Freelance Priests

[Saecula]

I know this may not be received too favorably around here,it may even horrify some people, but a friend is working on a project and wantsto get the word out. I remember at least one poster around here who was alsodiscussing something like this, if anyone remembers him, or knows anyone elsewho would be interested, please pass this along to them.But here's theimportant part for Vocations:

Lots of guys I've talked to are very much attracted to the priesthood, are evenwilling to be celibate, but the idea of being kept on a leash like seminariansare...is entirely repulsive to their sensibilities as independent adultAmericans. We've lived on our own, for goodness sake, managed our own lives.Heck, my parents didn't even treat me that strictly. But the current system isabsolutely obsessed with it.
...

I'm sorry, but I'm an adult man and an American. I'd be perfectly willingto wear the collar, but I will not wear a leash!

...

So, we're looking for young men who might be willing to approach a bishop withus and tell him where we stand and what we envision. Here's what Iimagine. I see no reason why seminarians have to have this whole boardingschool atmosphere. Why couldn't seminary be more like a regular college: peopleare expected to show up for class and other program commitments, and then getto handle their own free time and living situation. There are lots of goodCatholic Universities. Couldn't the priesthood program be simply one more Majoror Degree-program at these places? Seminarians could live like other students.Maybe they'd have reserved rooms in a special dorm, though I wouldn't requirethis; if they wanted to have their own apartment, whatever. They'd go to theirtheology classes, meet with a formator, be expected to show up for certainretreats or monthly outings with the other seminarians, but otherwise theywouldn't try to micromanage his life.

That's a long-term model. What I imagine could be possible right away is simplyto allow some young men, if we petition the bishop and show him there is enoughinterest, would be simply to allow us to commute. To show up for classes andmeetings with the formator, maybe certain Sunday liturgies, but then manage ourown lives outside, off-campus, like adults. Religious are one thing, butsecular priests are, well, secular. They're going to live in the world fortheir whole life, have all that independence and unstructured time. Ittherefore seems counter-intuitive to me to make them live semi-monastically for5 years, withdrawn from the world. To be honest, many never seem to readjust tocivilian life.

Frankly, I'm not even sure the training program need be so intense. Permanentdeacon candidates are able to live their lives, with families and other jobseven, going to seminary programs in the summer, on weekends, at night-school,etc. Permanent deacons can do everything a priest can except instead of sayingMass they can merely lead a communion service, instead of anointing the sickthey can merely bring them communion, and instead of absolving they can onlyspiritually direct. Does it really take all sorts of extra years of theology toread words out loud out of a book, rub some oil on someone, or wave your handover them?? I doubt it, that's not rocket science.

So, yeah. If anyone else is interested, we're working on getting a grouptogether to approach a bishop and request a more independent formation programsomething like one of the ideas described above. Maybe it could take the formof a Secular Institute because that seems like the most favorable model forsomething like this. But the point is to be a group of "freelancepriests" at the service of the Church, not burdened by bureaucracy.

Some might take a contract with the diocese after ordination, for service at aparish for a specified length of time. But many others might not be salaried bythe dioceses at all (and at that point, especially, if they were volunteersrather than a paid pastor, might not a Permanent Deacon's level of training beenough?) Many might simply work some other job in the world, pray theirbreviary during the day, say a morning Mass somewhere, and volunteer to fill infor a Sunday Mass at an under-staffed local parish on Sundays (the Old Mass,I'd hope). I don't know the canonical barriers to all this, but couldn't apriest simply "retire" immediately upon ordination, and yet stilltake another job?

Such a model might be good for everyone. It could be a shot-in-the-arm for anunderstaffed dioceses to have even just 10 more men, if only for Sundays,especially if they didn't have to salary them. And a way to spread the OldRite, volunteering to do it at parishes where the pastor doesn't want to learnit himself. In reality, I bet that once the idea was approved, you'd get tonsof men attracted to it who aren't comfortable with the "mainstream"seminary Institutional dynamics.

Please, contact me if you're interested in such a model or send this post toany young men you know who might be interested. No commitment or anything,we're just trying to get a "show of hands" for initial exploration.Thanks!!


http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2010/03/casting-wide-net-on-net.html

Edited March 1, 2010 by Saecula

[laetitia crucis]

[s]
Hope you don't mind, I just wanted to fix up the format so I could read it more easily. (I have very poor vision.)[/s]

Edit: Ah, I see you fixed it already!

Now I'm going to ponder this... and get back to you.

Edited March 1, 2010 by laetitia crucis

[CatherineM]

The seminarians I go to school with are hardly indentured servants. They have as much free time as they wish outside of their studies.

I'm afraid I think there is an important reason why priests need to study theology in order to "rub some oil on someone." Our church has suffered from inadequate and improper catechesis of lay people. I hate to think what would happen to the church if priests were also subjected to less education rather than more.

[laetitia crucis]

Wow, okay.

So, basically... something that really stood out to me was this:

[quote] Does it really take all sorts of extra years of theology to read words out loud out of a book, rub some oil on someone, or wave your handover them?? I doubt it, that's not rocket science. [/quote]

I think that really says a lot about your understanding of the Catholic priesthood. I think many faithful bishops would find this very problematic.

The priesthood -- whether secular or religious -- is NOT some kind of "day job" nor a "career" (hence, why I don't think someone should be able to get a degree "B.A. in Priesthood"). Instead, it is a "sacred office" for those that are called. When something is made [i]sacred[/i] (having been [b]consecrated[/b]) the reality is that they are "set aside for God". To me, it doesn't seem that leaves a lot of "wiggle room" in being of the world, you know? Even for all Christians, Christ has told us that we are to live IN the world, but [i]not[/i] be [b]of[/b] it.

As for the "intense training"... honestly, I can only ask "Is the spiritual life not intense? Is being a spiritual father not needing of such training? After all, this is not a matter of career/job, but a matter of spiritual LIFE and DEATH."

Why try to "fix" something that's not broken? It all comes down to having good faith and trusting in Christ and His Church, which includes Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. She will not let you down.

I will continue pondering... this troubles me.



Praying for you.

God bless,
lc

P.S. -- I also agree with CatherineM's comment as well, especially in regards to what I've heard from other diocesan and religious seminarians about their formation programs as well.

[AccountDeleted]

This is very similar to some posts that were made in Vocation Station last year I think by a young man who was looking for a seminary that would allow him some of these 'freedoms'. I am not a male, so this option isn't open to me, and perhaps the comments might come better from males, but personally it reminds me of the 'liberal' religious sisters after Vatican 2 who wanted to start doing their own thing and moved out into apartments etc.

I know it is different for a variety of reasons, especially since we are talking secular priests here, but it still sends warning signals to my brain, telling me that once seminarians can start demanding things from their bishops to satisfy their wants (not needs), then where does it stop? Personally, I want my priest to be very holy, and that starts with obedience in my mind,and a little self-denial. I think that a lifetime of celibacy is going to be a lot harder than some of this discomforts of the seminary and perhaps being around others who are facing the same tests and temptations would be a good thing? Eventually the priest is going to be on their own in the world, but this time could be one of getting strength and inspiriation from their colleagues and superiors.

And is the 'training program' too intense? Can it be? We are talking about men who will stand in persona Christi here and who will be spriitual leaders to the faithful, whether they are secular or religious. These men will have annointed hands and bring Jesus to the altar in the form of bread and wine. How can the training be too intense for something like that?

That's just me though, and I am very trad, so it will be interesting to see what others have to say.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Saecula' date='01 March 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1267475597' post='2064877']


Does it really take all sorts of extra years of theology toread words out loud out of a book, rub some oil on someone, or wave your handover them?? I doubt it, that's not rocket science. [/quote]

I express the same concerns others have posted above. The anointed character of a priest is much more than a laundry list of duties that they perform and that deacons do not. If your view of priestly ministry is to "rub some oil on someone" or "wave your hand" then perhaps the priesthood is not where you need to be. Although I understand your concept of filling in for understaffed parishes, the fact is that a priest exists, for the most part, to shepherd a flock. There are some exceptions (I think of Fr. Corapi, who is called to apostolic preaching) but their vocation is to be a priest and minister of the Word, not to be a priest on the weekends or whatever.

[quote]But the point is to be a group of "freelance priests" at the service of the Church, not burdened by bureaucracy.
[/quote]

I say this in charity, but you should consider this...if you are looking to avoid the burdens of bureaucracy, then perhaps the religious life is not for you. However, even as a faithful, practicing Catholic, you are called to submit to the authority of the Church, and that includes Her bureaucracies, if you choose to refer to them as such.

Prayers for your vocational discernment.

[Indwelling Trinity]

In reading your post i dont even hear mention of the word God or love etc.... What is really central to you life? Your call to be a priest and belong to god or your need to exert your independence. To me it sounds more like the struggles of a teenager than a grown man.

Priesthood like marraige and religious life is all about intimate relationships. In the case of the religious or secular priest it is all about intimacy with God. Yet i hear no intimacy in your post.

Quite frankly I agree with Nunsense... it sounds like a revisiting of the rebellion that went on in religious life and is still going on as these die hards nuns die out.

I would rather have a few truly spiritual priests to confide in and share the mysteries of the faith and life in Christ with than a multitude of Temp. priests from a local job bank filling in a void without true spirituality or dedication to their life in Christ.

If we were talking about a secular job i wouldn't give it a second thought... but we are talking of conferring a sacrament in where one becomes a priest for life.... there is no erasing that mark on the soul. However i do think that ordination should be based more heavily on true spiritual maturity rather than solely the emphasis on intellectual pusuit.

I Truly fear for you and you companions for personally in my own heart, I do not see the hand of God at work but perhaps the opposite.

My prayers for you.

Indwelling Trinity

[CatherineM]

I would like you to think about it this way. We are called to worry about a person's soul first, and their temporal life second. If someone who wanted to be a physician decided to approach the local medical association, and ask to be allowed to practice medicine without going through the schooling that we have developed over time to be necessary, I suspect that you would receive the same response that I expect you will from the bishops you approach.

[Sister Marie]

In my novitiate years I have sometimes felt burdened by the regulations from which professed sisters are exempt. A very simple example is that in the Rule we are required to make a Holy Hour each day before the Blessed Sacrament. The novices have this scheduled for them - the professed schedule it for themselves. We are an apostolic community and so many sisters have different times that they need to be in different places for ministry. Many times I complained because I am a morning person and I would have preferred to wake up early and have my Holy Hour then. It really bothered me to not have the freedom to do this.

However, now that I am on the mission I realize the wisdom in the structure. I wouldn't have learned the discipline required to be faithful to this obligation when I am exhausted and overextended and all I can hear is a bunch of kids in my head saying "Sister, Sister, Sister!"

I do pray my Holy Hour each morning before Lauds and I enjoy the quiet moments then, but I am grateful for the structure I was given to grow and be formed by praying at a certain time, not of my choosing. I would never be able to be a faithful religious if I had not been taught that fidelity every day. It isn't about control, it is about conformity to the culture of religious life.

I would imagine that many of the feelings and experiences that I have just outlined can be applied to experiences of the seminary. It is not exactly the same but the idea of losing some freedom to gain the freedom of Christ seems to me to cover both. We are called to move from popular culture to the culture of religious life. This formation is essential to that process.

Sister Marie

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Saecula' date='01 March 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1267475597' post='2064877']
So, we're looking for young men who might be willing to approach a bishop withus and tell him where we stand
[/quote]
There's your problem, you think the Church is a democracy!

Well, case closed, and moving swiftly forward...

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='Saecula' date='01 March 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1267475597' post='2064877']
So, we're looking for young men who might be willing to approach a bishop withus and tell him where we stand and what we envision. Here's what Iimagine. I see no reason why seminarians have to have this whole boardingschool atmosphere. Why couldn't seminary be more like a regular college: peopleare expected to show up for class and other program commitments, and then getto handle their own free time and living situation. There are lots of goodCatholic Universities. Couldn't the priesthood program be simply one more Majoror Degree-program at these places? Seminarians could live like other students.Maybe they'd have reserved rooms in a special dorm, though I wouldn't requirethis; if they wanted to have their own apartment, whatever. They'd go to theirtheology classes, meet with a formator, be expected to show up for certainretreats or monthly outings with the other seminarians, but otherwise theywouldn't try to micromanage his life.

That's a long-term model. What I imagine could be possible right away is simplyto allow some young men, if we petition the bishop and show him there is enoughinterest, would be simply to allow us to commute. To show up for classes andmeetings with the formator, maybe certain Sunday liturgies, but then manage ourown lives outside, off-campus, like adults. Religious are one thing, butsecular priests are, well, secular. They're going to live in the world fortheir whole life, have all that independence and unstructured time. Ittherefore seems counter-intuitive to me to make them live semi-monastically for5 years, withdrawn from the world. To be honest, many never seem to readjust tocivilian life.
[/quote]
I have to be honest and say ... I don't want to have such a priest.


Priests are to be obedient to their Bishops, right? And if a candidate can't put up with certain boundaries, then maybe he is not called to be a priest?

I mean look at it from the religious life point of view ... as a postulant I was told what to wear, what to study, when to wake up, when to pray, how to pray, what to read, what to study, etc. etc. etc. As a religious sister (in an semi-cloistered community), I would have a bit more freedom and be expected to know how to manage my time. But I would still be under obedience to my superiors, right?

So ... if you don't give structure to the man in formation, how will he learn to be obedient to his superior (the Bishop)?

If you are not willing to "wear the leash" and allow others to form you into a priest, then you really don't belong in the priesthood. There is plenty that you can do as a lay person (married or not) within the Church and the Church still needs you.

[Saecula]

The author of that article has made a comment on the post on his blog that answers some common objections:

"I just don't buy that post-Tridentine "theology" of the priesthood, however.

Becausethat's just not how it worked in the early Church. In the Early Church,the bishop was probably the only "full-time" position. The simplepresbyters...were volunteers, who worked other jobs during the week andprobably only said Mass on Sundays.

That "theology" (it's reallyno such thing) of the Priesthood...turns the priest into aPseudo-Religious. But he's not. Secular priests are NOT Religious.

Thiswhole "groom of the Church" thing, though a nice idea and true in somesense, also is the product (and a reinforcing cause) of thisclericalist notion that the priesthood exists as an end-in-itself, forit's own self-perpetuating sake.

It doesn't. The priesthoodexists to dispense the sacraments to the People of God. To sanctifythem through the sacramental ministry. That's it. If it isaccomplishing THAT goal, it has met its end, and everything else isaccidental.

This whole "mysticism of the priesthood-as-such" was(is?) maybe helpful for priests in a clericalist culture. But it mustnot be dogmatized, for it is the product of that same clericalistecclesiastical culture that put the priest on a pedestal. Since theabuse crisis, those days MUST be over, those wide-eyed notions MUST bedismissed.

That same culture that made it so that the laityexisted only to support the clergy. When really, the clergy exist ONLYfor the sake of the laity.

And I find it hard to believe thatwith all the lazy, lackluster, frankly downright defectivepriests...somehow energetic young men willing to volunteer for priestlyduties AND support themselves with their own jobs...are somehow bad."




I do not necessarily agree with my friend on all points. But I do have to agree that it really is not so complicated as to require a whole class of full-time Professionals. As someone who has studied the early Church and the First Millennium ofChristianity extensively, I can tell you that most of what he says in that comment is true. This notion of the priesthood as almost a form of Religious Life,is very modern.

I'm starting to see from even just some of the responses here amentality of clericalism, to imagine the priest as some figure on apedestal, that somehow the fact that he acts in persona christi setshim apart as a human being.

Remember, the teaching has always been that the priest is "another Christ" [b]only[/b] at the [i]moment[/i]of the sacrament being preformed. That has been over-inflated sinceTrent, to justify the creation of a whole class of holier-than-thoubureaucrats but that clericalism isn't necessarily a healthy model,though it's the one I am accustomed to.

The priest "giving up everything" is a nice romantic notion. But,really more appropriate to consecrated Religious. In practice, that'snot the point of the Presbyterate as such. The point is to get thesacraments and the liturgy to the people. If that's being accomplished,it does not really matter whether the priest gets "set apart" the other 23 hours of his life.

It becomes especially incredulous when one actually meets priestsand realizes that many of them are not Saints nor even terriblycompetent individuals. Trust me, many of them [i]are[/i]just working it as a job, all the institutionalism and bureaucracy thatpeople are romantically portraying as "setting them apart" aside.

This is a notion going back only to the Counter-Reformation, and isLatinizing too; in the Ethiopian Church, 10-20% of adult males arepriests. Parishes have hundreds. They all take one week a year to dothe priestly duties: like the Jewish Temple Priesthood. That certainly must be considered a valid model unless you are Latinicentric.


As for the Professionalization of the clergy, that started underConstantine, but it is only since Trent that there has reallybeen the regimentation in seminaries or the conception of thepriesthood based on the top-down Military model.

As opposed to a more "licensed contractor" model. Trust me, in themiddle ages, local parsons often just did an apprenticeship with thelocal pastor. More educated clerics went to University, arranging theirown living arrangements (just think of the Canterbury Tales) and thensought a position. Priests could even lease out their cure and take abeneficed position in the city at a chantry, be hired by nobles fortheir private chapels, etc etc etc. Priests were very much more likedoctors or lawyers who, once licensed, could seek out a position,whether it involved priestly duties or not. Remember, all writing andreading was done by Clerics too...many had a position, then, at Courtsimply as scribes or secretaries. This was not all done by some sort oftop-down assigning by the bishops.

I'm not saying the Medieval model didnt have pitfalls too. My point isjust that there are many models possible. I'm not totally convinced theone my friend suggests is all good in all aspects, but we need to bewilling to try some new models in some ways. The current one just isntworking. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend it is the one thatwas always used or universally used. Maybe the Ethiopian one would bebetter. Who knows? But this indignation over the idea of evenconsidering it...is part of a Myth about how things "Always Have Been"that just isn't true.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Saecula' date='01 March 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1267504996' post='2065160']
The author of that article has made a comment on the post on his blog that answers some common objections:

"I just don't buy that post-Tridentine "theology" of the priesthood, however.

Becausethat's just not how it worked in the early Church. In the Early Church,the bishop was probably the only "full-time" position. The simplepresbyters...were volunteers, who worked other jobs during the week andprobably only said Mass on Sundays.

That "theology" (it's reallyno such thing) of the Priesthood...turns the priest into aPseudo-Religious. But he's not. Secular priests are NOT Religious.

Thiswhole "groom of the Church" thing, though a nice idea and true in somesense, also is the product (and a reinforcing cause) of thisclericalist notion that the priesthood exists as an end-in-itself, forit's own self-perpetuating sake.

It doesn't. The priesthoodexists to dispense the sacraments to the People of God. To sanctifythem through the sacramental ministry. That's it. If it isaccomplishing THAT goal, it has met its end, and everything else isaccidental.

This whole "mysticism of the priesthood-as-such" was(is?) maybe helpful for priests in a clericalist culture. But it mustnot be dogmatized, for it is the product of that same clericalistecclesiastical culture that put the priest on a pedestal. Since theabuse crisis, those days MUST be over, those wide-eyed notions MUST bedismissed.

That same culture that made it so that the laityexisted only to support the clergy. When really, the clergy exist ONLYfor the sake of the laity.

And I find it hard to believe thatwith all the lazy, lackluster, frankly downright defectivepriests...somehow energetic young men willing to volunteer for priestlyduties AND support themselves with their own jobs...are somehow bad."




I do not necessarily agree with my friend on all points. But I do have to agree that it really is not so complicated as to require a whole class of full-time Professionals. As someone who has studied the early Church and the First Millennium ofChristianity extensively, I can tell you that most of what he says in that comment is true. This notion of the priesthood as almost a form of Religious Life,is very modern.

I'm starting to see from even just some of the responses here amentality of clericalism, to imagine the priest as some figure on apedestal, that somehow the fact that he acts in persona christi setshim apart as a human being.

Remember, the teaching has always been that the priest is "another Christ" [b]only[/b] at the [i]moment[/i]of the sacrament being preformed. That has been over-inflated sinceTrent, to justify the creation of a whole class of holier-than-thoubureaucrats but that clericalism isn't necessarily a healthy model,though it's the one I am accustomed to.

The priest "giving up everything" is a nice romantic notion. But,really more appropriate to consecrated Religious. In practice, that'snot the point of the Presbyterate as such. The point is to get thesacraments and the liturgy to the people. If that's being accomplished,it does not really matter whether the priest gets "set apart" the other 23 hours of his life.

It becomes especially incredulous when one actually meets priestsand realizes that many of them are not Saints nor even terriblycompetent individuals. Trust me, many of them [i]are[/i]just working it as a job, all the institutionalism and bureaucracy thatpeople are romantically portraying as "setting them apart" aside.

This is a notion going back only to the Counter-Reformation, and isLatinizing too; in the Ethiopian Church, 10-20% of adult males arepriests. Parishes have hundreds. They all take one week a year to dothe priestly duties: like the Jewish Temple Priesthood. That certainly must be considered a valid model unless you are Latinicentric.


As for the Professionalization of the clergy, that started underConstantine, but it is only since Trent that there has reallybeen the regimentation in seminaries or the conception of thepriesthood based on the top-down Military model.

As opposed to a more "licensed contractor" model. Trust me, in themiddle ages, local parsons often just did an apprenticeship with thelocal pastor. More educated clerics went to University, arranging theirown living arrangements (just think of the Canterbury Tales) and thensought a position. Priests could even lease out their cure and take abeneficed position in the city at a chantry, be hired by nobles fortheir private chapels, etc etc etc. Priests were very much more likedoctors or lawyers who, once licensed, could seek out a position,whether it involved priestly duties or not. Remember, all writing andreading was done by Clerics too...many had a position, then, at Courtsimply as scribes or secretaries. This was not all done by some sort oftop-down assigning by the bishops.

I'm not saying the Medieval model didnt have pitfalls too. My point isjust that there are many models possible. I'm not totally convinced theone my friend suggests is all good in all aspects, but we need to bewilling to try some new models in some ways. The current one just isntworking. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend it is the one thatwas always used or universally used. Maybe the Ethiopian one would bebetter. Who knows? But this indignation over the idea of evenconsidering it...is part of a Myth about how things "Always Have Been"that just isn't true.
[/quote]

If I hadn't used my minus on your first post I would have used it on this one instead.

[Saecula]

"So ... if you don't give structure to the man in formation, how will he learn to be obedient to his superior (the Bishop)?"

I disagree with the very premise of the question. That people need to "learn" to obey? Do you think a grown man doesn't know how to follow instructions? But, more to the heart of the issue...how many times in real life do you [i]ever[/i] see a bishop invoking this obedience you romanticize over any of their priests? Hardly ever. And yet how many priests ARE disobedient even after having gone through such a seminary process. In reality, the two facts might be related. Sociologically speaking, the Institutionalized can tend to become defiant:

This mindset is characteristic of Total Institutions, as described by a sociologist here: [url="http://www.diligio.com/goffman.htm"]http://www.diligio.com/goffman.htm[/url].Especially interesting is one of the adaptation strategies he mentions,"The inmate intentionally challenges the institution by flagrantlyrefusing to cooperate with staff in almost any way. The result is aconstantly communicated intransigency and sometimes high rebel-morale.Most large mental hospitals, for example, seem to have wards where thisspirit strongly prevails. Interestingly enough, there are manycircumstances in which sustainedrejection of a total institution requires sustained orientation to itsformal organization and hence, paradoxically, a deep kind of commitmentto the establishment."

Ironically, a highly Institutional environment actually BREEDS dissent and defiance among those institutionalized. The strictness of the 50's and prior was to blame for what happened when everything burst out after Vatican II.

Again, I think what the blog article says about this bizarre paranoia people have about what priests might do if they're let off their leash is very important. Why this paranoia? These are grown men, we can trust them to make decisions for themselves. If they make the wrong ones, the bishop can take certain actions.

[b]I mean, you could ask your same question about Teachers. If we don't give Teachers structure, how will they ever learn to obey their Principle? If we don't give middle-management structure, how will they ever learn to obey the Boss??[/b]

[b]Yet, we don't send teachers or businessmen to seminary.[/b] Somehow, the world keeps turning, somehow the structures of authority keep working, and not just authority-for-authority's-sake.

Sometimes something bad happens or an employee acts defiantly...and so you fire them. Or give them a stern talking to. Or put them on "administrative leave". If you control the salary, you can control people enough to keep the system functional. And if you don't, then what business do you have trying to control them?

[Indwelling Trinity]

[quote name='Saecula' date='02 March 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1267505798' post='2065172']
"So ... if you don't give structure to the man in formation, how will he learn to be obedient to his superior (the Bishop)?"

I disagree with the very premise of the question. That people need to "learn" to obey? Do you think a grown man doesn't know how to follow instructions? But, more to the heart of the issue...how many times in real life do you [i]ever[/i] see a bishop invoking this obedience you romanticize over any of their priests? Hardly ever. And yet how many priests ARE disobedient even after having gone through such a seminary process. In reality, the two facts might be related. Sociologically speaking, the Institutionalized can tend to become defiant:

This mindset is characteristic of Total Institutions, as described by a sociologist here: [url="http://www.diligio.com/goffman.htm"]http://www.diligio.com/goffman.htm[/url].Especially interesting is one of the adaptation strategies he mentions,"The inmate intentionally challenges the institution by flagrantlyrefusing to cooperate with staff in almost any way. The result is aconstantly communicated intransigency and sometimes high rebel-morale.Most large mental hospitals, for example, seem to have wards where thisspirit strongly prevails. Interestingly enough, there are manycircumstances in which sustainedrejection of a total institution requires sustained orientation to itsformal organization and hence, paradoxically, a deep kind of commitmentto the establishment."

Ironically, a highly Institutional environment actually BREEDS dissent and defiance among those institutionalized. The strictness of the 50's and prior was to blame for what happened when everything burst out after Vatican II.

Again, I think what the blog article says about this bizarre paranoia people have about what priests might do if they're let off their leash is very important. Why this paranoia? These are grown men, we can trust them to make decisions for themselves. If they make the wrong ones, the bishop can take certain actions.

[b]I mean, you could ask your same question about Teachers. If we don't give Teachers structure, how will they ever learn to obey their Principle? If we don't give middle-management structure, how will they ever learn to obey the Boss??[/b]

[b]Yet, we don't send teachers or businessmen to seminary.[/b] Somehow, the world keeps turning, somehow the structures of authority keep working, and not just authority-for-authority's-sake.

Sometimes something bad happens or an employee acts defiantly...and so you fire them. Or give them a stern talking to. Or put them on "administrative leave". If you control the salary, you can control people enough to keep the system functional. And if you don't, then what business do you have trying to control them?
[/quote]
This sounds faintly reminiscent of the worker priest movement taken to its extreme. Priests and religious are consecrated and set apart. Our responsibility is to grow in spirituality so that we do not become those lazy lacadaisical priests and religious you bemoan. Avoiding that involves a serious mature relationship with God.

Still in any of your posts i have seen nothing referring to God or commitment. I have no pedestals for priests themselves.. they are human like all of us. But more humitly in your stance and less hubris would be refreshing.

I am sorry but in my opinion you need to leave the priesthood for you are obviously discontent and that should be a sign in itself of the lack of a calling. I too at times struggle with the beurocracy of certain priests, bishops and religious in the church but i look beyond that human elenment and focus on Gods work at hand even through these less than perfect conditions in a spirit of filial faith in God. That in God's economy all will work out for His glory.