the
time
to
build



Reprinted from the April 1958 issue of The Priest
,

Noll Plaza, Huntington, Indiana 46750

Printed in the U.S.A. by

OUR SUNDAY VISITOR INC.

Huntington, Indiana 46750



Introduction

A MEETING of Priests’ Councils from throughout the United
States was held at the Sheraton-O’Hare Motor Hotel, Des

Plaines, Illinois. Attending the two-day meeting, February 12-

13, were 328 representatives from 113 diocesan senates and

associations.

Three papers delivered during this meeting form the con-

tents of this brochure. Reverend Robert Kennedy of the Dio-

cese of Brooklyn presents a review of a survey he had con-

ducted concerning the present status of priests’ councils. Rev-

erend Raymond G. Decker of the Archdiocese of San Francisco

offers some goals and guidelines as well as a clarification of

terms. Reverend John J. Hill of the Archdiocese of Chicago

presents a rationale for a national organization.

A constitutional convention is scheduled to meet May 13-
14 in order to draft a constitution for a National Conference

of Priests’ Councils. OUR SUNDAY VISITOR is both pleased
and privileged to offer this brochure to every diocesan priest in

the United States. It is our hope that it will facilitate com-

munication among the Catholic clergy of our nation.

VINCENT A. YZERMANS
Editor



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/timetobuildthreenull



Chapter 1

A Review of Priests’ Councils

Rev. Robert Kennedy

often happens when a subject

is discussed at an agenda

meeting what is supposed to be

said seems clear and quite simple

to put together. Once an attempt

to put it down on paper begins,

the clarity of the idea begins to

fuzz and the difficulties become

much more apparent. The topic of

this paper suffered this very proc-

ess.

Information about Priests’ Sen-

ates is hard to come by and still

harder to reduce to generaliza-

tions and simple clear ideas. The

source material is quite diverse.

Three Regional Meetings gave

much of the detail and the neces-

sary flavor to keep it from being

a dry and abstract gathering of

statistics. The Mid-West meeting

held in late September, and a New
England meeting held right after

Christmas enabled me to meet with

Senators and Association officers

from two of the most populated

regions of our country. Extensive

minutes of the meeting in New

Orleans were forwarded to me. Be-

sides this a five-page question-

naire was filled out by the Presi-

dent or Secretary of 63 Senates.

The newsletter Crux, published a

four-page tabulation of facts about

the status of senates in our coun-

try. Senates have been most coop-

erative in sending minutes of their

senate meetings and some fifty

constitutions have been analyzed.

Probably the most important sin-

gle element in putting this paper

together has been the opportunity

to meet people who are involved

in this very wonderful work of put-

ting collegiality at the diocesan

level into practice and by discus-

ing with them their work, their

hopes and their successes. This is

the way one is able, in a sense, to

get the pulsebeat of what is hap-

pening throughout the country.

According to the survey made

by Crux
,

the first senate in the

country was established in Spring-

field, Massachusetts on January 20,

1966. Worcester, Massachusetts,

5



claims to be the first, using March

1965 as their birth date. Sioux

Falls, S.D., had its operating in

March, followed by Galveston,

Texas in April, Grand Island, Ne-

braska and Norwich, Connecticut

in May and Albany, New York

and Dubuque, Iowa by June. All

this took place before the Motu

Proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae was is-

sued on August 6, 1966. Forty-five

senates were in operation by the

end of 1966 and 135 by the first

of the year. In other words there

was a most eager response by the

bishops and our country to de-

crees of Vatican II and the Motu

Proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae, at least

in regard to senates.

Started in 1966

In many dioceses Associations of

Priests had also sprung up, along-

side the Senates. Chicago and

Brooklyn having founded theirs by

June of 1966 and now more than

40 of these exist throughout the

country. Not satisfied with a gen-

eral type of Priests’ Association,

Associations of Priests active in In-

ner City or Negro work have been

established in several dioceses and

at least two organizations exclu-

sively for pastors exist.

Senates are now finally estab-

lished and strongly organized in al-

most all of our dioceses. Some 80

examples of the constitutions are

available upon request and have

been swapped back and forth and

the Senate in Brooklyn alone re-

ceived 200 requests for copies of

its constitution. Most dioceses,

however, claim to have written

their own without outside borrow-

ing; only in one diocese did the

chancery do it for the senate.

The thing that is most interest-

ing about this, is that the develop-

ment is almost completely outside

the law, concerning senates as ex-

pressed in the Motu Proprio and

the Conciliar Decrees. There was

a vacuum not covered by law even

though there was much talk in the

Motu Proprio about “the form ex-

pressed by law”; the revision of

Canon Law has just not been com-

pleted. American principles of de-

mocracy moved in and filled the

void.

Due to our political history, it

is hard for us to envision a group

of people working together with-

out some form of constitution or

by-laws to guide them. Interesting-

ly enough, the encyclical Pacem in

Terris in paragraph 76 expresses

the need for written constitutions.

“The constitution of each should

be drawn up, phrased in correct

juridical terminology which pre-

scribes the manner of designating

the officials along with their mu-

tual relations, the spheres of their

competency, the forms and systems

they are obliged to follow in per-

forming their office.”

Continuity

As senates are made up in most

cases by representatives elected by

the priests of each diocese and are

solidly organized by a quasi-juridi-

cal constitution, they tend very

strongly to have a group life of

their own, which seems to be in

opposition to the concept of the

6



senate “dying with the bishop.” A
very long debate on this subject

at the New England meeting of
senates was held, but came to no

conclusion; basically because there

is a saving clause in the Motu

Proprio allowing for the continua-

tion of senates in exceptional cases

and it was felt that this was not

yet used. Others that have the as-

sociation or whole presbytery as

their base with an executive board

as the senate avoid the problem in

this way. Some 15 Sees have be-

come vacant which had senates.

Many of them have been asked by

the Apostolic Administrator to

keep some of their committee func-

tions alive.

Discussion Point

In the Camden Diocese, when

told they were to dissolve them-

selves, the senate voted to reorgan-

ize itself as an Association and

keep in operation. In Wilmington,

the senate was confirmed in exist-

ence by the Apostolic Administra-

tor and this was agreed to by the

Apostolic Delegate in Washington.

The survey indicated that nine sen-

ates throughout the country had

debated this issue and one senate

has considered a strong letter ex-

pressing its desire to stay in exist-

ence to be forwarded to the Apos-

tolic Administrator of the diocese

by its President as soon as the See

is vacant.

The National Conference of

Bishops will have to discuss this

topic as part of its agenda at

some time and it is hoped that

some national representation of

priests’ senates will be available to

discuss this point with them.

Related to this is the question

of election of bishops itself. When

the See in St. Louis was vacant,

two priests signed a petition along

with several laymen of the diocese

asking for a voice in the selection

of the next archbishop. Five hun-

dred and sixty-three priests of the

New York Archdiocese recently

petitioned for the same thing. The

new Priests’ Association in that

diocese was very instrumental in

gathering these signatures. In Wil-

mington, the petition for a voice

in electing the Bishop was for-

warded by the Priests’ Council to

Cardinal Sheehan, the Metropoli-

tan of the See of Wilmington and

he has responded by setting up a

procedure by which suggestions

could be received as to who their

new bishop is to be.

First Step

It has been suggested by several

sources that priests’ senates be

given the function of diocesan

consultor in voting for the Apos-

tolic Administrator who governs

the diocese during the inter-

regnum. As this would be a very

open indication of the will of the

priests of the diocese if their senate

would pick a man truly episcopa-

bile the Congregatio Episcoporum

would be under pressure of public

opinion to take this fact into con-

sideration. This might be a very

logical first step toward a more

general scheme for the election of

bishops by the priests of the dio-

cese.

7



Organically most senates struc-

tured themselves into various

committees and then started to

prepare proposals. Two facts
evolved that are very important

for understanding where Priests’

Councils now stand. First, the most

popular committees dealt with per-

sonnel problems and problems of

the continuing education of priests.

That while most senates feel their

area of competence is governing of

the whole diocese, they have as a

matter of fact placed the largest

amount of their emphasis on

priests’ problems. In the reports

in the survey 20 dioceses have

established personnel committees as

a result of senate action. An ad-

ditional 1 1 have some sort of griev-

ance committees. Many dioceses

have committees on the education

of priests and in at least 25 they

are part of the senate. Of the 63

who reported, in only 8 does the

senate have any structure by which

they can have something to say on

seminary training.

One-third of the dioceses an-

swering questionnaires have def-

inite programs for the retirement

of priests. Only 8 of these reported

that the diocesan retirement plan

was due to senate action. The

favorite retirement age was 75 with

only a few having 70 as a man-

datory age.

Raising Morale

Thus we see when the senates

have taken on responsibility for

many priests’ problems this has

had the effect of raising morale in

many areas, enabling priests to

feel a deeper concern of the

Church for them as persons. What

many of the senates have to learn

from this is that by taking person-

nel out of the hands of the Chan-

cery Office, they are in a sense

performing the same function that

Civil Service does for people who

work for Federal, State and Local

Government. Once patronage is

removed from an organization, the

organization becomes much more

open to the demands of public

opinion in achieving its purpose.

Legislative

The second fact is that the way

most of these proposals are pre-

sented showed that the senates were

really performing a legislative role,

despite the fact that almost uni-

versally they considered their role

to be consultative. The form their

action took most often was that

of a legislative body sending a law

to the executive branch for ap-

proval or veto. In this the senate

filled a vacuum. Until Pastoral

Councils are established and begin

to function in terms of a steering

committee for a synod which will

legislate for the diocese, the legis-

lative function has to be filled.

This has led to a change in the

way the senate was supposed to act

according to the spirit of the Doc-

uments of Vatican Council II. In-

stead of existing as an advisory

body with the bishops in their

midst, it became a group in-

dependent of him, making propos-

als and legislating for the needs

of the priests of the diocese. This

function is a necessary one, but

8



it is important to realize that if

we wish it to remain, steps must

be taken to protect it. It really is

not envisioned in the structure of

the present law.

There is also a tendency to ex-

clude the bishop from the opera-

tions of the senate. Sometimes this

is done deliberately with the open

declaration that it is better for the

bishops not to participate for the

sake of freedom. Sometimes it is

more subtle and the bishop is de-

clared to be welcome in the senate

if he would like to come. The

bishops receive the results of the

senate meetings in all cases. This

seems to come from a vision of

the senate of priests as a voice

from outside the diocesan struc-

ture. Not being part of the system,

the senate can propose ideas and

plans to the bishops which are not

being and would not be proposed

by those within it. It can aim at

altering the functioning of the

existing diocesan policies and agen-

cies.

Role for Bishop

In an article prepared by Father

Walter Mitchell, Chairman of the

Research Committee of the Asso-

ciation of Brooklyn Clergy, and a

senator of the diocese, he states,

“It is this tendency which is dis-

turbing. It gives strength to the

false dichotomy between authority

and the man under authority in

the Church and it can lead to the

failure of priests’ senates to be-

come truly effective in the govern-

ment of the diocese.” This com-

ment is borne out by the fact that

the senates that have been most

successful in having their proposals

accepted are those in which the

bishop plays an active role and

undergoes the same educational ex-

perience as the senators do in their

debates and committee reports.

Regardless of how this is viewed

by various senates, it is most cer-

tainly a fact of life and the tend-

ency to have a dichotomy between

senates and bishops must be
faced squarely in determining

future operations of senates.

We might ask how successful
senates are? In answer, they run

a very wide gamut. Some are not

successful and there are internal

reasons for failure. Democratic

processes are often hard to make

work. A lack of understanding of
power structure and decision
making as it actually exists in a

diocese was often not understood.

The senates become frustrated as

so much time was spent in writing

a constitution and setting up the

structure that some sort of a

paralysis set in in their ability to

function. They began to feel they

must justify themselves by some

sort of a success and successes

were hard to come by. Projects

have been delayed and proposals

turned down. The morale in many

senates is low.

Swapping Information

It is important for the senates

to realize that a great deal of work

and a great deal of understanding

must take place before they are

capable of fulfilling their function.

This points to the need of a great

9



deal of help and manual assistance.

In too many cases the same mis-

takes have been made over and

over again; the same work dupli-

cated. There is need for a great

deal of swapping information, of

combining research projects, and

sharing proposals around. Also,

nothing succeeds like success and

the ability to have a proposal

buttressed by the information that

has already been accepted in 20

or 30 or 40 other dioceses, very

often is a most telling argument.

Failure also happened because

of external causes. The one most

often mentioned was the non-

cooperation and the lack of trust

of diocesan officials. Often pro-

posals are refused because it was

claimed they were outside the

present structure of law or that it

was something that had to be de-

cided on a national level. These

factors are important and show the

need of priests’ senates being able

to function at a level above that

of the diocese. The future of the

Church will be to a large extent in

the hands of National Conferences

of Bishops and the senates will

have to be able to relate to them

to be effective. In the future, law

is going to be written at the na-

tional level. It should be written

with a vivid consciousness of our

American experience with priests’

councils.

Total Concern

The future of senates lies in the

broadening of their concerns to

a total operation of the Church in

all its details. If they are to help

in the government of the diocese,

the pastoral needs must be looked

upon as a whole. The field of so-

cial action as a concern of priests’

senates is a very important point.

The Church must face up to prob-

lems and there should be some

vehicle through which the priests

of a diocese or a nation must take

a stand on important issues. The

place of the layman in the Church

should normally be taken care of

by his own associations. However,

until they are formed very often

it is going to be a voice of priests’

senates which will speak up for

his place in the Church. Pastoral

Councils, as we already mentioned,

will function in the future, but

until they do, the senates should

concern themselves with the new

structures by which the diocese

can move ahead to solve modern

problems especially pertinent to

the laity.

Fraternity Exists

Many senates at the present

moment are facing the problem of

how to set up parish councils. This

is especially true in New England

where this seems to be the most

popular response to lay needs. Also,

senates have moved into the

question of liturgical renewal, and

we can expect a greater response

in this area and we hope one that

will be national in scope as it

must be and with the cooperation

of the National Liturgical Con-

ference.

The things that have been men-

tioned show a great vitality exists

in the Church in America. The

10



vitality stems from the fact of the

fraternity that exists among priests.

They seek common problems and

are willing to work for common

solutions. A sense of dignity has
developed because they are now

speaking to their bishops and con-

ferring with them about the prob-

lems that are common concerns.

There is also a deep-felt need of

senates joining together sharing

information and sharing in a com-

munity that meetings like this can

bring about. The Church must

function as a whole in our nation

and for priests to take their full

share of responsibility in this, some

sort of national grouping of priests’

senates and associations is impor-

tant.

Before ending the paper, I
would like to point out tho de-

velopment of priests’ associations

alongside that of senates. Father

Decker will point out the dif-

ferences, but in over 40 dioceses

associations of priests are a fact

of life. Senates perform the impor-

tant consultative function of help-

ing a bishop govern his diocese.

Associations exist as an independ-

ent voice for the welfare of the

whole people of God. The senate

should be a wonderful example of

representative democracy. The as-

sociation can function as an

example of the town meeting type

of participation that played such

an important part in this nation’s

early history.

Personally Involved

The reasons why associations

have sprung up are many. Basical-

ly, they enable individual priests

to communicate with one another.

The priest can feel he is per-

sonally involved. He has a sense

of belonging. Also, through the

operations of associations all of

the priests can share in the edu-

cation process that goes on as

priests collectively look at the

concerns and the affairs of the

Church. They are also an impor-

tant aid to the senate as they sup-

port it in its dealings with the

bishop and can play a vital com-

munication link in bringing in-

formation to the senate and also

from the senate.

This is how the situation of

priests’ senates and associations

appears to me at the present. So,

in a sense, this is a type of state

of the union message. Very briefly,

the state of the union is good. But,

it can be made much better.

11





Chapter 2

Goals and Guidelines

for Priests’ Councils

Rev. Raymond G. Decker

DEFORE I begin, let me define
Priests’ Councils, Priests’ As-

sociations and Priests’ Senates. I

do not submit my definitions as
final, because these institutions be-

ing so new are still in a state of

flux.

‘

Council' as we are using it at

this conference seems to apply to

any organization of priests within a

diocese. It can be applied to either

an association or a senate, al-

though in some dioceses the word

‘council’ has been used to desig-

nate what some would call a ‘sen-

ate.’ The present gathering is called

a Meeting of Councils because it is

the coming together of all kinds of

priests’ organizations from various

dioceses — some are senates, some
are associations, and others are an

amalgam of both.

The term
*

priests
1

association ’ can

be defined as an organization of

priests within a diocese to create

among themselves a genuine spirit

of priestly fraternity, and based on

this spirit, to develop a mutual ap-

preciation of and desire for pro-

fessionalism. As a grouping to-

gether to develop fraternity, an

association has as one of its main

functions that of creating the re-

ality of community within the

presbytery.

In realizing this fraternity an

association should develop a

genuine interest in professionalism.

I do not mean creating a sense of

alooftness and technical expertise

which would tend to isolate priests

as a professional group; I mean

rather developing a genuine com-

petence in theology and pastoral

techniques which would help make

each priest a more effective serv-

ant of his people. In a word,

I would consider a priests’ associa-

tion as an organization of priests,

by priests, for priests so that

13



through mutual assistance and col-

laboration they might better serve

the people of God.

On the other hand, I would view

senates as being quite different.

Instead of being a fraternal and

professional organization among

the priests themselves, the senate

or council is a representative body

of the presbytery which forms a

part of the official policy making

structure of a diocese by being of-

ficially an advisory body to the

bishop in expressing the consensus

of thought and opinion of the

presbytery.

1

Effective Assistance

This body of priests is explicitly

provided for in the documents of

Vatican Council II: Presbyterorum

Ordinis, Article 7,
2 Christus Domi-

nus, Article 273 and in the Motu

Proprio: Ecclesiae Sanctae, Articles

15 and 17. As seen in this light and

as explicitly expressed in the Coun-

cil documents, the senate is “to give

effective assistance to the bishop

in his government of the diocese,”

which, in effect, means that priests

forming a senate must assume the

responsibility as co-workers in the

episcopal order by assisting the

bishop in his role as shepherd of

the diocese as a whole as defined

by Dr. L. M. Weber in his paper

at the European Episcopal Con-

1 L. M. Weber, “The Council of Priests,”
mimeographed copy of an address at the
Conference of European Bishops, Amster-
dam. The Netherlands, July 12, 1967, p. 3.

2 Walter M. Abbott, S.J. and Joseph
Gallagher (Eds.), The Documents of
Vatican 11, (New York: Guild Press,
1966) p. 547.

3. ibid. p. 416.

4 Weber, op. cit., p. 6

14

ference held in Amsterdam, July

12, 1967: The Council of Priests

is an institution which

represents the presbytery as

such and is, thereby, the more

specific nucleus of diocesan

(episcopal and presbyteral)

government. 4

In view of this distinction be-

tween priests’ associations and

senates, ideally every diocese

should have both or some com-

bination of both, since each has a

unique function and each has its

particular contribution to make to

the Church as a whole.

Before proceeding, I would fur-

ther distinguish between ‘goals’ and

‘guidelines.’ By ‘goals’ I mean the

substantive aims of associations

and senates; that is, what they

should accomplish within the near

future. By ‘guidelines’ I mean the

procedures by which these goals

are achieved.

With these basic definitions un-

derstood, we can now proceed to

outline the ‘goals’ and ‘guidelines’

of associations and senates, keep-

ing in mind, of course, that the

goals and guidelines for each will

often differ because of the distinc-

tion already mentioned between

the two. I will first discuss associa-

tions and then senates.

Associations

The very first goal of priests’

associations should be establishing

communication within the presby-

tery of a diocese. This means

‘dialogue,’ and here I use the term

in that hard dynamic sense as de-

scribed by Philip Scharper and



quoted by Bishop Lawrence B.

Casey of Paterson in his address

to his Priests’ Senate in its in-

augural meeting on September 20,

1967:

. . . Dialogue obviously is a

delicate undertaking — a
dangerous one. . . . Dialogue

means an authentic encounter

between persons striving, at

least to be authentic. . . .

Dialogue therefore is a func-

tion of creative love — that
love which hopes all things,

bears all things and seeks not

its own. Being creative, it

makes the possible real and

the impossible possible. It can

always make, even of seem-

ingly rotten timbers, a bridge

across that abyss which per-

manently separates us from

the other.
5

Professionalism

Among many of the European

theologians this spirit has been

termed bruderlickheit; that is, a

brotherliness which is realized in

the mutual support of helping one

another to adjust psychologically

and to effect structural changes in

the Church so that the unique

challenges of our age can be met.

Hopefully, once this level of

brotherliness is achieved within the

presbytery this same spirit will

permeate throughout the entire

community of the people of God.

In addition to establishing an

arena for communication, however,

5 Documentary Service, Press Department,
United States Catholic Conference, Sep-
tember 22, 1967, p. 4.

the association of priests in any

diocese should develop genuine
professionalism characterized by

competency in theology and pas-

toral techniques which enable the

priest to function more effectively

as the servant of his people, which

is his true profession. In the pur-

suit of this professionalism it is

required to keep the priests in-

formed on the currents of theo-

logical, scriptural, pastoral and

secular thought, which will enable

them better to understand the great

resources at their disposal and the

needs of their people.

Hold Institutes

This, of course, can be ac-

complished only by associations

taking upon themselves the re-

sponsibility of establishing institutes

—highly intensified programs of
education in which experts are en-

gaged to expose priests to the

present currents of thought and

knowledge. These institutes can

then be supplemented with sem-

inars — discussion and study
groups which serve as a followup

on the institutes, and provide for

the continuing education and in-

tellectual stimulation of its mem-

bers.

From the basis of a well formed

and speculatively alert clergy the

association should then be the

medium through which the priests

can speak up responsibly with a

public voice, addressing themselves

to the pastoral and social problems

of their locality. Speaking through

an association, unattached to any

formal ecclesiastical structure,

15



there can be the articulation

of a consensus which is most

important both as a constructive

witness of the Christian conscience

of the presbytery and as a con-

sequent leadership for the com-

munity of the Church as a whole.

With the accomplishment of

these goals there can be instilled

in a presbytery the concept of

shared obligation in which all

within the presbytery must assume

the responsibility of service and

leadership to the Christian com-

munity. This is not simply the task

of the bishop or the chancery. All

should be given the experience of

sharing in responsible decisions.

This concept of shared responsibil-

ity through communication and the

expression of opinion was well ex-

pressed by Father James A. Lau-

bacher in his address to the San

Francisco Senate of Priests on Jan-

unary 16 when he said:

It is through this commu-

nication, participation, re-

sponsibility, information, mu-

tual advice and counsel that

the community actively re-

alizes itself in the conscious

and responsible exercise of

faith. It must be admitted that

in the past, in practice at

least, authority was on one

side of the fence and the sub-

jects were on the other. Com-

munication, responsibility, in-

6 James A. Laubacher, S.S., “Theology of

Church and its Relation to the Concept

and Role of Priests’ Senates,” mimeo-
graphed copy of an address delivered at

the Two-day Conference of the Senate of
Priests, Archdiocese of San Francisco,

Menlo Park, California, January 16, 1968,
p. 5.

formation was then the priv-

ilege of those who governed.

The subjects were told what

the rulers thought they should

be told. With the rediscovery

of the Church as community,

authority in obedience to its

faith, is at the service of the

community and ‘participation’

of all members in the pro-

phetic, priestly and governing

mission of the Church is the

accepted law, stemming from

the very nature of the
Church. 6

Guidelines

The first guideline for any as-

sociation should be to establish as

full a representation of the pres-

bytery as possible, so that it can

truly reflect consensus. A means
for achieving this is the plenary

session. At a plenary session

priests experience the dynamics of

mutual support, and profit from

the exchange and conflict of

opinions and ideas. They ex-

perience solidarity with their fel-

low priests in the diocese.

To achieve this, however, associ-

ations must keep a tight rein on

their organizational procedures.

Moreover, they must strengthen

their committee structure and they

must clarify and enforce proper

rules of meetings in order to as-

sure all an equal opportunity to

express themselves.

In setting goals and establishing

procedural guidelines for associa-

tions it becomes more and more

apparent with conferences such as

this one, that we are aided and

assisted by one another. To keep

16



in communication with other as-

sociations, therefore, is vitally

necessary for the purpose of ex-

changing information. It is even

more important, however, to
achieve a broader consensus of

thinking than that limited to our

own individual dioceses, because

there are few things which threaten

to narrow our viewpoint more than

provincialism.

This exchange between associa-

tions is becoming increasingly nec-

essary as the thinking and feeling

of one part of the Church in the

United States affects the entire

American Catholic community.

Consequently there is need for

priests to be associated with one

another on a national as well as a

local level. I am confident that the

value of this will be experienced

here during these two days as we

mutually benefit from our ex-

change.

Senates

We pass now from associations
to senates. I should like to remind

you of the working distinction

made between the two, emphasiz-

ing here that senates are a part of

the official governmental structure

of a diocese, which presents them

with unique problems in their re-

lations with the bishop, their re-

lations with existing commissions,

departments and other canonically

and legally established diocesan

structures. Many of these prob-

lems will naturally have to be re-

solved in a revision of canon law,

which will more clearly reflect the

spirit of collegiality as expressed

and manifested in Vatican Council

II.

But for our purposes here to-

day, and prescinding for the mo-

ment from these deeper questions,

certain goals can be established for

senates until such time that their

exact nature and function hope-

fully become through experience

more clearly delineated in law.

As indicated in Presbyterorum

Ordinis and Christus Dominus, a

senate shares in the policy making

function of the diocese as an ad-

visory body to the bishop. A first
goal of a senate, therefore, should

be the hard evaluation of diocesan

needs of a diocese. On the basis

of this evaluation priorities should

be established. Without priorities a

senate will flounder and lose valu-

able time searching out its own

role and identity and as a result,

not address itself to the urgent pas-

toral needs of a diocese.

In the experience of many sen-

ates one of the areas of highest

priority is personnel. I mean the

location of priests according to

their talents and self-evaluated pref-

erences, and provision of sound

retirement programs, rotation of

pastorates and a multitude of oth-

er personnel needs which in many

dioceses have been egregiously neg-

lected.

To provide a successful program

of that kind, a personnel board

is indispensable. Collective deci-

sion making and expertise can be

brought to bear on this important

concern. This is particularly true

in the larger dioceses of our coun-

try, where often talent lies un-

17



tapped, positions are filled out of

desperation or expediency, and per-

sonal favoritism plays no small

part in the placement of priests.

The creation of an effective per-

sonnel board should be one of the

goals of highest priority for the

senate in a diocese of any signifi-

cant size.

Constant Contact

Since the senate is to represent

the presbytery in an advisory ca-

pacity to the episcopacy, it is nec-

essary for the senate or council to

maintain close communication with

all the priests. This can be achieved

through close contact with the As-

sociation of Priests (if there is one

in a diocese). It can also be

achieved through direct contact

with the constituents which would

reflect the thinking particular to

the priests of a certain age or lo-

cale. Regardless of the procedure

of communication, the very con-

cept of senate necessitates the es-

tablishment of open and continuing

communication between the senate

and the presbytery of the diocese.

In the words of Professor Weber

in the paper cited above,

the senate must be compre-

hensive, free and democratic.

It is comprehensive when per-

sonal horizontal and vertical

channels of communication

are given so that the serious

wishes formulated in dis-

cussion groups with priestly

brothers are left untouched

in their course from the bot-

7 Weber, op. cit., p. 7.

18

tom to the top where they

are to be heard. It is free

when it comes into being ac-

cording to personal points of

view and not according to

functional considerations of

sort simply imposed from

above. . . . The council is

democratic when the way of

election and of speaking to

the bishop are such that they

include the voice and word of

all .
7

Creative Programs

Because the senate is to function

in the words of the Ecumenical

Council “as an advisory group on

all matters especially pastoral,” it

has the responsibility of providing

for programs of research and de-

velopment in all areas of concern

to a diocese—personnel, financial,
and pastoral. Most especially is it

true that a senate has the responsi-

bility to set as one of its priority

goals that of providing research

which will lead to creative pastoral

programs which will be genuinely

responsive to the human and reli-

gious needs unique to the inner

city, rural areas, minority groups

and poverty pockets of our society.

As a pastorally-orientated advi-

sory group to the bishop, the sen-

ate should devise every means pos-

sible to bring the resources of the

people of God to bear on the so-

cial and economic problems of the

society, and this can be done only

through realistic research and plan-

ning—using all the modern tech-
niques of the social sciences so

as to direct effectively the well



intentioned and religiously moti-

vated resources of the Church

toward meeting the often inter-

related social and religious needs

of our society.

Open and Frank

In effect the main goal of any

senate is to be an effective advi-

sory body to the bishop—one
which is characterized by creativ-

ity and initiative. But to be a truly

effective advisor, one must be in-

dependent of the one he is advis-

ing—independent in the sense that
he has different sources of infor-

mation and that he speaks his mind

in honesty, openness and absolute

frankness. As Cardinal Suhard re-

minded us in his great pastoral let-

ter, Priests Among Men:

One of the priest’s first serv-

ices to the world is to tell it

the truth .
8

And, if this is his service to the

world, how much more should this

be his service to his bishop? To

safeguard these qualities in the

senate, it is necessary to keep it

independent from the bishop and

the chancery in its thinking and

deliberations. Then what it brings

to him in an advisory capacity

will be fresh and unincumbered.

Although the senate is intimately

united with the bishop in the gov-

ernance of the diocese, at the same

time it must maintain a healthy

independence in its deliberations if

it is to give effective, realistic and

meaningful advice. This is a sub-

8 Emmanuel Cardinal Suhard, Priests
Among Men. (Notre Dame: Fides Pub-
lishers, Inc. 1960), p. 40.

ject which I think should be seri-

ously considered in your work-

shops, because it is at the very

heart of the concept of collegiality.

This goal of independence is so

greatly to be desired that senates

should petition to remain in exist-

ence even after the bishop dies, as

provided for in the Motu Proprio,

Christus Dominus. The senate is to

be truly representative of the pres-

bytery of a diocese and the pres-

bytery does not change with the

death of a bishop.

Assist Laity

In keeping with its nature as a

body representing the presbytery

concerned with pastoral matters,

another main goal of senates

should be to assist the laity in the

creation of pastoral councils. Sen-

ates should wish these councils to

be representative of the full spec-

trum of thought in the diocese.

The senates should try to develop

a relationship with the pastoral

council which would insure the

council’s autonomy. Thus the

council could freely reflect the

thinking of the laity and partici-

pate in the decision making areas

where they are so pre-eminently

competent.

Moreover, this will help to in-

sure a spirit of collaboration and

cooperation will characterize the re-

lationship between these two bod-

ies. The laity at this particular

point in the history of the Ameri-

can Church needs the understand-

ing and leadership from the priests’

senates and councils if they are to

overcome their psychology of sub-

19



servience and to take the initiative

in bringing their frequently su-

perior knowledge and talents to

bear in the creation and operation

of these pastoral councils.

There are no magic formulae or

tested techniques which will iner-

rantly bring these goals into being,

for as Bishop Casey of Paterson

so well expressed it in his address

which I cited above:

We are walking along a new
road and it is likely we may

at times take the wrong fork.

But no need to turn back.

Those who act out of love of

God have His guidance and

assurance that they will reach

their destination. It is better

to be wrong occasionally than

to be always irrelevant .9

Guidelines

There are no guidelines to insure

a senate’s success. But there are

soqie guidelines which, if they do

not insure success, at least make

the task easier. For any senate it

is indispensable to have regular

meetings with the bishop. Thus it

can communicate its proposals to

him and explain the reasons for its

conclusions, and, inturn, can re-

ceive the bishop’s reaction to these

conclusions. This establishes a for-

mal arena for dialogue between the

bishop and his priests which is so

important for the Church as a

whole.

To proceed with effectiveness to-

ward the goals so far outlined, it

is necessary to conduct senate

9 Documentary Service, op. cit., p. 5.

20

meetings with genuine profession-

alism and at times parliamentary

precision. If the matters discussed

are as important as indicated,

they require serious attention at

meetings.

Coordination

Moreover, if the senate is to ad-

dress itself effectively to the

problems indicated, it will be

necessary to provide adequate com-

mittee structure. In committee

structure much of the tedious work

of research and planning is ac-

complished without paralyzing the

senate as a whole with excessive

detail.

As the work load of senates in-

creases it will become imperative

for the priest chairman or execu-

tive secretary to be given full time

to coordinate the work of the

various committees and to handle

the routine procedures. Such an ar-

rangement would relieve the sen-

ators from these mechanical and

administrative details which are,

nevertheless, so important for the

smooth operation of a group of

this size. The success or failure of

a senate will depend almost exclu-

sively on how seriously the sen-

ators consider their responsibilities,

a fact that will be concretely

manifested by their willingness,

and that of the bishop, to provide

a full-time priest who will co-

ordinate the vast scope of its work.

Needless to say, just as in the

case of associations, so too in the

case of senates, there is need for

continued communication, so that

each can share in the experience

of others. How especially true this



is at this moment in history, when

the form and shape of these sen-

ates and councils are being deter-

mined more by trial and error than

by any preconceived plan. We,

therefore, have need of one an-

other, so that we can profit by

one another’s failures and success-

es—understanding that what suc-
cess any of us enjoys has been

achieved only through repeated tri-

als and frequent failures. At this

time, perhaps more than any other

time, we must keep in mind those

sage words of John Henry New-

man:

In a higher world it is other-

wise, but here below to live

is to change, and to be perfect

is to have changed often. 10

Area of Collaboration

Before I conclude this morning,

I should like to make one final

suggestion concerning a matter

which I think is of the utmost im-

portance as we move into a new

era in the history of the Church of

the United States—a matter which
offers a singularly significant op-

portunity for mutual collaboration

of all priests councils whether as-

sociations or senates. It is this, that

all of us in and through our priests’

organizations should be moving to-

ward having a more significant

voice in the selection of bishops.

In the past few months we have

witnessed the request for such a

10 John Henry Newman, An Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine. 10th
edition. (New York: Longmans, Green
& Company, 1897), p. 40.

II John Tracy Ellis, “On Selecting Ameri-
can Bishops,” The Commonweal,
LXXXV (March 10, 1967), p. 643.

voice from priests of lesser or

greater number in the Archdioceses

of New York and St. Louis and

in the Dioceses of Green Bay and

Wilmington. At first this seems to

be a somewhat startling innovation,

but it is not without precedent in

the history of the American

Church, and certainly not in the

Universal Church. According to

Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, the

noted historian of American Ca-

tholicism, in his article “On Select-

ing American Bishops,” which

appeared in the March 10, 1967,

issue of Commonweal, in 1788 a

committee of three priests

acting in the name of all

their number . . . addressed a

petition for a bishop to Pope

Pius VI. The request was

granted and on November 6,

1789 the priests’ choice, Fa-

ther John Carroll, was ap-

pointed Bishop of Baltimore. 11

Selection of Bishops

Likewise the next two men ap-

pointed to the American hierarchy,

Laurence Graessl and Leonard

Neale, were also choices of the

priests in an election. Moreover,

from 1885 to 1916 the diocesan

consultors and irrevocable rectors

of American dioceses had the right

of drawing up a terna when their

bishop died, resigned or was trans-

ferred, but they lost it in 1916

when too many of them leaked the

names on the ternae. Based upon

this early American experience, and

in keeping with the growing need of

collegiality of the presbytery with

the episcopacy in the United States,

21



it can scarcely be denied that great

benefit would accrue to the total

Church if priests in their respective

associations, senates, and councils

were to be given a significant voice

in the selection of bishops. A device
of this kind could conceivably con-

tribute more effectively in the

choosing of bishops more pastoral-

ly minded than curial and canoni-

cally oriented.

Nor is this beyond practical so-

lution, for it would seem conceiv-

able that priests could submit their

ternae, and that an accumulated

terna could be made up from these,

or the senators could submit ternae

which would reflect the choices of

their respective constituents. Once

the principle and value of having

the priests contribute more sub-

stantially to the choice of bishops

are admitted, then the mere pro-

cedural formalities could be easily

devised.

Conclusion

This morning we have consid-

ered many facets of priests’ coun-

cils, associations and senates both

in terms of their brief history in

12 Mathew, 20:27-28 (Jerusalem Bible)

the United States and in view of

their future. Perhaps we have at-

tempted to consider too many sides,

and as a result we may have be-

come somewhat confused and over-

whelmed. Oddly enough, however,

in this very confusion and perplex-

ity, we are witnesses to a mag-

nificent time in the Church’s

history as the Spirit of God works

not only through Vatican Council

II on a universal level, but as He

also breathes in the Church of this

country as a whole and in the

various churches in different parts

of the nation. And, indeed, the

Holy Spirit at times does breath in

confusion with sound and fury as

He did on that first Pentecost Sun-

day. In faith and hope we can see

in this fury the Spirit of Christ re-

newing His priests in keeping with

His admonition:

Anyone who wants to be

great among you must be your

servant, and anyone who

wants to be first among you

must be your slave, just as

the Son of Man came not to

be served but to serve, and to

give His life as a ransom for

many. 12

22



Chapter 3

Rationale

for a National Organization

Rev. John
J.

Hill

IT is a secret to no one that the

Catholic priesthood is in the

midst of agonizing self-appraisal.

The questions being asked about

the nature and role of the priest-

hood today are basic. It is even

asked if the priesthood as we know

it presently—a sort of elite caste in
the Church—should continue to
exist.

Some who have observed priests

disagreeing with each other are be-

wildered. They say that the priest-

hood used to be a bulwark for

their own Catholicity. But now,

they say, priests have begun to

sort out their vocational problems

in public and no longer present a

united front to the world. For

these observers, the image of the

priesthood has considerably deteri-

orated. In their minds, the decreas-

ing number of vocations and the

increasing number of priests leav-

ing the priesthood are related to

this deterioration. They point to

the statement made recently by

Father Edward Schillebeeckx that

within three years 10,000 Ameri-

can priests will leave the Church.

That statement, they say, is evi-

dence that the situation of the

Catholic priest in the United States

is worsening.

We are assembled here tonight
to comment on these pessimistic

predictions. We affirm that they
shall not come to pass. For the

priesthood will be shaped not just

by historical currents, but by

priests themselves. We stand in soli-
darity with other priests of our age

whose lives testified to the capacity

of priests to shape events and times

—yes, to shape history.
I think of Virgil Michel, John

Ryan, Jospeh Cardijn, Teilhard de

Chardin, and John Courtney Mur-

ray. In their spirits this evening we

say: “We have qome together so

23



that we might work and plan to-

gether. We look forward to an
exciting new priesthood whose

lines are as yet unclear to us, a

priesthood which underscores serv-

ice, challenge, imagination, vision,

freedom, and professionalism. We
shall move toward that priesthood

by taking steps which are coordi-

nated and deliberate, changing

those things which we have a re-

sponsibility to change.”

That we have come today from

every major urban center in the

United States, including Honolulu,

is an expression of our desire to

collaborate on a national level; for

we shall not let it be said that in

these uncertain times we failed to

come together, that we failed to

act.

Nationwide

We have already taken the first
step toward national collaboration

by coming together at this meet-

ing. The second step will be to

bring into being an organization

which will enable the senates and

associations to work together. To-

gether with the laity, the religious

sisters and brothers, the hierarchy,

and—in many cases—with our fel-
low Christians of other churches,

we shall plan and build. We shall
help to build for the Church struc-

tures, systems and programs. We
shall help to build whatever will

be needed for the Church to meet

successfully the challenges of these

precarious times.

In a report to be given tomor-

row afternoon, guidelines for a

national organization of priests’

councils will be proposed. This as-

sembly willing, the committee shall

invite the priests’ councils of the

United States to participate in the

formation of this organization.

Such a nationwide organization

would act through a board elected

by the councils themselves. It

would recommend a plan for co-

ordinating the workload of mem-

ber councils, and arrange for the

exchange of position papers and

other technical materials useful for

the operation of priests’ councils,

recommend new programs of re-

search and action, give periodic

reports to the National Conference

of Bishops, speak publicly about

matters of concern to the Church,

whenever it deems it appropriate

to speak thus. It would enable the

priests to form their own consen-

sus so that when they collaborate

with the laity, the hierarchy, and

with religious sisters and brothers,

they would be able to collaborate

more effectively. In short, a na-

tional organization of priests’ coun-

cils would enable the priests to act

and speak as a body.

Efficiency

Such an organization will make

it possible for priests’ senates and

associations to operate with great-

er efficiency. Duplication will be

avoided. Instead of fifty priests’

councils addressing themselves to

the problem of developing person-

nel boards, the matter would be

considered by a much smaller

number of councils. The results of

their research would then be con-

veyed to all.

24



Senates and associations will find

that their proposals will more like-

ly meet with success. For the pro-

posals will often have behind them

an impressive measure of research

and the general approval of priests’

groups throughout the country.

Such proposals are easier to im-

plement.

Assist in Theology

Because the efficiency of priests’

councils will be improved, they will

be able to achieve their goals more

easily—and sooner. We refer to
the educational programs to help

priests absorb the great volume of

theological content of the last five

years, preparing them for the new

forms which the priesthood may

take in the years to come; other

programs to facilitate communica-

tion between the bishop and his

priests and among the priests them-

selves; the whole range of social

action programs which profession-

al priests’ councils can address

themselves to—programs dealing
with civil rights, housing, educa-

tion, and employment—and with
other critical areas; retirement

boards with sound planning to en-

able priests to retire with purpose

and with dignity; personnel boards

so useful for the reasonable place-

ment of priests in the work of the

diocese.

A national organization of
priests’ councils, because it would

improve the efficiency of the par-

ticipating councils, would make it

possible for the goals we have just

described to be accomplished more

easily and sooner.

But a national organization of

individual priests’ councils would

do more than improve the effec-

tiveness of individual priests’ coun-

cils. It will also enable them to

work in concert on problems

which transcend the capacity of an

individual priests’ council. Though

there are many such problems, let

us speak about four.

Personnel

First, the problem of personnel

seen from a national viewpoint.

Several questions must be asked.

Should there be personnel boards

—not just in those dioceses which
presently have them or are plan-

ning them, but in every diocese?

Should they have access to the

finest national expertise available

to the field of personnel? Should

a priest who wants to serve in a

ministry other than the parish min-

istry be able to do so with facility?

Should a priest who wants to work

for periods of time in an area of

the country other than the one

in which he was ordained, be able

to do so easily? Should a study be

made to determine if priests are

placed where they are most

needed?

A national organization of
priests’ councils would make it

possible for the priests’ councils

of this country to study such ques-

tions and effect answers to them.

Secondly, there is the matter of

the priests’ role in the Church. For

priests around the country are ask-

ing basic questions about their

lives. How should they spend their
time each day? How meaningful

25



will it be for them to become

trained in secular skills and in-

volved in secular fields? What

should the contribution of the

priesthood be in today’s technical-

ly sophisticated world? Should

there be a particular competence

for the priest today? If so, what

should be the nature of that com-

petence?

Experimentation

The task of determining the role

of the priest cannot be solved by

priests alone, for it is a problem

of the whole Church and it must

be solved by the whole Church.

But it will not be solved without

the effort of priests to solve it.

Critical to the solution will be co-

ordinated pastoral experimentation

of sufficient volume to be valid.

Experimental ministries dealing

with present parochial structures,

experimental ministries dealing

with other than parochial struc-

tures, team ministries, personal

ministries, all will be useful.

Such experimentation will pro-

duce answers to such pragmatic

questions as “How can a priest

use his time most productively?”

“What things are possible and de-

sirable for him to do?” “What

forms of the ministry create the

best relationships with the people

of God?” “What kind of training

is needed for those preparing to

be priests?”

With such a quantity of action

and evaluation, today’s theologians

will have something of substance

to work with. Little by little, the

shape of a new priesthood will be-

come clear. The next generation of

priests will take their direction

from this large effort. It will be

our contribution to them.

Such experimentation, to be ini-

tiated and carried on by the whole

Church, will be impossible without

the cooperation of the priests of

the country. Their contribution to

this effort must be reasonably or-

dered. A national organization of
priests’ councils would help it to

be so.

New Modus Quo

Let me introduce a third impor-

tant goal to be achieved by a

national organization of priests’

councils. I refer to professionalism

in the priesthood.

The American priest a half gen-

eration ago could describe himself

as a professional man. Before he

entered upon his career as a par-

ish priest he had mastered an im-

pressive amount of highly technical

material. We all know this. But
that kind of professionalism is dis-

appearing from the priesthood. The

times, the new problems, the new

complex modes of looking at the

world, all indicate the need for a

new modus quo, a new style for

the priesthood. The style must be

professional.

Professionalism calls for particu-

lar competence. Professional peo-

ple do not consider themselves ex-

perts in every area of life; just in

one area. The idea that a priest’s

competence can at the same time

include liturgy, psychology, youth

organizations, education, commu-

nity organization, civil rights, and

26



several other areas is not profes-

sional.

Professionalism calls for self-

determination. For professional

people working together as col-

leagues determine the direction of

their careers, the priorities of their

careers, and the standards by

which their performance is judged.

Professionalism calls for frater-

nal respect and collaboration. It

makes one professional man call

another professional man his col-

league. Finally, professionalism

calls for excellence of perform-

ance. The goal of the collaboration

of any group of colleagues must

be to develop the capacity to per-

form well.

Excellence in Service

All these elements should flow

into our priesthood. As the role

of the priest becomes clearer to

us, we should be aiming toward

that particular competence most

appropriate to the priest. We
should be working together in a

new professional relationship as

colleagues. We should be deter-
mining, as far as we can, the cir-

cumstances under which we can

best operate— and the goals which
seem to be most judicious. The

goal of our collaboration must be

the growing excellence of our

service to the people of God and

to the bishops.

Such professionalism must be

felt not just in the priests’ councils

of the nation, but in the life of

every priest. He must be able to

organize professionally his hours,

his days, his years, his life, his

living space, his working space

—

so that there is about them all the

characters of order, purpose and

excellence. Priests must be able to

experience a new pride in their

collegial cooperation and in the

increased excellence of their per-

formance.

This task of introducing a new

professionalism into the priests’

councils and into the life of the

American priest would be greatly

expedited by the establishment of

a national organization of priests’

councils.

There is a fourth goal to which

a national organization might ad-

dress itself. Since both papers this

morning explained this point, I

will just touch on it. Several dio-

ceses in the United States have al-

ready indicated their desire to have

something to say about the ap-

pointment of a bishop. The ques-

tion implies three minor questions:

First, what should be the qualifi-

cations of bishops? Secondly, what

should be their tenure? Thirdly,

what place should the laity, the

clergy, and the hierarchy have in

the selection of the properly quali-

fied one? These questions, while

they might be touched upon by

senates or associations of particular

dioceses, would be more thorough-

ly treated by the appropriate com-

mittees convened by a national or-

ganization of priests’ councils.

Priest/Bishop Relations

One result of a national organi-

zation would be the improvement

of the relationship between priests

and their bishop. I now address

27



this point. Sometimes this relation-

ship, on the part of the priest, is

unmanly, unprofessional, and un-

truthful. Sometimes is is marred

by crippling fears and hostilities.

Priests are not to be blamed for

this poor relationship; or are bish-

ops. The blame is to be placed on

an administrative system which

makes a priest completely depend-

ent on a bishop for the direction

and scope of his career.

In most cases, it is the bishop

who decides what assignment a

priest shall have, and for how long

he shall have it. In many dioceses,

to this day, priests are not con-

sulted about their assignments.

This point does not have to be

expanded. Everyone here knows

what we mean when we say that

priests are often in a relationship

of total dependency on their bish-

ops.

Hurts the Church

This system had its merit at one

time in the history of the Church.

It was a serviceable instrument for

dealing with the complex task of

appointing appropriate people to

their work in the Church. There

was even a kind of military effi-

ciency to the system. So the sys-

tem should not be treated as though

it never had any merit.

But that system must be consid-

erably modified, if not replaced,

today because as it is now, it hurts

the whole Church. It hurts the

priest because it inclines him to

say only those things which please

his bishop, for he does not want to

displease the man on whom his

entire career depends. No one
does. As a result, he sometimes

feels he is not a man. To compen-

sate for this, he assails the bishop

behind the bishop’s back and

blames him for all the woes of

the Church.

Such an administrative system

obviously does not challenge a

priest to use his own judgment and

to be imaginative. Much is lost to

the Church because of this.

The system we presently have

also hurts the bishop because it

deprives him of his right to know

the full truth about his diocese.

The loss of truth in a diocese is

a serious thing.

It goes without saying that the

laity also suffer from the system.

They are deprived of the imagina-

tive and aggressive leadership of

their priests. And they can sense

the nervous tension between the

bishop and his priests.

Through a national organization

of priests, the priests’ councils of

the United States would be able to

address themselves to the system.

It can be changed. It has already

begun to be modified in those dio-

ceses which have effective person-

nel boards. But much work—much
work—remains.

Freeze Status

Let me mention parenthetically

that if there were a priests’ union,

the priest/ bishop relationship would

worsen. A union implies that a
bishop is the employer of a priest.

Such a relationship would freeze

the priest in a status which he, giv-

en the nature of his calling, would

28



find demeaning and wholly unsatis-

fying. It would intensify the priest/

bishop polarity which is at the

heart of the problem.

Another unacceptable factor in

the idea of a union of priests is

that a union’s reason for being is

the advancement of the members’

condition. Our own calling indi-

cates that we must have a larger

sense. If we are interested in the

life and problems of priests them-

selves, it is for two reasons. When

men first come together, they come

together to talk about those things

which they have in common. Such

issues as personnel boards, retire-

ment boards, are quite appropriate

now. But we are also interested in

these matters because we know

that until we sort these problems

out we cannot address ourselves

to the larger matters before the

Church and society. Our view is

not myopic. We are looking to our-
selves now—but only that we
might later look to the Church

and the world. Such an expansive

outlook would not obtain in a

priests’ union.

Not against Unions

It goes without saying that these

comments are not meant as a criti-

cal judgment against unions.

We have referred to many prob-
lems which contribute to the de-

teriorating morale of many priests.

But the morale of the priests in this

country will be substantially im-

proved when they understand that

priests have come together in a

professional organization to ad-

dress themselves to these problems.

And as these problems are an-

swered—and problems do have an-
swers—a large measure of hope
will return to many priests who

have lost hope in recent years.

The morale of lay people will

also be raised. They will see that

we are not letting the times get

worse. We are not letting the con-
fusion grow. We have come togeth-
er and are beginning to form our

consensus. They will see that we

are building, and that what we are

building is beautiful and full of

hope.

To the bishops of the United

States we say: We are united with
you in the mission of the Church.

We are anxious to collaborate with
you, with the laity, and with the

religious communities of men and

women. Together we can achieve

what has to be achieved.

Accept Challenge

To all who observe our action,

we say: We have not lost our sense
of priority. We know that there
are problems of more importance

than whether or not there is a per-

sonnel board in a diocese. We have
not forgotten Vietnam, Detroit,

our decaying cities, the massive in-

justices meted out to black people

in our day. But it will take a little

time to get them in our sights.

We do not recoil from the tasks
which face the Church today. We
run to meet them. Together we

shall meet them with the energy

and intelligence which the prob-

lems demand. Others may com-

plain that they are living in the

anguish of transition. We rejoice

29



that the challenges which face us

are arduous. We shall move delib-
erately. We shall not move with
the assumption that we have all

the answers. We shall not move in
hostility to any person or any

group of persons in or out of the

Church. We shall not move think-
ing that all problems will be an-

swered soon. We shall not move
thinking that the going will be

easy. But we shall move.

Finally, let us not mislead any-

one into thinking that we are

about something we think of only

moderate value. The work of

uniting the priests’ councils of the

United States is a seed, the seed

of democracy. We intend to bring
to the life of the Church in the

United States the richness of the

democratic tradition so that the

Church in its structures and sys-

tems will be less medieval and

monarchial and more relevant to

the needs of our very modern day.

We are about a very serious effort
to enrich the Church profoundly.

We would have no one think we
were planning anything less.

In Ecclesiastes we read that

there is time to tear down and a

time to build. What we say tonight

is that now is the time to build.

30



757**5