Benedict XVI, in his letter today proclaiming a "Year for Priests," puts forth Saint Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney--the Cure' d'Ars--as the model, since this year is also the 150th anniversary of the death of that remarkable French pastor.
On the other hand, centering the Year for Priests on Vianney gives the celebration--and the pope's letter--a decidedly nineteenth-century caste, which may not quite resonate in the twenty-first century. As Benedict writes of the Cure' d'Ars:
Explaining to his parishioners the importance of the sacraments, he would say:
"Without the Sacrament of Holy Orders, we would not have the Lord. Who put him there in that tabernacle? The priest. Who welcomed your soul at the beginning of your life? The priest. Who feeds your soul and gives it strength for its journey? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, bathing it one last time in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest, always the priest. And if this soul should happen to die [as a result of sin], who will raise it up, who will restore its calm and peace? Again, the priest... After God, the priest is everything! ... Only in heaven will he fully realize what he is".
Benedict acknowledges that these words "might sound excessive." And to me they do. But he explains, saying:
"...they reveal the high esteem in which [Vianney] held the sacrament of the priesthood. He seemed overwhelmed by a boundless sense of responsibility: "Were we to fully realize what a priest is on earth, we would die: not of fright, but of love...Without the priest, the passion and death of our Lord would be of no avail. It is the priest who continues the work of redemption on earth...What use would be a house filled with gold, were there no one to open its door? The priest holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods...Leave a parish for twenty years without a priest, and they will end by worshiping the beasts there..."
So is that an argument for ordaining married men to boost vocations? Probably not. But again, I'm not so sure how this letter will resonate with lay Catholics, or priests. I'm all for a Year for Priests--for supporting them, and encouraging more vocations. Will this help?
On another note, much media attention has focused on Benedict's welcome recognition of the failures of some priests in scandalous ways:
"...situations which can never be sufficiently deplored where the Church herself suffers as a consequence of infidelity on the part of some of her ministers. Then it is the world which finds grounds for scandal and rejection. What is most helpful to the Church in such cases is not only a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers, but also a joyful and renewed realization of the greatness of God's gift, embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors, religious afire with love for God and for souls, and insightful, patient spiritual guides."
What is not made explicit is whether he is including bishops among these priests; most people would read it as just priests, "ministers," I think. Maybe that's what he meant. If so, it once again puts all the onus on the "lower" clergy to be saints, it seems.
From CNS' Vatican buro, Cindy Wooden has coverage here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Daniel: there is an important mistake in the translation of the pope's remarks on sexual abuse. He did NOT say: "What is most helpful to the Church in such cases is not only a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers, but also a joyful and renewed realization etc etc."
Rather, what he said was: "What is most helpful to the Church in such cases is NOT the meticulous investigation of the weaknesses (sic) of its ministers, but RATHER a joyful and renewed realization etc etc" (from the Italian original: "Ciò che massimamente può giovare in tali casi alla Chiesa non è tanto la puntigliosa rilevazione delle debolezze dei suoi ministri, quanto una rinnovata e lieta coscienza...")
B16 would not have dared say such things in the US, and in fact his speech were much different when he actually came last year. But as we can see, he quickly switched back to the default defense mechanism in favor of the clericalism and the priestly caste. It's quite worrying!
Luca
...Jesus is the only priest a beliver needs, indeed, each believer is called to be a priest himself/herself... there are Pastors ect... but it is their task to raise the beliver to do the work of the ministry... I am so glad I met Jesus... the Church has much in it that has no foundation in scripture... it sounds nice and so forth,,, but is it scriptural?...the worship of angels and saints...no... in Revelation a Angel tells the Apostle John to not worship him, as he is a fellow worker too... everything in Christianity points toward Christ... not to any earth man, or even through any earth man.... any person at any time can go straight to God...through Jesus.... anything else, is not Bible, and so forth.... this investment of Priests with powers that he was never meant to have, stupifies the church....ex cathedra, messed up the church...
To clarify, a different Ann than me...mine mysteriously was gone.
In regards to the article, I think what bothers me is that when have we not honored Priests who have lived a truly Priestly life? Where is the humility in the service? Most of the Priest that I know would be a little embarrased by this since no parish is run by the Priest. Most fully appreciate the talents and service of the laity.
Leight said it well so there is no need to repeat, but I would add that Vatican II only "ruined" the church in as much as it called people to take responsibility for thier own faith and the people being trained otherwise found that difficult. Where we were pre-Vatican II was not where the Gospel told us to be. I think the people who have such a hard time with that may want to examine why. Why is it so hard to see that Jesus challenges us to be a better people? I think many only think they need to dip thier toe in the waters of thier baptismal call. That was the way of pre vatican II. What we are called to do is to change our hearts. Christ clearly sates where two or more are gathered in his name, there he will be...I don't recall the requirement of a resume.
...and when I say "no parish is run by the Priest", I mean that the laity are responsible for most of the inner-workings, ministries and administrative responsibilities.
Ann
Incidently, Benedict in addition to quoting Vianney also generously quote's John XXIII and the documents of Vatican II in his letter. In another passage he writes:
"There are sectors of cooperation which need to be opened ever more fully to the lay faithful. Priests and laity together make up the one priestly people and in virtue of their ministry priests live in the midst of the lay faithful ...“to be sincere in their appreciation and promotion of the dignity of the laity and of the special role they have to play in the Church’s mission. … They should be willing to listen to lay people, give brotherly consideration to their wishes, and acknowledge their experience and competence in the different fields of human activity. In this way they will be able together with them to discern the signs of the times.
I think that David's characterization of the letter is skewed to a particular point of view and unfortunately doesn't do the missive justice.
Luca
I think your translation is suspect.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.