ASJ Attacks America’s Fix for the Priest Shortage

America magazine may want to get rid of priestly celibacy, but the priest shortage will solve itself if the Church simply listens to ASJ's very reasonable suggestion.

In the May 4 issue of America magazine, the editors offer a “Modest Proposal” for fixing the priest shortage in the U.S. Church. In anticipation of the Year of the Priest to commence next month, the editors suggest that the Church consider ordaining married men.

The Apostolate of St. Jerome is compelled to speak out against their proposal, which is neither novel nor surprising, because it is the polar opposite of the remedy that we have proposed. That is, they see celibacy as an obstacle to a flourishing priesthood, but we envision the future priesthood as being replenished by a Church-wide revival of the very celibacy that was so important to the early Christians. This is a sad but common theme for ASJ these days: we herald celibacy as a solution to the problems that face the Church, but others like America constantly seek to blame celibacy for causing these problems. Clearly the two positions cannot be any more opposed. So who’s right? (Hint: We are.)

A full re-statement of all the reasons why ASJ favors a celibate priesthood is beyond the scope of this article. In past issues of our newsletter we have delved at length into the advantages and beauty of celibacy, particularly in the clergy. Just like monogamy can’t be taken out of marriage while leaving that institution intact, neither can celibacy (or at least continence) be removed from the priesthood without altering its very essence. Everybody understands that marriage involves sexuality, and Catholics have long understood that the same holds true for their clergy.

In a past issue of our newsletter, ASJ outlined our novel proposal to overcome the priest shortage. We correctly sense that as long as this sad problem of a priest shortage persists, it gives occasion to our opponents to attack celibacy. So we unveiled our idea of conditional priests, which proposes that the Church should ordain some men with only a minimal training and endow them only—and the word only is quite inappropriate in this case—with the faculty of offering the Eucharist. These conditional priests would not be pastors, or confessors, or spiritual directors. They need not lead youth groups, or catechize, or anoint the sick. We even suggested that they needn’t even give homilies, for these days it’s easy for a diocese to supply a homily written by a bishop or other pastor that can be read at all masses where such conditional priests preside. It shouldn’t even be necessary in most cases to provide these men with a residence or a stipend. This privilege could be reserved for their fully-trained counterparts. Of course, we would require celibacy from these conditional priests, and apostolic continence should the Church extend conditional priesthood to married men. But we believe that more than enough single men, widowers, and even married men would agree to forgo any future carnal relations in exchange for this honor.

Now before any discussion of priestly celibacy can begin, we must clarify three issues that always muddle the debate.

First, we must address the distinction between “letting married men be priests” and “letting priests get married.” It is only the former practice of ordaining men who are already married that exists in the Eastern Church and that groups like America would like to extend to the West. The latter discipline in which men can marry after ordination has never been practiced by Roman Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics, or the Orthodox. Rather, it’s always been clear that if a man is unmarried at the time of his ordination, he must remain so.

A second but more important point to clarify is the crucial distinction between celibacy, which means renouncing marriage, and continence, which means renouncing sexual relations. Often our opponents say that celibacy is the thing keeping men out of the priesthood, but we claim that it is really continence that presents them with the bigger problem. To see why we say this, suppose tomorrow the Church did away with its celibacy requirement and started ordaining married men alongside celibates. We would probably see very little change. This is because the deeper, more ancient discipline of clerical continence would still be in force, requiring married clerics to renounce sexual relations with their wives. While our opponents are right to say that the discipline of a celibate clergy extends only to the Middle Ages, the practice of a continent clergy is much more ancient as our patron St. Jerome himself attests. This is why even ASJ is willing to listen to those who attack a celibate clergy, provided their solution requires these married clerics to live “as brother and sister” with their wives. If this were done, ASJ would welcome married clerics with open arms! But this is not what those who push for married priests have in mind. Thus we say that they’re being deceitful, though perhaps unintentionally, about overturning clerical celibacy when the thing they really want to overturn is clerical continence. What they really want is for ordained men to have sexual relations; thus continence and not celibacy is their true foe.

But in fact, and the America article is no exception, those who push for married priests never even mention this key point of the debate. This confusion is hampering good-faith dialogue on this issue, because if this distinction is clear then another possibility is visible. That is, instead of asking whether clergy should be allowed to have a full-blown married life in order to alleviate the priest shortage (i.e. undoing the continence requirement), we should first ask whether there are in fact enough married men who would serve Christ as priests at the expense of their marital relations (i.e. undoing the celibacy requirement.) After all, we contend that allowing married priests without requiring continence would overturn apostolic tradition, and, we would argue, is contrary to the will of the Lord. Such a venerable and ancient tradition like clerical continence should not be done away with without even investigating this avenue that ASJ believes is very feasible.

But this brings us to a third issue to clarify, for in point of fact Rome has already trampled on clerical continence, albeit on a limited basis. We speak of course of the lamentable decision by John Paul II nearly thirty years ago that has allowed married clerics who convert from Anglicanism or other mainline faiths to receive Catholic ordination—while presumably maintaining marital relations. Now, as ASJ wrote in our classic article “Someone Needs a Lesson from Uriah the Hittite,” it appalls us that men who would accept this unjust privilege actually exist. How can they not profess solidarity with the clergy’s celibate majority by refusing either Rome’s hyper-generous offer or the offer of the priesthood itself? What kind of men are these? They will certainly get no respect from their peers, and thus they undermine priestly fraternity. How even the laity will respect them is a mystery to us. But this is problematic on many other levels, and ASJ continues in befuddlement as to why Rome has behaved this way.

First, we charge not only that this practice violates apostolic tradition, but that it is utterly foolish as a matter of policy. It will seem to many that this policy punishes Catholic men for being cradle Catholics. To anybody with a working brain, the Church seems to invite young men interested in the clergy to leave the Church altogether, find a pretty girl to marry in a non-Catholic denomination, get ordained in that ecclesial community, and then return triumphantly to the Roman Communion with wife in hand. Meanwhile, your peers who were faithful to the Church from the start are left to rue their fidelity. The only consistent positions are either to give Catholic men the same privileges currently reserved for non-Catholics who want to be priests, or as we would prefer, to exclude these men from ministry unless they promise continence. The current practice makes absolutely no sense.

A second problem with this position is that it seems to grant legitimacy to the invalid orders of non-Catholic groups. After all, the Church does not allow this exception for any convert who later wants to become a priest, but only for those who are already clergy. Thus, doesn’t Rome imply that something has happened to these men when they received non-Catholic orders? But is this really what we believe?

But giving Rome every benefit of the doubt, as we must grant to the see of the chief apostle, perhaps it is prudent to permit this stain on the priesthood if it will mean the furtherance of the Church’s mission of salvation. For clerics in other mainline faiths are certainly star witnesses to Catholic truth in front of their former congregations. If it is really the case that they would not convert to Catholicism save for this privilege, then only here can ASJ make any sense out of this. But for those like America to try to turn this sad exception into the rule is very misguided.

Now in spite of our quarrels with our opponents, even they, we believe, do value continence and celibacy. It’s just that they believe this value isn’t worth it if it means that the faithful lose the chance to encounter Christ in the sacraments. They have a fair point. Certainly Catholics should never be deprived of the Eucharist—something the Lord instituted—in order to be faithful to the Latin-rite custom of ordaining only unmarried men—which we admit is something not instituted by the Lord. Again, this is why even ASJ admits that a celibate priesthood is fair game for reform. And if it were true that this discipline imposed by fallible men were the true obstacle keeping otherwise willing men out of the priesthood, then we might agree.

But this simply isn’t the case. As we suggest with our proposal for conditional priests, the true cause of the priest shortage lies elsewhere. We charge that an entire demographic of Catholic men who would be willing to live celibacy are not even being considered for the priesthood.

The true cause of the priest shortage is this: the Church is levying outrageously strenuous educational requirements on would-be priests that are far more burdensome than is needed to nobly and ably celebrate the sacred mysteries. There is no reason a man needs five to six years of philosophy and theology on top of an undergraduate degree to celebrate the Eucharist, as currently required by American dioceses. In saying this, we in no way impugn the nobility of the priesthood, because the Church didn’t even have formal seminaries until after the Council of Trent. For fifteen centuries the Church saw fit to lay hands on men with little if any higher education—and much of that was when priests needed to learn Latin! We suggest that if groups like America’s editors are looking for a non-apostolic practice to change, they should start here. For this practice of demanding that all sacramental ministers have the full-fledged education of a pastor of souls produces two undesirable side effects, both of which directly contribute to the priest shortage.

First of all, the present system excludes many men who would be faithful priests but who simply lack academic prowess. The gifts needed to pursue graduate-level coursework, to study abstract thinkers like St. Thomas and Aristotle, and to learn a foreign language (or two) are not found in everyone. Yet in no way is scholastic aptitude an indicator of the holiness, obedience, humility of heart, and love of service to others that a dutiful priest needs. Furthermore, many men who could in fact handle such studies if they had to may not want to simply because they are getting older and don’t want to spend their remaining years in a library when they feel God is calling them to get their hands dirty in parish work serving His people. This brings us to our next point.

The second undesirable consequence of such a lengthy, expensive formation process is the de facto age discrimination that occurs when dioceses do not even consider older men for their formation programs. See, the cost of educating priests is so steep because of all the education required that dioceses naturally want to select men who will provide a “good return on investment” by serving their diocese for years to come. As a result, once a man reaches age fifty he need not apply to a priestly formation program in the U.S—diocesan or religious. In fact, one of ASJ’s co-founders was once turned down by a Carmelite community because he was past the whopping age of forty! Sorry, Grandpa! But in an era when people live longer and are active later into life, having a greater number of older men in the priesthood carries its advantages.

Besides, since when is the life experience that comes with age an impediment to positions of honor and leadership? After all, the very word presbyter comes from the Greek word for elder. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is over the age of sixty. But according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate only 11% of American priests being ordained this year are over the age of fifty!

Now another advantage in making the priesthood more accessible to older gentlemen is that they are naturally more accepting of celibacy. Many are widowers or have been single all their lives. Even those who are married can’t have all too much going on in the bedroom to speak of, even in the age of little blue pills. Thus, by opening the priesthood to older entrants, the beauty of a continent priesthood can be preserved at little cost and the priesthood can be replenished without attacking celibacy or continence.

These are the true reasons for the priest shortage, and an ordination track that requires far less formal education is the true remedy. We don’t say this as an excuse to be slack, for the pastors who have ultimate charge of a parish would still get the full training they get today. Catholics are right to want well-trained pastors. But nobody needs almost a decade’s worth of training to reverently preside at the Eucharist. A year of training, or two at the very most, would more than equip the pious soul for this sacred honor. By following the ASJ proposal for “conditional priests,” the Church could fill parishes with devout men who would gladly adhere to celibacy. More men who lack “book smarts” will be eligible to serve the Church’s need. And with less pressure to recover investment, a lot of older, wiser men would be accepted into the ranks of the clergy. All this would broaden the pool of candidate priests, which currently is being restricted by non-apostolic policies, and masses would not have to be reduced or altogether eliminated as is now the case. Thus we say that the education requirement, and not the celibacy requirement, is the true cause of the priest shortage.

Now before we close, we would like to voice two other disagreements with the America article.

First we want to emphasize a major difference between our proposal and America’s. They complain that the current crisis risks narrowing the role of a priest to a mere sacramental minister who runs doggedly from parish to parish to dispense God’s grace. But we believe that such a narrowing of the role of the priest actually holds the key to fixing the priest shortage in the first place. America argues that Vatican II lays out its vision for priestly ministry under Canons 528, 529, and 530. They argue that only the last canon contains a sacramental function, and that the first two spell out a “broader” role for the priest as one who “catechizes, fosters works of justice, shows special care for the education of children and brings the Gospel to those who have ceased to practice the faith.” Furthermore, the priest should “come to know the faithful entrusted to his care, visit families, share their concerns, worries and griefs, help the sick and seek out the poor[.]”

But look, Scripture is clear. A priest, Hebrews tells us, “taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” That is, a priest is needed to do precisely what the people cannot do themselves—offer sacrifice. It’s certainly great when priests do all these other things as well, but there is no reason why a Christian must be ordained to care for the poor, espouse causes of social justice, catechize, or any of the other wonderful items spelled out in these canons. These are the duties and responsibilities of any baptized Christian!

To show this, note the similarities between America’s language “share their concerns, worries and griefs” and the opening of Gaudium et Spes. In that hallmark document of the Council we read that “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age,...are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ.” Notice it does not say the “priests of Christ,” but rather all “followers of Christ,” the entire People of God. If we need priests to care for the poor and espouse social justice, then the Church has much graver problems than a priest shortage. So, in an odd twist, ASJ is actually proposing a greater role for the laity in the life of the Church than the left-leaning America magazine who appears to want to wait for the clergy to lead them. But in fact, if our idea of conditional priests takes root, priests will not have to run from parish to parish and will in fact have time to do all the noble things America desires.

And this brings us to the gist of our argument. We’re saying that the priesthood has been broadened so much that it takes five to seven years of expensive training, and this is preventing the Church from even looking at a large segment of the Church from which we could draw wonderful priests. But if the priesthood is envisioned more narrowly as the sacrificial and sacramental ministry, and it is distinguished from the more general concept of the presbyter, or pastor, which would continue to involve a broader set of skills, then it becomes possible to recruit and train men solely for the purpose of presiding at the Eucharist. This is the fix to the priest shortage.

A second gripe of ours concerns America’s pessimistic estimate of the task before us. America feels drawn to the conclusion to ordain married men based on a quote from sociologist Dean Hoge who says, “We need at least a doubling of ordinations to maintain the American priesthood as we know it now. But this is impossible.” Impossible? We certainly don’t see any justification for saying this. Not only are all things possible with God, but even a look at the meager numbers shows that a doubling of ordinations is actually quite achievable. Doubling the approximately 239 U.S. diocesan priests to be ordained in 2009 would only require on average an additional 1.6 men per Latin-rite diocese per year, or roughly five such men per diocese every three years. We think it’s a foregone conclusion that our proposal to allow conditional priests who can minister with far less educational training could easily meet this figure. This would be especially true were it combined with our theological concept of external vocations, where the bishop takes a more active role by personally inviting men to leave worldly things behind and take up the duties of the clergy.

The advantage of our approach is that by preserving celibacy, and not undercutting it, we strengthen an institution that is essential to fighting the sexual sin that is enemy number one of the Catholic Church in our day. We believe that many men who would be willing to serve as celibate priests simply aren’t being given the chance. Because the priestly-function is lumped into a pastor-function that rightly requires a costly education, men who would make great priests are being kept from the empty altars where their services are needed. Many of these are excluded solely based on age, even though their grey hairs should be seen as a plus not a minus. Others are excluded because formal education at the graduate level simply may not be their thing. The Church should think twice before excluding such men a priori from the priesthood as its current formation programs do.

We speculate that under the pretense of fearing a “eucharistic famine,” the editors of America propose a solution to achieve what they really want—the eradication of any vestige in the Church that reflects the divine doctrine that celibacy is superior to marriage. Why else would they throw their support behind such a drastic measure without even mentioning the various other ways around this problem that we herein suggest? The truth is they don’t really want priests so much as they want to do away with celibacy. ASJ has for some time now had on the table our proposal for conditional priests. It’s time all Catholics who cherish the celibate priesthood support our proposal lest the naysayers like those at America win out.

 This article appeared in the May 6, 2009 issue of The Loyal Lion.