Maciel was recommended by John Paul not such much because of the money he raised, but because of the number of vocations to the priesthood he cultivated in the Legion of Christ.
Similarly, Karadima in Chile was almost universally honored because his group of young male friends produced four bishops and fifty priests.
And this in a church which in the developed countries is seeing a substantial decline in priestly vocations.
But what kind of priesthood do we have if psychopathic molesters, who may even be atheists, like Maciel and Karadima, are the most successful priests in bringing other men into the clergy?
It should give Benedict pause. Perhaps it has. But underlying this bizarre phenomenon is a long-standing and widespread distortion of the priesthood, which I and some of the commentators (Mary Ann’s is a good scholastic explanation) have tried to describe.
This distortion will eventually be condemned as a heresy, but in the meantime it is doing much harm.
For a theological exploration of the source of this distortion, I recommend Bernard Doering. Here is a section from his essay.
On the one hand, Berulle was right, Maritain insists, and magnificently so, in his insistence on the holiness toward which the priest ought to strive. . .
On the other hand, Berulle was mistaken, and seriously so, in exalting the sanctity of the state of life in which the sacrament of Holy Orders places the one who receives it. From affirming the eminent perfection to which the priest is called so that he may exercise his function in a manner that is in complete harmony with what the office demands, to affirming the eminent perfection of the state of life which is conferred on him at the same time as the sacramental powers, there is no more than an imperceptible step for Berulle, and he was happy to take that step.
And the Cardinal did not miss an opportunity to explain that the priesthood itself is a “state of sanctity,” Maritain finds this conception rather bizarre
when one recalls that the indelible mark that the character imprints on the soul of the priest is no other than the power with which he is invested to transubstantiate bread and wine and to absolve, even if he happens himself personally to be unworthy by the loss of grace.
The sacrament of Holy Orders does not constitute the priest in a state of sanctity any more than baptism constitutes an ordinary Christian in such a state. The state of life of the priest, Maritain maintains, “is the same as that of most ordinary members of God’s people” and a clear distinction must be maintained between this state of life and the priestly function.
The mediation that he is called to exercise as a priest is of a completely different order: It is a “ministerial” or functional mediation which he exercises in the hierarchical structure of the Church, in which he is endowed with a canonically fixed authority to transmit to men the truths of faith, to celebrate in their midst the sacrifice of the altar, to give them the Body and Blood of Christ, and to confer on them the graces of the other sacraments — without his having in any way to be a superchristian in order to acquit himself of these holy functions as such.
According to Maritain, the French School did an immense service to the Church by insisting with admirable zeal on the sanctity toward which the priest has the duty to strive, but at the same time it promoted an illusory sublimation of the priesthood through a serious misunderstanding of its true grandeur.
The belief that “God took on flesh” is absolutely and strictly the very same thing as “God made Himself a priest”; the belief that the priest is a superchristian, and even more than that; the belief that he is a conjoined instrument of the Savior; that he enters into His divine Person; that by his ordination he is constituted in a state of perfection and sanctity; finally the belief that through this very state all those things that he happens to do in the exercise of his functions are marked with the seal of the sacred.
He maintained that the French School went so far in this illusory sublimation that, at least in more recent times, many of those it formed believed that the priest communicates a higher dignity to and actually sanctifies whatever he happens to do in his ordinary life. Some even thought (contrary to Berulle) that any act at all accomplished by a priest — trimming trees, fixing a watch, indeed even scolding an altar boy (and we might ask in the present crisis, what have many altar boys not been required to submit to?) or eating a meal with friends — is a sacerdotal act.
We were to believe that from the moment he does something in the exercise of his functions, the priest, because his ordination, in making him the hand of Christ, constituted him in a loftier state than that of the ordinary Christian, then acts as being of Christ by privileged right and brings to men a ray, sometimes a bit obscured (but in such a case we shed a furtive tear and then quickly pull the veil), a ray which emanates from Christ. . . Sacerdos alter Christus — this is the maxim. . . for a long time now. . . the way in which [followers of the French School] sublimate the priesthood was considered the guarantee par excellence for maintaining the respect we owe the Church’s ministers. (And not only were we supposed to respect them, but to love them as well.)
Maritain calls this an “illusory sublimation” of the priesthood. He is not using the term “sublimation” in the now-popular Freudian sense of the word. What he means is the illusionary raising of the priesthood and of the reverence due to the priest to a level far higher than is warranted.
Pierre de Berulle was condemned in his time by two different academic faculties and eventually by the Vatican for placing the priest inside the hypostatic union.
That did not stop this mistaken notion from continuing in the French School’s priestly formation manual, Olier’s Traitee, for the last 400 years.
Berullian idealogy can now be found in such places as the recruitment video for priests at nypriest.com video as well as in the following recent quotations by highly influencial churchmen.
“In the sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus is present in the entire assembly, but most especially in the person of the priest. Why is it that the priest says the words of consecration in the first person: ‘This is my body and this is my blood?’…The priest himself is sacramentally immolated to the measure that Christ dwells in him. There can be no Eucharist without the priest. And he, too, mounts the wood of the cross, in a sacramental way, as he ascends to the altar.” 1
“But for priests, we meet him (Christ) at the level of identity—of oneness. Our spiritual life is rooted and nurtured by this constant realized memorial in which we, as Christ, act and are united.” 2
1 Stephen Rossetti, Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology, The Catholic University of America and former Director of the St. Luke’s Institute, “The Call to Priestly Holiness,” Born of the Eucharist:A Spirituality for Priests, Editor and contributor (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2009), 85.
2 Ibid., Donald W. Wuerl, Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, DC and now head of seminarian formation worldwide, “Eucharist as the Source of Priestly Identity,” Ibid, 57.
This exalted identity can be found in numerous speeches, sermons, etc. coming from the Vatican over the last two or so years. This notion of priesthood has been delineated in these pronouncements as if in a textbook fashion, most likely, I suspect, by a French School ghost writer, whether Sulpician or Oratorian.
The question is why His Holiness has allowed this Baroque and grandiose “theology” of priesthood, with many more problems than just this serious error, to be promulgated.
Other German theologians have in the main not realized that this is what is happening both because these kinds of non-magisterial documents are not considered seriously binding (and so ignored by theologians) and because spirituality of any kind, including of the priesthood, has typically been considered mere “fluff.” (The writers of the French School often preface many of their comments by stating that this is not a systemic theology….)
Its seeming non-status as a systematic theology is no reason to ignore its current effects on the current formation of priests and on the selection of bishops by noted Sulpician Marc Ouellet, co-founder of Communio with His Holiness, and now head of the Congregation of Bishops.
Notably, it can also be found in the powerful Institute for Priestly Formation and a related book entitled Reclaiming Our Priestly Character, which also conflates the notion of sacramental character (as seal or mark) with personal character.
Another reason His Holiness may perhaps have a blind spot is that the Jesuits have been in charge of seminary formation in Germany, who were once the ideological enemies of Berulle’s Oratorians, who despised their laxism. Germans have no frame of reference for its intricate errors in terms of effects within priestly identity.
Notably, both Jansen and and Saint Cyran (who spent months under Berulle’s daily tutelage) were the authors of Jansenism, and sought to spread Jansenist notions of priesthood through the Oratory. Jansenism, in turn, had its errors spread through the Catholic Enlightenment. How much of Berulle’s actual “fluff” theology made it to Germany is unclear. It is clear the identity certainly did. As Maritain wrote, even when theologies changed, Churchmen’s exalted identity remained.
Several reasons suggest themselves for the recent rise of Berullian preistly identity. There has been a plethora of widely divergent and unanchored priestly theologies, identities and spiritualites promulgated since Vatican II. The clerical identity crisis has spurred a return to this particular very organized source in order to fill a void Vatican II did not address with its paultry treatment of priesthood.
There are historical identities of priesthood that should be mined to meet the current crisis in the theology of priesthood. Many years of study will be required to do so. A moratorium on formulations of priestly identity is in order.
Humility is in order, and in short order, and in very short order.
Clare McGrath-Merkle OCDS, ABD
University of Augsburg, Germany
Amen, amen, amen!
Simple questions…..So how is it that the priesthood, which is clearly defined as that of love, service to , and zeal for souls in Scripture, has become so distorted by inellectual theoligical scholarship? Why is it that so many catholics feel they must join something else aside from their parish community in order to grow in holiness?
Is anyone simply just a Catholic anymore? It seems to me that St Vincent of Lerins’ advice in the Fifth Century applies to our time more than ever before in history. I just don’t see why the understanding of the Faith has been allowed to become complicated and legalistic, especially when Christ and His Apostles were able to convert and teach so simply.He told us the Kingdom of God was within us, so if we embrace the basics and practice it daily why is there so much confusion?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.html
Christ has Risen! A Blessed Easter filled with this source of our Hope to Leon and all!
Mary, as far as the first question goes, Catholicism has been infatuated with esoteric, obtuse pseudo-theology for centuries. The current Pope’s predecessor even specialized in it! As far as the second question goes, perhaps the laity seeks holiness outside of their parishes because 1)those parishes don’t really promote holiness 2)the laity doesn’t realize that the Holy Spirit (implanted through Confirmation) is an Adovcate and Counselor to lead them into holiness.
Frankly, I think the whole idea of the laity getting the priests it deserves (which Mark Shea cited when the clerical sex-abuse crisis broke by say that “we get the bishops we deserve”) is nothing but another guilt trip placed on the laity to keep them pliant, subservient and intimidated. The fact that a saint (I think it was Teresa of Liesux but I’m not sure) made the original comment speaks volumes about how disjointed popular Catholic piety really is.
For about the last half-century, the priest pickings have gotten slimmer and slimmer. The increasing secularization of the West is one reason and the (now) frantic rush to accept anyone who says he wants to be a priest, no matter how psychologically damaged or emotionally immature the candidate is.
Heck of a job, Bishies.
Why is no one telling what I have come to believe is the truth? That is, that priests molesting children is as old as Christianity…to them simply “tradition.” Where they learned that molesting children was easy, that children never reported the crime, that the bishops would give them not even a slap on the wrist? That it wasn’t hurtful to the victim? Probably right in the seminary. I think basically they don’t believe in God and that they are mostly obsessed with sex because of the celibacy rule. Tradition is the culprit. Otherwise there wouldn’t be so many priests worldwide doing it. They and the bishops think it is their due. The question is….believing this….why do I still love the Church?
Andy, you’re absolutely right about the clerical sex-abuse crisis being centuries old. Just Google St. Peter Damian. But celibacy isn’t to blame for this crisis. The Anglicans, Southern Baptists and Eastern Orthodox all have married clergy and those churches have the same problem. To what degree they have it compared to the Catholic Church is a separate, but valid, question and I have no idea what the answer is.
Here’s the bigger problem: How did sexual predators get into seminaries in such numbers? Why did the Church not only not kick them out but move them along the “formation” process? How did at least one (Vangeluwe) get to be an archbishop?
Andy, you still love the Church because it once filled your moral, emotional and intellectual needs,and it either bound you to your family or, in lack of such, provided a family for you (otherwise known as fellowship). Now that you are an adult and have been informed by recent scholarship such as the books SEX, PRIESTS AND SECRET CODES and SACRILEGE that what you had imagined to be good is sometimes actually evil, you still want that good that you once imagined. You also realize that despite the evil people in churches, there are many good people doing good things.
This is the place where many of us find ourselves these days. The task of reforming our churches or the one Church (whichever you prefer) is the purpose of this blog.
There is hope that most, if not all, churches will be able to reform themselves. There will certainly be disagreements on how to implement reforms, and such disagreements will cause some to change churches or drop out for a while, but reform will come, because we are now a better educated and better informed population with the power in our hands to do so.
The rate of pedophile clergy is the same in any denomination, around 2%, that is, adults preying on small children of either sex. The rate of abuse, per Sipe, in Catholic clergy is closer to 9%, reaching over 30% in some cities. This abuse, however, consists in over 80% pederasty, or adult males attacking pubescent boys. In addition, Sipe estimates something like 40% of clerics are sexually active and 50% are homosexual. He also writes that this sets up a culture prone to blackmail. That is why the Belgian bishop is not being thrown under a bus by the hierachy – he will take alot more bishops with him if they try.
Mandated celibacy is the issue if it creates a homophilic culture (a Sipe term), and channels young abused boys into the ranks of priests, bishops and cardinals. Pederasty is a top down phenomenon.
Celibacy is a gift for ecstatics and contemplatives, not clergy in the world. And right now, pastors have young new priests presiding at not one but two weddings every Saturday where they have to stand 2 feet away from young couples on the happiest day of their lives, with the most beautiful bridesmaids looking on as well. Torture for men having spent 5 + years behind high walls.
As far as seminaries, they were also the magnificent tool of Berulle. Mandated at Trent, be brought them to the level of alter Christ maker hothouses. If you put a regular guy behind walls with other guys that long, and tell them they are gods, you are going to have serious problems – situational homosexuality, atrophied psychological development, grandiosity, intimacy issues – eternal boy gods.
There is only a feminization of the priesthood now because there has been a flight from the feminine. Any new priests I have met of late can’t look me in the eye because of a return to the custody of the eyes rule – and I am 54 and no piece of eye candy. Half of humanity is now unavailable to them. Women professors have been tossed out of seminaries as well. Very sad.
Mandated celibacy is the issue if it creates a homophilic culture (a Sipe term), and channels young abused boys into the ranks of priests, bishops and cardinals.
Well said, Clare. You are right. But the church doesn’t want to look at that possible connection because it’s afraid of being wrong…and if it’s wrong on mandatory celebacy, people will think it’s wrong about God.
Talk about idolatry! No wonder God is scourging this faithless, apostate church.
Mandated celibacy is the issue if it creates a homophilic culture …
Of course there is no mandated celibacy. Nobody is required to be celibate. But if a man wants to be a priest he has to be celibate.
Having said that, I don’t see how selecting priests only from those who are willing to renounce marriage could possibly not create a “homophilic” culture.
Think of it from the perspective of the pious teenage boy in the pew. He’s wondering if maybe he ought to be a priest, but he knows that choosing the priesthood means giving up on girls.
The pressure of that decision will necessarily and inevitably attract a disproportionate number of boys who are confused about their sexuality — i.e., for whom the prospect of “giving up girls” doesn’t seem so bad.
This is so ridiculously obvious that the church has to know about it. The question then is why they stick with the celibacy rule?
The charitable interpretation is that they really do believe that priestly celibacy is part of the deposit of faith, and they simply have to manage the unfortunate side effects.
A less charitable interpretation is that they like the fact that priests skew towards homosexuality.
Jesus Christ was celibate.
Crowhill, why would church leaders *like* the fact of priest skewing towards homosexuality? The only ideas I can think of would be:
1. They would feel less alone with more people like them around.
2. The leaders can manipulate the confused to do what they want.
What say you?
The Church has always admited that clerical celibacy is not essentially tied to the priesthood. It has held that it’s preferable and the Latin Rite of the Church has long had the policy of ordaining only men who are “convinced” they have a vocation to celibacy. The Eastern Rites in union with Rome are proof that catholic priests can be married and still carry on with their duties. Perhaps the Latin Church clings to its policy because its leaders believe that the good outweighs the bad. That is, that it works well for more priests than not. Whether this belief is reasonable or founded on good evidence is debated.