Tag: Permanency

Retirement of Priests

Years ago, I was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and was assigned to a variety of positions and responsibilities over the years.
   Right now, I’m retired and have no assigned position or responsibilities, but I’m expected to observe two continuing commitments: celibacy (i.e., not to marry) and praying the Divine Office daily.
   I will not be assigned or obliged to anything more by church authorities, but I may be offered or requested to do some thing or assume some official responsibility for a specific occasion or period of time; these are all voluntary matters.
   What’s the best way of describing me? Am I an off-duty priest? a retired priest? a former priest? an ex-priest?
   What would the best way be if I were a doctor, lawyer, judge, teacher, athlete, machinist, or husband?
   – “Off-duty” means that for a specific period of time an active-duty person is relieved or excused.
   – “Retired” means to be sort of permanently off-duty, usually because of age and/or incapacity to continuing to exercise the responsibilities of the job or office.
   – “Former” is similar but more permanent. It describes a position once but no longer held nor exercised.
   – “Ex” is similar to former but with overtones of having been terminated or dismissed from a former position, perhaps punitively.
   Being ordained a priest used to be considered as a forever thing in the sense that it could never be entirely relinquished. It used to be considered a kind of change of the very essence or being of the person.
   But with the introduction of retirement for priests, bishops, and even popes, it is being seen more like any other profession or occupation—a function or job, not a permanent alteration of the class or nature of the person.

   In some ways the retirement of priests has some similarity to military service. In case of emergency the (experienced and trained) officer may be temporarily reactivated, called back to active duty.
   An example: Joseph Ratzinger once held the office of and served as pope with the title of Benedict XVI. Right now, due to his voluntary resignation of office, he is a former pope. Loosely, he could be described as a retired pope, but that sounds a little like he no longer functions as pope due to some rule or customary practice.
   In my case, I’m not an ex-priest, nor a former priest, but I am a retired priest. This implies that I can volunteer or may be requested to perform some priestly duties, subject to the decision of proper authorities.
   I don’t necessarily identify myself as Father, Brother, Reverend, Doctor, Monsignor, or Archimandrite, although I may be addressed as such by others. As a courtesy or custom, former office holders often are addressed with their former title and may identify themselves by it.
   Of course, former office holders also may be presumed to act with the dignity and professionalism of their former office.
   All this reflects attitudes and thinking that are relatively recent in terms of church history, sacramental theology, and canon law—another of those changes that may be disturbing or unpleasant to some, but which are the fruit of a better understanding, growth, and development.
   And, to make it a tad more complicated, it’s not universal—i.e., the usages, customs, and understandings still vary from place to place, group to group, and person to person!


6 February 2022

Until Death Do Us Part

“Marriage” is a very complicated word—with a very complicated history behind it. It means very different things depending on who is speaking, the language used, and where the speaker comes from.
   “Marriage” historically has had to do with breeding—in the biological sense of sexual reproduction or the procreation of offspring. (Although mating doesn’t always result in procreation.)
   “Marriage” often is described as a kind of bonding—in the sense of a relationship between persons entered into with some degree of consent or, sometimes, constraint. (The relationship may be intended to be—or turn out to be—long or short term or indefinite or life long.)
   “Marriage” may result from merely personal decisions by the parties involved, from mutual agreements between families, and from formal recognition by societal authorities (civil or religious).
   Depending on the culture or customs of a particular time or place, a person may have multiple marriages, whether simultaneously or serially.
   As people, cultures and customs have developed and changed, so has the understanding of “marriage”—a process that is still going on.
   When I was studying Canon (i.e. ecclesiastical) Law many years ago, these were the juridical definitions of the purpose of marriage and of matrimonial consent:

   The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary, mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (Canon 1013, §1)
   Matrimonial consent is the act of the will by which both parties give and accept the perpetual and exclusive right to the body for acts which are per se apt to generate offspring. (Canon 1081, §2).

   Canon Law doesn’t seem very romantic! But, don’t blame the canonists. In many times, places, and cultures, romance was not considered a primary factor in marriage.
   Often we speak of marriage as a contract concerning procreation and education of children and sexual rights and obligations.
   Since children can inherit titles, thrones, class or caste prerogatives, money, property, and other material assets, it is clear that there are important contractual matters associated with marriage.
   Sometimes they were at the core of the marriage, since things like love, affection, passion and sexual pleasure could be found and satisfied outside of marriage.
   All this is mostly about legalities. Morality brings another dimension to views about marriage. That’s when we judge certain behaviors, whether within or outside of marriage, as good or bad, holy or sinful.
   When marriage is considered a sacrament, “an outward sign instituted by Christ to bring grace”, the matter becomes even more complex, canonically and theologically.
   For example: When is a marriage “valid”? When/how does a marriage end? When may a marriage be blessed? Are there other relationships that may be blessed? What does it mean, to be blessed?
   In our day, traditional marriages in many different cultures are sometimes being critiqued, reinterpreted, and redefined. What used to be a common and relatively unquestioned institution is being challenged by some and defended by others.
   Long ago, Shakespeare used a grim label for his tale of Romeo and Juliet, two lovers who challenged the marriage customs of their day. He called it a “Tragedy”.


4 April 2021

Clergy Retirement Implications

It was a great surprise when Pope Benedict XVI declared in 2013 that he was resigning his office, explaining that “. . . I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.”
This unusual act challenged common understanding of the nature of the papal office. By this decision, Pope Benedict established that accepting election as Bishop of Rome is not necessarily a commitment for the rest of one’s life.
With this decision, the relatively recent practice in the Church of resigning one’s office and retiring now extended to all ranks of clergy in the Church—deacons, priests, and bishops—without exception.
Resignation or retirement presumes a separability between the person and the office the person holds. Traditions notwithstanding, the acceptance of election or ordination is no longer considered an irrevocable bonding of the person and the office, lasting forever or until death.
Further, since resignation and retirement are now expected and required at a certain set age for most clergy, in effect they are being ordained for a set, predetermined period of time in the first place.
And, it would follow that, if they are being ordained for a set, predetermined period of time in the first place, the set period of time could be shorter then up to the fixed retirement age.
For example, religious congregations of brothers or sisters, monks or nuns, have set periods of limited or temporary vows before making a permanent commitment.
Many other occupations have something similar—e.g. military services, civil services, and educational institutions.
For all, there is no stigma attached to completing an agreed-upon term of service and declining to renew it for another.

Regarding offices or jobs in general, usually someone may accept the offer of a job, make a contractual commitment to it, perform it for better or for worse, and resign it or be released or dismissed from it.
In practice, generally all jobs are undertaken for a set, limited period of time, even though they may be classified as “temporary” or “permanent”.
In some occupations resignation or retirement presumes a willingness to return to service if called upon in a situation of emergency and need.
In some occupations and situations of emergency or need, a qualified person can be deputed to assume a responsibility or office on an ad hoc or temporary basis.
How many general employment policies can be, could be, and should be applied to clergy office holders? For example:
– “Temporary” (set, short-term) ordinations—for, e.g., three, five, or ten years—as well as “permanent” ones?
– Clear, agreed-upon clergy position descriptions, detailing prioritized current work responsibilities?
– Probationary, ordinary (usually annual), and extraordinary performance evaluations of clergy?
– Immediate work supervisors or superiors with responsibilities for the regular monitoring of clergy performance?
– A clear procedure for honorable and dishonorable discharge or termination of clergy service?
– minimum period for investment in retirement benefits?
Could even Jesus have made a living if he hadn’t done a good job?


6 October 2019

Military and Ecclesial Service

“Serviceman”—for convenience, I’m using only masculine nouns and pronouns—usually means a person who is a member of the armed forces or someone whose work is to repair or service something. (Also, sometimes domestic workers—e.g., butlers or maids—are said to be “in service”.)
The military aspect of the definition of serviceman is an interesting metaphor for the service of a clergyman.
First, in both military and ecclesiastical service, there’s a distinct difference between the serviceman (clergyman) and the civilian (layman). The serviceman’s role is to protect and defend the entire civilian population, and, of course, the serviceman leaves civilian life when he enters military service.
Also both the military and the clergy have a hierarchical organization of authority. The military distinguishes enlisted personnel and non-commissioned and commissioned officers. Shifting the metaphor a little, this has some similarities to the ecclesiastical distinctions of laity, non-ordained ministers, and ordained clergy.
However, the analogies break down in one significant aspect, the permanency implied by ordination. “Thou art a priest forever” has implications that have some similarities with the military but which are conceptually fundamentally different.
A serviceman can have a commitment of temporary service or life service; he can be discharged, honorably or dishonorably, or retired. Some categories of retired servicemen may be reactivated in cases of national emergency.
An ordained clergyman cannot make a commitment of temporary service, only life. He never is “discharged” but dispensed from his commitment to celibacy, “reduced” to the status of layman, and forbidden, except in cases of dire emergency, from exercising the sacramental power and authority of his status as an ordained clergyman.

Interestingly, members of religious orders, unlike clergy, freely can make temporary or permanent commitments of service (vows). It is possible, even for religious personnel with solemn or permanent vows, to be entirely dispensed or freed from them.
Mercifully, the practice of dispensation, of authorization of an exception to a general rule, exists. However, it sort of begs the question if it used increasingly; it can reach the point where the very appropriateness of the general rule is called into question.
This isn’t necessarily bad. Although it could be interpreted as a growing laxity, it also could reflect development in the understanding of the matter in question.
What would ecclesiastical service be like if it had some of the practices of the military regarding its commissioned officers? For instance,
– allowing fixed, and renewable, terms of service;
– making regular formal performance evaluations (using some of performance factors of the military—e.g., job knowledge, fitness, communication skills, leadership, bearing, judgment, dedication, responsibility, loyalty, discipline, integrity, moral courage, selflessness);
– adopting a clear, stated promotion policy and procedure;
– having a separation policy providing for honorable and dishonorable discharges in addition to retirement;
– utilizing, in appropriate circumstances, a quasi-public judicial procedure like the military court-martial.
Older ecclesiology spoke of two perfect societies, church and state. There are things the state could teach the church!


5 May 2019

Melchizedek . . . Priest Forever?

What do we know about Melchizedek? The first reference to him in the Bible is in the Book of Genesis (14:18):

Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine. He was a priest of God Most High. He blessed Abram with these words:
“Blessed, be Abram by God Most High,
The creator of heaven and earth;
And, blessed be God Most High,
who delivered your foes into your hand.”
Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

The second reference is in Psalm 110:4:

The Lord has sworn and will not waver:
“You are a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek.”

The other scriptural references are found in the Letter to the Hebrews. Its writer was trying to describe Jesus and his death in an intelligible and thought-provoking way for a Jewish Christian reader in terms of the Jewish high priest in his role of offering atonement sacrifice.
But, by Mosaic law Jesus could not have been a priest, since he was not even of the tribe of Levi much less an Aaronic priest.
That is why the writer invoked the figure of Melchizedek, explaining that Jesus, as did Melchizedek, had a greater priesthood, for Abraham himself, great ancestor of all the Hebrew tribes, received Melchizedek’s blessing and placed offerings in his hand.
Over the centuries, this image of Jesus the priest has had a perduring influence on the Church. The entire Christian people, and especially its leaders, were thought of as a priestly people, sharing in that eternal priesthood of Jesus which was “in the manner of Melchizedek.”

Gradually this notion of the leaders of the Church as priests and offerers of Christ’s sacrifice dominated entirely the earlier understanding of them as the overseers and the elders of the Christian communities.
As theology developed and evolved, especially sacramental theology, the “forever” of Psalm 100 was taken to mean not only that the Messiah, Jesus himself, was “a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek” but also all ordained priests.
The rite of ordination became not only the laying on of hands as a sign of appointment and authorization but also the celebration of the entrance of the person into a special leadership caste with a “forever” aspect.
Sacramental theology described this forever aspect as a permanent “character,” altering the very nature of the ordained person—an ontological change. The priest became thought of as sacred and holy.
This had a lot of challenging long-term implications, even now. Just think, for example, of some questions like these:
– can a priest permanently and irrevocably be removed from office?
– are the acts of his ministry valid even though his personal behavior is sinful?
– is a bishop or religious superior obligated to his care and supervision, no matter what he does, until his death?
Meanwhile, as the concept and nature of priesthood is increasingly being examined, the Melchizedek image still lives on.
There is a traditional Latin hymn still regularly sung to celebrate a priest’s ordination, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech—You are priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek.


28 April 2019

Discerning Callings

Here’s how the dictionary defines it:

Calling:  1. the action of one that calls. 2. one’s occupation, profession, or trade.  3. an inner urging toward some profession or activity; vocation.

If that’s what it can mean, then in one sense or another everybody has a calling. But, when we use its Latin-rooted synonym “vocation” it sounds more specialized, limited, and God-related as in vocation to the priesthood or the religious life.
In the Bible, there are stories of people experiencing divine intervention and being explicitly called and invited to a life work—think of Abraham, Moses, the boy Samuel, and the apostles.
More often, though, the direct action of God in our lives is experienced in the form of an inner urging and/or particular life events and circumstances.
The process of discernment—figuring out how to interpret these growing inner urgings and events of our lives—can be very challenging. Is what we experience a direct action of God? If the calling is from God, is it to a general style of life or a particular occupation or profession?
When eventually we chose a particular occupation or profession, is it mostly because it’s attractive to us, because we feel that God is calling us to it, attractive or not, or because of both?
After making a decision and commitment, what is an appropriate response if the very nature, responsibilities, public regard, and our satisfaction with the chosen occupation or profession changes?
And, to add a more contemporary challenge to the mix, what if our continual process of discernment leads to the conviction that God is calling us to leave a particular occupation or profession and embrace another?

One of the characteristics of modern society is an increasing movement away from permanency, whether it refers to where we live, the job we have, the social class we belong to, the nationality we possess, the values we adhere to, the spouse we chose, even the gender we identify with.
Change of itself is not necessarily good or bad, but it can be challenging, sometimes painful, and often difficult. Growth and maturation involve change, development and evolution involve change, divine intervention involves change—and so do revolutions, wars, disasters, tragedies, and betrayals.
So, whether we choose the changes of our lives or endure them, we have to learn to let go of one thing so we can accept another—and usually more often then we expect. To live means to change; when we are totally fixed and changeless, we’re dead.
For the one who feels that God is calling and is disposed to listen attentively, beware. St. Paul, referencing the words of the prophet Isaiah, voiced the challenge of understanding some the actions of God for they include “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart…” (1 Co 2:9)
Everyone has a calling, a calling from God. Most people experience this call as an inner urging towards a certain style of life or activity; some, even towards a particular occupation or profession. The continuing challenge is discerning whether what we think is of God really is.
Wrestling with “To be or not to be” is a continuing aspect of everyone’s life. For Hamlet it was about life or death. For all of us it’s about really living or gradually dying.


14 April 2019