Priests: Problem & Solution
- Patrick Collins

Guess whose actions matter most at Mass to the members of the assembly - next to the action of God, of course. The priest who presides. No one else can so readily make it or break it in ritual. The priest serving as a kind of conductor of the art of ritual, can unify the other ministers in such a way that together they energize the assembly's prayerful solution. On the other hand no one else can so thoroughly wreck the rhythm of the ritual and make it seem like a recipe reading exercise.

Several years ago when I was serving as the Director of a diocesan liturgy office I received the following letter from a frustrated parishioner: "Liturgical abominations abound at our parish so that any communication from your office on liturgical matters is a potential source of frustration for me. Therefore, I must ask that you either remove my name from your mailing list so that I will not continually experience the pain of wounds reopened; or keep my name on the list and promise me that you will remember the reality of St. X's as an example of the powerlessness of the laity and the ineffectiveness of any attempt at liturgical or educational reform in the Church unless it first effects the clergy."

The priest's understanding of liturgy both in itself and its place within the larger life of the faith community, his attitude towards communal worship and its bearing within the celebrations are a principal liturgical problem and a major source of the solution of today's liturgical difficulties.

Understanding of the Liturgy
First, the priest's understanding of liturgy. Does the priest grasp that liturgy is not just structures and texts to be correctly observed? Does he conceive of ritual as an art form, as something which requires aesthetic rhythms in order to lift the rites off the page into energized celebrations? Does the priest allow an exploration of the various options possible within the approved forms or does he simply do the same old thing time and time again? Does he consider the liturgy to be the "source and the summit of the whole Christian life" of the faith community, while being aware that the summit is the smallest part of a mountain? In other words, is he aware that life, not just liturgy, is where God acts and that God leads people to the mountain moment of ritual in order to open their eyes to the sometimes veiled vistas of grace breaking through the valleys of ordinary living?

One example of a failure to understand liturgy. From all of the Church's official documents, it is clear that the fullest form of sacramental participation involves making communion available under form kinds. There are no rubrical limitations on when or on what occasion this may be done. Priests who want the fullest and best participation by their people are moving towards sharing the cup on all possible occasions. Yet many priests have never done so, or greatly limit the fullest expression of sacramental communion. This does not, of course, violate the letter of liturgical law since communion with bread alone satisfies the minimal requirements for receiving the whole Christ. However, it is an example of a liturgical minimalism indicative of an inadequate understanding of liturgy as an action of grace which causes its supernatural effects by natural signifying. When only one sign of Christ's presence is made available to communicants, less presence is symbolically expressed. Is less caused subjectively for the communicant?

Another example of priests' inadequate understanding of liturgy. The vernacular liturgy with its flexible moments for priests to say "these or other words" has become both a blessing and a curse. Comprehension and flexibility are the plus. But the increased wordiness of our reformed rituals is the negative side. Multiplying words diminishes the experience of mystery. Too many words, whether in adding to the ritual texts or inventing other words, leads to explanatory and discursive rather than exploratory and imaginal ritual experiences.

For example, some priests have developed the habit of connecting parts of the liturgy with the conjunction "and". "And the Lord be with you" … "And lift up your heart" … "And let us pray". Such verbosity interrupts rather than serves the flow or ritual rhythm. Presiders would do well to recall Matthew 6:7 - "In your prayer, do not rattle on like the pagans. They think that they will win a hearing by the sheer multiplication of words." Words added to ritual texts should be carefully chosen, be more exploratory than explanatory, be more poetic than prosaic, more imaginal than rational. Less is most always more. In other words the priest should choose words which blend into the aesthetic nature of the ritual.

Extensive wordiness and chattiness from the presider can have the effect of calling too much attention to himself. Richard Dillon offers caustic criticism and advice on the presider's use of words:

Celebrants usually pursue this goal by filling the already heavy air with gratuitous commentary and bloated paraphrases of the official texts. Not that the sacramentary is a sacred text, nor that less than full advantage should be taken of the opportunities of variation and innovation in the rites themselves; but the style and content of the innovations make a big difference. So often nowadays, style and content seem to divert attention from the proper object of worship to the person and social agenda of him who presides. His introductory remarks, invitations to prayer, homily anecdotes, words of dismissal, etc. all tend to feature the epicentral 'I'. His general intercessions are redolent of political campaign oratory, and the kiss of peace becomes a campaign-swing through the pews! By the time such a celebration is over, worshippers are hard put to recall what Lord they assembled to confess; and they can be excused for not thinking of a Father who knew their needs before they started when a non-stop talkfest has filled their hour before the altar. Leaders of worship should direct attention away from themselves so as to facilitate access to God, not obstruct it. Their words should be few, and, in view of their instructional function, well chosen. And emblematically, in my opinion, their uses of the first person should be restricted to a rigorous minimum.

Attitude towards Worship
Second, the priest's attitude toward communal worship. Common pre-conciliar phrases such as 'say Mass' etc. expressed a particular clerical understanding of what some priests still refer to as 'My Mass.' Such words betray an inappropriately individualistic sense of liturgy and lead to the laity's 'hearing' Mass. Some still 'say Mass' facing the people as they did 'facing the wall,' very little inclusion of the assembly in the presider's inviting and greeting enactments and embodiments.

Vat. II envisioned a more inclusive, community experience in which each person is invited and allowed to take his/her 'full, conscious, and active part.' It is the entire assembly, not just the priest, which celebrates Eucharist. Where more and more members of the assembly are made aware of this by the presider, this vision of communal worship is taking flesh. But this awareness must not be merely explained verbally. It needs to be demonstrated by the very bodying forth of the presider.

Presiders can fall down on the job on at least two counts in enabling the entire assembly to celebrate Eucharist. First, they can invite everyone who wishes to take a ministerial role within and including the worshipping assembly. Yet, that invitation is not backed up with either a deepened formation or the practical information and skills required for their roles. Second, priests may impose unreasonable limitations on those who may wish to serve. Such happens, e.g. when women are not allowed to serve in all of the ministries allowed by current liturgical laws. Admittedly, the permission to allow women to exercise liturgical roles does not require pastors to invite women to so serve. However, given today's just concerns of women for greater inclusion in Church life and in society, priests who willy-nilly choose to exclude women are guilty of injustice and sexist discrimination.

Bearing in the Celebration
Third, the priest's bearing within the celebration. In liturgy, in one sense, what you see is what you get. Its power to stir to flame the gift of God is in its bodying forth, its significance. This is what is meant by the theological expression: sacraments cause grace by signifying the grace being offered in the sacrament. As an action of the continuing incarnation of God's Son, liturgy is embodiment and enactment, not just structured texts to be recited. The way the presider moves, wears the vestments, engages in eye contact with the assembly, uses his facial muscles, speaks and remains silent - all of these are the avenues which open the assembly to the art of ritual. Talking heads read recipes; priests enact rituals.

An example. A middle aged priest asked a drama professor to help him become a more effective presider. So the priest simulated a liturgy while the professor observed from a pew. As the presider reached the moment of the preface, he realized that he was on the wrong page of the sacramentary. But, since he knew the initial words, he said, 'The Lord be with you' and 'Lift up your hearts, all the while leafing through the book for the proper page.

The dramatist interrupted: 'Wait a minute, Father. What are you doing? 'Well, I'm reading what's prescribed here in the book - 'The Lord be with you,' replied the clergyman.

'But, don't you realize, Father, that this is a dialogue? You should look at the assembly.'

So the priest looked straight ahead, and with neither facial expression nor verbal inflection, began again:

'Wait a minute, Father. Now what are you doing? came the voice from the pew.

Now the priest was becoming annoyed. With evident frustration he said, 'I'm looking at the assembly like you told me to do.'

'But, Father, what do those words of greeting mean to you? Don't you feel anything when you greet your people? Can't you put something more into your tone and face and arms?

'Look,' said the priest with restrained anger, 'I'm a priest, not an actor.

'Well, Father,' the dramatist shot back, 'if you don't want to be an actor, take off the costume.'

Ritual is a species of drama. And all who take part are ritual artists, actors if you will. Their bearing, not just their verbiage, communicates the meaning and makes possible Christ's presence in the sacred rites. As the Vatican Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy wrote in 1968:

The celebrant's gestures function as signs; they are meant to reveal Christ's presence. But they will be effective as such only to the degree that they are motivated directly by an inner vision, the contemplation of mystery. Careful observance of rubrics, necessary though it is, is not enough here. How can gestures that have become mechanical from habit, sloppy from routine, halfhearted from apathy still function as signs of the work of salvation? The Roman Ritual in one text from four and a half centuries ago demanded gestures of celebrants that by their dignity and gravity would serve as an effective message for the faithful, 'making them attentive and leading them up to the contemplation of heavenly things.'

Television constantly presents gestures that are beautiful, decorous and expressive. These screen pictures reflect hours of the most precise training and exacting rehearsal. Should presiders who handle the reality of the new and everlasting covenant not be examples of similar artistic preparations? Such ritual gestures must be learned: bowing, genuflecting, kissing the altar, making the sign of the cross, raising the arms in prayer as a gesture distinct from raising the arms in greeting. To be graceful yet simple and unstudied, liturgical gestures demand serious preparation and careful practice. Presiders need to learn by doing what it means to be natural within the formality of the liturgical context. Videotaping, performing before a mirror and the regular feedback of the assembly are helpful means of growing in the art of presiding.

Artistic bearing and gestures take time during the ritual itself. Ritual movement resembles choreography, movement becoming gesture though the embodiment of meaning. Haste, the fear of 'wasting time' in ritual, the telescoping of gestures - all these leave little room for beauty, for the assembly's perception of movement with meaning. On the other hand, an affected slowness that provokes boredom, tedium and possible ridicule must, of course be avoided. Gracious liturgical gestures need to be shaped both according to the size of the worship space and the size of the presider's body. They should also be adapted to the kind of assembly which celebrates - large or small, formal or informal. Each situation calls for a different kind of embodiment and enactment in the priest's bodily bearing.

The presiding priest within the celebrating assembly is perhaps, the most visible, audible sign of the presence of Christ. He bears witness, he symbolizes Christ and Church, to the degree that his bearing, gestures and words allow his own inner contemplation to show through his bodiliness. Thus, 'in spirit and truth' the priest turns his gestures into events of grace through which the love of God revealed in Jesus Christ will be manifested and diffused through the Holy Spirit.

Becoming Contemplative
If priests are to continue growing in their ritual understanding, attitude and bearing, then they must both take themselves and be given by their people the time required for such adult learning and skill formation. Since Vatican II, God's people have done quite a 'number' on priests. They have become more and more busy, doing like Martha with consequently less time for contemplative being like Mary.

With all of the councils, boards and committees, pastoral ministry has shifted from a mini-monarchial model towards one that is increasingly participative and interactive. But an individual priest can participate effectively in only so much of such group activity. His effectiveness hinges upon his own contemplation of the mystery. In addition, there are fewer and fewer priests available and able to do more and more ministry. Although permanent deacons and lay ministers are assuming many ministerial tasks formerly done solely by priests, nevertheless, the more others become involved in ministries, the more the priests seem to be kept busy developing and supporting these expanding ministries.

All of this is said not to make people say, 'Poor Father! He works so hard!' Not at all! But people who rightly expect a great deal of priests can help them use their time more effectively so that people are well-served and priests can become healthier and holier. This can be done by coming to agreement within the community about what they most need from their priests. What is it priests do which is unique within the community? What does the priest bring that others do not or cannot?

All the baptized are called to be instruments of Jesus who said that he came to bring life more abundantly. But those ordained into ministerial priesthood are full time, 'ordered' to this task, within and for the sake of all the baptized in the priestly people of God. How should priests prioritize their time so that their unique contribution to building up the community can become more and more efficacious?

Studies published recently pointed out that above all else most people want good preaching and good worship from their priests. That presidency of the assembly is what is unique to the ordained. People want spiritual nourishment through their participation in the rituals of faith. Priests are the ones who orchestrate and conduct the ritual channels of interiority. Not that they do it alone. But they are chiefly responsible. As one lay person put it to me, 'We want pastors, not proprietors.'

Yet proprietors of properties and hyperactive clerical businessmen is what priests too often become. Such roles are far from the ideals which drew most persons into ordained ministry and removed from what people most want and need from priests. Others in the community have the gifts of administration, yet priests so easily become sidetracked into becoming proprietors. Why is this?

Several reasons come to mind for why priests find themselves spending so much time on material things rather than spiritual matters. First, some, regrettably, become more comfortable dealing with materialities because they are easier to manage and measure than spiritual growth. In the process, priests give up their prayer life which leads to contemplation of the mystery. Doing such makes them go hollow inside. Then their raison d'etre for ministry becomes doing. That new being in Christ becomes stunted and business is substituted for the search for holiness.

Second, some are plagued with guilt if they do nor respond to everyone's call for assistance; groceries when the larder runs out, counselling when the spouse runs out, funding when money runs out, fixing when the lights go out - and running to the door and phone constantly. A seminary professor once told men preparing for ordained ministry, 'You won't necessarily be busy all the time as a priest. You'll just be forever interrupted.' Trying to be all things to all people and always available to all people actually serves few people in the ways they primarily need priestly service.

Whether these expectations for busyness are laid upon priest by themselves of by the laity, the effect is less spiritual presence within the priest and less spirituality from the priest for the people. Wouldn't it be far better if both priests and people agreed that spiritual nourishment is what is principally expected from priests? If this were agreed upon time could be ordered by those 'in orders' around the central need for prayer, scripture, reflection, reading, the arts, broad reading and the quiet that alone allows the Spirit to merge and mesh with the priest's spirit so that he can give others a drink from that well which is deeper than himself.

It was in this same sense of giving priority to prayer and preaching which prompted the first pastors, the apostles, to call others to minister to bodily need and the temporalities of the community (Acts 6:1-7). As this movement toward shared ministries continues both priest and people will be happier and become holier - and the liturgical experiences will become better.

Recording Schedules
Such liturgical improvement will call the community to examine its schedule of liturgies. Too many Masses for too few people make for ineffectual presiding and exhausted presiders. The theology of convenience tends to triumph over the theology of community when it comes to 'multiplying Masses'. Because of the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holydays, parishes have tried to make it easy by scheduling Masses on the principle of convenience. But the conciliar theology of worship as a community experience is constantly at war with this older emphasis on making Mass convenient for individuals. These two operative theologies may not be completely compatible if we become committed to energized eucharistic assembly celebrations on Sundays.

The late Robert Hovda, with mild but humorous cynicism, noted:

We had long since adjusted ourselves and our view of what it means to be a Christian to the practical realities of urban church life. From branches on a living vine and members of a living body, we had become private and individual clients of an international spiritual corporation. From communities of friendship, prayer and mission, our 'churches' have become buildings spread about to serve us spiritual consumers. So it no longer mattered where I went on Sundays or with whom I gathered.

The shift back to a more communal sense of worship, not just convenient individual prayer, needs to be taken into account in scheduling 'liturgies'. Convenience cannot be the primary concern. Community must become more and more paramount in determining the number of times of celebrations. Half empty churches with people scattered like lost sheep throughout cavernous spaces does not facilitate the role of the assembly as co-celebrants. Rather it continues to promote Mass as private and obligatory devotion.

Neither does the theology of convenience as determinant of liturgical schedules help priests become more effective presiders and preachers. Too many Masses on a weekend can destroy not only priests' effectiveness but it also weakens and mechanizes their faith. Fewer celebrations with more people gathered closer together would be a more effective way of developing the awareness and effectiveness of the assembly. Fewer celebrations may make for more genuine celebration, more quality time and energy expended on the part of all - especially priests.

Clergy as Problem
Thomas Day, in his book 'Why Catholic Can't Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste' blames much of our present liturgical malaise on the clergy. He says:

In the old days, 'the priest' approached the altar with much bowing, breast-beating, and protestations of unworthiness; he left his personality back in the sacristy. 'The people' assembled behind him. Together they offered 'The Mass'. Today, 'the priest' is almost gone. He has been replaced by Mr. Nice Guy, who strides into the sanctuary as a triumphant president of the assembly. He stands and sits at the architectural climax of the entire building. Everyone's eyes are on him. His face is the center of attention. The celebrant becomes a celebrity. 'The priest' develops a stage character. A star is born.'

Yes, but! If ritual is a kind of dramatic action, those who lead are indeed playing a part, an aesthetic role. It is much more than 'being yourself'. They are not stars of the stage but artists nevertheless, artists of ritual'. Here lies, I submit, the core of the current priest-problem in ritual:

1] They are citizens of India. As such they are normally neither educated in nor adequately exposed to the arts. Consequently they have little interest in aesthetic expressions. As males in a highly competitive even violent society, their aesthetic deficiency is at least doubled. One author paints this painful truth: 'our respect for arts is superficial, for while we pay lip service to their nobility, in practice we downgrade them to the level of inessentials: things to be indulged in only after the important things in life have been tackled. They are optional extras for the leisured and the cultured; that is the true modern attitude towards the arts (Tony Bridge, 'Cathedral, Worship and the Arts.')

2] Men trained in Roman Catholic seminaries have had their anti or a-aesthetic attitudes intensified by a heady intellectual education and individualistic spiritual formation. It has been a preparation for priesthood largely lacking in imagination - one which undermines the contention of Dom Lambert Beaudin that 'art indeed is a priesthood.' In short, male clerics are formed to be high on reason and low on emotion and intuition. With some gratefully notable exceptions, many clergy neither grasp nor are they grasped by that aesthetic cognition which insight into truth with feeling. Newman's insight that faith must first be creditable to the imagination before it becomes credible to reason is largely missing in seminary formation.

3] Priests are required to be both male and celibate. Although celibacy may, indeed should, give priests the freedom to develop significant intimate relationships with both men and women, the celibate state is for too many, by choice, and/or by training, an existence without intimacy, without interpersonal love - except for instances with a strong family origin, one often dominated by maternal ties. The consequence is often a pathetic withering of the capacity for human feeling in priests. Since a rich interior life in human feeling and imagination is developed to a great degree through experiences of interpersonal intimacy, experiences which lead to the bonding of deep friendship and, for most, the bonds of marriage, some clerics grow cold and sterile in their isolation. For clerics formed to flee friendship and intimacy, that vibrant inner life which can prepare priests for passionate, embodied ritual presiding has been absent. Passionless presiders is the tragic result!

For at least these three reasons it is not surprising that many clerics are inappropriately prepared to lead assemblies in the art of ritual.

Back