Are Catholic priests lazy?

 

 

In the  book on Anglican orders  by a. Desmond  and J. Moore it is stated  ( page  47) that  Charles  Darwin’s father ( who was himself  a confirmed  free thinker)  decided to place his son, Charles, into the Anglican  ministry  because there  was no place else to put him.  He was unfit for medicine, law  or the military.

This aimless son of his with a penchant for sports  would fit  nicely into  this  “ haven for dullards and  dawdlers, the last resort  of spendthrifts.”

 

The authors  state the question thusly:  “what calling but the highest for those whose sense of calling was nil? And in what other profession were the risks of failure so  low and the rewards so high?”

 

Such a dismal appraisal of  the ministry of the priest  ( if one could so  label an   Anglican  minister of that period ) completely conflicted with my own idealistic perception of what i knew   of catholic  priests from  my earliest years.  I recall  the priest endlessly busy and concerned with  his  flock  from early morning until he fell exhausted into his bed late at night. He had led his people  in worship   everyday. He brought his eucharistic lord to  the home bound and the ill. He instructed  carefully those who wished to become Catholics. He visited the parish school and  t aught the  eager   and  wide eyed children  in the  richness of the ancient faith. He prayed each day  at least one hour, read widely in things of  the catholic faith. He spent time in  personal adoration before the  real presence in the blessed sacrament.

 

He visited the poor  often bringing food himself  ( even coal in my old parish which abounded with poverty stricken people   living in tenements  trying to warm themselves around pot  bellied stoves  in  the kichen). He  “ hung out” with the youth of  the parish—encouraging, challenging   and   clarifying.  People pleasing was  generally  alien to his personality. He  was on the picket line when  management  exploited the   intimidated  workers. He counseled the  discouraged, the bereaved and the confused. He  used spiritual specifics to  aid fondering marriages. He   did these ministries  himself!

 

He was  truly  “father”, always  in his clerical attire ( except when he  competed with the  athletes on the basketball court) .

There was no room for ambiguity. No sense of non-identity. He was clearly  defined  both to himself  and to everyone he met. Like his master, the lord himself (with whom, he believed, he had a union  of a deep  “ ontological” nature_) and   like the blessed apostle Paul, he  literally  spent himself dying, worn out, by the ripe old age of 60 or 65.

 

 

Up to approximately 20 years ago, this  was a fairly wide  spread  perception of the catholic priest in the united states. But something happened to change  that  perception. What was it?

The  picture  is too complicated for a simplistic  analysis. Yet, one can legitimately observe the phenomena ( or outward  signs) and wonder   about  correlations?  There are myriads of marvelous and  dedicated priests throughout this country doing the lord’s work—unsung and  unrecognized—but doing the  priestly  “thing” day  in and day out.  But there are some serious marginal and  new  age-ish types in the modern priesthood who  seem to scream out for   notice. The type  has been called  the “ modern” priest.

 

 

The modern priest  can spend hours a day reading  newspapers after  a late and leisurely breakfast.  He can speak about movies  and the latest plays, the ballet  or  symphonies. He has hours  to spend on his personal computer, playing games   and  “ chatting” world wide to soul mates.  He can  passively watch  the  empty  soaps on televison.   He doesn’t say mass  ( which he prefers to  call “liturgy” since mass somehow  links to  history. And heaven forbid should anyone use the term  “sacrifice” relative to this liturgy)  unless he is assigned. He is appalled  should  anyone  dare to   celebrate  mass on a “private” level  which somehow offends his sense of “ community”   ( which  term is the  bellwether  of all things). That the pope urges priests to say daily mass  even if there is no  congregation, is dismissed as

Archaic meanderings of  an old  has been.

 

He demands   a congregation if he is  to be appointed to the altar for mass. Apparently, he loves to prance about as  a strutting popinjay. He loves   flambouyant gestures and  exquisite  vestments . His liturgy  can be peppered with balloons, clowns, dancers and  multistriped  banners.  He sometimes   spends money turned  in  by the faithful for  expensive furnishings and  huge television sets, rationalizing that   “nothing is too good for priests.”   He  doesn’t like to be called  “father”  preferring  to  be called by his first name  particularly if he has gender problems stemming from same sex  deficits  of his childhood.  He reluctantly  wears  clerical clothing when  he is forced  to do so at  official functions.

 

The concept  of “ duty day”  so sacrosanct to the priest  of yesteryear  who  held himself available for anyone who needed the priest’s  ministrations is generally considered  now to be a kind of an anachronism. At  best, he will wear  a beeper while he is out to dinner  or  at the  movies!

 

Yet, more seriously,  the self concept of  this   modern priest  is more to the point.  The notion  of  the priest  being an “ ikon”   of jesus  as  described by George Weigal  in his provocative  book,  the courage to be catholic  is  almost totally foreign to this priest in question. He sees himself as  one of the many Christians with simply  a different and equal role. Others can distribute  the Eucharist as well as  he. Others can instruct   converts and  children as well as he. Others can run the youth programs and those for the elderly. As well as  he.  Others can

 visit the home bound  as well as he. Others  can do the bereavement counseling  and the knotty marriage difficulties, rationalizing again  that the laity should be involved  in the church’s ministry. This is especially true if the laity  ( often lonely women drooling for some  share in the glory and power  of Christ) are clamoring  for admission to the inner sanctum and  can do much of the priest’s work for him.  He must be  left  --we are told—for the more important things.

  what ????????

 

But    he  rarely hears  confessions  ( or as he describes  the  sacramental experience---reconciliation). He doesn’t say mass  unless he  is forced to !  He considers   that he has earned his keep  if he  does one positive act a day.

Is it the race results  or  the stock market  or the football scores  which are the “ more important things”?

 

 

How would  he fare in competition with the secular world? To dig he is not able. To beg he is  ashamed.  To be  in charles darwin’s  role smoking the  pipe, wearing a tweed  jacket with  reinforced elbows and discussing the personality of  vercingetorix as found in the gallic wars  is more his self concept. This is the first estate  which    has enraged populations throughout the centuries.

 

We are grateful—under god—that   the   fore going  bleak description does not  fit many priests. But neither did  the pedophile and ephebophile  priest fit  the average hardworking and dedicated  man of god we call the catholic priest. Most priests   are good and holy men dedicated to being christ in the modern world. no one  can legitimately  attach the term  “lazy”  to most  sacerdotal  men in the catholic priesthood   who often live alone,   eat  off hot plate “ stoves” and do their own shopping, laundry and cleaning.

 

 

Someone   said that catholic  priests are lazy, eh?  How does one define  lazy?    There is no counterpart in the dsm iv for  this word but there   are  copious  notations on   motivation !

 

Some one has also said that some priests  have  little faith and that their motivation is “horizontal” and not  “ vertical”.whom are we trying to please?  Do the priests who will not  say  a “ private” mass believe in the presence of god  and the communion of saints?  Do  they believe  in  the real presence?  In fact, is it a terrible possibility that  some priests do not   believe in god?

Or is it  a case of the  time honored diagnosis of “ abulia” where the man is  atrophied  from fear  or discouragement or disillusion or loneliness? It is certainly  too complicated a question to be monocular in  assessing the  “ why” of our present malaise. But there is a problem.  To address  the problem is not to be cynical. It  is, on the contrary, to be loving and caring for our church and our  priests.   Let us not talk falsely now. It is too late for excuses. The truth with compassion is the way  out of the  mess.

 

 

 

But   why is the  culture of dissent so  favored  by some priests?

Why  is  the duplicity  of pretending to believe the dogmas of  the faith  so prevalent  in the church today?

 

It may be that there are plenty of priests to do the work of the church if they had the motivation and the faith.  Is lazy the right adjective?   Perhaps there is a more profound , effective and  frightening  reason for the  hours  wiled  way  discussing  Maureen Dowd’s column. Laziness  may be the answer  but on second thought  it may be much more serious than  a  newspaper column.

 

May the god of Israel  and  Rome preserve us …..