|
Vocation Crisis:
The Self-inflicted Wound
By John
P. Fraunces
How difficult is it
to become a priest in the United States today? If one were to judge from
the cries and lamentations about the desperate need to fill priestless
parishes, it would seem that most dioceses and seminaries would be
willing to accept almost any qualified person who applies. However, the
problem of maintaining the minimum number of priests to run a diocese is
more complicated than the simple equation of supply and demand. One
large diocese on the east coast will ordain only eight men in 1997 and
two more in 1998, a number far too small to replace those priests who
are sick, die or retire in the next two years. Why is this happening? If
one were to ask the typical parish priest the reason for the decline in
vocations, he would probably point out that Catholic parents, caught up
in a materialistic society, no longer encourage their sons to enter the
seminary. These parents often depreciate the priesthood by dissenting
from the Church’s teachings on contraception, abortion and the
ordination of women.
The laity’s failure to follow Humanae Vitae and to fulfill the
duties of their state in life is no doubt the fundamental scandal in the
American Church and the root cause of its vocational crisis. The radical
downsizing of the Catholic family has left our seminaries empty, and the
selfishness of contracepting parents has been passed on to their
children. Most Catholics no longer believe that a man’s highest calling
is to serve Christ in the sacramental priesthood because it requires the
self-giving lifestyle of celibacy. Only when the married laity abandon
their false god of sexual autonomy and open their conjugal love to the
transmission of life will the Church begin to find a comprehensive and
permanent solution to the vocation crisis.
In addition to the indifference of the laity, the American Church
has continued to struggle with various paradigms about the role of the
priest in the modern Church and how he is expected to interact with his
peers and his parishioners. For example, one seminarian with four years
of study was dismissed from his diocese because he had a serious
personality conflict with his pastor during a summer assignment, and he
was accused of not socializing enough with his peers. The year before,
however, this same man had received a glowing recommendation from
another pastor who praised his priest-like qualities and his service to
the people.
Later, when he applied to another diocese in Pennsylvania, he was
interviewed and investigated by the vocational director for six months.
During this time, the vocational director became convinced that this man
would make an excellent priest, and he wrote a congratulatory letter to
him saying that his Priest Perceiver Interview (PPI) indicated that he
had “. . . some very fine talents.” Attached to the letter were the
results of the PPI which described this man as having “. . . A
tremendous capacity for building positive, personal relationships . . .
[for being] a real gift to the people whom your life touches . . . [For]
an unusual awareness of God’s presence in your own life and in the lives
of others . . . [for] the courage it takes to be a leader, that is the
capacity for asking others for commitments . . . [and for a] dedication
to the Catholic Church.” But when the diocesan psychologist wrote that
he did not think that this man could get along with others, the
vocational director changed his opinion without a moment’s hesitation.
Despite the fact that two other psychologists on separate occasions had
given this man favorable recommendations, he was rejected without being
permitted to see the results of the psychological evaluation or the
right to a second opinion.
This not uncommon practice of giving deference to the professional
opinions of a diocesan psychologist should raise concerns about the
impact of psychology on the process of priestly formation. Perhaps it is
time to ask whether the bishops of the United States want to place that
kind of veto power in the hands of an inexact science which does not
believe in God, Christ, or his Church. Nonetheless, many believe that
psychological evaluations are necessary to weed out sexual deviants and
others who will one day cause great scandal and expense to their
diocese. Unfortunately, psychology does not have the methods available
to accurately predict those who will become involved in sexual
misconduct. Instead, psychologists too often use their influence to
eliminate those men who do not share the ideals of the post-conciliar
modernists, radical feminists, and militant homosexuals. Those men who
are orthodox in faith and chaste in spirit are cavalierly discarded with
“scientific infallibility” because of their “doctrinal rigidity and
sexual immaturity.”
In defense of the two dioceses involved in these cases, it can be
argued that personality conflicts are inevitable in every human
organization, and the human part of Christ’s Church is no exception.
Furthermore, vocation directors must rely on professional expertise
(physicians and psychologists) to disqualify those who are physically
and mentally unable to perform the duties of a priest. This is true, but
in many cases psychologists attempt to impose the values of their
science on their selection of seminarians and act as “social change
agents” for the Church, especially in matters of sexual morality. One
man wrote and said that when he defended himself against the charge of
being “homophobic” by referring to the Church’s teaching on
homosexuality, the seminary’s psychologist became upset and retorted
that the distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual
behavior is “laughable.” A short time later the man was dropped in his
seventh year of studies because of his “immature, unintegrated
sexuality.” What makes this case more unfortunate is that he has been
labeled as “damaged goods” and cannot find another diocese to sponsor
him, even though the facts of this case are well known and documented in
published reports.
What role do feminists and homosexuals have in the selection of
seminarians and the choice of seminaries where these men will study? One
orthodox seminarian was told by a prominent female member of his parish
that “as a male, he was the enemy of all the women because of the
Church’s prohibition against woman’s ordination.” One dismissed
seminarian who applied to an east coast diocese that has an acute
shortage of priests was told by the bishop that he would not ordain any
man who did not believe in the ordination of women. At the New Ways
Ministry Conference held in Pittsburgh March 7-9, 1997, Detroit
auxiliary bishop, Thomas Gumbleton, told his audience that they should
“come out” as homosexual priests . . . from the pulpits of their
churches. This call by a bishop shocked and offended many Catholics, and
made Bishop Gumbleton an unofficial spokesman for the gay and lesbian
groups in the American Church. His speech was not only for a “coming
out” about the sexual orientation of these men, but a challenge for them
to openly defy the Church’s teaching on homosexuality by their behavior.
Speeches like this are widely reported in the secular press and should
be of concern to bishops and vocation directors. If the married laity
believe that homosexual conduct by priests is being ignored by the
bishops, then it is likely that they will actively discourage their sons
from entering the seminary, and they may even withdraw their financial
support from the Church.
Even in the seminary, the irrational process of eliminating men from
ordination continues. One seminarian was sent by his diocese to a
psychologist because he was having academic problems. However, since he
had come from a very dysfunctional family, the vocations director also
wanted to know if the stress associated with his family relationships
was adversely affecting his academic performance. The psychologist met
with the seminarian, completed the evaluation and recommended a plan of
action to help the man deal with the stress generated by his family and
enhance his desire to do academic work. The seminarian was satisfied and
the vocation director was relieved because a plan had been made to help
this man reach ordination. However, the formation committee chairman was
not pleased. Without the knowledge or consent of the vocation director,
he telephoned the psychologist to express his surprise and
disappointment that the evaluation did not deal with the sexual activity
of this man when he was in the military some years before, and that the
psychologist did not recommend that he “tell all” to the formation
committee. The psychologist was puzzled and told the chairman that the
diocese had not informed him that this man’s past sexual activities were
a matter of concern.
The psychologist asked if the seminarian had attempted to act out in
a sexual way with anyone and if he adhered to the teachings of the
Church regarding sexual morality. The chairman affirmed that the
seminarian was orthodox in his behavior and his beliefs, but that one of
his peers suspected that he was a homosexual because of what he had said
in a homiletic class. The formation committee used the suspicion of
another seminarian to launch a full-fledged investigation into the past
sex life of this man with the intention of dismissing him if he did not
fully cooperate. Fortunately for this man, the vocations director did
not concur with the formation committee chairman, and this vocation was
not put in jeopardy.
After Vatican II in a desire to raise the professional standards of
the clergy, the American Church adopted the academic model that placed a
heavy emphasis on the secular education of seminary faculty and the
awarding of civil degrees to its graduates. This made Catholic
seminaries subject to the same criteria that govern the undergraduate
and graduate programs of other colleges and universities in the United
States. However, there seems to have been little thought given to the
consequences of using this model.
The purpose of graduate schools is to maintain and perpetuate the
rights and privileges of its graduates by restricting the number of
people who are deemed worthy. This is especially true in the professions
where the system restricts the supply of qualified individuals in order
to increase the prestige and earning power of the few that graduate.
Unfortunately, the seminary system in the United States seems to be
operated in the same manner. The vocations committee, the formation
committee, the faculty, the dean and the rector all can act as a series
of interpersonal obstacles to the ordination of a seminarian. The
present academic model for seminaries has been very effective in
upgrading the academic credentials of its graduates but has failed to
provide the laborers needed to work in the Lord’s vineyard. In fact, an
argument could be made that the academic model now embraced by the
American Church has so restricted the number of active priests that it
has become a significant factor in the decline of the number of
practicing Catholics over the past thirty years.
There are of course other secular obstacles that many times must be
overcome by the seminarian before he is recommended for ordination. In
too many dioceses, an applicant for the seminary must show proper
respect and even deference to those in the Church who do not always
agree with the Church. Too often seminarians are told that even the
dissenters who in previous times would have been called heretics are to
be loved and respected for their efforts to “lead the Church into the
modern age.” If the man is so naive as to protest that the dissenters
are promoting contraception, abortion and euthanasia, married priests,
and the ordination of women and homosexuals, he will be eliminated
because he is “sexually repressed and doctrinally rigid.” If, however,
he appears to be unsure of his Catholic convictions, he will be referred
to the diocesan’s consulting psychologist for “growth counseling.” But,
if one or two years of psychological counseling on a fee for service
basis is not successful in alienating the man from his faith in the
Church, he is given a negative recommendation from the psychologist
which usually means another dismissal and another lost vocation. One
psychologist told a seminarian that his distinction between the goodness
of the homosexual person and the sinfulness of homosexual behavior was
proof of his homophobia.
For those men who are exclusively heterosexual in orientation and
devoutly orthodox in faith, the difficulty of becoming a priest at the
present time must be faced in an objective and dispassionate manner. The
most crucial factor in getting ordained is to avoid being dismissed from
a seminary or diocese in the first place. Once a man has become rejected
or dismissed from a diocese or seminary, he becomes “damaged goods,” and
very few dioceses will give him another chance because they don’t want
to be seen as taking inferior candidates. This is true even if they know
and believe that the dismissal was unjust. Image is very important!
Contrary to what most American Catholics may think, seminarians have no
rights under Canon law or under the Constitution of the United States.
The rationale for this is simple: seminarians have no rights under Canon
law because no one has a right to ordination, and the civil courts have
not intervened because of the doctrine of the “separation of Church and
state.”
This may seem patently unfair to Americans who are used to a
government of checks and balances to provide an equilibrium of power and
a right to appeal unjust governmental actions, but fortunately the
Catholic Church is not like the government of the United States. Even in
its human dimension, the Church is antithetical to democratic
institutions, and this is necessary because her authority comes from
Christ, not from men. Prospective seminarians should not lose heart on
account of the hierarchical organization of the Church. Instead, they
should take advantage of the great diversity that exists among the
various dioceses in the United States. In this age of turmoil and
rebellion within the Church, men who feel called to follow Christ as
“alteri Christi” should seek out and find one of the many holy and
orthodox bishops who are acting as faithful successors to the Apostles,
who are seeking men to ordain for their people. Those who feel called to
ordination must begin to think of their vocations in terms of the
Universal Church and not merely their own diocese.
Bishops who want to ordain orthodox, heterosexual and celibate men
should say so explicitly in the public forum, not only in their own
dioceses but in the regional advertising media. Many young men who have
read the “sex scandals” about a few priests are turned off. What they
mistakenly see is a tolerance for sexual misconduct. Others have known
priests more worldly than the average layman, and this seems to be a
greater “turn off” than the statistically miniscule number of
“scandals.”
These bishops must not only proclaim publicly that they want these
kinds of men as priests, they must make every effort to insure that
their vocations director is completely orthodox, heterosexual and
celibate. They must know that the seminaries where their men are trained
do not tolerate the homosexual or feminist agendas in their classrooms
or in their dormitories. It will take the personal attention of each
bishop to protect the vocations that God has seen fit to send him, and
in those cases where a man is truly mentally and emotionally incapable
of performing the duties of a priest, he should be dismissed with the
greatest of charity and encouraged to follow Christ as a layman.
However, prospective seminarians should realize that the demands
placed on bishops often make it impossible for them to personally
supervise every important aspect of the selection and training of his
future priests. Therefore, it is incumbent upon that man to investigate
the performance of the diocese where he wants to serve and the seminary
where he will be sent for formation. The more thorough his
investigation, the less likely he will face dismissal, and the more
likely he will reach ordination. There is an old adage in business that
says, “nothing succeeds like success.” If a diocese has been ordaining
an adequate number of men to the priesthood, it is a good indication
that the bishop has made this a high priority and that he has appointed
competent priests to help him. On the other hand, if a diocese is not
ordaining an adequate number of men based on its need and population, it
may indicate that there is an internal struggle within the clergy
regarding their expectations of what a seminarian/priest should be. The
same is true of the seminary where the diocese sends their men to be
trained. A prospective seminarian should ask his vocation director where
he would be sent for his priestly formation and request permission to
visit the seminary to see if the seminary is orthodox in its academic
and spiritual formation, and if it adheres to the Magisterium. The right
choice of diocese and seminary is crucial for any heterosexual and
orthodox man who feels called to the priesthood.
A former seminarian wrote about the pain and anguish he experienced
in his efforts to become a priest. This man, now 33 years old wrote: “In
my journeys, I have looked upon the faces of kind and loving priests,
deacons and bishops . . . because the Lord is present and His glory
radiates from their hearts. I have seen compassion no less shown than
Jesus Himself as He raised Jairus’ daughter or the son of the widow in
Naim. But worst of all things; crueler than death itself, I have seen
the corrupt souls and hope-emptied hearts of clergy whose sloth and
mediocrity sicken the Spirit of God Himself within the flock they are
given to care for, so that the joy of the Lord’s presence has left them
as in the days of old when the Presence left a defiled temple. How sad,
how truly dead among the dead have these people become. . . . I feel
worn from the battle, discarded and emptied out. My faith and life alone
belong to Him Who spoke creation into being—and to Him alone do I cry
out. But then the Spirit comes to me and lifts my head upward to behold
Truth; Truth itself nailed to a cross which now hangs on my
wall—dominating my room and looming over my life—the promise of
Resurrection hidden well in the lifeless corpse.”
As the Church approaches her third millennium, there is an air of
optimism and renewal that is wonderfully infectious, a new springtime
for Christianity. This renewal will certainly involve the entire Church,
but especially the priests and bishops who sustain God’s people by Word
and Sacrament. They are the lifeblood of the Church. Unfortunately in
the past, many who have felt called by God to follow Christ in this
special way have too often been under attack by dissidents, feminists,
and homosexuals that were aided and abetted by psychologists who saw
themselves as “change agents” of the Catholic Church. The renewal of
priestly formation should start with this simple question: Could Jesus
of Nazareth be ordained a priest for my diocese?
Dr. John P. Fraunces received his Ph.D.
in Psychoeducational Processes in 1977 from Temple University. He was
the psychologist for the Philadelphia Police Department until 1989 and
currently has a private practice in Montgomery County, Pa. He also has
written an unpublished manuscript on the life of St. Joan of Arc. His
article, “St. Joan of Arc, God’s Faithful Servant,” appeared in the
May-June 1996 issue of Soul magazine. |
100+ Important Documents in United States History
