Fr. Andrew Greeley (yeah, him) thinks he has a solution to the priest shortage. He thinks the real problem is lifelong commitment. A temporary priest-corps is the answer, says he.
I’ve been doing sociological research on the priesthood for more than 30 years. There are two findings from this research that are beyond question. The first is that priests on the average are the happiest men in the world, happier in their professional and personal lives even than married Protestant clergy. The second is that men are on the average inclined to leave the priesthood (ordinarily) under two conditions: They are unhappy in priestly work, and they want to marry. If they are happy in priestly work and want to marry, on the average they are much less likely to leave.
Note the words on the average in the previous paragraph. My assertions are about the average. There are priests who are miserably unhappy-and unfortunately they set the norm for priestly comments about how low morale is. There are also many priests who love their work but want to marry powerfully enough that they leave the priesthood.
The angry letters that these two paragraphs normally engender are from those who don’t read the two paragraphs carefully before they head for the e-mail. Those who don’t like these findings are free to do their own research.
I usually follow up these two conclusions with the recommendation that the church experiment with a limited term of service for priests, a kind of priest corps like the Peace Corps (or the Jesuit Volunteer Corps or the University of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education).
Young men would be invited to active service in the priesthood for a period of time-let’s say five years-then they would be given an opportunity to re-up, as they say in the military. But an ordained priest is a priest forever, bishops say trippingly on the tongue when they dismiss my suggestion as a stupid idea. Indeed yes, but his permanent identity as a priest does not demand that he serve actively in the priesthood all his life.
His argument may sound reasonable to some. The problem lies here. He treats the priesthood as a job, not as a vocation. To illustrate the problem, allow me to change just a few words around to make a point.
I’ve been doing sociological research on marriage for more than 30 years. There are two findings from this research that are beyond question. The first is that married men on the average are the happiest men in the world, happier in their professional and personal lives even than unmarried men. The second is that men are on the average inclined to leave the marriage (ordinarily) under two conditions: They are unhappy family responsibilities, and they want to marry someone else. If they are happy in their family responsibilities and want to marry someone else, on the average they are much less likely to leave the marriage.
Note the words on the average in the previous paragraph. My assertions are about the average. There are men who are miserably unhappy-and unfortunately they set the norm for comments about how bad marriage is. There are also many men who love their family responsibilities but want to marry someone else powerfully enough that they leave the their marriage.
The angry letters that these two paragraphs normally engender are from those who don’t read the two paragraphs carefully before they head for the e-mail. Those who don’t like these findings are free to do their own research.
I usually follow up these two conclusions with the recommendation that the church experiment with a limited term of marriage for men, a kind of piece-corps like the Peace Corps (or the Jesuit Volunteer Corps or the University of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education).
Young men would be invited to active service in marriage for a period of time-let’s say five years-then they would be given an opportunity to re-up, as they say in the military. But an married man is married forever, bishops say trippingly on the tongue when they dismiss my suggestion as a stupid idea. Indeed yes, but his permanent identity as a married man does not demand that he serve actively in the marriage all his life.
The analogy is not perfect, for sure, but I think it illustrates what Greeley is missing. This is vocation, a lifelong commitment. It is not something you do until you figure out what you want to do.
Fr. Greeley may think that he is being clever, but he is bringing a secular solution to a spiritual problem. Jesus did not say to the rich young man when he asked “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
When Jesus heard this, he didn’t say to him, “You still lack one thing. Put everything you have in storage, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me a spell until you figure out what you really want to do.”
When a man decides, with the Church, to become a priest he BECOMES a priest the way a married man becomes one flesh with his spouse. Let no man put asunder.
There is no such thing as a priest pro tempore.
April 26, 2010 at 4:30 am
Why am I not surprised? Of course Greeley is going to trumpet this old canard. I guess when you don't believe in the efficacy of the sacraments, priesthood can be just another career.
April 26, 2010 at 5:19 am
It is a valid analogy, indeed. Wow, 4-6 years of seminary training for a priest who will only serve five years. Of course even he doesn't believe his own prattle. This is just another polemic to bolster the failed, married-clergy debate. He is really about as duplicitous as Fr Pfleger.
April 26, 2010 at 5:47 am
BRILLIANT REBUTTAL. Beautifully written. The focus has to be on the root cause of Unhappiness and not the immediate and visible state of being so. Priest hood is not a JOB. It is life. PERIOD. Thank you for your beautiful Blog
April 26, 2010 at 7:08 am
Of Course Greeley leaves out 1 key metaphysical fact, that ordination isn't like getting a teaching degree. When a man is ordained to any of the Holy Orders a ontological change occurs that cannot be revoked. & with that ontological change comes responsibility. A LIFETIME OF RESPONSIBILITY. Not 5 or 10 yrs.
The Latin/Roman Church requires a celbate priesthood (with some exceptions) & Eastern Catholic Churches allow married men to be ordained but not married after ordination. But merely changing the rule for the Latin Rite won't solve the problem. The root problem is poor formation & & poor discernemnt process.
Greeley also ingores the fact that the priest shortage isn't as universal as he would like it to be. In those dioceses where there are good orthodox Bishops, esp in Africa or orthodox practices in the religious orders, there is an overabundance of vocations.
Also, given how well Patrick's rebuttal works to show the fallacy of his views, it also implies that Greeley doesn't believe in a lifetime commitment for marriage either. (Sure someone out there can prove I am right on this 1).
April 26, 2010 at 9:47 am
What the heck does Greeley think seminary formation is for? Don't we already have a temporary trial period in a sense by sending men off for 4-8 years of formation?
April 26, 2010 at 10:23 am
I'm with Al. Forget the discernment/vocation arguments. Ordination changes the soul – the anointing with chrism marks it for all eternity (similarly at Baptism and Confirmation)
You are a priest forever, of the order of Melchizidek
April 26, 2010 at 11:50 am
Gee, I've been married for about ten years now. Sometimes it's difficult. Perhaps it's time for something new. Who needs lifelong commitments these days?
(Honey, if you're reading this, I'm being sarcastic)
April 26, 2010 at 1:23 pm
First let me say that Andrew Greely should stick to writing his cheesy novels. They seem to have filled his coffers pretty well. But his comments seem fairly reasonable to him and probably to many in this day and time. VII really re-examined the priesthood in a way, making it seem more of a job that really anything else. I mean, what is the priest really doing at the modern Mass anyway that everyone else can't do? Lay people administer the Eucharist. Lay people read the Scripture. Lay people make the decisions and form the committees. Lay people offer the gifts. So really, how is he any different from any one else. Oh yeah, he has Holy Orders you say. That makes them special. I don't think many modern priests see it that way. I think they see seminary as college–the priesthood as a job. Modern priests live like everybody else these days. Just my opinion.
April 26, 2010 at 1:28 pm
This note is not to question any of the responses. Fr. Greeley has proposed this for decades.
But…he was in an accident about a year and a half ago and to the best of my knowledge is still under care. I have not seen anything written by him in that time. The link to this article says in various places that it is a U.S. Catholic article reprinted from 2007 and 2001.
Let us continue to pray for Fr. Greeley – as well as those at U.S. Catholic.
Fr. Tom S.
April 26, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Just when I think he can't say anything more anti-Catholic, Greeley outdoes himself. His view of the Church I can't even imagine. Nothing appears to be sacred, nor to have an immutable purpose.
April 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I totally disagree with the anonymous comment that modern priests live like everybody else these days. That is a very broad generalization…most newby priests I meet are even more "conservative" than the "seasoned" priests. Seminaries are still preparing our priests well for their VOCATIONS!!!! Just because a young priest can have great social skills, mix among the people, act less "holy" in social situations – they still take their role as Christ's annointed very seriously. Anonymous, you have not spent enough time getting to know a priest to make such a comment.
Regarding this post…brilliant. I much enjoy reading this blog. Thank you for taking the time and effort to put it together.
April 26, 2010 at 3:59 pm
A priest friend of mine once said that Greeley never had a thought that he didn't write and publish. If we needed confirmation of that, this is it.
April 26, 2010 at 4:13 pm
We cannot make the mistake of thinking that a person can only have one vocation. The Church has never thought so. I know two people, one a woman and one a man. Both of their spouses died and she is now a nun and he a priest. There is a man here in town who is Anglican Use, who is both a priest, father and husband in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church. The Church did not require a "lifetime" commitment from the first two, nor did she require of the Anglican priest to have a singular commitment and leave his wife behind.
People may not like it, but both things are now blessed by the Vatican, and the Church can change her mind about these laws when she wishes and according to her needs.
April 26, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I wonder if Greeley has ever heard the words "sacrament", "holy", and "orders" assembled in some logical fashion in a sentence…
April 26, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Men and women who are entering the religious life as brothers or nuns take temporary vows before their final vows. There are steps traditionally taken for those discerning a marriage vocation: courtship followed by engagement (which might be thought of as a type of "temporary" vow) followed by sacramental marriage. Do priests go through a similar process during their years in seminary? I'm asking because I sincerely do not know. It doesn't sound as if this is what Fr. Greeley is suggesting, exactly… but if a "temporary" committment is considered beneficial- even necessary- for those with a religious or married vocation, why could it not be beneficial for the ordained priesthood?
April 26, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Blackrep,
You point out the exception that proves the rule. And despite what people like you say, the incidence of married Protestant ministers being ordained is quite low. And please, do not conflate 2nd vocation priests (or late vocation priests with say a married 30 year old Protestant minister who convert. Both cases are quite different. The priest shortage has put pressure on Bishops to at least look closer at older widowers, and on occaison these men are ordained -but in most cases they're made deacons.
Married clergy open up a entire host of problems for Bishops. Adultery and divorce are real problems for Protestant clergy. I don't think many Bishops wish to add those social pathologies to thier list of problems to attend to. The RCC went through this same problem over a thousand years ago. Pope John Paul II wrote quite a bit of theology about the celebate priesthood. And the vast majority of priests when asked say they would never have it any other way. God does give graces to priests in the same way he graces both mothers and fathers. Each have a vocation that is seperate but equal in importance. You cannot have holy priests without holy families. Perhaps if the laity concentrated on thier own vocation, the pathologies that seem to affect some inside priesthood would become a thing of the past.
April 26, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Jennifer,
It all depends on the Bishop. In my Dioceses, the Bishops initially screens all candidates (I've heard that as many as 100 men apply every year, and in some years none are chosen). Those that go through the initial selection process could have as long as an additional year to discern, meet with other priests, and seminarians. The candidate goes through pyschological as well as other evalutations. If he is chosen he still has 6 years to decide if this is really what God wants from him. In our diocese's newspaper, they name the candidates who enter the seminary every year. Some years it's as many as a dozen. But what I find interesting is how few there are when it's time for them to be ordained deacons. One can count on one hand usually the number who make it that far any given year.
In the distant past, the Jesuits had a very difficult discernment period. After the 2-4 years of spiritual and pyschological discernment, the novice knew if he belonged or not.
In either case, today's candidates will find out fairly quickly if the religious life is for them.
April 26, 2010 at 10:11 pm
In this Greeley goes directly opposite the opinion I have been forming over a few decades: I think that men to be ordained Priests should be older, more mature men rather than younger. I think this precisely because the ministerial priesthood is a commitment until death, so it is better if it is entered into by those more capable of making that kind of serious commitment. It is also perhaps because I have listened to too many homilies by young priests and older priests who started young and never matured. It isn't that hard to tell the difference between knowing about God versus knowing God (or knowing about marriage versus having experience with it. The priest having the church as a bride does not have the same experience).
Jerome: I hope and pray that the process you described in your response to Jennifer is becoming the rule, because it surely was not the case in the past. In fact, in the past there was also a culling process at a number of seminaries — but one that tended to cull out the desirable men and leave in the undesirable ones.
My thoughts on celibacy and age: celibacy and young age are strengths for missionary work. Experience with marriage and older age (where the man's youngest child is at least 18 yrs old) are strengths for pastoral work in established faith communities. The latter have been in exceedingly short supply in the Latin rite for a long time due to the virtual ban on married men being ordained to the priesthood.
I have read extensively on the reasons behind the almost exclusively celibate priesthood and found the reasons to be good ones for allowing celibates to be priests, but not good enough to disallow married men. That is, the reasons don't rise to the level of changing or overriding Christ's example in choosing Peter, not only for priesthood, but for the keeper of the keys — and all these explanations concede that Peter was a married man and continued to be so (and that there were other married popes). They just mention that and move along. What can they say? After all, the second person of the trinity, God incarnate, chose a married man as the first leader of His church. That was no accident.
Does that mean that I think allowing married men to be ordained will solve the shortage of priests? No, certainly not directly. Do I think it will help the pedophilia problem? No, married men have an even worse history with pedophilia. Do I think it will simplify a bishop's life in choosing whom to ordain? No, but it will make it abundantly clear that simply being willing to forgo marriage is a poor means of discerning a vocation.
All that said, I trust God's providential guidance of His church. While I believe allowing married men to be ordained would more closely follow Christ's example, I certainly see the problems and difficulties in doing so. Therefore I gladly submit to the current keeper of the keys, trusting that God guides him.