FROM THE EDITOR
The Self-Imposed Vocations Crisis
"The Priest Shortage is Artificial and Contrived"
(July/Aug. 2000)

BY MICHAEL S. ROSE

EVERY U.S. CATHOLIC is well acquainted with the "vocations crisis." Since the Second Vatican Council the Church in the United States has seen fewer and fewer young men devoting themselves to the sacrificial life of the Catholic priesthood. Various explanations are offered: materialism, practical and philosophical atheism, skepticism, subjectivism, individualism, hedonism, social injustice, war and attacks on the dignity of the human person; parents who don’t want their children to be priests; and the "unrealistic expectation" of life-long celibacy.

These reasons, while each contains of germ of truth, are not the real causes of the so-called vocations crisis. Parents, society, celibacy, and materialism are scapegoats. They are anything but honest explanations of this particular "crisis."

I recently sat down with 86-year-old Jesuit theologian Father John Hardon and posed this question: What is the primary cause of the vocations crisis in the United States? Fr. Hardon, who worked for the Holy See for 32 years, and taught at seminaries in Rome for decades, boiled it down to one simple cause: a lack of authentic Catholic life. "In dioceses and religious orders where young men can witness authentic Catholic life, vocations will flourish," he said. "In others, vocations to the priesthood and religious life will languish," he added.

In 1995, Archbishop Elden Curtiss, a former seminary rector himself, penned an editorial for Omaha’s diocesan newspaper (reprinted in SCR, May/June 1999), taking up a stronger thesis along the same lines: The priest shortage is artificial and contrived. "It seems to me," he wrote, "that the vocations ‘crisis’ is precipitated and continued by people who want to change the Church’s agenda, by people who do not support orthodox candidates loyal to the magisterial teaching of the pope and bishops, and by people who actually discourage viable candidates from seeking priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines these ministries." Since reading the archbishop’s article five years ago, I have heard his words echoed time and again by others. The priest shortage even seems to be welcome in some quarters. In a pastoral letter released in April, for instance, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles described the drop in ordinations since 1970 as "one of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council."

On the other hand, those dioceses which have consistently promoted orthodoxy both in their parishes and seminaries have been affected little, if at all, by any vocations crisis. Dioceses such as Wichita, Lincoln, Arlington, Fargo and Bridgeport have consistently been ordaining as many or more men each year than liberal dioceses five to ten times their size. In the Rockford diocese, for instance, Bishop Thomas Doran ordained eight priests last year, the highest number of ordinations there in 41 years. Other dioceses, most notably Denver and Atlanta, have recently turned their vocation numbers around by promoting orthodoxy and emphasizing the traditional role of the priest.

God willing, this writer will be publishing a book in the near future on this very subject, one that both explains who and what is driving the present and projected priest shortage and examines those dioceses that are successful in recruiting and ordaining men who want to serve God by following the teachings of the Church in all things.

Vocation manipulation?
After interviewing dozens of seminarians, former seminarians, and recently ordained priests, I have identified a common pattern. These men all have remarkably similar stories to tell—the same characters are involved, the same manipulative techniques are used, and the same reasons are given for booting the "rigid guys"—men who follow the teachings of the Church, look to the Pope for spiritual guidance, pray the Rosary, and believe in a male, celibate priesthood—out of the seminary or not even admitting them in the first place.

I have identified major obstacles posed to the orthodox candidate. These include the psychological-evaluation screening process; formation teams that focus on detecting signs of orthodoxy among seminarians; a practical moral life of some students and faculty that is incompatible with the Christian standard; acceptance of homosexual practices and agendas; promotion of ideas and teachings which undermine Catholic belief in the most fundamental doctrines of the Church; disregard for proper liturgy and traditional devotions; and spiritual and psychological manipulation and abuse. Many of those in positions of authority at our seminaries would like nothing more than to redefine Catholic theology, the priesthood and Church ministry according to their own "progressive" model which includes lay-run parishes, secularized worship, and a soft approach to Church doctrine; in other words, an emasculated, politically-correct Church.

[ St. Catherine Review ]