Discussion on understanding of the priestly office continues
By Martha Heizer, „Diskussion um das Priesteramts-Verständnis geht weiter,“ newsletter of Wir Sind Kirche Österreich [We Are Church Austria], no. 103, Sept 2019, pp. 14-15, original German text available here, English translation by Sr Patricia Harriss CJ.
In all quarters the theology of priesthood is being reconsidered and discussed, argued and complained about. It is all a knotty problem in the Catholic Church. Naturally it produces far-reaching tensions and obviously deep-seated and irreconcilable positions.
Maurice Blondel (1904) was the first to diagnose the threatening dispute, and expressed his concern at the very beginning of the 20th century (!) Here are a couple of quotations, collected by Hans Urs von Balthasar (https://archive.org/details/BalthasarIntegralismusHeute/page/n:,S222):
“The reality cannot be ignored, that every day the tension between two directions…. two different theories of knowledge: among Christians open to present realities, awareness of the close interlinking of all historical processes, the challenges to enter into them, through venturing to act in solidarity … among integralists, on the other hand, the view that reality can be completely accounted for in abstract, fixed and unchangeable concepts, so that it suffices to act in accordance with the right concepts to move the world in the right direction.”
From that it follows for him, according to the first approach, that there are also movements of God’s grace from below to above.
“According to the second, revelation is primarily a system of learned expressions, that by definition are not to be discovered anywhere in the human world, and so can only be presented to lay-people for passive acceptance, by a purely condescending ecclesiastical authority.”
From this second approach follows for Blondel the regression of the Christian message to a ‘law of fear and compulsion’, instead of being a spiritually-liberating law of love. A harshness is practised in the Lord’s name that he himself would never have had. The blind conformism required of those who are subject is ‘the most radical perversion of the gospel that can be imagined.’
We are also involved today in this dispute described by Blondel between two different theories of knowledge, as regards the discussion about how to understand the priestly office,
Two quotations make particularly clear what we are turning against: the sacral exaggeration through a so-called transformation of being, from which come the priest’s hubris, arrogance and (also spiritual) abundance of power. As always, thank God, it must be emphasised that by no means all priests understand their role in that way. But the official theology still implies that priests are raised above all other people, that they control access to salvation and that nothing works without them.
Auxiliary Bishop Eleganti against priesthood for ‘the electrician next door’ (July 2019)
Chur/Linz (KNA): In clear words the Auxiliary Bishop of Chur Marian Eleganti defends the special position of the priestly office within the Catholic Church. A priest does not perform ‘a professional role like any other’, said the cleric, on Friday in a video- contribution to Portals kath.net
Through the sacrament of priestly ordination the priest receives ‘something sacred, that distinguishes him henceforth from all the rest of the baptised,’ says Eleganti. He is empowered to lead, to proclaim and to bless. These three offices cannot be divided and laid on other shoulders, ‘so that the priest now only stands at the altar, speaks the words of consecration, and another preaches, teaches, proclaims or leads.’
In Eleganti’s view this has nothing to do with clericalism. The particular position of the priest ought not to be denied. ‘Let us be very careful not to split up this priesthood in its integrity, and destroy it’, warns the Swiss bishop. Such dismantling must stop. He spoke emphatically against a ‘light priesthood’, which the electrician next door could carry out, with some kind of consecration to celebrate the Eucharist for an isolated region.
In this he stays completely on the official line. The 19th century image of priesthood still propagated by Benedict XVI is described very clearly by Jean Vianney, the ‘Parish priest of Ars’ (1786-1859):
‘Without the sacrament of ordination we should not have the Lord. Who has put him there in the tabernacle? The priest. Who received your souls when you first came into life? The priest. Who nourishes you, to give you strength to complete your earthly pilgrimage? The priest. Who will prepare you to appear before God, when he washes you for the last time in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest, always the priest. And when this soul dies through sins, who will wake it again, who will give it rest and peace? Again the priest… after God, the priest is everything! Only in Heaven will he himself understand this completely.’
Once more our contrary position to this, expressed particularly clearly by Hermann Häring (2019) in his article “Auferstanden aus Ruinen? Ein schwerer Weg für die Gemeinden” (‘Resurrection from Ruins? A difficult way for communities,’ original German text available here). What follows are some excerpts from it.
III/4.2 Farewell to ‘consecrated office’.
‘From a confessional Catholic point of view the new image of parish community leaders, women and men, will mark a deep turning-point. In fact most Catholic debates about reform are still slanted against it, because they put the number and ability to function of consecrated persons (so of men and women priests) at the centre. I find it astonishing how much attention is still always given to ‘consecrated office’. Even traditional Catholic legal language speaks against this central placing. It speaks with great sobriety of ‘ordination’, that is, of a classification or assignment, a long-term position, in the exact sense of the word. It follows from this old logic that what is spoken of in connection with the celebration of the Eucharist is not sacramental action, power to effect transubstantiation, nor offering of sacrifice, but simply presiding, or ‘the president’. The bishop is called, in accordance with his function, ‘overseer’ (epi-skopos), and his assistant, quite soberly, ‘elder’ (presbyteros).
With concentration on the consecrated priest, who receives sacral authority, and has to submit himself to sexual taboos, an early medieval new development gained acceptance, infused with magical ideas, and no longer true to the breadth of the New Testament beginnings.’
Häring refers to the Curé d’Ars, and quotes him: ‘After God, the priest is everything!… Only in Heaven will he himself understand this completely.’ Häring then continued:
‘This last sentence exposes the whole problem: with unparalleled simplicity the priest becomes a super-magician, without whom quite simply nothing can happen. A cleric of this kind sees himself immediately in reference to heaven, while ‘the laity’, especially women, are caught up in the sins of earth. Naturally, today every priest in Western culture would reject this self-description. Nevertheless, they are all convinced (and according to official teaching should be convinced) that at least during the Eucharist the are acting ‘in place of Christ’. At the present time this presumption lies at the heart of the current decline.
Today it is not a question of consecrated priests who can by virtue of their magical authority be placed as community leaders, but of competent women and men who are capable of leading a Christian community within the framework of a democratically organised society. Naturally these men or women usually also lead the liturgical assemblies of a community, and it would be expected that they should be installed in their office in a solemn and publicly visible way. Of course it follows that their carrying out the rules of the function has appropriate leadership, transparency and mutual trust.
The less this office of leadership is understood as a monopoly, the more clearly can the plural structure of parish leadership be put in place. In connection with Paul charisms are often spoken of: which means of the gifts or abilities that each man and woman can bring to the life of a community. Paul, who often has to suffer for the current sacramentalism, thought thoroughly democratically in matters of community structure: he wants a web of authorities based on expertise, and they would be judged according to the needs within a community […].
So shall we rise out of the ruins? I hope so, but the inner certainty of Jesus’ prophecy is not to be confused with a security to be counted on, because it lives from watchfulness, resistance and ongoing events. In the strict sense, resurrection is not a complete and accomplished fact, but still only an expected process. All renewals are only searching movements, nothing more. New certainties will always be confronted with uncertainty. It is enough, not to fall back again into the old Catholic sins, which especially in modern times equated the success of the institution with the triumph of grace, to stand there at the end with empty hands. We should learn better how to hope against hope (Rom.4:18). Certainly we are in love with success, but know that we shall not necessarily be spared the fate of the little flock. Perhaps we shall only be successful when we don’t take ourselves too seriously. Or find support in the saying of the American Reform Jew Arnold Jacob Wolf: ‘Faith is a serious business, but this community is a joke!’
Abbot Emeritus Christian Haidinger, President of the Superiors’ Conference of male religious orders in Austria, sent us as part of this debate an extract from a homily that he gave at a priestly jubilee in St Gabriel and Krems Minster (May 2019):
‘Naturally our thanks and celebrations today should not be a nostalgic looking back, but also enable a hopeful look into the future. We all see quite soberly that we stand at a turning-point for our 2000-year-old Mother Church! That future paths, tasks and possibilities are lighting up only in a blurred and vague way– especially in our Western and European Church:
Who will our future priests and pastors be – and where will they come from?
We must look at future structures and institutions, so that they can be future-fit and able to fulfil Christ’s command:
Go out into the whole world and proclaim the gospel,
the good news to all people!
Will some expectations from the coming ‘Amazonian Synod’, modestly-expressed but clearly wished-for, the admission of married men to the priesthood, be fulfilled – or only discussed again, and then silenced?
As religious priests we should certainly not suffer any damage from this change!
Do we hear the call from believing people, becoming ever-louder, for new entry-requirements to ordained ministry, to priesthood, as still only complaints from rebellious Christian women and men – or hear in it also the breath of God’s Spirit, who wants to make our Church future-fit?
From Pope Francis – and through the Vatican information-channels – we are also hearing recently tentative calls for women in the Church also to be in responsible positions….. but why not clearly for women in priestly service to people?
Already, four years ago, I received a personal rebuke from the Vatican because of a talk in a diocesan retreat-house on the theme ‘Women in the Church – same value, same rights!’
I would like to raise my voice for this, not as a rebellious old monk, but out of love for the Church and her future work for the good and salvation of people!
For nearly 60 years Pope John XXIII’s petition in his prayer for the preparation and accompaniment of the Second Vatican Council has stayed with me:
‘Holy Spirit, renew miracles in your Church as in a new Pentecost!’