CURRENT CHALLENGES FOR THE
PRIESTLY MINISTRY
Various
Western European and North American dioceses are confronted more and more often
by the following phenomenon: 1) an apparently unstoppable decrease in the
number of clergy; 2) a decrease in the number of the faithful (through death,
fewer baptisms, migration or the abandonment of the Church); 3) a decrease in
financial resources. The number of ordinations to the priesthood is low and the
assistance of foreign clergy is not sufficient to overcome the shortage of
candidates for the office of pastor.
One
seeks to respond to the urgent situation by restructuring the communities of
the Faithful in the following ways:
1) Several parishes in various locations maintain their independence as individual
parishes, with their own pastoral councils, but they coordinate their
activities;
2) An association of several
autonomous parishes that will have a single pastor according to can. 526, §1.
They will require a binding legal agreement among themselves and will have a common
pastoral council and common committees. The entity corresponds more or less to
the format of the Italian pastoral unit.
3) Consolidation of small parishes. They form extensive parishes that
maintain their local presence in particular areas of dependent communities of
faith.
4) Large parishes created in part by the consolidation of smaller constitutive
parishes and, occasionally, entrusted to a group of priests in solidum (cf. can. 517, § 1).
5) Large parishes entrusted to a deacon or to a
group of the faithful with a non resident priest moderator (cf. can. 517, § 2);
6) In some French dioceses, local sections and communities have been
created that seem to take the place, little by little, of parishes that are
considered as a leftover from the clerical Tridentine model that are considered
outdated within some ecclesial environments.
All these changes present a considerable
challenge in choosing candidates to the priesthood, their initial formation and
the permanent formation of the clergy. Without a well-grounded support of
seminarians and priests, there is a risk that they might lose sight of their
identity and of the specific role played by the priest within the local
community. The following presentation gives some principles for the exercise of
pastoral care that, according to the humble opinion of the author, are
fundamental to ensure a clear identity for the clergy in the future. It is true
that it is not tasks that define the priesthood, but it is also true that the
way in which the ministry is exercised influences the perception of the nature
of the priesthood both on the part of priests and on the part of the faithful.
2. The clarity of the concept of pastoral care
The concept
of "cura pastoralis plena"
is not found in the CIC/1917 (can. 154), but was introduced in the CIC/1983 to distinguish some offices
reserved to priests alone from those others that can be exercised by deacons,
religious or the laity (can. 517, §2). The CIC/1983 defines the task of the
pastor using the term “pastoral care”. The term "cura pastoralis"
appears in the CIC/1983 27 times, even if the classic term of "cura
animarum" has not totally disappeared and still appears ten times.
The CIC
distinguishes between “cura pastoralis plena” (can. 150) and “cura
pastoralis partialis” (can. 536). To exercise an office with the fullness
of pastoral care requires priestly ordination. Presiding at the celebration of
the Eucharist and the other sacraments is integral to it. Classical canonical
doctrine attributed the “plena cura animarum” to the diocesan bishop,
and only correspondingly to pastors.[1]
The office
of Pastor is without a doubt the most eminent canonical office regarding the cura
animarum. Canon 519 describes the meaning of “pastoral care” through the
exercise of three functions: 1) governing function; 2) teaching function; 3)
sanctifying function. Pastoral care is expressed most concretely: 1) in
preaching, catechesis, education and in the preparation for the sacraments; 2)
in the celebration of the sacraments, in moderating liturgical prayer, in
spiritual direction; 3) in the ultimate responsibility in administrative a; 4)
in gathering, animating and coordinating the parish community and its various
ministries.
The
participation of the laity with distinct functions with regard to the exercise
of pastoral care does not lessen its participation but is a consequence of the
distinction between sacrament of initiation and sacrament of order.
3. It is increasingly necessary to collaborate
with deacons and other pastoral workers as well as with councils
Arsing
from their baptism and confirmation all faithful participate in the mission of
the Church and are called to collaborate in the building of a living community:
the pastor is not the only active subject in pastoral care, being the moderator
of the other priests, and of the lay faithful and religious who are his
collaborators. The parish offers a good example of the common apostolate[2].
At
times, the pastor or who leads the pastoral unit constitutes with his closest
collaborators, in particular those committed full time, a pastoral team that
highlights the parish as the community of communities. The pastor and his
pastoral team has a dual aspect, just as the exercise of his priestly ministry
also has, and is expressed in personal
way without neglecting the functioning of the parish community as a whole.
The
pastoral team system is particularly common in the pastoral units where it
is entrusted to the priest moderator
who is also the pastor of one of the parishes that belong to the unit. Other
priests can also be joined to it (parochial vicars) as well as permanent
deacons, and pastoral workers (male and female). The apostolates for the faithful
of other languages, where they might be found, should also be involved.
The working of the pastoral team requires a clear
definition of roles and coordination of the work involved. This role belongs
essentially to the pastor even if not exclusively so. It can also be exercised
by a member of the pastoral team who will manage the practical workings of the
group and its tasks. The pastor, as coordinator, and not as a simple member of
the group, will ensure in this manner the coordination of everyone’s work and
will supervise its execution and the relationship among the members. The Pastor
is in charge of the other priests, the deacons and collaborators.
4. The priest who leads the parish cannot be
substituted by a collegial body
We must remember that there are only
a few references to work within a team in the CIC (cfr. can. 519, 545, §2;
776). The Pastor has ultimate responsibility for the progress of the community.
Collaboration within a team must not hide the fact that the government of the
parish, as well as of the pastoral unit and of the Vicariate Forane, is not
collegial.
The principle of government by a single person remains
(can. 460, §1 CIC e can. 526, §1 CIC), while providing for a few exceptions:
can. 517, §1 foresees a parish being entrusted "in solidum" to
a group of priests. To respond to the shortage of priests, bishops often apply
the second option offered by can. 526, §1, entrusting several parishes to one
priest as the Pastor. The principle of government by a single person does not
exclude the possibility for a lay person to be the moderator of the sites of
the councils, although not the president. Even the bishop can have a moderator
for the diocesan curia (cf. can. 473, §2).
The
adjective “collegial” does not seem appropriate to describe the exercise of the
pastoral care because its structure is hierarchical, while in a college all the
members contribute equally to making a decision. The participation of the laity
is of a partial character compared to the full pastoral care which presupposes
the ministerial priesthood. To put it succinctly: the team must not be a
substitute for the “proper pastor” of the pastoral community. It is desirable
that the planning of the whole pastoral program come out of the pastoral team
together with the parish pastoral councils and the parish councils for
financial affairs, which does not mean that the pastor, if present, must
exercise his pastoral care according to the indications given collegially by the
pastoral team. Neither can he moderation of the pastoral units be
collegial.
We must
not succumb to the temptation of overlooking the distinction, based on the
sacrament of order, among the members of the pastoral team. In this respect we must
not speak without clarity or distinction, as already seen in the introduction
of "Seelsorger" (men with the care of souls) and “Seelsorgerinnen"
(women with the care of souls). Also, the pastoral unit is not entrusted
collegially to the pastoral team. The figure of the priest assigned to a single
parish must not disappear.
The
collaboration of the laity in parochial pastoral care does not mean that the
“full care” is theirs. The figure of a lay person nominated by the pastoral
team and residing in loco does not
make that person the legal representative of the parish, nor do they act
independently of the moderator.
The
pastoral care exercised by a "coetus
sacerdotum", which has been
entrusted with the pastoral care "in
solidum" is not collegial either. The position of the moderator,
according to can. 517, §1 can be interpreted, because of the vagueness of the
formulation, either as a "primus inter pares" or as a "parochus
superior". The primus inter pares qualification is supported by
the argument that all priests that belong to the team are entitled to the
obligations, authority and faculties of the pastor and are, therefore, at the
same level. As the office of the Pastor can only operate as a single person
office, it requires that someone moderates the group of priests. His function
is juridically stronger. The moderator of the priests who are nominated pastors
in solidum is the legitimate pastor. He is responsible to the bishop and
represents the parish in legal matters. All the priests have the necessary
faculties for their pastoral ministry, the giving of dispensations and the
faculty to assist at marriages.
5. The Eucharist must remain at the centre of
the life of the Church despite the decrease in the number of clergy
The
solution is neither to organize parishes so that they can operate without
priests nor to organize our communities so that they can manage without the Eucharist
and without the celebration of the sacraments. The communities would become
nothing more than social service centers.
The celebration of the Eucharist would no longer be at the center of parochial
life as expressed by can. 528, §2: “The pastor is to ensure that the blessed
Eucharist is the centre of the faithful assembly of the faithful”.
In 1961
a famous book was published about the parish as the Eucharistic community. The
celebration of the Eucharist is the apex of the community; it is the central
act of the government of the community. The priest exercises the “repraesentatio
Christi capitis” in the Church and the authority to govern not only through
his ministry but also through his whole existence and he gives its Christian
identity to the community: “There is
an essential link between parish leadership and the priest’s presidency at the
Eucharistic celebration. The service to unity cannot be separated from the
sacrament of unity, the Eucharist ”[3].
It is important to be able to
experience the church at the parish level and beyond in the proclamation of the
word, in the celebration of the sacraments and in the diakonia. The moderation of the pastoral action that includes
sacramental presidency, in particular in the Eucharist, defines the ministry of
the bishops and of the priests.
If the service of the priest with its parochial
functions is marginalized one run the risk of losing the center of gravity
around which the parish community gathers over and over again in the
celebration of the Eucharist: the crucified and risen Lord. It is a concern that
we can no longer celebrate Mass each day in every church and, at times, not
even every Sunday.
The
decrease in clergy brings with it a reduction in the number of Masses and a partial
substitution of Masses with celebrations of the Word presided over by lay
ministers, the transfer of some pastoral activities such as youth ministry from
the parish to the pastoral unit, etc. We must admit, however, that such
negative effects are unavoidable in the context of dioceses experiencing a
growing shortage of priests.
We must
ask ourselves whether some Particular Churches are still a truly living
organism or only an administrative entity when we see the tendency to entrust
ecclesial functions to lay paid employees with a slow disappearance of free and
voluntary services in parishes that also presents a serious financial exposure.
Some non-ordained members demonstrate a poor theological understanding of the
Eucharistic mystery.
Whenever the ordained minister is
not directly responsible for the Sunday liturgical celebrations (Eucharist,
celebration of the word), he sees no need to participate together with all the
parishioners. The uninvolved ordained
minister is no longer available for his parishioners, either directly or by
telephone or in cases of emergency.
Almost undiscoverable
in populous and chaotic modern neighbourhoods, the parish is not principally a
structure, a territory, a building but rather "the family of God as a
brotherhood enlivened by the spirit of unity”, it is “a brotherly and friendly
home", it is the "community of the faithful”.[4]
6. The priests of the future
must not reduce their activities to the celebration of the sacraments,
neglecting the duties of teaching and governing
The ministry of the pastor finds its climax in the representation of the
invisible shepherd of the Church: in leading individuals to Christ, putting
them together in a community founded in Christ and on Christ with the exercise
of the threefold ministry of proclamation, sanctification and the leadership of
people. This ministry helps the faithful find salvation, to treasure it and to
grow in the community. The qualification for this ministry as a pastor in the
mission of salvation of the Church is conferred only through the sacrament of
Order (can. 1008), more precisely with priestly ordination, so that priestly
ordination characterizes the term "care for the souls”.[5]
The ordained ministry is inextricably linked to the three functions from
which one cannot remove the function of governing. Today, especially in some
dioceses of the Western world, we run the danger of reducing the ministry of
the clergy diminishing it solely to the function of sanctification,
specifically to presiding at the celebration of the sacraments and spiritual
guidance, while delegating the function of teaching, apart from the homily, and
the full function of governing to the laity, who decide collegially. The
councils risk becoming colleges. It is not correct that only a simple majority
vote counts.
The priest-Pastor
is the sacramental figure of Christ the Shepherd, the Pastor per excellence,
head of the ecclesial body in a given place, he who calls and sends out. He
does not run personally all the activities of the parish but he exercises the
three functions (full pastoral care) with the collaboration of the other
members of the faithful. The Pastor does not do everything by himself but he
makes sure that everything is accomplished.
The priest’s function is one of a dual representation. The priest
represents Christ and, at the same time, the Church and the community of the
faithful by virtue of his capacity given sacramentally with the potestas sacra and by virtue of a
mandate given by the Church. The function of representation and the function of
the moderation of the community are inextricably related.
It is
not the tasks that define the priestly ministry but sacramental ordination.
Only the sacrament of Order gives him a peculiar participation in the office of
Christ, Head and Shepherd and to his eternal priesthood[6]. The minister is
not defined by his activity in itself, but by sacramental ordination.
If the priest is completely kept away from moderating the community,
there is the danger of developing a concept of pastoral care detached from the ecclesiological
foundation. The priest would be responsible only for the rare Eucharistic
celebrations and the administration of the sacrament of penance. The frequent
celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist would no longer be at the center
of parish life.
Precisely to overcome these dangers, that go to the heart of the divine
constitution of the Church, the Fathers of the Synod of Bishops on the mission
of the laity insisted that both the unity
of the mission of the Church, to
which all the baptized participate, and also the essential difference in the ministry of pastors, rooted in the Sacrament of
Orders, as it compares to other ministries, offices and church functions which
are rooted in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, be expressed with
clarity and using a more precise terminology.[7]
The function of government must be considered as an aspect of pastoral
care. You cannot separate government from pastoral care, including the
administration of pastoral care. We need to reduce the administrative
commitments of the Pastor so that he can devote more time to his true function.
The Directory for
the Ministry and Life of the Priests reminds us not to reduce the activity of
the priest to the celebration of the sacraments but to maintain his role as
moderator and leader of the community: " The
participation in the Church is based upon the mystery of communion which, by
its nature, sees in itself the presence and action of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy. Therefore, the mentality which confuses the duties of the priests
with those of the lay faithful cannot be permitted in the Church. It is
sometimes manifested in some ecclesial organisations of participation. In like
manner, it does not distinguish the proper authority of the Bishop from that of
the priests as collaborators of the Bishops, or denies the Petrine primacy in
the College of Bishops "[8] The sacramental reality of the Church (LG 1) cannot be reduced to the
simple facilitation of services from a functional point of view.
We must be careful not to arrive at a merely functional comprehension of
the priestly ministry. It should not be instrumentalised in the name of
efficiency. Such a reduction would lead inevitably to conflicts of power. The
episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate in the Church relate to the body
of Christ and to its service for the salvation of all. The purpose of the three
degrees of the sacrament of Order is the building up of the body and the accomplishment
of the mission of the Church. Sacred power is not a privilege or the
appropriation of the grace of God, because the minister is not ordained for
himself, but to represent and communicate the call and the gift of God to his
Church. In his name the minister takes part in the offering of Christ to his
Father, of which the Eucharist is the summit. With the function of teaching,
sanctifying and governing the minister encourages the full responsibility of
the laity according to its vocation.
The sacramental reality of the Church (LG 1) should not be reduced to
the provision of services from a functional point of view, and the exercise by
a lay person of a function normally reserved for the pastor should not
transform that person into a pastor. The minister is not defined by activity in
itself, but by sacramental ordination. Only the sacrament conferred upon the
ordained minister offers a particular participation in the function of Christ
the Head and Shepherd, in his eternal priesthood.
The exercise of the priestly ministry cannot become, therefore, as
unfortunately advocated by some, itinerant, "Pauline", always moving
from one parish or basic community to another. It is excessive to renounce
completely to the age old Tridentine experience and to substitute the priest who
presides over a stable community, meets people and satisfies their religious
needs. The spiritual fatherhood of the priest and his service to communion
cannot be only itinerant. Some forms of mobility made necessary by the larger
mobility of people compared to other times could be ensured by members of
religious institutes or societies of apostolic life.
7.
Challenges for priests that are moderators of parishes without pastor
Can. 517, §2 has been drawn up to address "temporarily" some urgent
circumstances. Where the urgent solution becomes normal to the point of
determining the pastoral structure of the diocese, very negative ecclesiological
consequences could result. The ordained minister would no longer be seen as a
reference point for the transmission of the faith, with all the consequences
regarding vocations. So, looking for more vocations, we would achieve fewer.
Parishes
foreseen under can. 517, §2 lack a priest as the pastor proprius. In the absence of priests who can be nominated as
Pastor, the priest that moderates the pastoral activity is not pastor proprius as the office of Pastor
remains vacant.
Entrusting
the moderation of the pastoral unit to a priest means that he presides at the
celebration of the Eucharist, the proclamation of the word, and over charitable
activities. In this manner he shows that Christ is the foundation and the
measure of all pastoral services and he encourages the faithful to assume
responsibly pastoral and leadership roles in the community. The priest is
especially entrusted with the service of unity.
The person who is not a priest and who is entrusted
with the pastoral care of a parish according to can. 517, §2 is not a simply a collaborator
with the priest, but is mandated by the bishop to participate publicly in the mission
of the Church. Such a person is entrusted with the exercise of pastoral care in
the parish participating in all three functions of the Church. This
participation is not defined in can. 517, §2, for which reason detailed
provisions in particular law are required from the Diocesan Bishop. The priest
that moderates the pastoral care represents the hierarchical principle in the
parish.
Can. 517, § 2 always constitutes an urgent solution an
emergency solution, given that the office of Pastor remains vacant long term.
The office of Pastor is vacant, but not the parish. The priest moderator
exercises his role in supervising the work of the person in charge of pastoral
care together with the parish pastoral council. That priest is responsible for
the celebration of the Eucharist, the other sacraments as well as for the
proclamation of the word.
8. Conclusion
The religious and diocesan clergy is progressively
getting older while the average age of pastoral lay ministers is relatively
low. The older clergy must not leave the scene as long as they are in good
health; in any case they can exercise their ministry according to the state of
their health. Priesthood—far from any functionalist view—is not like any “job”
that is simply brought to an end when the active exercise of the ministry
concludes, often against the will of the priest himself, when he reaches that
age between 65 and 75, according to the diocese. First of all, under the code,
retirement comes at the age of 75 and not sooner, and it is not automatic but
linked to the particular circumstances of the person. We must add that even if
it is appropriate for the person to retire at 75, he is not retiring from the
ministry but from a specific office. Besides, no matter the pastoral plan in
any diocese, a priest that lives even temporarily in a territory always enjoys
the right to celebrate the Eucharist unless he has been “legitimately” deprived
of such a faculty.
One cannot abandon a certain stability of the priest
for the full pastoral care. The “pauline” mobility suggested by some
theologians and diocesan synods as the desirable vision for the priestly
ministry of the future does not seem to apply to offices carrying full pastoral
care, even if we will need a certain number of priests—in particular religious
who belong to institutes that have a centralized government and members of societies
of apostolic life—dedicated to mobile pastoral activities.
The need for priests able to manage pastoral units,
ever larger parishes, merged parishes and parishes without residing pastor will
continue to grow. The initial and on-going formation will have to be in line
with these demands and must help to avoid burnout through prudent use of one’s
own strength and with clear ideas on which activities belong exclusively to the
priestly ministry and which are optional. It will be important not to reduce
such activities to the celebration of the sacraments, but it is important to
insist that the moderation of the pastoral care be absolutely reserved to the
person who presides at the Eucharist because in it is found the spring which
creates communion.
[1] Cf. LG 23, 26; CD
11.
[2] Ecumenical Council Vatican II, Decree Apostolicam Actuositatem, n. 10.
[3] Diocese of Limburg (Germany), Statute for parish
pastoral care according to can. 517 §2, May 15, 1999, in: Pier
Virginio Aimone, La cura pastorale ai sensi del can. 517 § 2:
la disciplina nella Chiesa particolare di Limburg in Germania, in: Quaderni di diritto ecclesiale 14
(2001), 308.
[4] John Paul II, Ap. Exh.
Christifideles laici, n. 26.
[5] Cf. H. Schmitz,
Officium animarum curam secumferens. Zum Begriff des seelsorgerischen Amtes, in: Ministerium Iustitiae (Festschrift H.
Heinemann zur Vollendung des 60. Lebensjahres), Essen 1985, 129.
[6] John Paul II, Post Synod Exhortation, Christifideles
laici, n. 23.
[7] John Paul II, Post Synod Exhortation, Christifideles
laici, n. 23.
[8] Congregaztion for the Clergy, Directory for the Ministry and Life of Priests (January 31,
1994), n. 17.