A Tribe of One?

“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.” (Revelation 7:9)

“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.” (Jeremiah 33:22)

The Divided Tribe?

For the average Priest today in the world, it may be fairly said that he can be liable to lead a rather lonely existence. Some, perhaps the majority, spend their lives in service to the Church, intimately united to the lives of their people. What often is sacrificed in the name of such dedication is any sense of common life, which is not simply a luxury we enjoyed in the Seminary, but a necessity with deep biblical and historical precedents. This goes back to the original observation of God that “it is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). If this was true of prelapsarian human nature in a terrestrial paradise, in communion with God, how much more true is it today? Many theologians and spiritual writers have taken special note of the individualistic and selfish tendencies of our post-modern world, where true communities are being erased in favor of false ones. Very few, however, have made that observation in regard to the life of Priests, who are supposed to be the models of spiritual excellence.

Ask any Bishop, or Priest who sits on a personnel board, how difficult it is to ‘place’ clergy. Oftentimes the discussion centers around the man’s talents and temperament for the assignment at hand, but it also seems that there are a precious few number of Priests who seem to have the temperament, or better yet, the disposition of heart, to live fraternally with other Priests. On account of this, we have the near scandal of Priests who cannot be of service to a particular place because of an animosity borne, not toward the people, but toward their peers. Especially if Priests leave Seminary with a negative experience of common life, or if a Newly Ordained is abused or neglected in his critical first assignment, the damage can be lifelong and potentially fatal to their sense of vocation.

At the same time, there are several generational conflicts at hand. Within the ‘tribe’ of Priesthood, several ‘tribes’ have emerged that are peculiar perhaps to the post-Second Vatican Council era. There are the now senior clergy who lived in those heady days of hope and change, who are now facing the sunset of their leadership. The vast majority of their successors are far more conservative than them, and often engage in talk of the “biological solution” to the Church equivalent of Priest ‘Boomers’. Such talk, although understandable from a certain point of view, can be perceived as threatening and insulting to Priests who have served in the Lord’s vineyard faithfully for many years, and whose wisdom we ought not despise. I alluded to this in a previous article, The Coming Clerical Cold War, but here I want to focus more on a problem emergent mostly among younger clergy: a feeling of disenfranchisement, of anger, and of loneliness.

We know from the Scriptures and from History that the Priesthood is at its strongest, and the people best served, when it is most united in its sense of common identity and spiritual mission. Although every Priest, biblically speaking, is a spiritual Levite, and they bear the burdens and joys of their work together, the terrain of much of modern Priesthood resembles more a spiritual feudalism than a family or lineage. It is a species of what I would call spiritual ‘gavelkind‘, which is a form of inheritance in which a deceased person’s fiefdom is divided equally between his heirs. How contentious now are the vetting processes for clergy to replace long-venerated, multi-decade pastors of parishes! It is almost unheard of to hear of Pastors of neighboring parishes establishing cooperative initiatives without the forced hand of their diocese or other imposed structure such as deaneries or vicariates. It is even more unheard of to hear of effective conflict resolution reached when a pastoral dispute arises, for instance, for the ‘coverage’ of the sick and the homebound.

What if Diocesan Priests and Bishops decided, as has been floated as an idea in the past, to establish several Rectories as intentional communities? Think, for instance, of a community of teaching brothers or sisters. Under a single roof, decades or even centuries of experience is gathered together. They share all the joys and frustrations of educating the young. This shared sense of purpose unites them in common mission. Now, if a half a dozen pastors decided to live in common, would deanery meetings be necessary when problems could be settled around the kitchen table? Would it perhaps be less likely for one Pastor to dismiss another’s concerns, when they can see every day if they are coming back to the common home stressed and angry?

In the past, when the Church was more institutionally stable, it was commonplace for a Pastor to be in a Parish for many years, and he would not be moved, any more than the Father of a family should be moved. He may have lived with several curates, depending on the place and time we are talking about, who themselves were more likely to move as needed. This system has become almost completely upended. At best, a Pastor may have one curate, and typically that one curate is a Newly Ordained. The Pastor’s purpose in such a relationship is to mentor and guide the young Priest as he acquires more practical and administrative skills not necessarily taught in the Seminary. What can and does happen, however, is that these Pastors end up becoming almost quasi-Seminaries of their own. So a young Priest may be sent to ‘Father Paul’ because Father Paul knows how to successfully run the finances of a large parish. Fair enough. Another young Priest may be sent to ‘Father Peter’, because Father Peter is a theological liberal who needs to correct and police the younger cleric. It is one thing if Priests have personality conflicts with each other. That is a problem as old as the Disciples in the 1st century. It is another if these formative experiences are designed, or shall we say rigged, in order to induct young Priests into various ‘tribes’, whereby the heads of these tribes try to mold them in their image, rather than helping them to discover their own gifts and talents.

Would such a system be able to last if Diocesan Priests elected to adopt more common life? Multiple curates could perhaps live door-to-door with multiple pastors, all with different personalities and styles of leadership. It is easier to face personal dogmatism from either a junior cleric or a senior cleric when there are other voices in the living space: community is often a moderating force.

Let’s also be honest about what would probably be a positive effect of an increased occurrence of having a community of Priests in one home: a decrease of the tension between the center and periphery of chancery and priest. Unless a Priest is “in”, and so knows what is said in these upper echelon Diocesan meetings, he usually gets his information from the occasionally noxious circulation of rumors and betrayed secrets regarding things like assignments and otherwise large movements within the Diocese. There is a large disparity, especially in larger dioceses, between those who have ‘pull’ and know critical information, and those who do not. Having more common life among Diocesan Priests would leave less Priests out to dry. Also, important information could be shared between Priests that could be carried back to Diocesan Meetings. It is not uncommon in large presbyterates that some Priests are almost completely unknown: they avoid gatherings and like to be left alone in their work. Often times personnel boards may only know them via hearsay and rumor. Having more Priests living in common brings these men out of the ‘outer darkness’ and into the conversation of how best all together can serve the needs of the Church.

An intentional community of Priests is also a support of something which I think everyone needs in any profession: accountability. It is hard for a Priest to hide his personal problems or vices when observed in the company of other Priests. Of course, everyone deserves privacy and personal space. But in an era now when the bad or good example of one Priest so immediately affects that of another, problems may be seen earlier before they become full-blown crises.

A Bishop should be received in such a community as a welcome father. Perhaps a Bishop could establish a little protocol for his visit, such as a common celebration of Vespers and a Formal Dinner. Maybe he can even stay the night there, and rise the next morning to celebrate Mass with his Priests in a house chapel.

Community: Healing ‘Moral Injury’?

Let’s return to the discussion of inter-generational conflict among clergy. Could it perhaps be ameliorated if more Priests decided they wanted to live in a multi-generational home? Would one Priest be able to impose himself upon the whole? I can foresee that some Priest common homes could erect themselves along ideological lines. However, if they are made roughly territorial in relation to local ministries, then perhaps Priests may be offered the opportunity either to live in common, or not. Common life may help break down the hostility which exists between different generations of clergy, because even if they may disagree about theoretical and practical topics, at the end of the day, they are gathered around a common identity.

Some Priests seem to get all the luck, no matter what diocese we examine. They get the best parishes, they enjoy favor, they get almost anything they want. Then there are some Priests who seem to be the ones who have the role of perpetual clean up. Some of these are notorious for their role as “closers”, whether of a school or an entire parish. I hear this latter group often complain of psychological burn out. Their health suffers gravely, both mentally and physically. One ‘new’ phenomenon, one I very much think needs to be discussed in Chanceries, is the problem of moral injury. Once confined to the literature of veterans returning from war, this affliction is being more and more understood as a sort of spiritual PTSD: the combination of stress, spiritual attack, and personal animosity that can be experienced when working with people. Some Priests really are the walking wounded. When this condition is inflicted by the Bishop or the Chancery, the problem is compounded by a collapse of trust. If the Priest then finds himself in an assignment alone, the dangers inherent in isolation may very well impede his healing. Many Priests report suffering psychological strain due to years of dealing with a hostile or apathetic flock. This is especially true in the wake of scandal. In such a situation when trust is so tragically broken, where can the Priest go to find anyone who can possibly understand, and share his burdens?

I once heard a powerful and well-positioned Priest dismiss complaints from his beleaguered confreres by saying they didn’t “pray enough”, or that they somehow viewed their vocation as a “job” and not a “vocation”. Such a dismissal is insulting and demeaning, and would be much less likely if the Pastor of a rich, prosperous parish had to sit at common table with the Pastor of an impoverished, dying one. It would be far harder for the “in” Priests to dismiss their less connected brethren as malcontents or candidates for an ecclesiastical gulag (excuse me, “treatment center”), if they have to look into the eyes of other Priests who routinely deal with gangs, poverty, theological illiteracy, and apathy among the people. Having more communities of Priests would tend more to bring down to earth the celestial beings that, at times, seem to show such callous disregard for the mental and physical condition of the men with whom they should have a bond of brotherhood.

Priests, we know from the Old Testament, were always taken from the descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Their common inheritance was the Lord, as mandated by the Torah. Priests of the New Covenant are chosen by Christ and called to serve at the altar. Their inheritance, too, is the Lord. These no longer have any necessary connection to lineage, family, or blood relation. Yet the reality and sense of having a common family or tribe ought not perish from among the ordained. They are truly a tribe within a tribe, set apart for the work of ministry in a special way by the Laying on of Hands and the power of the Holy Spirit.

In religious life, if a man or woman decides he wants to be alone and live a life as a hermit, usually that is only granted with special permission from one’s superior, and that for a term. Even the Desert Fathers spoke frequently of the danger of forsaking the synaxsis of the religious community. Such men and women were more liable to be tempted by devils, it was believed. They were less likely to be able to rely upon the material and moral support of their brothers and sisters. Common life is the instinctual impulse of the Church from her earliest days, whether in the days after Pentecost, or the beginnings of Monasticism. The contrary winds of our anti-culture blow heavily upon the clergy, and it is easier for us to fall, one by one, apart. The Scriptures remind us that the “cord of three strands is not easily broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). The Tribe of One, the lone wolf, is always in more danger of perishing. None of us is saved in isolation, nor are gifts apportioned by the Holy Spirit to different members, only to be restricted to narrow windows. Rediscovering the fraternity of the Priesthood via common life may be just one of those ways by which we help alleviate the problem of low morale, and the inequities and rivalries that exist when every man runs his assignment as his own island.

The path to greater fraternity can and will require sacrifice and personal growth on the part of individual Priests. To that, I end with the old adage, “If you want to think you are a saint, live alone. If you want to be a saint, learn to live with others.”