatedly

emphasize the importance of setting professional standards for the priest

and then measuring his performance. “Greater accountability for the

manner in which a priest discharges his obligations of service can only

increase maturity.”

Part of maturity is the ability of the priest to realize how he can con-

tinue to improve the quality of his service with and to the people. Evalu-

ation may help the priest to realize his inability to meet the needs of the

post he is in and lead him to request or accept a change to a different

assignment or even a different form of priestly work.

Such a move would be consistent with the words of the Synod of

20



Bishops on the Ministerial Priesthood: “the exercise of the priestly

ministry often in practice needs to take different forms in order better

to meet special or new situations in which the Gospel is to be pro-

claimed.”

BENEFITS TO THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

Evaluation brings many benefits to the People of God, among which

the following may be mentioned:

A program of appraisal can help the priest himself find the right place,

making him a more effective minister of the Gospel to the people. Evalu-

ation of persons in the ministry is to be done with the people and for

the people. An obvious example is the judgment of the people on the

effectiveness of his preaching.

An adequate evaluation program can facilitate the measurement and

assessment of new forms of ministry. The proper judgment of the effec-

tiveness of a team ministry, for instance, is best rendered by an evalua-

tion of it made by those being served. The same could be said of current

experiments with limited tenure which to be effective must be coupled

with an evaluation process.

Supportive evaluation can lessen the gap between priests, between

priest and people, and between priest and bishop and help ease the

tensions arising from the everyday exercise of authority. The information

that grows from an evaluation program can likewise lend assistance in the

more effective nomination of bishops, assuring a use of special talents.

Since such an appraisal of the clergyman presupposes the develop-

ment of a consensus on the goals of the local Church, the evaluation

program can contribute to the collegial discussion and implementation of

those goals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To respond to some of the human and professional needs of the priests

of the United States as revealed by the Studies commissioned by the

NCCB, and to the priorities expressed by the priests themselves to the

members of this Ad Hoc Committee, we recommend:

1 ) That professional expertise be recommended to dioceses by the per-

manent Office, to assist in setting up programs of evaluation and that all

dioceses take first steps toward the eventual adoption of an evaluation

21



program as soon as possible. It is further recommended that within each

diocese the program of evaluation be developed by all those persons to

be evaluated. The new program at first will preferably be used experi-

mentally with a few especially willing individuals. After appropriate

adjustments and refinements, the program can be extended to all mem-

bers of the presbyterate.

2) That the bishops discuss their early experiences with the evaluation

programs, which may have been inaugurated previously in other dio-

ceses, at the NCCB regional meetings in April, 1973,* and that, at a

later date, there be a comparative study of models of evaluation pro-

grams. Uncritical adoption of another diocese’s instruments, however,

may not profit the Church as a whole or the great variety of priestly

ministries found in today’s societies.

In light of this, it is envisioned that evaluation programs will be

interpreted to candidates for the priesthood in our seminaries, both to

promote their growth in the seminary and to prepare them for future

evaluation programs in the priestly ministry.

* This section of the Report was received by the bishops in November, 1972.

22



Ill

PRIESTLY MINISTRY

In keeping with the mandate given to the Ad Hoc Committee on

Priestly Life and Ministry, this section on Ministry limits itself to the

ordained priestly ministry and omits the consideration of any of the other

ministries within the Church.

This section will follow this order: (I) the ministry and mission of the

Church; (II) priestly ministry within the Church; (III) the common

elements of priestly ministry; (IV) varying elements within priestly

ministry; (V) factors that affect the ministry; (VI) structures that sup-

port the ministry; (VII) celibacy; and (VIII) recommendations.

THE MINISTRY AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH

The mission of the Church is specified by the mission and ministry of

Jesus Christ. “As the Father sent me, so I am sending you.” (Jo.

20: 21). The mission of the Church is to give believers access to the

Father through Jesus Christ in the Spirit (Eph. 2: 18), to make Christ

present to mankind, to make his saving action available and operative.

All Christian ministry is a sharing in the ministry of Christ. (1 Tim.

2: 5) “In the last analysis there is only one ministry and one service,

that which the Father lavishes on all creation through His Son in the

wisdom and charity of the Spirit.”

The mission of the Church is given to the total Church. The whole

Church is sent to proclaim Christ to mankind. The whole People of God

is sent to be a messenger. In baptism and in confirmation, as well as in

ordination, there is also a sending. The Holy Spirit who gives life also

gives a mission, an imperative to bear witness.

PRIESTLY MINISTRY WITHIN THE CHURCH

While lay persons share in the Mission of the Church and in the one

priesthood of Christ, baptismal priesthood and ordained priesthood differ

23



essentially. “Though they differ from one another in essence and not

only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial

or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless inter-related. Each of them in

its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ.

Acting in the person of Christ, the ministerial priest brings about the

Eucharistic sacrifice and offers it to God in the name of all the people.

For their part, the faithful join in the offering of the Eucharist by virtue

of their royal priesthood.”

The priest has a special relationship with Jesus Christ. “By the

sacrament of orders priests are configured to Christ, the Priest, so that

as minister of the head and coworkers of the episcopal order they can

build up and establish His Whole Body which is the Church,” . . .

“They have become living instruments of Christ the Eternal Priest . . .

every priest in his own way represents the person of Christ Himself.”

While the call to configuration to Christ must be taken seriously, it

must also be taken realistically. The Psychological Investigations em-

phasize that basically the priest is an ordinary man.^^ The call, while

setting him apart, does not make a priest a superman, a caste figure.

An unreal understanding of the lofty ideal could lead the priest, conscious

of his own imperfect humanity, to cynicism, frustration or despair. The

ideal should be understood in terms of God’s abiding mercy and good-

ness, of God’s patience in the Old Testament, of Christ’s patience with

His Apostles. It should be understood in terms of God’s wisdom and

power: “I shall be very happy to make my weakness my special boast

so that the power of Christ may stay over me . . . For it is when I am weak

that I am strong.” (2 Cor. 12: 9-10).

Under the guidance of the Spirit the Church has the authority to regu-

late, to modify, to bring to an end, or to create new ministries. She has

restored the permanent diaconate and has empowered ordinaries to man-

date lay persons as extraordinary ministers of communion. The Church

can and does regulate ministries according to the needs of the people.

Pope Paul’s Motu Proprio, Ministeria Quaedam (August 15, 1972)

presumes this authority of the Church to adapt ministry to current needs:

“Since minor orders have not always been the same, the many tasks con-

nected with them, as at present, have also been exercised by the laity, it

seems fitting to re-examine this practice and to adapt it to contemporary

needs ... It is in accordance with the reality itself and with the contem-

porary outlook that the above-mentioned ministries should no longer be

called minor orders.”

24



THE COMMON ELEMENTS OF PRIESTLY MINISTRY

The basic elements of the priestly ministry are: a) to proclaim the

Gospel; b) to preside over the sacraments and liturgy; and c) to build

up and serve the community which in turn serves the world.

a) The function of the priest, obligated to become an effective

preacher, is to make the Word—to make Christ—present to particular
people in their particular circumstances in life.

The priest would hope to be possessed by the “good news,” not

merely to preach Christ, but be Christ: to preach the whole Gospel, to

bear witness to the total Gospel by example and by service, by a per-

sonal testimony. He should mediate the truth to the people. Modern

man responds more to persons than to propositions. Modern man seeks

authenticity and honesty. He looks for these qualities—especially in the
priest. Modern man tends to say, “Don’t preach to me about love

—

love me—show me a loving man—a real man who is poor in spirit,
meek, humble, hungry for justice, a peacemaker.”

As one who proclaims and bears witness to the Gospel the priest

should be able to listen to and understand many viewpoints. He must

teach with patience and compassion, seeking, after the example of Christ,

to comfort and reconcile. In the face of the radical changes which have

taken place in the world in the last thirty years and the accelerating rate

of change, some Catholic people are experiencing confusion about what

they are to believe and what they are to do. They fall into groups which

are poles apart, which are antagonistic, which attach different meanings

to the same words and thus have lost the power to communicate with

each other. The priest has a special obligation today to be an agent of

reconciliation and of peace. He must be patient, understanding, and

knowledgeable. Today he has a serious obligation to read and to study

and above all to pray to understand the truth in faith and charity.

b) The Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests calls the Eucharist

“the very source and apex of the whole work of preaching the Gospel”

and “the very heartbeat of the congregation of the faithful over which

the priest presides.” The Synodal document on priesthood states,

“The priestly ministry reaches its summit in celebration of the Eucharist

. . . source and center of the Church’s unity.” --

The Mass is at once the renewal of the saving action of Christ, the

renewal of His death and resurrection and also the gathering together in

offering of all the daily events in the lives of the people, their sorrows,

their joys, the reality of their lives. The Mass brings into communion

their lives with His life, death and Resurrection. By the way he presides.

25



the priest must show that he is truly united to Christ in whose place he

stands as head of the body. He must be deeply and compassionately

aware of the people before him, of the community over which he pre-

sides. The priest does not merely officiate at a ceremony. He presides

over the participation of his community of people in the death and

resurrection of Christ, their access through Christ to the Father and to

each other, their being one with each other in Christ and in the Spirit.

A priest should be aware of the continuity of sacramental life, con-
scious that the sacraments are not mere performances or mechanical

actions, but are particular experiences of the saving action of Christ

in the on-going renewal of the Paschal Mystery in each man. The priest

should show by the way he administers the sacraments that he is aware

that the sacraments which he administers at particular times to par-

ticular people continually build up the Body of Christ and that through

them the Holy Spirit constantly opens new possibilities for His life to

become fruitful in man.

The sacramental rites now involve previous instruction, the explana-

tion of options, the involvement of parents, sponsors, the parish com-

munity. As well as being a source of grace for individuals, the present

rituals for conferring the sacraments now offer increased opportunities

for contact, for teaching, for participation, for building up the Church

in a very literal sense.

c) The priest desires to build and to serve the community that arises

out of the Eucharist and the Word. This involves learning the necessary

skills. He will help his people renew the Paschal Mystery of Christ in

their daily lives and to celebrate this on-going event in the Eucharistic

Liturgy. Normally, and most basic to the mission of the Church, he

builds and serves this community as parish, which, in turn, serves the

world.

Perhaps more than ever before in history people need each other.

They need to be gathered into a community, into Church. People need

each other to dialogue about their understanding of truth in the changed

circumstances of society. They need support from each other in faith, in

the expression and practice of their values. They need to feel that they

are not alone, that they are not unknown, that they are not without

meaning. Today a priest needs a deep understanding of the value of

community. He needs to be personally open to others. At Mass a priest

presides over a community. This should be a real community of faith

and trust and love, a living source of support and inspiration and con-

tinuity.

The priest is a spiritual leader. No matter what form his ministry

26



takes or in what style it is exercised, the norm against which it must be

judged is: does it truly continue the mission of Christ, build up the

Church and serve the needs of the people?

The function of leadership is to inspire, to show the way by identifying

goals, to facilitate, coordinate, support, correct, commend, to share the

effort, to celebrate the passing moments of the community. The leader

is not alone as the sole possessor of truth or as one ruling from above.

Rather he is one member of a mystical body, a member with a specific

and essential task in the organism. But he lives and works through the

same Spirit who gives gifts to others. It is through the effectiveness of

all the gifts of the Spirit combined that the Body of Christ is built up.

Neither a bishop nor a priest can be a loner, can be apart from or above

his people. It is the inner dynamism of the Church or of the Spirit

living within the Church, to draw all people into one, into unity, into

community, into one body where all members, each in his own proper

way, work together for the glory of the Father and the spread of Christ’s

Kingdom.

The priest himself needs his bishop as the center of unity in the diocese

and as the link to the universal Church. He needs wisdom and strength

from his bishop. He needs the bishop’s vision of where the Church is

today and where his particular people are. He needs to know the long

range and immediate goals of the diocese. He needs inspiration, support,

and encouragement from the bishop. He has the right to expect strong,

positive, supportive leadership from his bishop.

The priest also needs the support of his fellow priests. Priests should

feel that, associated with their bishop, they are in the forefront of the

accomplishment of the mission of the Church in their diocese. They

should share their wisdom and their strength with each other. They

should be a true fraternity. Periodic meetings can do much to break

down patterns of polarization. If the bishop and priests do not work

together in the Gospel sense, if they do not exemplify the justice, the

mutual trust and love preached by Christ, then there will simply be no

vibrant Church in the diocese.

It is the office of priest with his bishop to guarantee the continuity,

vitality and endurance of the mission of Christ. He has been called and

appointed to proclaim the Gospel to unbelievers, to teach and direct

believers, to guard the faith and direct the churches and preside over the

community. The seriousness of the call and the character of leadership

indicate that the commitment should be permanent and full time.

27



VARYING ELEMENTS IN THE PRIESTLY MINISTRY

It is in the exercise of parish ministry that the basic elements of priestly

ministry are usually and most clearly seen by most laity. The parish

priest: (1) preaches, (2) bears witness by his service to the people, and

(3) celebrates the Eucharist and administers the sacraments. He

strengthens, supports and builds up the community.

Other ministries include all these elements but with a particularized

emphasis. Chaplains to the military, to hospitals, to prisons, to homes

for the aged or orphans, minister to very particular groups and accom-

modate their ministry to their needs. Some priests exercise a special

ministry of preaching; some exercise a ministry of silence and prayer;

some exercise a ministry of presence.

Priest teachers, scholars, researchers proclaim the gospel on a different

level and in a different way from parish priests. They truly serve the

life and growth of the community. They may contribute to the under-

standing and better practice of the liturgy. Administrators serve the

community by means of prudent government and the promotion of good

order. Although sometimes at a distance from the faithful, they never-

theless contribute indirectly and in a necessary way to the proclamation

of the faith and the celebration of liturgy. In their own way priest psy-

chologists, sociologists, ecologists, urban planners, demographers serve

the community in important ways. They enable the community to bring

the truth of the Gospel to bear on the currents where life in the world

is flowing strongly. As the Synod of 1971 states: “The exercise of the

priestly ministry often in practice needs to take different forms in order

better to meet special or new situations in which the Gospel is to be

proclaimed.” ^3

Team Ministry is a style of ministry that is sometimes being tried

experimentally as an alternate to the traditional pastor-associate style of

parish ministry. In team ministry, several priests serve a parish as

partners.

A variation on team ministry is area ministry in which a group of
priests, either as a team of equals or with an elected coordinator serve

a group of parishes or an area. It can represent an efficient pooling of

resources, material and human. It can open the possibility of a somewhat

larger and warmer community of priests.

Another type of ministry in which there have been a few experiments

is ministry to a non-geographic parish, e.g., to special interest groups:

those interested in a certain kind of liturgy or a certain style of preaching,

to charismatics, to professional groups. These have already been con-

28



sidered above in the context of Alternate Ministries, and their study

deserves high priority.

Within the framework of the traditional parish with pastor and asso-

ciates, two experiments are currently being tested—namely, a limited
term of office for pastor or of assignment for associates and open listing.

Open listing is a process by which, after prudent consultation concerning

a parish from which a priest is to be changed, the personnel board of a

diocese advises all priests of the opening and of the kind of man desired

and then accepts and considers all applications and finally suggests names

to the ordinary.

The Synod dealt with the ministry of a priest-politician or a priest-

public servant.^® However, the Bishops’ permanent Committee on

Priestly Life and Ministry might address itself to questions concerning

the value of clerical dress, of residence in rectories, of outside employ-

ment, of part-time ministry. These questions need to be heard officially

and answered prudently according to local situations and needs.

FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE MINISTRY

Since Vatican II certain factors affecting priestly ministry have re-

ceived fresh emphasis. The emphasis is due both to statements of the

Council itself and to cultural changes which have occurred in the last

decade, especially the cultural emphasis on personal dignity, on auton-

omy, on freedom, on participation in decision-making, on ethnic or

racial identity and pride, on the place of women in the Church.

Some of these aspects are:

Collegiality: Collegiality, involves the relationship of Pope to Bishops

and Bishops to Bishops as arranged by Christ. A characteristic of col-
legiality, therefore, is the unity of many in charity and peace. The

collegial spirit should also be the characteristic relationship between a

bishop and his priests, between priest and priest, and between pastor

and people.

Subsidiarity: Is a principle by which a higher competency does not

usurp a work which is the responsibility of a lower competency. It is

respect for the legitimate competencies of others. It means granting

lower competencies the powers they need.-^ In this way the subordinate

enjoys both reasonable autonomy and reasonable support. Acknowledg-

ment of the principle of subsidiarity leads to a more mature, more pro-

ductive and more satisfying exercise of office on the part of the subordi-

29



nate and strengthens the authority of the superior. It gives the superior

freedom to deal productively with a greater number of people.

Freedom: Personal maturity is so important for the priest who is in

service to the People of God, and responsible freedom and the experience

of life are so necessary for his growth and maturity, that the Psycho-

logical Investigations suggest that rather than trying to specify exactly

what priests should be, authorities should encourage the priest to exer-

cise his freedom as fully as possible within the parameters of the goals

of the Church.

Accountability: Freedom without accountability is counter-productive.

In the exercise of his ministry the priest and his superior should share

a common understanding of goals and objectives. The priest should

recognize a clear obligation to render an account of his ministry.-^

Professionalism: Today a priest needs continuing education and pro-

fessional skills in theological sciences, in preaching, in counseling, in

group dynamics. He should look upon himself as one who is accountable

for professional standards of performance. There has been an increased

awareness of the professional aspects of ministry. Likewise, however,

there has been a reawakening of interest in prayer and in spirituality.

The current problem seems to be integration: how to combine the pro-

fessional and spiritual aspects of ministry into a personal whole. The

recent study of the Ad Hoc Committee, Spiritual Renewal of the Ameri-

can Priesthood, offers many valuable suggestions for achieving an inte-

grated life.--^

The Relationship of Ministries: Because of the recent restoration of

the permanent diaconate, the suppression of minor orders and the sub-

diaconate, the establishment of ministries such as lector and acolyte as

well as the employment of lay persons as extraordinary ministers of

communion, etc., there is need for theological and practical rethinking

of the variety and relationships of ministries.

Presence: At a time in history when people are particularly conscious

of their human dignity and personal value and importance, the presence

of the priest is seen to be of particular value. Directions from afar, im-

personal service do not have the impact that direct presence has. The

priest must convey the truth by personal witness; he must convey com-

passion to people through direct and available contact.

The priest is a different kind of presence in the world. In a world

preoccupied with technology, the priest is a person with the understand-

30



ing, the motivation, the aspiration of faith. In a world of suffering and

oppression, the priest is a person of founded hope and the standard

bearer of hope. In a world where bondage, in various forms, is common

both to the affluent and to the poor, the priest is free and available to

help people improve the quality of their lives. “Where the Spirit of the

Lord is, there is freedom.” (2 Cor. 3: 17). “We have shared our

awareness of the Church’s vocation to be present in the heart of the

world by proclaiming the Good News to the poor, freedom to the

oppressed, and joy to the afflicted. The hopes and forces that are moving

the world in its very foundations are not foreign to the dynamism of the

Gospel, which through the power of the Holy Spirit frees men from

personal sin and from its consequences in social life.”

Distribution: Population shifts as well as cultural and canonical

factors, have produced a disproportionate concentration of priests in

certain dioceses and shortages in others. A better distribution of priests

and their talents is necessary.'^^ This disproportionate concentration of

priests should be a subject for further study by the permanent Office on

Priestly Life and Ministry.

Ministry and Varying Cultures: Within the United States people of

various races and cultures, aware of their dignity and worth as individ-

uals and as a community, are working to make other people aware and

respectful towards them and their heritage. They seek to help form the

universal Church with their own talents and genius, their own leadership,

their own culture, customs and traditions. The Christian message must

take root within a people. Hence, there is a pressing challenge for the

Church in the United States to encourage the people of each race and

culture to develop their own clergy, liturgy, and other elements of church

life and to accept these developments. Imposition of norms and prac-

tices upon a people by persons of a different cultural background is

contrary to real Christian evangelization.

STRUCTURES THAT SUPPORT THE MINISTRY

Because of the complexity of life in modern times, because of the

many different attitudes, even with good will and good faith on the part

of all concerned, it is difficult to work out a harmonious and efficient

solution to the problems that confront the priest of today. Certain

structures help to draw out of many viewpoints a single, agreed-upon

course of action. Some structures help to settle disputes. Some help to

31



make the exercise of authority better informed, more collegial, more

fraternal, more democratic. The very existence of some structures cre-

ates a healthy atmosphere. The existence of all of these structures prior

to a crisis situation renders them more effective in dealing with a crisis.

Some structures helpful to the exercise of priestly ministry are:

a) a Presbyteral Senate/Council

b) a Personnel Board

c) Due Process Procedures

d) An evaluation program

e) a Diocesan Pastoral Council

f) Parish Councils

g) Boards of Education

Not only helpful but necessary are programs for Continuing Educa-

tion. A priest should speak knowledgeably and to do so must read more

and study more. A set of guidelines for continuing education was pre-

pared by the Bishops’ Committee on Priestly Formation and approved

by the NCCB in November, 1972.

Essential as a support to ministry, on another level, are habits of

prayer and recollection. Prayer is an avenue to God’s help and an ave-

nue to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Through prayer and reflection

a priest can draw strength from the very exercise of ministry itself.

“Priests can be conscious of this presence of the Lord in the midst of

their work . . . there seems to be in this regard a correlation between

prayer on one’s knees and prayer ‘on location’. Faithfulness to normal

prayer heightens the remembrance of God’s presence in ministry; the

latter experience in turn whets the appetite for contemplative prayer and

reflective solitude. The truly apostolic man yearns for time alone with

the Lord.”

A spirit of fraternity among priests in many dioceses has led them to

structure days of spiritual renewal, prayer groups, or other activities

aimed at mutual support in their spiritual lives; such efforts should be

continued and encouraged.

The priest himself needs the community which he serves. He needs

to be able to listen and to communicate. For his own benefit, he needs

the response, the affirmation, the support of the community. His own

needs are served by those he serves. As he helps others draw closer to

God, he is helped by their faith and generosity to be drawn closer to God.

He is an organic part of the Mystical Body and cannot live in the Spirit

without the other members.

32



CELIBACY

Among the most important elements that affect the priest and his

pastoral service to the People of God is celibacy.

Vatican Council II, Pope Paul VI, the United States Catholic Bishops

(Statement of November 13, 1969) and the Synod of 1971, noting the

value of celibacy in contributing to complete discipleship of Christ and

its validation in history have restated that celibacy is mandatory for

priests of the Latin rite.

St. Matthew presents the teaching of Christ: “Some men are incapable

of sexual activity from birth; some have deliberately been made so; and

some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s

reign. Let him accept this teaching who can.” (Mt. 19: 12) St. Paul

says: “To those not married and to widows I have this to say: It would

be well if they remain as they are, even as I do myself.” (1 Cor. 7: 8).

The Sociological Investigations authorized by the bishops show that

some priests, while leading celibate lives, do raise questions about the

value of celibacy or about the value of mandatory celibacy as opposed

to optional celibacy. This Study completed in 1970, shows that more

than eighty percent of the priests under 35 favor optional celibacy, more

than half the priests under 45 favor optional celibacy, and among priests

over 55 twenty percent favor optional celibacy. Eleven percent of the

bishops favor optional celibacy.^^

On the other hand, priests seem to achieve an “operational” consensus

in favor of celibacy. The Sociological Investigations state: “But while

more than half the priests in the country expect a change, only one-fifth

of the diocesan priests and one-tenth of the religious say that they would

‘certainly’ or ‘probably’ marry in the event of a change. The celibacy

change, then, is apparently advocated as a matter of principle more than

as something that has a direct relationship with the personal plans and

inclinations of most priests.”

“We observe in Table 12.5 that 78 percent of the diocesan priests

think the celibacy is an advantage for doing their work better. Further-

more, 56 percent see it as a means of developing their love of God and

56 percent also describe it as a means of relating more fully to other

people. Finally, 52 percent endorse it as a means of personal growth and

development.” Table 12.6 shows that 73 percent of diocesan and

religious priests under 35 consider celibacy as an asset for doing their

work better. (It must be noted that the authors of the Study are

33



simply reporting the answers given them by priests. The figures indi-

cate widely differing viewpoints.

)

In the light of these facts it is necessary to recognize that there are

different perceptions of the value of celibacy and that therefore a question

does exist and must be examined and discussed. There is need for

open, rational, candid dialogue. In their 1969 Statement On Celibacy,

the bishops of the United States stated, “In the present statement it is not

our intention to foreclose free and responsible discussion of these issues

which seriously concern all Catholics.”

It is necessary to recognize that celibacy must be considered within the

context of faith, of pastoral service and of moral responsibility and of

modern understanding of sexuality, of modern appreciation of personal

dignity, of human rights, of freedom, of multiple options and pluriformity,

of current mistrust of enduring commitment.

In this modern context the bishops of the United States saw celibacy in

this way: “Celibacy is a way of being human, Christian, priestly. It is a

way of living and hoping and believing. It does not diminish but enlarges

the priest’s capacity for love. Celibacy does not negate his personality or

any of its component parts. The priest’s total strength as a man goes into

his life of service because he is called to live in the midst of the people

in a close and trusting manner.”

It is necessary to recognize that younger people tend to judge truth by

people or experience rather than by abstract notions. They will ask

whether this celibate priest can be a more admirable person or Christian

servant because of his celibacy. They will ask what celibacy can do for

the priest and for the mission of the Church.

It is the judgment of the Ad Hoc Committee that in the light of the

considerations mentioned above, the very definition of celibacy needs to

be clarified. It makes a great deal of difference whether celibacy is

considered as merely the unmarried state, or a commitment to the unmar-

ried state, or a permanent commitment to the unmarried state, or a

duty of the state of life of the clergy in the Latin Rite. It makes a dif-

ference whether celibacy is considered as a passive acceptance of the

obligation not to marry for the sake of being ordained, or a charism

offered by the Holy Spirit, separately and freely accepted in faith, in and

for Christ and for the sake of total dedication to the Kingdom of the

Father by which a person commits himself permanently to remain

unmarried.

Even more needs to be done to clarify the understanding of the

optional nature of celibacy. Does the discussion, for instance, concern the

ordination of married men or permitting ordained men to marry? Some

34



ask whether celibacy in the present discipline is distinct from Sacred

Orders and its acceptance truly free? Another question arises as to

whether optional celibacy is historically viable, especially in view of the

Protestant experience which suggests that, because of social pressures,

the alternative to mandatory celibacy may be mandatory marriage?

The Synod of 1971 makes the following statement about celibacy:

Celibacy makes the priest wholly available for the worship of God

and service of the people. It is a sign, a personal witness that gospel

life is radically new life, a sharing in Christ’s life through his death

and resurrection and our baptism and lifelong spiritual effort. It

promotes full maturity and the integration of the human personality.

As a counterbalance to disoriented values current in the world,

celibacy bears witness to the ultimate meaning of life as faithful

response to the faithful love of the Absolute God. While sacrificing

conjugal love, celibacy strongly affirms the value of what it foregoes,

widens the scope of human love and bears witness that “at the resur-

rection men and women do not marry.” (Mt. 22: 30). Celibacy is a

source of power for the building up of the Church. Celibacy frees the

heart and energy to promote evangelization and Church unity.

Celibacy has a social character as the witness of the whole priestly

order.

Popularly, however, celibacy has been regarded as a sign of the cross that

must be born by every Christian under different forms in every state

of life.

It would be well to restate each of the values traditionally attributed to

celibacy in order to clarify them in the estimation of the clergy and laity.

These values, especially when expressed in terms like “eschatological

sign,” “witness to the radical character of the Gospel,” “indication of

the presence of the Absolute God” are not popularly understood or

appreciated. An effort should be made to express these values more

simply and more realistically.

It would be fitting to parallel the relationship of the values attributed

to celibacy with other values. If a priest, for instance, is asked for an

adult commitment with regard to celibacy, he should be treated similarly

as an adult in his working and living conditions.

Celibacy does not exist in isolation from the whole man. Therefore,

care should be taken to create an atmosphere supportive of the celibate

life, e.g., a high degree of job satisfaction (which involves collegiality,

subsidiarity, autonomy, support, expressed norms of accountability,

mature relationships, fraternity, cooperation, recognition).

35



The Sociological Investigations show a significant relationship between

loneliness and the desire to leave the celibate state and to marry. But

it is not the only factor. Values, work satisfaction, personality and sheer

age are also involved. Loneliness is basic to the human condition and

also to fellowship with Christ. With reference to loneliness Pope Paul VI

suggests that, besides spiritual helps, the priest should not be lacking “the

kindly care of his Father in Christ, his bishop,” “the fraternal companion-

ship of his fellow priests and the comfort of the entire people of God.”

Not to be overlooked would be an interpretation of celibacy in more

simple human terms. What clear effect does celibacy have on the spiritual

growth of the celibate priest and on his ability to serve?

Related to the problem of celibacy is the matter of laicization. Several

questions are asked, viz., should the process of laicization be facilitated

and expedited? Should laicized priests be permitted under appropriate

circumstances to exercise special forms of service to the Church?

RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRIESTLY MINISTRY

Introduction

It is important to maintain a proper evaluation of the ordained priest-

hood under the pressures of modern culture and circumstances. It is true

that there is current emphasis, obvious in the psychological and so-

ciological studies in question, that the priest is an ordinary man. And

there is fresh and valuable emphasis on the need for variety in ministries

and for the development of managerial and professional skills.

But it must also be emphasized that while the priest is an ordinary

man he has been called by Christ to bear an extraordinary message, to

carry on Christ’s mission, to teach Christ’s truth, to shepherd God’s

people. The priesthood must be understood and exercised in faith.

It is also important to note that, at this point in post-Vatican II history,

it is the parish priest who needs validation and support more than the

priest in other ministries. The Ad Hoc Committee asserts this fully aware

of the necessity of other ministries and their importance in the life of the

Church. However, it is the parish priest who has borne the brunt of

criticism in these times, and it is the parish and the parish priest around

which most of Catholic life centers.

Some of the following recommendations are made for the use of the

36



local Ordinary according to the needs of his diocese and in virtue of his

faculties, while others are made to the permanent Committee on Priestly

Life and Ministry for possible implementation.

The Mission of the Church

It is recommended that, since the total church shares in the Mission of

the Church, bishops encourage the establishment of Parish Councils and

Diocesan Pastoral Councils in their dioceses to give all the people a

greater voice in the Mission of the Church.

Priestly Ministry within the Church

a) It is recommended that the bishops continue their efforts to em-

phasize the nature and the essential difference of the ordained priesthood

while not in any way detracting from the baptismal priesthood.

b) It is recommended to the permanent Committee that it have liaison

with the Committee on the Permanent Diaconate concerning the effect of

renewed emphasis of the permanent diaconate on the ordained priestly

ministry.

c) It is recommended that within each diocese a continuing study be

made of how the development of the ministries of lector, acolyte, extra-

ordinary minister of communion, etc., exercises the mission of baptismal

priesthood and how it affects the ministry of the ordained priest.

The Common Elements of Priestly Ministry

a) Since the bishop and his priests share a common priesthood, it is

recommended that the bishop strive to maintain a personal unity with

his priests, to give them the example of leadership and priestly ministry

that they have a right to look for in their bishop.

b) It is recommended that the bishop take the initiative in building up

the fraternity of the priesthood in his diocese. The bishop together with

his priests should form a faith community which would be an example

to the diocese of unity, mutual concern and encouraging support. Prayer

shared by bishops and priests would help to deepen the bonds of faith

and fraternity which are basic to the understanding and exercise of

ministry.

c) It is recommended that on a diocesan level priests, both diocesan

and religious, should come together two or three times a year not only to

discuss diocesan work, but also to enhance a spirit of fraternity and for

mutual spiritual assistance. On a deanery level, it would be desirable to

have monthly meetings.

37



d) It is recommended that the bishop should plan meetings with his

priests to know them personally. He should be open to discussing with

them their priestly life and ministry as a means of mutual support.

e) It is recommended that the bishops make every effort to emphasize

the primacy of the Eucharist in the life and work of the priest and in the

origin of the faith community he builds and serves.

f ) It is recommended that bishops of dioceses should suggest that their

priests be involved with meetings that deal solely with spirituality in the

priesthood. Priests need an in-depth approach to their spirituality in the

context of modern life and ministry. Much could be done through the use

of the study, The Spiritual Renewal of the American Priesthood, as a

working document.

g) It is recommended that while the bishops make every effort to help

every priest find and prepare himself for the work for which he is best

suited, they continue to emphasize the importance of the parish ministry

as basic to the Church and its mission.

h) It is recommended that in each diocese programs should be insti-

tuted to offer even experienced priests opportunity to improve their

ability to preach and to preach to the real needs of the people.

i) It is recommended that the NCCB document. The Program of Con-

tinuing Education of Priests, be implemented according to the needs of

each diocese.

j )
It is recommended that each bishop encourage and lead his priests

to make an annual retreat and to make some days of renewal during the

year. Opportunities should be arranged for priests to pray with each

other.

k) It is recommended that bishops arrange to receive information in

the areas of recent developments in management, communication and

human relations especially ethnic and racial relationships, for their

personal benefit as well as that of their diocese.

l) It is recommended to the permanent Committee that professionally

assisted programs be established and made available to dioceses for the

identification, selection and development of leaders among the priests.

m) It is recommended that bishops encourage opportunities for

priests, non-clerical religious, and laity to pray together in various ways

and share together the concerns of their own lives.

Various Types of Ministry

It is recommended that bishops not only be open to the possibility of

varying types of ministry for the efficient promotion of the Mission of the

38



Church but be willing to experiment with new forms of ministry and

to allow development of responsible freedom in the exercise of the

priesthood according to the letter and spirit of Vatican Council II. It is

suggested to the permanent Committee that it consider recommending

to ordinaries new types of ministries which in its judgment have proven

effective.

Factors that Affect the Ministry

a) It is recommended that bishops promote in their own and in their

priests’ approach to the Church those aspects of collegiality, freedom,

subsidiarity and accountability that effect a healthy and modern priest-

hood.

b) It is recommended that, in a milieu of professionalism, multiplied

meetings, and further studies, the value of the personal presence of the

priest and of direct personal contact must not be lost.

c) It is recommended that the permanent Committee give serious

consideration to the problem of an equitable distribution of clergy,

diocesan and religious, throughout the country. This would involve

continuing investigation into more expeditious procedures by which men

may be transferred from one diocese to another.

d) It is recommended that in each diocese, pastoral work be done in

cooperation with racial, ethnic and geographic groups to help form the

Church in their midst. The contribution of these groups must also be

incorporated into the total context of the Church in the United States.

Consequently their participaion at all levels, including the decision-

making level, of the Church’s life must be facilitated.

Structures that Support the Ministry

a) It is recommended that the bishops in their own dioceses make

available to all priests those structures fundamental to the well-being of

the priest and the Church today—viz. structured opportunities for
prayer and spiritual renewal, a senate/council of priests, a personnel

board, due process procedures, evaluation and goal setting programs and

opportunities for continuing education.

b) It is recommended that personnel directors and personnel boards

of a diocese be given the opportunity to undertake such helpful programs

as interviews, open listing, conciliatory practices, etc. It is important

that the expertise of personnel boards be periodically updated and

evaluated.

c) It is recommended that programs for the education of priests and

39



laity be undertaken to prepare everyone for the most effective use of

such advisory structures as diocesan and parish councils and boards of

education.

d) It is recommended that, through research, broad consultation and

planning, priorities be established for the diocese and for each parish

community.

Celibacy

a) It is recommended that bishops in their dioceses initiate popular

catechesis concerning a genuinely Christian understanding of celibate

priestly ministry in the light of recent papal documents.

b) It is recommended to the permanent Committee that, in order that

such catechesis might answer real questions and be expressed in under-

standable language, a survey should be taken to see how the layman

looks at celibacy and in what terms the values of celibacy might best be

expressed in today’s world.

c) The Ad Hoc Committee affirms that celibacy must be regarded

as a way of life involving many dimensions. If a priest is to make a

mature commitment, he should in all circumstances be treated as a ma-

ture and responsible person. To this end he needs the support of his

bishop, his brother priests and the faithful.

d) It is recommended that bishops and their seniinary administrators

provide appropriate preparation for celibacy in the seminaries.

e) It is recommended that in each diocese particular care should be

taken to discuss the problem of how lay persons view the permanent

commitment to celibacy in relationship to the indissolubility of marriage.

f) It is recommended that in priests’ retreats, priests’ days of recol-

lection and prayer and study sessions there be a more frequent and open

discussion of the positive value of celibacy.

Laicization

a) The Ad Hoc Committee proposes for consideration of the per-

manent Committee that it study how the process of laicization can be

facilitated and expedited.

b) It is recommended that the permanent Committee study the possi-

bility of seeking from the Holy See permission to authorize the proper

Ordinary or a committee of the NCCB to grant dispensations.

c) It is recommended to Ordinaries and to the permanent Committee

that, while avoiding scandal and at the same time exercising charity and

justice, appropriate opportunities for service to the Church be made

40



available to legitimately laicized priests. In reaching a decision in this

matter, consideration should be given to current attitudes towards priests

who have sought and received laicization, to the needs of the Church,

and to the education, talents and good will of the laicized priest.

Ordination of Married Men

In view of the evolving life of the Church and recognizing the conse-

quent emergence of the question of ordaining married men to the priest-

hood, it is recommended that the permanent Committee on Priestly Life

and Ministry give further study to this question in the light of the action

of the Synod of 1971.^^

41



IV

RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP

The 1971 Synod document, The Ministerial Priesthood, opens with a

capsule-like description of the “situation” in which priests find themselves

in today’s rapidly changing technological society. The document takes

note that today’s priests, in the exercise of their ministry, are faced with

“serious problems . .
.
questions . . . and difficulties” radically different

from those with which their predecessors in the ministry were confronted

even a generation or two ago. For present purposes, it is not necessary

to list or to catalogue these problems. Suffice it to say that they point

up the urgent need for continuing research of a serious and scholarly

nature not only on the theology, but also the sociology of the priestly

ministry—research aimed at assisting priests to serve the People of God
more effectively by means of pastoral methods aptly suited “to meet the

modern mentality.”

The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree on the Ministry and Life

of Priests, also took note of the rapidly changing nature of modern

society and the consequent need for continuing research into all aspects

of the priestly ministry. The pertinent section of this Decree reads as

follows:

Since in our times human culture and the sacred sciences are

making new advances, priests are urged to develop their knowledge

of divine and human affairs aptly and uninterruptedly. In this way

they will prepare themselves more appropriately to undertake dis-

cussions with their contemporaries.

That priests may more easily pursue their studies and learn

methods of evangelization and of the apostolate to better effect,

every care should be taken to provide them with opportune aids.

Such would be the instituting of courses or of congresses, according

to the conditions of each region, the establishment of centers dedi-

cated to pastoral studies, the setting up of libraries and appropriate

programs of study conducted by suitable persons.

42



Both the Council and the Synod clearly recognized that the problems,

etc., facing today’s priests in the exercise of their ministry, while tending

more and more, because of the speed of communications, to cut across

national boundaries nevertheless differ in many respects from one part

of the world to another. For this reason it would not be practical to

carry on the kind of pastoral research referred to above in one inter-

national institute. Each country or region, while coordinating its efforts

with those of other centers of study and research and taking full advan-

tage of their findings, must carry on its own continuing study of the

priestly ministry in the light of its own cultural background and its own

pastoral needs.

In the United States the National Conference of Catholic Bishops

took the initiative in this regard shortly after the Council ended and well

in advance of the 1971 Synod. The NCCB:

a) Established a permanent Committee on Priestly Formation.

b) Sponsored and financed five major studies of a scholarly nature

on various aspects of the priestly ministry.

c) Appointed an Ad Hoc Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry

and mandated this Committee to draft a series of recommenda-

tions aimed at implementing the conclusions and findings of the

studies referred to above and reflecting the present experience of

priests and bishops relative to the renewal of priestly life and

ministry.

Recommendations

After nearly two years experience in carrying out the aforementioned

mandate, the Ad Hoc Committee believes that in the area of research

and scholarship as it pertains to priestly life and ministry, the following

recommendations should be considered by the permanent Committee:

I. Within the permanent NCCB Office on Priestly Life and Ministry,

previously recommended to the Conference by the Ad Hoc Committee,

there should be a special division manned by at least one full-time pro-

fessional staff person and charged with the responsibility of initiating

and correlating research on the priestly ministry and establishing links

with research centers working in this area.

Among the subjects to which this research division would be expected

to direct its attention, the following may be listed simply by way of

illustration:

43



(a) The “theory” of the priestly ministry in the light of the NCCB

Studies on the Priesthood and current developments in dogmatic

and pastoral theology, Scripture studies, religious sociology, etc.

(b) The need (referred to in the Synod document as well as in the

Council’s Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests) for new

methods and new structures aimed at assisting priests to carry

out their ministry more effectively.

(c) Specialized training for these new forms of ministry.

(d) Continuing study of priestly spirituality and the training of priest

specialists in this area.

(e) Pastoral Planning.

(f) Evaluation Procedures.

(g) Continuing Education of the Clergy.

(h) Personnel Practices.

It would not be the function of this proposed research office to do

original research of a scholarly nature in any of the areas referred to

above, but rather to initiate and correlate such research in cooperation

with universities, appropriate research centers, with diocesan, profes-

sional and regional research and planning directors, with councils of

priests and with organizations of the laity and religious. Its orientation

would be a pastoral one, concerned with pastorally useful research.

II. The feasibility of a full-fledged interdisciplinary Research Institute

on Priestly Life and Ministry at the Catholic University of America

should be explored at the earliest possible date.

The Ad Hoc Committee is persuaded, on the basis of its own informal

soundings, that the Catholic University of America would be the most

appropriate sponsor of such an Institute. The Ad Hoc Committee is also

convinced that, with the full backing and support of the American

hierarchy, adequate funds for the operation of such an Institute could be

raised from philanthropic foundations and other sources.

This proposed Institute would not take the place of the research office

referred to above or other agencies of research. This research office

would continue to serve within the area of its competency as a liaison

between the NCCB and the Catholic University Institute and between

the clergy of the United States and the Institute. On the basis of its own

contacts and its own field work, it could also serve to bring to the atten-

tion of the Institute the need for additional research on this or that par-

ticular aspect of the priestly ministry and could assist in funneling infor-

mation to the Institute from various sources.

44



III. The continuing education of the Clergy—called for so insistently
in the Vatican Council’s Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests

—

has already been studied by the NCCB Committee on Priestly Forma-

tion. The latter Committee’s report on this subject was adopted in

November, 1972 by the NCCB and has since been made available in

printed form for general distribution.^^

In the judgment of the Ad Hoc Committee, it remains to be seen

whether the implementation of this report on continuing education of

the clergy (and future studies in this same area) should be carried out

by the Committee on Priestly Formation or by the permanent Office on

Priestly Life and Ministry.

Meanwhile, it is recommended that this matter be discussed by the

two permanent Committees—Committee on Priestly Formation and the
Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry—and that their conclusions be
transmitted to the NCCB in the form of a joint resolution.

FOOTNOTES

1. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 21.

2. Synod of Bishops—1971

—

The Ministerial Priesthood—Part II, n. 1.
3. Cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, nn. 10, 12, 30.

4. Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 15.

5. Ibid., n. 7.

6. Ibid., n. 8.

7. The Ministerial Priesthood, Part II, n. 2.

8. Ibid., Part I, n. 1.

9. Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 9.

10. The Catholic Priest in the United States: Sociological Investigations,

Psychological Investigations.

11. Decree on the Appropriate Renewal of the Religious Life, n. 18.

12. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, n. 9.
13. Psychological Investigations, p. 179.

14. The Ministerial Priesthood, Part II, n. lb.

15. Ibid., Part I, n. 1.

16. The Priest and Sacred Scripture, C. IV, p. 28.

17. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 10; cf. Synod, n. 4; Mediator

Dei, nn. 83, 84; Trent DS 1767-1770.
18. Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 12.

19. Ibid.

20. The Catholic Priest in the United States: Psychological Investigations.

21. Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 5.

22. Ibid., n. 4.

23. The Ministerial Priesthood, Part II, n. I, 1, b.
24. Cf. previous sections of this Report: Authority and Its Exercise.
25. The Ministerial Priesthood, Part II, n. I, 2.

26. Cf. also Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church, n. 16,

C & D; Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 7.

45



27. Directory on the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops. Cf. also The Pastoral

Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, n. 86, Quadra-

gesimo Anno, NCWC text, p. 26.
28. Cf. previous section: Evaluation and Priestly Growth.

29. Cf. Spiritual Renewal of the American Priesthood.

30. Justice in the World, Synod of 1971, Introduction.

31. Cf. Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 10.

32. Cf. section on Evaluation and Priestly Growth.

33. Spiritual Renewal of the American Priesthood, p. 17.

34. The Catholic Priest in the United States: Sociological Investigations,

p. 234.

35. Ibid., p. 235.

36. Ibid., p. 237.

37. Ibid.

38. Statement on Celibacy, NCCB, n. 3.
39. Ibid., n. 13; cf. also Encyclical Letter on Priestly Celibacy, Paul VI,

n. 32, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, n. 16.

40. In a summarized form, cf. The Ministerial Priesthood, Part II, n. 4.

41. Cf. ibid., p. 250.

42. Encyclical Letter on Priestly Celibacy, n. 59.

43. The Ministerial Priesthood, Part II, n. 1,4, f.

44. Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, III, n. 19.

45. The Program of Continuing Education of Priests.

Documents referred to above are available from

Publications Office, USCC, 1312 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

46