Let’s start by being positive and optimistic.
Some 25 years ago when it was beginning to dawn on most
people that the steady stream of ordinations from seminaries was slowing
down, our own Bishop Charles Grant, in his usual gentle and wise way, was
heard to say that the only problem for a bishop greater than having a
shortage of priests was having too many of them!
Statistics also tell us – for what they are worth – that apart from Malta we
have more priests per Catholic in the U.K. than any place in the rest of the
world.
Some two thousand years ago someone far greater than a bishop or a
set of statistics set up the Eucharistic priesthood and promised that the
Church or community they were to serve would never fail, that he would be
with us until the end of time.
We ought, perhaps, to put our faith in Our Lord and accept that no matter
how much things seem to be changing, he will ensure his promises will be
kept, the Church will not grind to an undignified halt and that he will be in
charge of all the changes and do it his way – not the way we reckon he
ought to do it.
Going down, now, the slippery slope of criticism, could we even
acknowledge that priests as we have known them through the last few
generations are nowhere near as important as they kept ( and keep) on
thinking they are?
There is no doubt at all that a priest is and continues to be “ another
Christ” in so far as he is ordained to bring about the Real Presence, to
administer the sacraments, to preach and teach and bring people closer to
God. But through the ages, for many and various reasons, a priest’s
position in a parish has become central and pivotal to such a degree that
without him the place falls apart. Priests have been brought up in this sort of
atmosphere and even if they acknowledge that there are innumerable ways
in which lay parishioners can and should play an active part, many spheres
of work in which they are more experienced than any priest, they find it hard
to put that knowledge into practice.
This is partly because by the mere fact of ‘living on top of the shop’ a
priest is much more available, is on the spot to do the normal, daily running
of the plant, lock up the church, deal with the gas meter man, answer the
telephone about “ what time is midnight Mass, Father?”, sign passport
photographs, prepare the altar for Mass, pick up litter and chewing gum in
church (how come nobody ever drops a £5 note?) do the printing and all
the other household chores.
Mainly, however, it is because by Canon Law and immemorial custom the
priest is in charge, he is responsible, is the final arbiter and is even claimed
to be “ the guardian of the sacred”. Even curates – a rare breed now – are
only allowed to act with the blessing and permission of this lofty character
known as The Parish Priest. [ A curate is defined as a mouse training to be a rat!].
Parishioners are spoken of as ‘subjects’ in Canon Law. Cheques can only
be signed by the priest. Parishioners volunteer or are volunteered into
certain jobs and, by the nature of their work and family circumstances, are
often far more peripatetic than the lawfully established parish priest.
A lot of these attitudes are changing, if only in comparatively minor
details. The responsibility is still vested in the priest. The whole nature,
atmosphere of a parish, a huge chunk in the lives of several hundred people
in the parish can change by the mere appointment of a new parish priest.
We are slowly getting to the stage when more and more of the practical work,
the nuts and bolts of running a parish, are being done by lay men and
women. There is a lot of talk about “shared responsibility” or “collaborative
ministry”. But so often this is done as a desperate measure, a stop-gap until
priestly vocations increase.
Would it not be better to think that the good Lord has deliberately
allowed – or even brought about - the shortage of priests (which we are
being encouraged to describe as ‘ fewer priests’) in order to involve all the
members of the Church, to force us to share responsibility in a real way, to
spotlight just what a priest ought to be doing as a priest?
Imagine a parish where all the practical and innumerable daily tasks are
shared and all responsibility taken by those who do the work. The flower
ladies decide when and where to have flowers, how to raise cash for them,
when to scrap the dead vegetation. One man and his friend has a time-table
for the use of the church and knows and publishes ( with the priest’s
knowledge) the times of services and makes sure that a wedding does not
clash with a funeral. A group look after all money, count it, bank it and have
the power to spend it ( with limitations – even a parish priest in all his glory is
not supposed to spend more than £2000 on a whim and without higher
authority). Others make sure all things needed for services and sacraments
are available ( candles, vestments, clean linen, wine, hosts, books, news
sheets, papers, leaflets and all kinds of propaganda displayed on boards
and other forms of communication available to all). Some prepare the altar
and church, others do readings, sing, usher, serve, provide refreshments.
Still other worthies use their skill and/or take responsibility for maintenance
and repairs, cutting grass and hedges. Groups look after the children and
young people, undertake instructions for the sacraments. This is just to
mention a few of the things happening in any parish.
All involved accept the responsibility for what they are doing. They keep
the priest informed and, with luck most of the time, work in full agreement
after discussion – but do not have to seek permission nor feel that they are
not ‘in charge’. Because the buck stops with them. The priest is not there as
a long-stop.
Having imagined such a set-up, what is left for the priest to do? Why do
we worry that there is a shortage – or there are fewer of them?
What will the priest be doing?
Much more all the things for which he was ordained. He will say Mass,
administer sacraments, arrange and take funerals, counsel and instruct, look
after hospices and hospitals, be around to get to know ‘his’ people. And he
will be doing this through an area bigger than just a parish or even one
parish twinned with another. It may well be that a whole area of five or six
present parishes will be served in this way by two priests. Just because a
parish does not have its own priest does not mean it will lose it’s identity.
People – who are, after all, ‘the parish’ – are, as modern parlance has it, a
‘Eucharistic Community’ with the Mass and church being the link between
them - not the priest.
They will soon get to know their area priest(s) and vice versa. Masses
will not have to be dropped wholesale, churches and Mass centres – built
through the years with great devotion and sacrifices by parishioners - will
not have to be closed and sold off. Once closed they will never be re-
opened; quite apart from the negative message of despair sent out every
time a church is closed for reasons other than a significant movement of
population. There will be no need for liturgical experts to tell us that
a Sunday Mass should be a ‘one-off’ event to gather all the people of the
parish to worship together; that if the church is not full then that Mass
perhaps a quiet one beloved by the elderly or an evening one used blatantly
for convenience) should be cut out.
There will be no argument that ‘ most people have cars’ and can thus
travel or – even worse – depend on lifts from fellow worshippers. After all,
they go quite a long distance to do their shopping!
BUT none of this can happen if we maintain the quaint claim that no priest
should say more than three Masses through the week-end. The claim which
lay people – doctors, teachers, office workers, architects, accountants,
shopkeepers, dustmen, social workers, policemen, solicitors, taxi drivers,
ordinary men and women who are usually, in addition, mums and dads and
often have to commute five days a week – openly laugh at is that a priest
saying Mass must ‘project himself’ in such a manner that anything more than
three weekend Masses will exhaust him, wear him out and damage him.
Saying Mass is a unique privilege and certainly must not be rushed,
hurried, said without love and devotion or become in any way a mechanical
chore. That is something priests should be able to cope with; even if only
through the grace of their special sacrament. Physically it surely is not more
demanding than teaching a restless class for several hours five days a week
or working in an office from nine till five.
Even on weekdays it should not be beyond the strength of a normal man
to say a morning and evening Mass in different places. There cannot, surely,
be any inherent disrespect or loss of Eucharistic devotion in any of this.
A priest certainly deserves a day off - and be encouraged, even forced,
to insist on it - which he can spend in bed, playing golf, visiting his friends
and family or doing anything he likes. He can even watch the box most
evenings rather than have symposiums (or is it symposia?), long and usually
inconclusive meetings or feel obliged to be personally present at all
parochial get-togethers, planning meetings or discussions.
But he must stay in his parish or area as much as is humanly possible
and be in touch through all our modern means of communication; actually
listen to and reply to his answering machine, keep his mobile switched on
when reasonably possible.
If things are worked out carefully, with full consultation, some imagination,
a lot of give and take, even some increase in Eucharistic Services welcomed
and the willingness by priests to zoom in on their proper and purely spiritual
functions – which only they can provide – then parochial areas could be set
up, few, if any, Masses need to be dropped, even fewer churches closed and
a practical act of faith and trust be expressed in a genuinely Divine
Providence: God knows what he is doing.
No boats would be burnt, no bridges destroyed, no faithful
people discouraged from going to Mass. It would give us time to consider
that – just maybe – God wants changes. Perhaps the set-up of parishes
which has served the Church so well in the past is not immutable. Perhaps
some of what is seen as being the nature of priests, essential, is not all that
essential after all. We already have married priests doing excellent work in
parishes and being fully accepted by people. The definition of a vocation –
the call by a bishop or religious superior – could well be tried out on the
many permanent Deacons who feel they would like to be priests, admit that a
mere wish or feeling is not enough but would welcome an official ‘call’ - if and
when Canon Law could be changed.
Who knows, perhaps in time we will even accept the possibility that just
because Our Lord chose twelve blokes to be with him at the Last Supper
does not mean that – for ever – only men can be priests. Just as the
majority of them were fishermen while only a few of our present priestly
generation actually go fishing, have Aramaic as our mother tongue or are of
middle eastern origin.
Shortage of priests? There ain’t no such thing.
There are fewer priests but far more opportunities for constructive
changes and – if we hang on there! – an immeasurably valuable time for
confidence in God and simple trust that he does know what he is doing.
