If the time after the
second Vatican Council changed the experience of the laity, it brought about a
deep rift in the heart of the Priesthood.
We know that something
happened because the numbers of men entering seminary collapsed and men left
the Priesthood in unprecedented numbers.
So what influences were
there?
Some were the same as the
laity. Why would a young man enter the Priesthood when he no longer knew what
it stood for? A Priest offers Mass – but now Mass was goodness knows what and
some even denied the need for the Priesthood anyway.
Other reasons were to do
with a change in how the Priesthood was viewed: no longer a man of cultic
sacrifice, but now an enabler, a facilitator, a counsellor in the religious
realm. Frankly, and I mean this in no way against the laity, anyone can do all
that – why give your life to the Priesthood and so give up your chance to have
a family and earn money to serve the Church when you can do it all of that as a
member of the laity and have it all? All theology of the Priesthood was bound
up with his celebration of Mass. This theology of Priesthood no longer existed
because the theology of Mass no longer existed.
Now this was bad enough,
but how must these changes have affected the heart and soul of a Priest who now
had to turn his back on the Mass and faith which had been his only identity and
have to say not only that it had all changed, but that what had sustained and
nourished his religious life, channelled his vocation and fed his soul was in some
way defective. And that in the only logical conclusion. If what we have now is ‘new
and improved, the best ever’ then what we had before was not the best ever and
was in need of improvement. And these good Priests did it for the best of
reasons and through the best of motives: namely Holy Obedience. But this
obedience would lead to the shift in his very identity – even, I would say, the
betrayal of his very identity.
And let’s be honest, it
was probably the last time that the Bishops could wield the cudgel of
obedience, because at that moment it died for a generation of Priests. Not all,
of course. And probably for the vast majority tried to continue as they always
had. But as time went on, they did not obey the rubrics at Mass. They did not
promote the teaching of the Church against artificial contraception. Some
publically, others privately, approved of the ordination of women, married
clergy, abortion in certain circumstances, gay rights etc., etc., etc.
The ‘habit’ of obedience
had been broken. It was broken for the laity and it was betrayed for the
Priest. And the true place where the
Priest found his identity, in Mass, was no longer there to bring him back to
faithfulness. And, let’s be honest, the New Mass just was not capable of doing
it.
The Priesthood had been
chopped off from its roots and we cannot be surprised when it began to sway
when the storms came. The Bishops said that it had new roots, that the
Priesthood would find its strength and defence in the Episcopacy.
Well that really worked,
didn’t it!
