It has been said that Vatican I (1869-70) concerned itself with the papacy, establishing the principle of the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals; Vatican II(1962-65) concerned itself with the Bishops, establishing the principle of collegiality; and it could happen that if there is a Vatican III, it might develop a theology of the priesthood.
This statement is obviously a reflection on the lack of time and attention that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council spent attending to the role and function of the priests of the Church.
In recent months a new book has appeared that deals with this issue. It is Evolving Visions of the Priesthood by Dean R. Hoge and Jacqueline E. Wenger. (Liturgical Press). It presents research into the state of the priesthood in the United States and the changes that have taken place in this profession from Vatican II to the turn of the new century.
This valuable book is based on sociological research conducted in 44 dioceses and 45 religious communities, supplemented by personal interviews with priests and includes the views of six Catholic leaders who comment on the research findings.
It describes the years after Vatican II as a time of uncertainly for priests, it reads: "On balance, they (priests) had as much to lose as to gain from the Council's actions. Its emphasis on the 'priesthood of the laity' and on the Church as 'the people of God' demanded that the role and identity of the priest be reconsidered. Many priests now felt confused, since their earlier role and their secure status were lost; large numbers resigned between 1968 and 1974. Historian Scott Appleby concluded that 'there was a widespread loss of confidence in parochial ministry in the 1960's'."
Strange as it may seem there is a single paragraph in one of the two Vatican II documents on the Priesthood that may serve to explain some of the problems and loss of confidence experienced by priests today that are mentioned above.
The paragraph in question appears in the opening Chapter of the "Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests" (Presbyterorum Ordinis), one of the sixteen documents to come out of the Second Vatican Council.
This particular text states, in almost cultivated ambiguity, the following: "by their vocation and ordination, priests of the New Testament are indeed set apart in a certain sense within the midst of God's people". The text then continues, "but they cannot be of service to people if they remain strangers to the life and condition of people".
These two statements, written almost forty years ago have created considerable divergence of opinion regarding the meaning of priesthood in our day. In fact, this apparent ambiguity in describing the priesthood has given rise to two distinct models of priesthood. One is called the "cultic model" which describes the priest as "set apart' and the other is called "the servant leader model" in which the document goes on to speak of the priest whose "ministry requires that they live in this world among people, and that as good shepherds they know their sheep."
Church historians describe the "cultic model" as one that has existed in the Church since the Council of Trent (1545-1563). It is called "cultic" because it attaches primary importance to the priest's role as leader of worship and dispenser of the sacraments.
This cultic model supports the distinctive lifestyle of a priest living a celibate life, residing in a house in cultivated detachment from the people and attired in a distinctive uniform.
On the other hand, the "servant-leader model" seems to date from the late 1950's and was probably related to the concern for the world's social problems as described in the early social encyclicals of Pope John XXIII, entitled "Christianity and Social Progress" (Mater et Magistra) and "Peace on Earth" (Pacem in Terris).
This model played down the priest's separateness and special status and found the priest closer to the members of the Christian community as they struggled to live a Christian life in a secular world. The priest served as a spiritual guide and chaplain to the laity and shared with them his knowledge of the rich body of social teaching dating from Pope Leo XIII in 1891 and applying Christian principles to the problems of modem life.
Although there is a danger in oversimplifying the effects of these two models of priestly lifestyle, it is clear that the fundamental difference between them lies in a basic attitude to the world.
It is without doubt that when Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council into existence it was to demonstrate that the Church existed for the benefit of people and his hope was that the Church would be mobilized to apply the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the enormous problems of a technical and social nature that the world was experiencing. Cardinal Seunens of Belgium, who was close to Pope John, has confirmed this view.
The Council did, in fact, produce a new type of document which attempted to achieve that very purpose. In "Gaudium et Spes" (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church and the Modem World) the Council spells out the Church's desire to show respect and solidarity with the world, to engage in "conversation and dialogue" with the modern world. Here follow some of the these expressions that illustrate the Church's desire to be of service:
"the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these too are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ"
"this community realizes that it is truly and intimately linked with humankind and its history"
"this Council can provide no more eloquent proof of its solidarity with the entire human family ... than by engaging with it in conversation (about these various problems)"
"the Council wishes to speak to all people in order to illuminate the mystery of humankind and to cooperate in finding the solution to the outstanding problems of our time".
As we continue to examine the influence of Vatican II on the renewal of priesthood in our day it might be profitable to examine the basic theological direction of the Council itself. In point of fact, for several decades preceding the Council there were various theological schools that were attempting to provide direction to the Bishops in dealing with modern society.
With this in mind we would like to compare the works and influence of two of the most important theologians in the past century. They are Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar.
They were both Jesuits, Rahner (1904-1984) was born in Germany, and von Balthasar (1905-1988) was born in Switzerland.
Rahner was present for all four sessions of the Council as a peritus, and although von Balthasar was not invited to the Council he was appointed by Pope Paul to the International Theological Commission in 1969. Rahner too was a member of this body.
Both of these men have had a profound influence on the theological direction of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the best brief description of their theological orientation is contained in an article by John J. Allen, the National Catholic Reporter's "man in Rome" in one of his regular columns entitled "Word from Rome" of 28 November, 2003. He writes:
"Expressing the difference between Rahner and von Balthasar is not easy, but one way to do so is in terms of attitudes towards 'the world'. Rahner stressed the presence of grace at the deepest level of every human being - the so-called 'supernatural existential'. Von Balthasar saw and 'analogy of being' between God and humanity, which placed more distance between the two and thus left room, he felt, for greater realism about sin. Rahner was a basic optimist about culture, so much so that von Balthasar once accused him of negating the necessity of the crucifixion. Rahnerians tend to take Gaudium et Spes as their charter, while Balthasarians often see that text, and especially subsequent interpretations of it, as dangerously naïve."
Hans von Balthasar has been described as the flag-bearer for those who believe that the development of the Church after the Second Vatican Council has conceded too much to the spirit of modernity.
According to a recent article in the Tablet, (April 17, 2004), an interview with Cardinal Schonborn, Archbishop of Vienna, Von Balthasar and Rahner clashed in 1970 over the direction the Council had taken; Rahner remained the leader of the Church's progressive wing with its more positive, Thomist view of the world, while von Balthasar came to represent the Augustinian view which stresses the separation of the Church and the world.
Rahner, in his "Theological Investigations" of 1972, argues that Gaudium et Spes expresses a theology that recognizes a kind of knowledge which does not spring from divine revelation but from human experience. So the particular knowledge that the Church requires for its theology is won from a secular experience, scientifically and systematically gained through modern history and the social sciences that represents a totally new kind of profane experience, previously not available to theology.
So the Church, according to Rahner, is no longer merely involved with the world that God created but also with that world that humankind is building. In other words, the Church must enter into solidarity with the experiences of contemporary society in order to make the world's experience its experience.
When Cardinal Schonborn was asked how he saw the worldview between von Balthasar and Rahner, he said: "The difference, I would say, is, do we start with the human longing for meaning, the meaning of life? Balthasar starts from God's manifestation, Rahner from the human desire for God's coming. But of course they were close and different at the same time. Certainly, the two approaches are complementary".
Finally, it seems clear from our brief examination of the theological direction of these two eminent theologians that they seem to provide a rationale for the two models of priesthood presented in the Hoge, Wenger book; the cultic model and the servant-leader model.
In conclusion, if this analysis holds true, there are serious implications for the future pastoral ministry in the Church. We will examine three areas that would be affected if one or other of the models becomes dominant in the years ahead:
THE LAITYHoge and Wenger (op. cit.) conclude that "the change in ecclesiology" (toward the cultic model) that is prevalent today among young priests has no counterpart among young adult laity. On the contrary, these young priests and young laity are heading in different directions. This certainly raises questions about the effectiveness of the Church's dialogue with modern society SOCIAL JUSTICE
The documents of the Second Vatican Council spelled out a variety of social principles that apply the gospel to the problems of our times. In fact, there are new issues that were not even considered by the Fathers of the Council forty years ago. The role of women in the Church and society was hardly mentioned and the word "Aids" had not yet been coined. During his pontificate Pope John Paul has issued a number of dynamic encyclicals and given many speeches and formal statements dealing with a variety of social justice issues. It will take a generation of priests who will have studied the Church's social doctrine and who are prepared to work with generous lay persons in our social institutions to provide society with this gospel leaven. VOCATIONS
Today, generous young people can find many outlets for their idealism, whether it be in non-governmental organizations in relief and development work, with Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, or working to spread the benefits of globalization, an end to militarism, or enlisting in groups for the pursuit of justice and peace, etc. Therefore, an other-worldly cultic model of priesthood will hold little attraction for them. THE FUTURE
The future of the Church will certainly hinge on the direction of the priestly ministry. An enormous consequence will depend on which route the "Renewed Priesthood" takes.
Jack Shea is President of the North Atlantic Federation. Jack served as a pastor among the original people on Manitoulin Island, director of The Social Action Department of The Canadian Bishops Conference, Peritus on Gaudium et Spes at Vatican II, and member of CORPUS Canada. This article appeared in July/August 2004 issue of Corpus Reports, a publication of CORPUS USA
