The Neutering of Individual Initiative

The recent and impressive advance of Ukranian forces through Russian lines, retaking a significant piece of their territory, has lately reawakened my Muses. The whole Russo-Ukranian War to me is tragic but also fascinating from a human management perspective. Many defense analysts and commentators have noticed the lack of NCO’s on the Russian side, which has made their ability to deftly navigate a quickly changing combat theatre degrade to embarassing levels. An NCO, or non-commissioned officer, in various western militaries is the administrative and technical “backbone”. They exist, usually with specialized skills such as policing, technology, logistics, etc. to make sure that the vision of top commanders is effectively implemented, and more importantly, that lower ranking soldiers are suitably equipped for their tasks. This makes our armed forces adaptable and able to react to quickly changing situations in the field, which in many cases is the difference between victory and defeat.

Ukraine’s military has been trained ever since the 2014 Crimea invasion according to Western and NATO methodology, and it shows. The Russian military is still operating out of a Soviet-era playbook, which essentially treats the soldier as another piece of materiel to be thrown at the enemy, along with massive amounts of explosive ordinance. This has led to mass defections, abyssmal morale, and even rumored mutiny among other problems, such as alcohol and drug abuse.

Excessively Top-Down governance styles in any human organization, as I have argued multiple times, makes it fragile and liable to corruption. Perhaps most tragically and sadly, it makes the organization as a whole reactive, and inept. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been a crucible for the Russian state and military, one which, it is clear, has laid bare its severe vulnerabilties.

Moving from the secular to the realm of Church affairs, a hallmark of Catholic Social Teaching is its emphasis on subsidiarity. Subsidiarity may be the most forgotten of our teachings on justice today, because it seems that so much of our Church institutions and structures are increasingly adapting secular corporate or state structures of governance. A concomitant problem of not having an effective grasp of what subsidiarity means is the problem of a bloated bureaucracy. This is a problem in most of the developed world, whether we are talking about “the swamp” or the “deep state/church”; entrenched bureaucracies end up having a life of their own, which often deeply warps the mission of the bodies they claim to serve. Although bureaucracies are often (regretfully) needed in large organizations, their existence is at best a necessary evil, unless the organization has a deep vocational sense of self.

I think from previous essays I have already made clear my distaste for what I would call “work-signalling” bureaucratic busywork: the meetings, seminars, convocations, directives and workshops which are ostensibly supposed to create ideas and energy, but which often end up doing the opposite. I would like to furnish a few examples of how this mindset is influencing us even now.

Let’s begin with an initiative which is already, in my judgment, destined to fail before it even matured. The bishops of the United States were rightfully alarmed to hear the news of a tragic lack of Eucharistic faith among the faithful, especially after the pandemic. My first reaction to this understandable response was why the Bishops needed a longitudinal study in order to demonstrate what is patently clear to the average Pastor. Since I subscribe to the aphorism of Viktor Frankl that the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy, I think the same is true of faith. It is a reason I fear more for the salvation of a disinteresed agnostic than a diehard atheist. It is absolutely evident that there has been a collapse of Eucharistic Faith among the faithful. But so far, the initiatives to renew faith are not addressing the causes that led to its putrefaction in the first place: the apathy and hostility of the clergy. New programs and seminars which are designed by dioceses to energize and engage the lay faithful will not suffice to move minds and hearts, especially when a Priest or Pastor for 52 Sundays of the year demonstrates little to no enthusiasm for Eucharistic Piety.

I have lost count of the amount of times in my ministry where the primary obstacles to any meaningful liturgical reform were clerical. And the number one reason for that was, bar none, the abject terror that many well-meaning Priests have of their chanceries and their Bishops. This is especially true where the canonical status of Parochial Administrator has become the norm, and not an exception. Let’s be real: the intention of virtually all Bishops in places where Parochial Administrators are quasi-institutions is not to administer a parish until a more permanent candidate arrives. The intention is to give Bishops an easy way to remove a Priest at the slightest sign of trouble, and to keep him on a short leash, due to the instability of his office. This use is clearly praeter legem, if not contra legem. Instability of office and assignment is also a natural solvent of zeal, because it is difficult to keep a sense of care for something that one does not actually possess. The laity express this sentiment as well: “Why should I change when the pastor will be gone in a few months/years anyway?”

The parochial and diocesan levels of the recent “Synodal Process” is another example of attempting to create movement or momentum without authentic initiative. No one, or very few, asked for the Synodal Way. It was imposed from the policy makers in the Holy See in an attempt to create discussion around questions that were hardly ever asked, at least by the rank and file Catholic. I am consoled to see that the Church in Africa especially has risen to the occasion to truly capture a sense of comprehensive vox fidelium: and that voice is not progressive. Now what remains to be seen, much like the innumerable other synods whose work generated far more drama than substance, is whether the Church version of “the swamp” really wants to look into the face and motivations of the lay faithful, and whether they are prepared to do anything about it. To be blunt: is the Church polling the sheep, or the swine?

Recently I heard a talk by a a leader in a national organization praising the work of his organization for creating “Missionary Disciples” and “Servant Leaders” out of the clergy which attended their seminars (making millions in the process). The verbiage was typical of a technocratic, form-oriented mentality. My question is also that of others: why are our Priests not coming out of Seminary as leaders? And is the insistence on their servitude truly a reference to Christian humility, or is it betraying the fact that many formators mistake spiritual docility for psychological malleability, or the willingness of the would-be Priest to obey, with minimal resistance, the wishes of their canonical superiors?

This problem has once again risen to the surface in the recently released report from Catholic University of America’s Catholic Project, which has indicated that a record amount of Priests in the United States do not trust the Bishops in general, and the numbers are only slightly higher when Priests are asked if they trust their own Superiors in particular. Again, to return to the initial analogy from the Russo-Ukraine War, the conscripted Russian soldier, like many conscripts in history, largely feels unsupported by their superior officers and are simply cannon fodder. It should come as no surprise then that there are defections and mutinies, along with poor performance on the battlefield. The fact that many Priests explicitly report feeling “disposible” at this moment in our history should worry not only Bishops, but Vocation Directors across the land. Very few Priests in the report thought that the Church did wrong in instituting meaningful changes in how we deal with accusations of the abuse of minors. What they object to is the sense of a lack of due process, a cornerstone of justice, and to the reality that as things currently stand, Bishops and certain other preferred Priests seem to exist on another plane, in so far as the application of penalties is concerned.

It does not surprise me to see in that study that many Priests draw so much love and support from the friendship of the lay faithful, many of whom sincerely love their Priests. Many of us are humbled and delighted that our imperfect service is helping people to love Christ more. But few of us seem to possess any trust or affection for the institutional Church as it currently stands. As the data also shows, many Priests, especially young ones, report high levels of burnout, once again indicating a sincere desire to be of service, even as our numbers and availability becomes increasingly tightened. Burnout indicates that a fire is burning in the first place in the hearts of Priests for the care of souls, especially among the younger generation, which is choosing the Priesthood in spite of so many fears and difficulties. Older Priests want to know that their many years of service means something, and the younger cohort wants to see support from the Church rather than hostility, because Lord knows, it isn’t an easily time to be a Priest, if it ever was easy.

There are a few actionable takeaways I have reading this report. First, Seminaries would do well to teach men in formation how to effectively deal with the stresses of ministry, both spiritually and affectively. Second, Priests who have influence over these young vocations should not conceal from them the realities of dealing with the institution as it currently exists. I have experience teaching Seminarians, both at Seminaries and in Parishes, and usually, most are grateful that they were prepared for hard realities rather than for easy fantasies. To tell younger clergy the truth is not always a manifestation of cynicism, but rather of genuine concern for their long term spiritual and mental health. Also, nurturing in young clergy a sense of their indispensability and the gravity and vital importance of their vocation is essential for their sense of wellbeing and human dignity. Finally, lay people would do well to express, regularly and with sincerity, their love for the Priesthood, because Lord knows, they aren’t always getting it where they otherwise should.

The Church Militant is, as its name indicates, an army on the march in the cause of Christ and his Kingdom. To be truly effective, the Church’s battle commanders on the field, the Priests, need to be leaders, and to feel a true sense of agency and effectiveness. If this sense is as eroded as the data seems to indicate, that the Priests are not “arrows in the quiver of their God”, equipped to fight the good fight, but instead are sheep given to slaughter, we ought to be very worried about their welfare. Many don’t give a second thought to expending themselves in the service of the Gospel and the people: what keeps them up at night, and what prevents them from true evangelical zeal and heroism, is if they believe, correctly or incorrectly, that they will be offered up on the altar of expediency. We have made good progress on making bad Priests accountable for most bad behavior. We have made precious little in making good Priests feel supported in their good behavior. It is time for that to change.