When Priests Don't Run the Parish

Los Angeles Times ^ | May 18, 2003 | Larry B. Stammer

[Jeff Chandler]

What priest shortage?

We have four priests at this time-- a pastor, a semi-retired pastor emeritus, an associate pastor, and a priest who is visiting for a while.

Priests are drawn to our parish, and many new priests come from our ranks continually.

The ironic part is that our parish is looked down upon by the rest of the diocese. Our NO services are very conservative, we have Perpetual Adoration, our priests are faithful to the Magisterium, etc.. I guess we're just not as enlightened as the rest!

[Loyalist]

If the same type of people who run things now in San Bernardino ever taken control of your diocese, watch out.

They will be only too happy to drive you out for not being sufficiently progressive.

[sinkspur]

They will be only too happy to drive you out for not being sufficiently progressive.

I'm sensing a little paranoiac hyperbole on this thread.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I'm wondering just what the Bishop's agenda in all of this is?

The Bishop is a friend and cohort of Cardinal Mahony.

[american colleen]

Dear Bishops: If You Really Want More Vocations…
…THEN GET WITH THE PROGRAM!

It's really not hard to figure out what does and doesn't bring in vocations. The pattern is clear. Consider poor Archbishop Rembert Weakland. Seven years ago the Milwaukee archbishop insisted that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis — the Pope's last word on women's ordination — is not the last word on women's ordination. Since then the archbishop has closed or merged some 30 parishes, and in 1999 had only 24 seminarians in spite of an all-out recruitment campaign begun in 1997. He has taken to warning his liberal priests that change will likely come to the archdiocese after he retires. Milwaukee-area Catholics can only hope so — the archbishop ordained only one priest in 1999. (All the figures for seminarians and ordinations in this article are from the Official Catholic Directory 2000, which reflect totals through 1999. The 2001 edition of that Directory has not yet been published; it will be available at the end of May.)

Meanwhile, Archbishop Charles Chaput took on the Catholic Theological Society of America, publicly criticizing it for not acknowledging Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as the last word on women's ordination. Since then, the Denver archbishop established St. John Vianney Theological Seminary, which had an enrollment of 63 seminarians in 1999. This in spite of a Catholic population roughly half that of the Milwaukee archdiocese.

Poor Cardinal Roger Mahony. In 1997 the Los Angeles archbishop attempted to energize his people with "Gather Faithfully Together," a radical re-thinking of the liturgy in which "the core of ministry is the assembly." Like the Archdiocese of Denver, Los Angeles had 63 seminarians in 1999. Unlike Denver, the L.A. archdiocese had more than 11 times as many Catholics — more than four million souls from which to recruit religious vocations; more than four million souls in need of new priests. Mahony ordained only three priests in 1999.

Meanwhile, Bishop Paul Loverde has continued the late Bishop John Keating's policy of allowing only boys to serve as acolytes, symbolically emphasizing the importance of the all-male priesthood. The Arlington bishop has also continued his predecessor's vocational success, with seven priests ordained and 32 seminarians in 1999 in a diocese whose Catholic population is, like Denver, more than 11 times smaller than that of L.A.

When I interviewed Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln in 1997, he did not hesitate when I asked him why his diocese ranked (and still ranked as of The Official Catholic Directory 2000) second in the ratio of seminarians and new priests to total Catholics. He credited firm adherence to traditional Catholic teachings, particularly those concerning the all-male celibate priesthood. You may recall his 1996 decree excommunicating any Catholics in his diocese belonging to groups, such as Call To Action, that advocate women's ordination.

The line between ecclesiastical conservatism and ecclesiastical liberalism can be detected by looking at the ratio of seminarians and new priests to total Catholics in a given diocese (see the chart that follows). The Catholic Church in America is becoming a land of the haves and the have-nots: conservative dioceses that have plenty of priests and liberal dioceses that have a scarcity of priests.

No longer should we speak of the priest shortage. Rather, we should speak of priest shortages — those dioceses, still a majority, that have yet to begin attracting enough men to the priesthood. More importantly, we should speak of those dioceses where there is no shortage.

The time has arrived when the Church needs to decide when a diocese no longer has a shortage. How many priests are enough? Is it a certain number per parish? A certain number for every 10,000 Catholics?

After eliminating those still wallowing in the days of nearly nonexistent vocations, and after looking past those in a vast gray area that could go either way, one finds dioceses that by any reasonable standard do not have a shortage, as well as others solidly headed in that direction. Three reasons are commonly cited for their success: reverent devotion to the Eucharist, ardent devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and acceptance of the traditional understanding of the Catholic faith.

To be sure, these three factors are not the only variables affecting the number of seminarians and new priests. For example, the most metropolitan dioceses have failed to attract sufficient numbers. Among those with a million or more Catholics, Chicago fared best in 1999, but still only 50th out of 173 dioceses in terms of ordinations and seminarians per capita in 1999 (see chart).

Larger dioceses in general are having a harder time attracting enough men than smaller dioceses. The top 23 dioceses in 1999 all had fewer than 250,000 Catholics. Only at 24th does a larger diocese come in (Atlanta, with 320,330 Catholics). Turning around such large ships takes more time.

But the pattern of success is clear. Those who really want it need not wonder how to achieve it, because the trail has already been blazed, a trail marked by three signposts: the Eucharist, the Virgin, and the traditional Faith.

Number of Catholics per Ordinations plus Seminarians in 1999 The numbers below are based on the figures found in The Official Catholic Directory 2000 (Stockton is not listed because reported numbers were incomplete). Thus, for example, Fargo (which has the best record) had one seminarian or new priest for every 2,025 Catholics in 1999. Dioceses that are, on the whole, known to me or the NOR for having a reputation for being traditional in orientation are in bold face; dioceses that have a reputation for being liberal are in italics. The rest are dioceses whose orientation is not known to me or the NOR, or whose orientation appears to be ambiguous, or that seem to be in transition from one orientation to another. These designations are, of course, subjective.

From New Oxford Review.

To be fair, I have seen this debate before and one priest wrote and said that most of the seminarians do not end up as priests. I'd like to see a study on that, but I cannot find one. At the link I provided, there is a listing of the major diocese and the number of seminarians/priests per Catholic capita in 1999. Again, it would be nice to know that for instance, Nebraska had 30 seminarians in 1999 and 19 were ordained out of a possible 22 graduating that year - but I can't find those numbers anywhere.

[Desdemona]

The more conservative parishes have more here too. My parents are in a smaller, fairly liberal parish which I left because I couldn't stand the fighting amongst the parishoners anymore. All were liberal and all knew less than they thought they did.

I go to the Cathedral here where we have two bishops, a pastor and two priests who work for the archdiocese. The music is grating (not the least of which because I know half the cantors from other places) but the homilies are good, there is a chapel of the Blessed Sacrament, a wall/screen in the confessionals, Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction at a time I can go and our archbishop closely follows Rome. Divine Mercy was trumpeted at the Cathedral and my mother had never heard of it.

There's no priest shortage here. But we do have way too many EEMs.

[american colleen]

I'm sensing a little paranoiac hyperbole on this thread.

I don't know that anyone likes to drive anyone out of a parish for being either too progressive or too orthodox ($$$), but they sure can neutralize you!

[ejo]

That answers it all!!!

[Loyalist]

I'm sensing a little paranoiac hyperbole on this thread.

Not if they can gain control of the powerful positions in your diocese.

Being a good liberal a few matters as liturgy, birth control and married priests won't be enough for these people, I'm afraid.

If you refuse to go along with their whole program, you can forget about ever having any influence in your parish or diocese again.

[american colleen]

With your last post in mind... my parish bulletin this week touts a meeting tonight with "Voice of the Faithful" and a talk by Prof. Barbara Susan Balboni on "What does the bishops' response to clergy abuse tell us about bishops?" (-- and of course VOTF wants democratic election of bishops and job placement boards for placement of priests) but it also has (first time ever) a notice on Natural family planning classes that begin in a (fairly) neighboring parish in a couple of weeks.

So every time I think my parish is hopelessly liberal, they go and throw in something like Natural Family Planning and screw me all up! AYE YI YI! My achin' head!

[dsc]

"No there isn't. Reverence means nothing if it's not rooted in the truth."

Fallibility means that we must consider who it is that is rooted in truth.

To say, "You need not be that reverent," is permissive.

To say, "You *may not* be that reverent,* is...what?

[dsc]

"The SSPX does not accept the judgment of the Holy Father on Vatican II or the Novus Ordo."

Those are not infallible judgments, nor was VatII infallible.

"For that, and because their founder ordained bishops outside the domain of the Holy Father, they are in schism."

I wonder if those who support many VATII things are not in schism with regard to Our Lord.

"Don't be surprised if, after a universal indult is instituted, that the SSPX remains outside the Church."

Time will tell. It might tell that they're the only ones who stayed within the Church.

[ultima ratio]

For the thousandth time: the SSPX is not and never has been in schism. The claim that it is, or that the Pope personally excommunicated the Society, is bogus. It is true Archbishop Lefebvre disobeyed an order by the Pope that he was not to consecrate bishops. And it is also true this resulted in an automatic excommunication--latae sententiae. But such automatic excommunications provide for exceptions and it was one of these that the Archbishop evoked, acting in a state of necessity--precisely to save the very traditional priesthood the Pope was trying back then to destroy but is now ironically at such pains to revive. In any case, no penalty was ever incurred. No penalty, no schism. In fact, far from being blameworthy, the Archbishop acted out of the highest motives to preserve the ancient faith.

[ultima ratio]

If you revere the truth so highly, tell me--when did the Pope ever actually excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre? You can't demonstrate this because it never happened. What the Pope did was announce in a letter that it had happened latae sententiae--automatically. But he was mistaken when he did this--as he has been mistaken on many other occasions. The excommunication never happened.

[sinkspur]

Look. You're a well-intentioned guy, but why is there this talk of "reconciliation" if the SSPX is not in need of being reconciled?

Only you buy your contorted explanations. Even Fellay accepts that you are OUTSIDE of the Church.

[ultima ratio]

Since we were never outside in the first place, traditionalists are the last to be worried about what people like you think. We are in the bizarre situation of being called schismatics by those who claim to be IN the Church who are acting for all the world like Protestants, while we, who are supposed to be OUTSIDE the Church, not only adhere stubbornly to the ancient faith, but have been the sole means by which it was kept it alive for four tragic decades.

[ultima ratio]

"Look. You're a well-intentioned guy, but why is there this talk of "reconciliation" if the SSPX is not in need of being reconciled?"

Don't play word games. Sons reconcile with parents after a falling-out--that doesn't mean they don't belong to the same family. Use your head.

"Only you buy your contorted explanations. Even Fellay accepts that you are OUTSIDE of the Church."

This is ridiculous. Show me evidence for this. I can say with certainty that Bishop Fellay does not concede an excommunication ever took place, and he certainly does not consider that he is in schism. Nor does anyone else who belongs to the Society. You need to do a little research before you mouth such nonsense.

As a matter of fact, it is you who must resort to contorted explanations to do away with what is essentially a legal problem for Rome inasmuch as they have a Canon Law which provides for exceptions to certain offenses--one of which the Archbishop properly evoked. Rome tries to get around this by means of increasingly convoluted explanations. Privately many canonists admit no excommunication ever took place--and certainly no schism.

I know that the media periodically reports stories in which tthe Society is described as schismatic--but that doesn't make it so, neither does the fact that this is a widespread belief among Catholics, thanks to the incessant drumbeat by Novus Ordo functionaries. None of this matters. What matters is the actual legal situation vis a vis the Church. On that ground, the SSPX is secure. --Why do you suppose it is Rome making all the concessions? Last I noticed SSPX hasn't budged an inch, not even for "reconciliation." Why? Because they have the most precious commodity of all--the ancient faith as it had always been practiced. They will not surrender one jot of it.

Finally, you should know latae sententiae is an automatic excommunication, but for the penalty to have been incurred there must be an interior disposition of malice or culpability on the part of the subject violating a canon. The Archbishop acted to preserve Traditional Catholicism which the Pope was at that time trying to eliminate. The Archbishop's motives were above reproach--which is much more than can be said for Rome.

[Thorondir]

Great! That rude line coming from you who always assume the worst of men (all of whom are apparently lesser men than you).

What I want to know is why you constantly show up on Catholic threads? And why you think your modernist enemy-of-the-Church opinion matters to any Catholic who might accidentally read it?

Go back to your clown mass and have a gay old time.

[Thorondir]

Drive HIM out for not being sufficiently progressive? What a laugh!

[Thorondir]

My dear brother in Christ. I long for and pray for the day that we are one again. I long for and pray for the day that the Church is not filled with her enemies. Please pray the prayer to St. Michael (the original one) for the protection, unity and restoration of the Church. I believe you guys are scismatic. I also have great respect for your traditons and holding onto the clean deposit of faith and not embracing the clownish, banjo gay masses that your progressive detractors are so fond of.

God help us and lift us from the ugly irreverent mess we are in. God bless you, my friend.

Dominus vobiscum.