In Conclusion

Dear Dr. Lavin,

I will end with this, Charles S. Maier writes in Among Empires- American ascendancy and its Predecessors, “…according to John L. O’Sullivan, the Jacksonian editor who coined the phrase manifest destiny a half century later: ’The far-reaching, the boundless future will be the era of American greatness. In the magnificent domain of space and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles.’” (Emphasis mine) If we forget the ideals on which and for which we were founded, we will not find greater freedom and liberty, but tyranny and slavery to the darker elements of our nature. As a nation we will be a force for good or evil in the world, this seems unavoidable. Many in the world of Islam, not just radicals and terrorists, see us as a force for evil, as the decadence of our culture spreads around the world. Others perhaps see us as a beacon of hope this was at least partially true among some of the peoples of the former Soviet empire. I hope that our real manifest destiny is to be a source of good and hope for the world. If we choose not “to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles” the alternative is not to manifest moral indifferentism, but moral decadence. We will be light or the absence thereof, but we are too powerful already to be just another dim bulb.

The founding fathers believed they were founding what Jefferson referred to as an Empire of Liberty. “From the outset, however, it was to be different from other imperial states: wiser, freer, benevolent, and peaceful…America, in short, would both expand and act as a force for good.” (Maier pp.1&2) Not moral relativism, but “for good,” the founding fathers were not ambivalent about this word. They new exactly what the “good” was because they all shared the same moral framework, which whether they acknowledged it or were even aware of it was unquestionably rooted in Judeo-Christian virtues; After Virtue by MacIntyre, I believe would support this “self evident truth.”

Pax Tecum

Eques

Dear Eques

Nice ending.

I suppose our difference really has to do with just exactly who should run this country. Not really whether it should be good, or whether its citizens ought to be religious or belong to this Church, or that Synagogue, or that Mosque.

And so my ending is that the American experiment, despite all the countless references to God, Divinity, Morality, and Good, at its deepest root, is a trial to see if a large nation can be ruled without God or King in charge, but with the people in charge. I see no other way to define it really. The proof is that at the moment, at least, we have no King, and no Priest, Rabbi, or Imam who represents God has any special say or power over the nation. This is the first nation in the history of humanity of any power or size to be in this situation, and it is this difference that defines what America is all about. You call for us to be a Christian Nation, but that is nothing new. How many Christian Nations have had a chance to rule their societies? Many. Most were ruled by Kings and Priests, and none seemed to have a history that distinguished them from the course of human history. At times they were great, at times magnanimous. Many of their citizens were extraordinary people. But at times they were cruel and at times brutal, many of their citizens were arch-villains. In short, just like all other human societies.

So it is not an argument about moral relativism, or whether the US should be good. It is rather an argument about a rather more mundane quantity- political power. Who shall own that? A hereditary elite? A King? An institution representing God? I actually favor having the people hold that power. We shall see if that is doable.

In the meantime, I will resist efforts to return political power to where it tends to reside- in Kings and with God.

Your vision is more likely to prevail, since that is how humanity has yearned to be ruled for most of its existence, but I still hold out hope that this American difference will continue to let the great potential of humanity to bloom, prosper, and help each other.

Pace,

Arthur

Christianity/Catholicism guarantor of our "inalienable rights" Continued

Dear Eques and the C&S Group,

I think my main concern with your line of argument is a Copernican one. That is, people have argued for many thousands of years just where the center of things is.

Is the Earth the center around which the Sun revolves? Or is the Sun the center around which the Earth revolves?

In social realms, every entity of humanity from the 150-person tribe, to the 1 billion person state of China, has believed that they are the Center of the Universe.

Jerusalem is referred to as the Umbilicus Mundi, as is Rome.

How does one choose just who is the Center? Is it Rome, or is it Jerusalem, or is it Shiprock New Mexico, or a Buddhist shrine in Thailand, or even Fenway Park.

One philosopher captured the argument by stating that the fallacy of there being a Center is captured by the following statement:

"There are universal values. They just happen to be mine."

Perhaps we can blame Copernicus, and certainly Newton for bolstering this way of thinking. Newton's main contribution to human thought was coming close to proving that there is an absolute frame of reference. The universe, in other words, has a cosmic x, y, and z axis, and everything can be located on this one universal framework.

Galileo first proposed that there was no such frame of reference in space, so that if someone is moving at a constant speed, and everything around them moves at the same speed they cannot tell they are moving. This is familiar to all of us on Earth which is moving at 25,000 miles per hour, but since everything is it seems when we lie down in our back yard we are not moving.

Einstein added the observation that there is no fixed framework for time either, no universal clock.

So today's science has rejected the notion of a fixed framework, and with it the notion of a fixed Center of the Universe. There is no physical Umbilical Mundi.

And I believe the same is true in religion and other matters human. I consider the whole question of a Center in human groupings to be a deeply flawed, old habit of human mind that has caused nothing but trouble, war, and needless death and oppression.

Yet I do believe that the various, and quite abundant events of human grouping have created much of what is valuable in life. It is only when a group ascribes to itself a sense of unique value, that I find things go sour.

In fact, I can think of no example of a nation, religion, or ethnicity grabbing at a claim of exclusive value without suffering or causing some grave harm to itself and/or others.

And so I would state that your characterization of Catholicism as somehow uniquely central to Western Civilization fits squarely into this dangerous habit of mind. Who is really to say that the Catholic Church's contribution to human progress weighs more than other religion's, philosophy's, and/or polities? Again, no argument with the vast value the Church has given to humanity and the world, but that in no way protects it from the dangers inherent in claiming unique supremacy.

With respect to America, the central core of what America did differently was to say there is no Center, there is no group, religion, identity valued over another. All groups weigh the same here, or will try to. Jefferson's mention of the creator was simply a nod to the religious sensibilities of his time. His statement in the Declaration of Independence created a society that could release humanity from the shackles of groups that would claim domination over others. Each person became equally powerful and equally valuable in his formulation. God was not part of that valuing or formulation, except perhaps as the Power that got the whole process started, hence reference as creator. No particular religion is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence and God is not mentioned whatsoever in the Constitution. These are the first state papers in the history of humanity to not mention the state religion or God, and people noticed. The Constitution was criticized at the time for that omission, and the Founding Fathers made it clear it was not an omission, but an innovation. They clearly were trying to fashion a society in which neither God nor King was in charge, but rather the people.

Your call to make America a Christian nation, which it decidedly is not, but clearly could be, would essentially destroy nearly every initiative the Founding Fathers and Lincoln worked to achieve. It would make Christianity the nation's religion, establishing a State preference for singling out one approach, one group, as Central. The fallacy of one such group so much superior to all others would invite tyranny, it always has in history and always will.

I do not fault you for trying to push for the shift back to the way nations always have operated. After all, most innovations fail, and most long-lasting traditions succeed.

In this one instance, however, I do pray that the still novel concept of a government for the people, of the people, and by the people will prove in time to be a viable innovation, and that humanity can at last find its release from the forms of government headed by God or King that nearly always devolve into one form or tyranny or another.

Pace,

Arthur Lavin

Dear Dr Lavin and C&R group

As you requested I have posted your replies and our entire dialogue on HAA “Conservative and Republican” discussion group.

I believe we are beginning to talk past one another. I do not wish for the USA to be Christian Nation in any established sense. I wish to preserve the representative form of government we enjoy by virtue of arguably the noblest Constitution in the history of mankind. To do so I maintain we must rediscover the moral consensus that once existed in our nation, which most Americans took for granted for most of our history.

Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue exquisitely observed that our culture has suffered at cataclysmic moral event that we somehow missed. We can see its effects in our loss of moral consensus. I am certain that some would see this as a desirable thing. However, I would argue that it is a disaster for our nation and our culture. We are now a nation that turns to our legislatures and courts to tell us what is right or wrong, no longer malum in se but rather malum prohibitum.<;/i>

The result is that we are reduced to the lowest common denominator. Our morality is reduced to, “as long as I do not get caught I can do whatever feels good or benefits me.” We have become moral monads. The moral chaos is not a recipe for the building, but for the deconstruction of our culture and civilization.

It is incumbent upon us as a people to rediscover our cultural roots, which again are a mixture, of Greek, Judeo, Christian, and western “pagan” elements, historically mediated and integrated by Catholicism, which of course means, “universalism.” There is a reason that oaths of office and in courts are taken in the name of God on the Bible. A ritual acknowledging that our entire governmental and legal system is biblically based. As you are aware as you enter the Supreme Court building above your head on the façade of the portico you are confronted with Moses and the Ten Commandments. It is possible to argue that this is purely a secularist nod to the historical importance of the Ten Commandments to the history of law. However, when these rituals and buildings were designed and constructed secularism was not yet on the horizon. These were traditional allusions and recognitions of our biblical heritage.

I do not desire a Catholic US of A. I do wish to renew our culture and this is only possible by returning to its roots, which is exactly what MacIntyre proposes. Although he is a bit more pessimistic than I. He suggests that the only thing we can do is to return to our faith communities and wait for a new St. Benedict, the father of western monasticism, who he credits with preserving the remnants of culture and civilization after the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

Allow me to repeat, I do not propose or support a Christian/Catholic US of A. It is necessary, however, that we rediscover the moral consensus, which makes government for and by the people possible. In addition, a moral consensus would act as a break on tyranny by the majority, or worse tyranny by an oligarchy such as the Supreme Court, which is now free to ignore the Ten Commandments, legal precedent, and the legislative process.

I anticipate the retort that this is just another form of Axis Mundi of moral and religious type. Yes it is. Just as the Sun is necessary for the survival not only of our world and life, as we know it, but for the very existence of OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, not every solar system but ours, Western Civilization will not survive without its particular Axis Mundi. Perhaps we are witnessing the decline and dissolution of Western Civilization and perhaps this is what most people actually desire. It follows that representative government is not likely to survive the end of the Civilization that produced it. No other culture had the ‘raw materials” that could or did produce it. Perhaps the noble experiment is ending; perhaps we are on the brink of a truly Imperial Presidency. Rome moved from city-state, to kingdom, to an oligarchic republic, to empire. Perhaps we are in a transitional historical phase that requires this moral shift in order to move to the Imperial phase our national history.

I am not a historical fatalist. I do believe it is possible to slow or even reverse this historical trajectory. However, a moral renaissance is essential in order to save what you and I both hold dear, our representative form of government.

Pax Tecum

Eques

Christianity/Catholicism gurantor of our "inalienable rights"

The following is an ongoing conversation with the Harvard Alumni Association "Conservative and Republican" online discussion group. The responses to Eques proposition "That Christianity and Catholicism is a guarantor not the enemy of American Democracy and Western Civilization" are worthy of your consideration. You are invited to join the discussion.

Slave Omnes, Hello all members of the HAA "Conservative and Republican" group.

I am a Roman Catholic Priest. I am very interested in the critique of our Western Civilization/Culture and the direction(s) it is taking. My basic premise is that Western Civilization is a product of Christianity and the Roman Catholic and Protestant riff in particular which ushered in the Enlightenment and made the "horrors"of the French Revolution possible.

I am an Edmund Burke conservative politically, but a Catholic in all things. Therefore, I believe that Western Civilization is essentially Conservative because it is essentially Christian. As the culture moves away from its Christian roots we can discern the decline of Western Civilization and the decay of our culture. (I am convinced that the Roman Catholic Church has a major role to play in restoring and renewing Western Civilization/Culture.

I also agree with critique Alexis De Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" that American Democracy will flourish only if it conserves its Christian Soul. Contrary to the secularists Christianity is the guardian of democracy not its enemy.

Have I come to the right place?

Vale
Eques

Hello Eques,

I am sorry, I am not an intellectual, I don't know exactly what you mean by an "Edmund Burke" conservative, and I am not sure this fits me.

America was founded by those who believed in God, and those who felt they were Christians. But many were Deists who did not believe God would want to interfere with the workings of those who made prayers expecting some divine intercession. I am more of this view. I believe in God, and I was raised in the Catholic Church in a French speaking family, but, I am not a practicing Catholic.

But, I have seen families, loyal Catholics, who included priests and nuns in their circle of friends and their lives were enriched by having, so to speak, a moral and ethical guide in the form of a person dedicated to the Church and the moral life. It was easy for them to turn to a priest and ask "Father, I have a dilemma and I would like to ask your advice." And, it seemed to me that the advice was always forthcoming and on the mark as to what should be done. I miss this dialogue because I have left the Church for my personal reasons, and, I feel a certain loss in my life.

My wife and I spend five months a year in our home in Paris, and, I visited the Shrine of the Miraculous Medal there, and I attended the Mass in a wonderful old Church, and it awoke many old memories of my childhood. I am no longer a Catholic, but I am of the faith, nonetheless.

America is fundamentally a Christian nation, but the old testament is shared with our Jewish brothers and sisters and, I feel they too are an important part of our heritage. But, of all the religious groups I have met, I think the Buddhists are among the most civilized and tolerant. We have many Buddhist friends who show more tolerance and sympathy than I could have ever expected. The Religion is very foreign to us, but it deserves a great deal of respect.

I also have friends who are Muslims, not in this country, but those with whom I correspond over the Internet. I fail to understand this Religion and I am appalled at their attitude towards other religions, and, since I spend a lot of time overseas and I see how much they despise our systems of laws and our ethical values. It is very bad in the UK, and the politicians are total imbeciles to let the Muslims have free reign to subvert the laws and customs of the UK.

The Protestants fit in, the Jews fit in, the Buddhists fit in, the Muslims do not fit in. I wait to see what will come of the attempt of the Muslims to reach a conciliation with the great Judeo-Christian block, the Holy See, and the Orthodox Religions of the East. Our experiences with the Muslims, especially the Taliban in Afghanistan are truly horrifying and I fail to see how they can ever be reconciled.

But, perhaps you see things differently.

Arthur

Dear Arthur,

I concur with you concerning the dangers that Islam poses to Western Civilization and Europe in particular, which is in evidence in your beloved France. Your remarks actually fit with my basic Premise. Western Civilization and Culture is Catholic at its core and in its roots. The Catholic Church medicated and integrated many non-Christian western elements such as Germanic “barbarian” cultural elements and Greek Philosophy, and Eastern non-Christian religious thought, chief among these Judaism.

The following link will bring you to extensive essay that will explain, I think, the very issue you sense with Islam and the West, and in fact the World. < http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/10/islam-christian-europe-and-greek.html>.

I too am an 'Edmund Burke' conservative, but I wondered about your vision of the West. How do other religions fit in, in your view?
Best,
Andy

Dear Andy,
Please see my Response to Arthur above and Dr. Lavin, below.

Dear Eques, and Greetings to All,

Thanks for the very interesting posting. It brings to mind a book I just read by the Nobel Laureate in Economics for 1998, and recently Master of Trinity College at Cambridge University, Dr. Amartya Sen:
IDENTITY AND VIOLENCE. This is the best book I have read on the issue of identity and how it provides something positive to human existence, but also what harm it can cause as well. The issue of how groups of humanity identify themselves and how that identification is at the root of much human violence is a compelling concern that Sen develops brilliantly.

I cannot speak for the group as to whether you have found the right place, but I always welcome the opportunity to understand what our potential as humans is and can be, and so I welcome your thoughts.

My response to your proposition is that Western Civilization, Conservatism, Catholicism, and Christianity are each and all vast and complex entities. I would find it hard to say that any one of these contains all of the other three. Certainly one would have to agree that there is much to Western Civilization that at its deepest roots as well as today's everyday situation, is derived from non-Christian sources, as well as non-Western sources. Sen is particularly brilliant in proving that much of "Western" civilization was created in the "East," and much of "Eastern" civilization was created in the "West." Surely one would have to admit that much of Christianity is not Catholic. One could also argue that not all Christianity is Conservative, many consider Jesus as one of history's most potent radicals, the very opposite of a Conservative approach to life. And certainly not all Conservatism is Christian.

And so I would rather argue that Western Civilization, Conservatism, Catholicism, and Christianity are each rich and invaluable parts of the human experience. That each have contributed essential aspects of human thinking, human virtue, human caring to the very core of what it means to be human. But to say that they are all one and the same, or that no other aspect of human experience has been as rich or essential seems to fly in the face of what has actually taken place since modern humanity emerged some 50,000 years ago.

Another point. To me, America is still one of the great experiments in human living. Abraham Lincoln captured that sense of experiment best.
He believed that it was a new idea to ask a large number of people to govern themselves without recourse to tyranny. He also believed that it was not yet clear if this could be done. I agree with Lincoln on both points today. When we look at the world today, we are reminded that for most of human history, at least since agriculture allowed formation of societies, the usual organization of society was tyrannical, the group would grant a king or priest power over the group's volition. These groups would almost always be defined by a religious or political identity and wars would rage between opposing identities. Most of human society existed under such tyrannies for nearly all of human history.

The Founding Fathers embraced a radical notion, that neither king nor priest should rule, but rather the people. It remains to be seen whether this is workable. But the record of the last 200+ years does contain some rather striking successes. Perhaps one of the most extraordinary success stories has been the ability of the citizens of the world to live together in peace in the United States. Surely old habits of prejudice have been active here, but consider how Italians, Greeks, Jews, Chinese, Arabs, Persians, Africans, Turks, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and any other group one might identify all live together in peace. Note how no American Muslim has ever been a suicide bomber, even though many countries in the "West" have sprouted their own. Not only do the various ethnic groups refrain from killing
each other in the US, but they also collaborate in releasing the most powerful blooms of human creativity. Think of the way in which a staggering diversity of people have been able to invent and create the American variety of business success, literature, etc.

It seems most apparent that two keys to American success have been:
1. The attempt to eliminate the inheritance of power, the state is ruled by an elected official, not a dynastic king. We are slipping a bit on this point with the Bush and Clinton dynasties and the concentrations of wealth, but the American vision is to let virtue and merit not wealth or parentage decide who rules.
2. The attempt to eliminate religious identity as a source of power.
This has created the following three advances that at the time of their creation which together were unique in human history:
a. A society in which each person could follow their religious heritage without fear of being persecuted.
b. A society in which no person could wield political power by invoking the power of the Divinity. Political arguments had to be won in open debate, no clergy could settle a political debate by acting as representative of God.
c. A society in which religious wars would not be fought. Not one major war the United States has been involved in has been religious sectarian in nature, a striking contrast to Europe's history.

And so although Western Civilization, Conservativism, Christianity, and Catholicism have been amongst the great treasures of humanity, I am not prepared to limit all of America to be only Western, Catholic, and Conservative. It has never been so, and if the vision of the Founding Fathers, and the hopes of Abraham Lincoln are ever to be achieved, it can never be so. This is a country of diverse humanity, whose politics were built to allow the best of humanity to bloom. To re-make America into a Catholic country whose only choices are Conservative would quickly dim the light of 300 million people thinking, creating, inventing. It would almost certainly invite the return of some religious hierarchy to the role of political power. This is an experiment currently in process in Iran, and being tried to be imposed across the Muslim world. Everyone in the world can see what happens when clergy are granted political power on the basis of their claims to speak for God. It would also likely lead to an inherited political elite, and completely end whatever hope for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

This may be the right place for your post, but these are a few thoughts that your ideas stimulate.

What does everyone think about these issues?

Arthur Lavin, MD FAAP
Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine


Eques Response follows

Dear Dr. Lavin and Greetings to all

Several of your points are worth comment.

1. I agree, “There is much to Western Civilization and Culture that at its deepest roots…is derived from non-Christian sources, as well as non-Western sources.” This is historically accurate. Christianity itself has it roots on the threshold of Asia in the Middle East and is itself rooted in Judaism. Western thought patterns are themselves rooted in Greek philosophy. However, the Catholic Church through the Apostles and early church fathers and missionaries, in particular through Paul who was himself an observant Jew and even a Pharisee, brought the gospel to the gentiles of the West. Catholic Scholars such as Augustine, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, mediated and integrated ancient Greek philosophy into Catholicism and therefore to the West.

2. Yesterday October 17 was the Feast of Ignatius of Antioch who was the successor to Peter in Antioch and Martyred in Rome as Peter was in 107 during the reign of Emperor Trajan. Ignatius was the first to refer to the Christian Church as Catholic. The Church was Catholic for more than a thousand years before the great schism before Easter Orthodox and Catholicism centered in Rome. The West remained Catholic until Luther’s formal break with Rome. So although “one would have to admit that much of Christianity is not Catholic” today, one would also have to admit that all Christianity was Catholic, and certainly all of Western Christianity was Catholic for about 1500 years. It was during this time that what we call Western Civilization was born and nourished by Catholicism when it was if not the only light certainly the brightest after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

3. This is of course my point that what we call Western Civilization is at it roots Catholic. Through which non-Christian and non-Western streams were mediated and integrated. I do not maintain that Western Civilization, Conservatism, Christianity, and Catholicism are at this time all one. They are not! However, Catholicism is the mother of them all. Therefore, I would maintain with De Tocqueville (a devout Catholic) that American Democracy is endangered by the cultural shift away for Christianity and its Catholic roots.

4. You maintain that in ancient times “the usual organization of society was tyrannical.” Actually, it was not. The societies where organized as where nuclear families. They were Patriarchal. The King, Pharaoh, Emperor, was the “father” of the nation. There was a high expectation among the people that the “father” of the nation would care for his children the people of his nation. They were of his blood; they were “family.” It is true that these organizational structures could be “tyrannical.”

However, so can “democracy” be tyrannical, “The Founding Fathers” did not embrace a radical notion. They were demanding the traditional rights of Englishmen. They demanded representation of the property classes in parliament. They were in fact afraid of the Tyranny of the Mob and designed the Constitution with as many safeguards against democracy, rule by the majority, as possible. The only branch of the federal government directly elected by the people, provided by the Constitution was the House of Representative, and here “by the people” means free Men only. The members of the Senate, a non-aristocratic “House of Lords” were elected by the State Legislatures. The election of the president was insulated from the demos by the novelty of the Electoral College, which was intended to be free to the elect the president according to their own best lights, as the College of Cardinals elect the Pope. Judges were appointed by the Executive Branch, with the approval of the Senate. These things have all been altered by amendments and practice. Also, remember the States where free at the time to place all kinds of restrictions on who could vote and who could not. Therefore, do say the Founding Fathers embraced a radical notion is not historically sustainable.

5. I agree with your keys to American success. “2. a” is I think the important aspect.

“Political arguments had to be won in open debate.” This exactly what I hope we are about even in this exchange. The argument that I would like to make essentially is that Christianity/Catholicism is the guarantor of our “democracy.” It is not as Christopher Hitchens argues its enemy. It is its guarantor, because democracy as we know it is a product of Western Political Philosophy, which is rooted in Catholic Theology and Greek Philosophy. We should not hesitate to argue with Thomas Jefferson, “that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, chief among these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” God is the origin of our rights, he is the ultimate lawgiver, and he guarantees our rights. He has created us and our human dignity is an essential of our human nature.

I am eager to know what others think of my line of reasoning. Thank you Dr. Lavin for this thought provoking and informative exchange.

Pax Tecum

Eques

"

The Separateness of the Priest

If we look at the life of Christ as depicted in the Sacred Scripture we see a man who was both of his time and for all times. We see a man who was very different because he was also truly God. Jesus of Nazareth was also Jesus the Christ. He walked and talked, ate and prayed with the people of His particular time, faith, culture and place. Yet, He taught his closest friends and those who would be his disciples “to be in the world but not of it”. He is the Way for Christians to God and all that lies beyond this very temporal existence and experience of life. From among his disciples He choose, He set apart, He separated 12 to be His Apostles, that is those whom He would send out to all the world and on whom He would build the edifice of His church as on 12 foundation stones. He gave to one of these the Keys of the Kingdom to bind and to loose matters on earth and even in heaven.

Jesus, Himself distinguished among family, friends, disciples and apostles. All distinctions carry with them a degree of separateness. We can only call something distinct in itself if it is also separated in some way from others.

The Apostles themselves began very soon to separate some men from the Community of Faith (ecclesia: the church) to serve at table and to minister to the needs of widows and orphans. These were called Deacons (diakonos: servant). The proto –martyr St. Steven was among them. The Apostles also consecrated men to supervise and administer the churches they had founded on their missionary expeditions. These men were called bishops (episcapos: overseers). The bishops themselves soon began to consecrate priests (presbyteros: elder) to assist them in caring for the spiritual needs of the Community of Faith, so that the Word and the Sacraments might be preached and administered to all the faithful. These bishops and presbyters very quickly began to see themselves as the priest of the New Covenant, replacing those of the Old Covenant who sacrifices had come to an end with the permanent destruction of the Temple by the Roman Empire in 70 ad.

The selection of these men to ecclesial office was understood as a consecration, a setting aside of these men for the sacred, exclusive service of God.

It was for this reason that bishops and priests were expected to separate from their wives, and live chastely as though they had no wives. When Paul instructs in, first Timothy 3:2, that men who are to be set apart for the episcopacy should be married but once, in order to demonstrate that they can indeed live chastely. The remarriage of a man after the death of his first wife was taken as a definitive sign that he could not live a celibate chaste life.

First Timothy 3:2

2 Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.

The ordained is separated not only from the world by his episcopal or presbyteral consecration, but he is also separated from his wife for the sake of God and His Kingdom. The marriage vows were not broken by this new reality. The bishop or priest was still responsible for the livelihood of his wife, if she lived, and children, if he had any. He was, however, expected to live separately from them, from this moment on husband and wife was to become like brother and sister.

The letter to the Hebrews speaks eloquently of the separation of every “high priest” by God from the people for the sacred role of offering the sacrifice to God for the salvation of the people. It compares each priest to Jesus Christ the great High Priest of the New Covenant who, when in the flesh was able to offer the sacrifice of His own suffering by which “He became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him”.

Hebrews 5:1-10

Every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

2

He is able to deal patiently with the ignorant and erring, for he himself is beset by weakness

3

and so, for this reason, must make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people.

4

No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.

5

In the same way, it was not Christ who glorified himself in becoming high priest, but rather the one who said to him: "You are my son; this day I have begotten you";

6

just as he says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

7

In the days when he was in the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

8

Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered;

9

and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him,

10

declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

It is therefore accurate to claim that separateness is essential to the Priesthood. When a man is consecrated to the presbyterate by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, he is set apart. He is separated from his fellow men, so that he may be an instrument for their salvation. He is consecrated, set apart, for exclusive sacred use. He is no longer to beget children of the flesh, but myriads of children of the Spirit. He will become father of many by being father of none. This separateness is truly ontological and fruitful.

It is likely that individual priests will experience this separateness in different ways. It should be expected that each will have different emotional, psychological and spiritual manifestations of this reality in their own flesh. Consistent with this new reality the priest would experience himself as somehow different. Contrary to this new reality would be any attempt by the priest himself or others to suppress these differences or artificially to obfuscate the separateness. A priest therefore is no longer an ordinary man; rather he is an ordained man. Like a cup that has been consecrated and has become a chalice, so also the Christian gentleman has been consecrated by the Sacrament of Holy Orders and has become a priest; both now have a sacred nature and purpose.

It is altogether proper, therefore, for the priest to live apart and to bear witness to the sacred by his manner of dress and his comportment. It is his proper role and sacred function to pray and to offer the sacrificial meal of the Eucharist. He is to model by word and example the faith of Christ for all believers and non-believers alike.

Unfortunately, there are those who wish to trivialize or eliminate the differences between clergy and laity. This is a disservice to both vocations. The laity is called by virtue of the sacrament of Baptism, to holiness and to sanctify the world by their work, witness and prayer. The priest is called by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders to serve the spiritual needs of the faithful. He is now an alter Christus, another Christ. He is to teach, preach, and offer the sacrifice in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). All distinctions are to flow from and be commensurate with these different but complementary roles.

These distinctions are matters of neither power nor privilege, but of consecration and service. The priest as father of the faith community is to lead gently the faithful entrusted to him by his bishop in the manner of Christ who was meek and humble of heart. He is to be careful not to break the bent reed or quench the smoldering wick, yet he is to be bold and brave in protecting his community of faith from the powers of darkness that seek to blind them to the Light of Jesus Christ, who alone can save them.

The priest is a man who is called to live for Christ, to serve Christ in his Body the church, the people of God. . St Thomas wisely taught that grace builds on nature. Therefore the priest is first to be a good man, healthy in mind and body. He is to be emotionally and psychological mature and open to further growth and development. He is to be physically healthy enough to carry out the work entrusted to him by ordination. In this way he can be good soil for the many graces of ordination to take deep and lasting root in him. As a man he will know that he is imperfect and a sinner. Hebrews also reminds us, “He is able to deal patiently with the ignorant and erring, for he himself is beset by weakness and so, for this reason, must make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people.”

Recalling once again the words of the letter to the Hebrews, “No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God, just as Aaron was”. For those who are called, for those who are invited by Christ to “come and follow me” as his priest, there can be no greater life no greater vocation, than that of being a Priest of Jesus Christ. It is a pearl of great price worth being set apart for.

Eques

The Catholic Perspective on Homosexuality

Eques

Revised Post July 12, 2007

Currently there is a great deal of media coverage and interest on subjects dealing with homosexuality and gay rights. The intention of this reflection is to provide a Catholic/Christian perspective on this controversial and sensitive subject. I hope that it will provide sufficient information, better understanding and deeper
appreciation of the teachings of the Catholic Church, enabling a more comfortable and confident participation in the continuing debate. This paper will focus on single young people both Catholic and secularist, who are faced with difficult but possible moral choices.

The Catholic Church (CC) respects the human rights of all men and woman. We are all created by God who loves each of us unconditionally. We in turn are challenged by God’s love and the example of Jesus Christ our Lord to love all our brothers and sisters unconditionally.

Unconditional love is not synonymous with permissiveness. It does not prevent us from correcting or challenging each other in lives of virtue. On the contrary love often calls upon us to teach and correct our brothers and sisters as true friends when their behaviors are manifestly self-destructive this is often referred to as tough love and it is difficult for the corrector and corrected. We can easily see a manifestation of this in the love of a parent for a child. The parent does not hesitate to correct and teach a child in order to protect him from a variety of dangerous behaviors and situations.

Good or evil can be known by understanding our human nature and its requirements as created by God. It is fundamental to this task to ask why God has created us. The old Baltimore Catechism (OBC) gave a very succinct answer to this question. God made us that we may know, love, and serve Him in this life and be happy with him forever in the next. The CC teaches that, we are all called to be “saints.” All those who enjoy eternal life in heaven are in fact “saints.”

The call to “sanctity” which we all share is our starting point (St Paul in 1 Tim 2:4 “God wills all men to be saved”). This universal vocation to holiness points to a set of conclusions that differ from those proposed by our
secular culture. We may express the secular starting principle as “the pursuit of happiness” without any reference to God or eternal varieties. This foundational secular starting point includes what may be called “self fulfillment and expression or self actualization.” “The pursuit of happiness” cannot strictly be called a “vocation,” for there is no “caller” outside of the individual. This starting point recognizes no absolute truths but relies on the individual’s freedom and ability to decide for himself what is true or best for him. This principle of moral reckoning can be named “relativism” or “nihilism” or more benignly “secularism.”

“Secularism” implies relativism or nihilism because it recognizes no “truths” or “behaviors” as “malum in se” (evil in itself). Truths or actions are judged relative to their perceived usefulness to the individual. These decisions are not made relative to “human nature” because no such thing is recognized to exist. Many media and campus debates revolve around these very different starting points. The result being that the debaters do not really engage one another in a building dialectic but rather attempt to win points with their audience. What must be engaged in order to reach any fundamental understanding are the starting principles. These principles must be examined for their interior and exterior logic. Are they internally consistent and logical? Are there expressions truly good for the individual or society and why?

Here we will examine the interior and exterior logic of the CC teaching on “homosexuality” in the light of its definition of “human nature” and fundamental teachings efficiently expressed in the OBC. “God made us to know love and serve Him in this life and to be happy with him eternally in the next,” this is our fundamental call to “Sanctity” that comes from God who created all of us, and all things.

All of us, who hold and teach the Catholic faith, do so by the grace of God. Faith is a theological virtue, which is a gift from God that enables us to be in a loving relationship with God, who we call Father. Faith then enables us to “know” God’s will for us as church and as individual members of that church. Our faith teaches us that we are called to be “saints” we are called to know, love, and serve him in this life, so that we might enjoy eternal life with Him. Logic supports the statement that the imperfect cannot be united with absolute perfection without first being relatively perfected. The Sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist, and Reconciliation enable us to begin this journey in this life and give us Hope (another theological virtue and gift from God) that it will be completed in the next after a purification also begun in this life and completed by the grace of God as we pass into the next life. More simply expressed in faith language we may need to pass through “purgatory” in order to be fully united to God in heaven. We hope but cannot be certain that we will pass from this life already having achieved the perfection we call “sanctity”; this is in keeping with our vocation to sanctity, i.e. holiness.

How do we journey toward sanctity in our lives? We do so by doing God’s will in this life “perfectly”, “ you must be perfect (holy) as your heavenly Father is perfect (holy)” (Mt 5:48). This could immediately discourage us, because as human beings we know that we can do nothing perfectly. However, God our loving Father knows our weakness and has provided the remedies in the Sacraments of Baptism, by which we are perfected in God’s grace. If death were to follow Baptism before sin, “sanctity” is achieved as pure gift from God. The perfection of grace exists in that person and eternal life is assured. It is in a sense already present in the newly baptized. Historically you may recall that the first Catholic Roman Emperor, Constantine deliberately deferred Baptism until his deathbed, because as emperor he believed deadly sin was inevitable. After Baptism, the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconciliation feed and heal us in our sinful imperfections.

The Catholic asks how do I know and act on God’s will for me today and throughout my life. In contrast, a person with a secularly informed way of life asks what, do “I” wish to do today or with “my” life. The secularist is directed by his own resources accepting no judge of his well-being outside of himself, or no guide that does not conform to the interior logic of his basic premise “the pursuit of happiness” as self defined.

The Catholic believes that God has a particular will for him. He believes that God has established the CC through His only begotten Son who entrusted Peter and the apostles with the keys to bind and loose His disciples. All of this is subject to the basic project of striving to be saints, to be holy. The Catholic wishes to do nothing deliberately that will put his pursuit of holiness, his reason for existing, in jeopardy. If he does sin out of personal weakness or failed logic, he does not seek to justify his sins but to confess them honestly, sincerely and contritely in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Having been properly catechized by his church, the Catholic is aware of the self-destructive nature of sin. Sin always presents itself as an apparent “good,” as pleasurable in some way that is actually an “evil,” and thus destructive to the sinner.

It is through the practice of virtue that the Catholic gradually develops habits of grace and avoids habits of vice. Where does the Catholic learn what is virtuous and what is vicious? There are several ways this is achieved. First the CC teaches him what has been revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the fullness of revelation. He learns through the proclamation of the Gospel how Jesus lived and died and rose again. He learns what Jesus taught and he learns ultimately that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. The Catholic conscience is therefore instructed in the truths of the Catholic faith and is able to make moral decisions based on the logic of these truths. He also has another advantage. In times of doubt and confusion, in times of emotional or moral crisis, he has the rock of the CC to lean on and turn to in faith, believing that the CC is the arbiter of God’s truth in this life.

Practically thinking and speaking the young Catholic who is in the process of becoming a Christian man or woman has a clear guide as to what is the best way to live the life of grace and to become that person that God wills him or her to be. In this way he or she finds true happiness and joy in this passing world, as well as eternal life in the next.

Meanwhile the “secularist” has only personal resources on which to make those moral decisions that are intended to bring happiness. These choices may only bring passing pleasure along with self-destruction in the end. Admittedly these young people may certainly seek out advice and guidance from others who are also “secularists”. However, the advisor himself has only personal experiences or his accumulated knowledge on which to rely and can appeal to no “higher” authority. In addition, the enquirer will most likely accept only that advice that fits with his particular logic and worldview, which is ultimately dependant on himself. A monadic and less than reliable system is constructed. This can be compared with drawing your own map of a country you have never visited, in order to navigate that landscape when you get there. Because the “secularist” in effect creates his own world, there is no one who has been there prior to himself who can provide a reliable map. The Catholic has the advantage of 2000 thousand years of communal accumulated knowledge, historical conscience, and experience, thoroughly examined and tested in the light of the reliable word of God, incarnated in the Catholic Church.

Perhaps, the above has provided a thumbnail portrait of the secular and Catholic moral reasoning processes. It is in the fundamental differences of these basic premises that the moral debate occurs.

The Catholic argument may be presented in this manner. , e.g., our subject is a single young man or woman, who is aware of his call to holiness. He has been taught the minimal requirements of the 10 commandments. He has learned from his church, scriptures, and tradition the more challenging teachings of Jesus that call him to perfection (holiness) in his life of grace. He is therefore aware that as a Christian he is called to sexual abstinence, chastity not only in a negative way, “Thou shall not commit adultery,” but also in the practice of the opposing positive virtues, for the sake of the kingdom of god in imitation of Christ. He strives to be Christ like in all his thoughts, words and actions that concern his sexuality and all other areas of his spiritual life. If he were to fall short of these ideals, he would recognize his sins and confess them completely, truthfully and humbly. His sexual orientation is not pertinent; he is called to purity and chastity whether he is heterosexual, homosexual, or ambivalent in his orientation. He is first an adopted son of God the Father by virtue of Baptism and he is called to holiness and a life of virtue regardless of his sexual orientation.

The “secularist” might argue that the young person in question is free to decide with whom he will engage in genital activity based on mutual consent. For him there is no higher purpose or value to sexuality. The virtues of purity or chastity have no inherent value in fact they are not recognized as virtues at all. These would be defined as unfortunate states of deprivation.

This manner of moral reasoning has permeated our secular culture. It is reinforced in countless ways in both what is referred to as “high” and “pop” cultural.

The counter cultural values are proposed almost predominately by the CC and by more evangelical/fundamentalist Christian churches. Unfortunately, the young Catholic absorbs the secular philosophical panoply of amoral reckoning with little or no awareness, unless he regularly participates in Sunday worship and deliberately seeks out the teachings of the CC. This results in moral confusion in reckoning and behavior, for the inadequately informed Catholic. It is therefore more difficult for him to resist sexual and other temptations, virtue fails and sin is common. Adding to these sins, the secular reasoning effects the evaluation of sin itself. Having committed serious sin the young catholic may appeal to secular reasoning for self-justification. Secular thinking sees no necessity to confess these actions. These are not sins to the “secularist.” They are natural expressions of sexuality. The commingling of secular thought with Catholic values in the minds of young Catholics all too often results in self-justification. It rationalizes away the healing benefits of naming and sacramentally confessing the darkness in their lives. This matrix of thinking and behavior produces spiritual bluntness or callousness, often with accompanying physical, emotional, and psychological harm.

It is a difficult proposition to break through this spiritual bluntness, sometimes referred to as “a callused conscience.” The individual so afflicted becomes insensitive to spiritual and faith based argumentation. His conscience has been overcome by the secular, relativistic, and nihilistic philosophical principles. In thought and action, the young person no longer thinks or acts according to Catholic values.

Not all is lost however, because there is in the secular argument an inherent weakness, “contra factum non valet argumentum,” (“against the facts there is no valid argument”). What facts are we speaking of, the “facts” are the fruits of “sinful” behavior. The secularist does not consider these acts as “sin,” but as acts of self-expression and freedom. They expect to find not only pleasure in the homosexual or premarital heterosexual act but also human fulfillment.

Genital-sexual activity outside of marriage is prone to promiscuity and even addiction. This is especially true in the casual almost anonymous sexual relations that young people seek in the hook-up culture of our times. The demonstrable truth is that casual and promiscuous sexual relations provide a transitory emotional high, followed often by feelings of meaninglessness and emptiness in unfulfilling human relationships. This in turn creates a desire for more sexual activity and a cycle of momentary erotic highs and their consequent emotional lows tend to produce a dependency like any mood altering substance or activity. The “facts” then are that the “secularist” approach to moral reasoning does not achieve the self-actualization or fulfillment that it promises. The “facts” are that casual and or promiscuous sexual activity is emotionally and psychologically harmful and medically risky. Accepting (without approval) for the sake of argument the relativistic and nihilistic starting point of secular thinkers, it is possible to demonstrate with “facts” that it does not deliver on its promises. “Contra factum non valet argumentum” therefore the secularist, relativistic and nihilistic argument fails. It is not a reliable map for human fulfillment. It is an argument that makes the individual the measure of all things, resulting in isolation, self-absorption, and self-destructive behaviors. [For more details concerning the destructive nature of homosexual acts, please see the Statement of the Catholic Medical Association: Homosexuality and Hope .

The Catholic argument for purity, chastity, or any virtue is based on faith and church teachings. Jesus Christ the Son of God came to earth as the God/man to set us free from our sins, not to encourage us to be enslaved by them. The false “Christian Prophets” of our day are very busy attempting to convince other Christians that homosexual feelings are “normal” and homosexual acts are thus perfectly legitimate expressions of these feelings. The scriptures Hebrew and Christian consistently condemn homosexual acts, (the sin is condemned the sinner called to a new life in God). The CC has always considered and still does consider homosexual acts disordered in relation to the natural and God given design of human sexuality. The CC’s teaching contains a very realistic understanding of human nature, tested over millennia, which makes for a happy, well-adjusted, self-disciplined, and responsible person. It delivers on its promises. It is philosophically consistent. It provides a map for the young person provided by countless men and women who have gone before them “marked with the sign of faith” (from Eucharistic prayer II of the Roman missal). It is not self-generated, but part of a consistent ethic and tradition. Thus, it is highly reliable.

The opposition responds, “You cannot tell me what to do or not do. You can not tell me how I may use my body or who I may or may not have sex with.” In a way these statements are true, one individual can not tell another individual any of these things, but independent facts and a long standing and reliable tradition of faith and morals can make a powerful argument as to what is good or evil, what is healthy and what is not for the individual human person.

In the case of homosexual genital acts, it is possible to argue from faith for the Catholic young person that this is just as sinful as heterosexual genital acts outside of marriage. It is also possible to argue from the facts that homosexual genital acts are unhealthy and risky business. “Some homosexual acts are physically harmful because they disregard normal human anatomy and function. These acts are associated with increased risks of tissue injury, organ malfunction, and infectious diseases. These and other factors result in a significantly shortened life expectancy.” (Page 1, Statement by the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, Both arguments involve sexual activity outside of marriage and are by definition disordered and sinful. They are disordered according to the revealed design and will of God. Sexuality is ordered to love and life within the Marriage union of husband and wife, “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Mt 19:5) and “what therefore God has joined let no man put asunder” (Mt 19:6). “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) It is here that the question of sexual orientation comes to the fore. A young Catholic or Christian can readily understand that sexual union is intended by God for the sanctification of husband and wife by their co-operation with the creative power of God. Even if he or she may have difficulty and struggle to be pure and chaste before Marriage and to live the purity and chastity necessary for fidelity in Marriage. The teaching of Christ and His church is very clear and understandable.

Here the “secularist” argues for “equal rights” for those of Homosexual orientation. They too should be allowed to marry to form life long unions, in this, way promiscuity, casual anonymous sex is eliminated, and fidelity to a life long partner is possible. In a purely secular context, this argument appears to have merit. It appears to be the lesser of two evils fidelity to a monogamous homosexual relationship being preferable to multiple transient sexual relations with all the accompanying dangers. However, the dangers and risks stated above are still present.

In the Catholic and Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian context, however it is untenable. In order for sexual intercourse to be truly a marriage act and to be spiritually fruitful for the couple, it must be open to “Love and Life” (see Paul VI, “Humanae Vitae”). The sexual union of a same sex couple is not open to life, even if the partners truly love one another and there is no reason to impugn this possibility, the sexual union is still sinful. They cannot enter into a Sacramental Marriage. Their sexual union is not procreative as God intended. It is according to its nature, disordered. The CC however, greatly values chaste same sex and opposite sex friendships in which many saints were formed, e.g. St John Bosco and St. Dominic Savio, St. Francis and St. Clare, St. Ambrose and St Augustine. The teachings of “Humane Vitae” have consequences for the validly married heterosexual couples as well, for it requires that their sexual union be open to Love and Life, neither contraceptive nor abortafacient and most certainly not coerced. Only in this way are they spiritually fruitful and share in the Sacramental character of Marriage.

The secularist argues this is discriminatory. How can Christians argue for sexual relations to be limited to marriage and at the same time prohibit same sex couples from entering into marriage? This would require all homosexuals to be celibate, pure, and chaste. Yes indeed, it would, as it also requires all single heterosexuals to be celibate, pure, and chaste. The heterosexual however does indeed have the capacity for Sacramental Marriage, barring any preexisting impediments (such as consanguinity or impotency). However, homosexuality, an exclusively same sex orientation, is an impediment to marriage for how can they “be fruitful and multiply.” The CC opposes same sex “civil marriage” because it desires to preserve both the traditional definition of marriage and in the larger context the vestiges of the Christian ethic that once guided our civic polity. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, same sex marriage is now a reality. There is no need however for the CC to stop or alter its teaching.

The Catholic must always be mindful that God’s grace is never lacking for those who seek it. History and human experience testifies that what is difficult is not necessarily impossible. Although a young person may experience same sex attractions, it is not required that he or she act on those feelings and desires. Here we begin to touch on the mystery of the cross and its centrality to Christian life. The CC understands its responsibility to support all those who carry this cross like any other cross with its Sacraments especially Reconciliation and the Eucharist and with making psycho-spiritual counseling and direction available to assist all those who seek it. Despite statements to the contrary science has not isolated “the homosexual gene” (Page 1 part 1, #1, Statement of CMA . The CC teaches from its experience that same-sex attraction is resistible and preventable by assuring that “the emotional and developmental needs of each child are properly met by both family and peers” (Page 2 part 1, #3, Statement of CMA .



Here again the Catholic, Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian homosexual is able to understand the clear traditional teaching of his faith. The difficulty is found in the efforts to be pure and chaste. Here we return to the fundamental call of all Christians to holiness by virtue of their baptism. Remember we are all created by God to know love and serve Him in this life and to be happy with Him forever in the next. This is true for the Catholic or Christian without exception. The heterosexual young person may be called to holiness in Marriage or in some form of celibacy lived out for the sake of the kingdom of God. The homosexual young person is also called to holiness, to sanctity, lived out in celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God. Certainly, for the Catholic homosexual person the road to holiness is lived out in part in the struggle for purity and chastity. This can be seen as a sharing in the cross of Christ and like all crosses that the Christian carries, it has its own blessings that come from God in the midst of suffering. If the homosexually oriented young person by God’s grace can embrace this cross that life presents, the road to Sanctity is difficult but open. Keeping in mind that God’s grace is never lacking and the reality that all vocations to holiness entail the cross no one need be envious of, or impugn another’s call or road to holiness. Accepting the crosses fashioned for us in our universal call to holiness and our individual vocations opens the road to holiness for each and all.

The secular way of thinking cannot appreciate or accept this faith based reasoning. The CC becomes then the voice crying in the wilderness and the light in the midst of darkness. In the face of an unbelieving society, it must continue to pass on what it has received from God. The CC also has history and medical realities on its side. The witness of Catholics young and old who fight the good fight living out their vocations to holiness may provide the strongest arguments. Witness can speak louder than well-reasoned words.

Where do Priests come from?

Eques


Where do priests come from? In the not so distant paste there seemed to be more than enough priests to go around. Those who are old enough to recall immediate post World War II America can remember dioceses building more and bigger seminaries to accommodate the seemingly vast number of men seeking the priesthood. It seemed to diocesan authorities at the time that the swelling river would never run dry. We entered the 60’s and the bountiful vocational rains ended. The river dried up. The Church in the United States began to experience a prolonged drought, and a vocational dust bowl. The great harvest of vocations failed. Is this the beginning of the end of the Church in the USA or is there hope?

What is the eternal fountainhead for the inspiration and nurturing of priestly vocations?

The latest statistical study by CARA concerning the sources of priestly vocations provides us with valuable statistical information. CARA, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate based at Georgetown University, Washington DC, has produced a “2007Survey of Ordinands to the Priesthood A Report to the Secretariat for Vocations and Priestly Formation, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.” This survey concerns Ordinands of the USA only; the study was initially developed in 1998 by the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Vocations and Priestly Formation.

The following highly significant statistics concerning the ordination class of 2007 in the USA are harvested form this survey. The statistics are not age specific unless otherwise indicated. 282 Ordinands responded to the survey. This represents a response rate of approximately 60 percent of the 475 potential Ordinands reported by theologates and houses of formation. These 282 Ordinands include 221 Ordinands to the diocesan priesthood and 60 to the religious priesthood.

80% of all those ordained were encouraged to consider the priesthood by a priest.

76% had been Altar Servers

78% had attended some type of vocation programs (offered by their diocese or religious orders)

70% received encouragement from one or more parent

20% were discouraged by family members (mother, father, or other)

7% were discouraged by priest or other clergy

77% reported they were Caucasian (of some European descent)

77% were United State citizens by birth

94% were Roman Catholic since infant Baptism

83% had parents who were both Roman Catholic

35% entered the Seminary from High School

64% entered the Seminary after some College

19% entered the Seminary with post Graduate Degrees

89% achieved Academic Honors in High School

37% achieved Academic Honors in College

35% graduated form College with honors (Magna or Summa Cum Laude)

51% attended Catholic Elementary School

36% attended Catholic High School (64% Public or other private schools)

44% attended Catholic College

68% had some full time work experience before seminary

20% had some Military Experience in the US armed forces.

72% listed Reading as a hobby or extra-curricular activity

57% listed Music as a hobby or extra-curricular activity

50% listed Exercise as a hobby or extra-curricular activity

44% listed Sports as a hobby or extra-curricular activity


It would be fair, given this report and other previous surveys, to conclude that the parents of most diocesan priests in the USA are both practicing Roman Catholics. The ordained mostly received Baptism as infants, attended Catholic School at some point in their education, were Altar Servers, and were involved in several other parish ministries or programs. They were encouraged to become priests by some significant person in their lives especially by priests and family members. They are intelligent and enjoy reading, music, and some sport. They also had some sort of work experience before entering the seminary. They are likely to have entered the seminary after some college education, while about a third entered immediately after high school.
(1% attended High School Seminaries).

Catholics throughout the United States are presently experiencing the shortage of priests at the parish level. They observe fewer and fewer priests are available to provide the services to which they have become accustomed. Parents and grandparents know that fewer young men are entering the seminary than when they were young. Some worry about the future of their local parish, because of the perceived priest shortage. They wonder where the priests they need come from will. Some hope older men that are more experienced will fill the void.

What about “delayed vocations” or second career vocations, will single men either widowed or never married answer the call? Will they perhaps retire from one profession or leave a profession to follow the call to priesthood they hear in the later hours? Certainly, there are such men, these vocations are to be sought out and encouraged. Blessed John XXIII National Seminary (BJNS), in Weston MA, is dedicated to the formation and education of these men leading to priestly ordination. The above survey includes these Ordinands as it includes all Ordinands in the USA in 2007. They are not an alternate source of priestly vocations beyond the scope of this survey. Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston founded this seminary in 1964, today 526 alumni priests serve in 94 dioceses across the United States. There are approximately 46,000 Catholic Priests in the USA. The active alumni of BJNS comprise about .011% of the total number of Priests serving in the USA.

In 2007, 476 priests were ordained in the USA. For example, seven priests were ordained for the Archdiocese of Boston in May 2007 one of these attended BJNS. The total ordination class of 2007 for BJNS was 16 priests for 13 dioceses and 1 religious congregation. These 16 Ordinands are .034% of the class of 2007. It is clear that the priests provided by “delayed vocations” are important for those dioceses and that religious congregation. Although, the number of priests ordained from this source for the United States is statistically tiny. Presently, “delayed vocations” do not provide large numbers of priests for the USA, nor are they likely to in the future, however this source deserves the full support of the Church.

The statistics of this survey do provide some useful information, that assists us to answer our question “where do priest come form” and what is the fountainhead for priestly vocations. We find priestly vocations among the Altar Servers of our parishes. They are among the intelligent active boys who are involved in this ministry. They are among those attending mass regularly, and having at least one supportive Catholic parent. The richest mine for vocations is where it has always been, among the Catholic families of our parishes whose sons are Altar Servers. Unfortunately, it is increasingly more difficult to mine for these vocations among fewer and fewer male Altar Servers.

Vocation directors and those interested in fostering priestly vocations have known for a very longtime that most priests were former Altar Servers. However, some current factors have almost closed this mine. The sexual abuse scandal and crisis in our church in the USA has created particular problems for the promotion of vocations. Reportedly, parish priests no longer feel free to mentor a promising young man in his vocational discernment.

Encouraging the participation of boys in the life of the church certainly remains possible, but it requires a specific charism. Not all parents, priests, teachers, coaches, and activity directors, have an ability to work with or understand the unique needs of young males. William Pollack, PhD in his New York Times bestseller, Real Boys (RB), and Dan Kindlon and Michael Thompson, PhDs in their book Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys argue that boys have their own particular emotional and spiritual challenges and needs. They convincingly demonstrate that not all educators or systems are conducive to their healthy psychological, spiritual, emotional, and educational development. In light of these needs and realities, it appears the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has made some decisions with the best of intentions that already and will continue to affect the number of young men entering the seminary.

US Catholic Bishops prior to the sexual abuse crisis had for years acted very much like all other institutional administrators, when faced with members, or employees, who were accused of sexually abusing young in their care. They minimized the effects the abuse would have on the victimized youth and maximized their efforts to protect the institution. This is exactly how one would expect bureaucracies to respond. The Church bureaucracies reacted like other bureaucracies. However, the Church holds itself to a different standard of perfection based on humility and truth incarnated in Jesus Christ the Lord, which it failed here to achieve.

The result of the sex abuse scandal, significant for a bountiful harvest of priestly vocations, is that parents are far less willingly to encourage their sons to become Altar Servers. They are less likely to entrust the spiritual growth and development of their boys to priests. The Cara Survey leads us to anticipate greater challenges promoting and developing vocations to the priesthood. This is of course compounded by the culture milieu in the USA with its exaggerated materialism and moral relativism already affecting the spiritual and religious lives of the young and their families.

To recapitulate, statistics confirm that the fountainhead of vocations to the priesthood is the Catholic family, which actively participates in the faith community, and which encourages the involvement of their sons in the ministries and activities of the parish especially the ministry of Altar Server. Fewer Catholic families are attending the Lord’s Day Eucharist and participating in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and fewer of these are encouraging their sons to be Altar Servers. Therefore, there are fewer Altar Servers. Unfortunately, this means fewer priests.

Although the numbers of priests being ordained seemed to have bottomed out and even in some places begun a slow but steady recovery, it is far from replacement levels. Fewer priests are being stretched further and further. This has unfortunately led to the clericalization of the laity as necessity forces them to fill in the gaps created by the lack of available priests, impacting negatively on the lives and mission of the laity.

Vatican II identified the proper role of the laity in the life of the Church. The church calls on her people to bear the light of Christ in those places and areas of responsibility that are not properly that of the clergy, such as within the family, civic community, work place, the realms of arts and sciences, and the athletic field. As St Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer would say, it is the vocation of the laity to preach the gospel in the “street.” The involvement of the laity in appropriate apostolates for their particular call to holiness is essential to the mission of the Church as the introduction to Apostolicam Actuositatem (AA) states “In this decree the Council seeks to describe the nature, character, and diversity of the lay apostolate, to state its basic principles, and to give pastoral directives for its more effective exercise. All these should be regarded as norms when the canon law, as it pertains to the lay apostolate, is revised.” In chapter, 1 the document quickly defines the apostolate of the ordained and the laity in its diversity and origins.
#2, c-d, “In the Church there is a diversity of ministry but an oneness of mission. Christ conferred on the Apostles and their successors the duty of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling in His name and power. However, the laity likewise shares in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore has their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world.
They exercise the apostolate in fact by their activity directed to the evangelization and sanctification of men and to the penetrating and perfecting of the temporal order through the spirit of the Gospel. In this way, their temporal activity openly bears witness to Christ and promotes the salvation of men. Since the laity, in accordance with their state of life, lives in the midst of the world and its concerns, they are called by God to exercise their apostolate in the world like leaven, with the ardor of the spirit of Christ.”
Consequently, the assumption of those roles proper to the ordained by the laity is not a desirable outcome, such as presiding at “Communion Service” in the absence of priests. This has the undesirable effect of providing a false witness, that priests are not essential to the Celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy. Nor should the ordained assume roles, proper to the laity, distracting priests form their apostolate “the duty of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling in His name and power.” (AA, 2, c) It results in a confusion not only of the roles of the laity and ordained, but provides a disincentive for young men of generous hearts to offer themselves to the Lord in the priesthood. The priest shortage appropriately calls the local community to pray, work for, and encourage priestly vocations in their midst.

Now arises another serious difficulty, one that never before existed prior to 1995 in the Catholic Church. Its nature is different from the response of the Church to the sexual abuse of its children. However, it is a real disincentive to participation of boys in the ministry of Altar Server a spiritual and vocational gold mine. Introducing girls into this ministry, an exclusively male ministry predating the third century martyrdom of the boy Acolyte St. Tarsicius, has curtailed the number of boys willing or able to serve at the Lord’s Altar. Although this is not a zero sum problem, this reality requires a delicate balance, between the participation of girls in this ministry and the needs of the Church.

Some believe that the boys should be firmly corrected for their hesitancy or discomfiture. They should be encouraged to accept the participation of their sisters as Altar Servers. Yes, they should. Yet, there are very real reasons for these feelings among the boys and for loss of boys to this ministry.

The practical problem of numbers of Altar Servers is limited only by the organizational skills of the adults in charge. Therefore, the number of girls participating in the ministry does not necessarily mean that fewer boys can participate unless an artificial number is imposed on the program. There are deeper and more difficult obstacles for the boys to overcome.

Most males perceive religion and participation in church as feminine. They have a very deep spirituality, it is however, more difficult to get at than that of females who generally tend to be more openly spiritual. Boys require more encouragement and support in the habits of religion. They thrive on affirmation and wither on shame. It follows from Real Boys by William Pollack, PhD that the “Boy Code” of the USA and Western Culture in general is in part responsible. They are encouraged by this code to be tough and not to show their sensitive side. Pollack writes that pre-adolescent or adolescent “boys begin to harden themselves and to avoid any person or situation that might bring them shame. Perhaps an adolescent boy suffers the greatest humiliation when he violates the ‘Boy Code.’” (RB p.158) The same dynamics would apply to boys participating and competing with girls as Altar Servers.

As long as the ministry of Altar Server was a male prerogative, it was easier for a boy to participate in this ministry. It was a boy thing. This provided them with the necessary protection from their less religious peers. Altar Servers programs were developed by some priest to stress the sacrifice and service that this ministry required. Priests could even encourage the boys with titles such as Knights of the Altar or Knights of Christ. As demonstrated by the Boy Scouts boys love titles, visible signs of rank and reward. It became far more difficult to do this for the boys with the advent of girls as Altar Servers. Now their less religious peers who already doubted how masculine it was to attend church could harass them and shame them for being, shall we say, less than masculine. The language of their peers would be far more graphic and designed to cut deep. The temperature in the “peer pressure cooker” as Pollack refers to it could be turned way up. He writes, “Peers will (also) reproach or reject them if boys act in ways that appear feminine or that could possibly suggest homosexuality.” (RB p.158)

It is true that these harassments were hurled at boys before the scandal and before girl Altar Servers. However, some boys withstood the onslaught because the ministry of Altar Servers was something that they could do for God in a safe boys’ only club, similar to the Boy Scouts, but only church related. They had the support of their fellow Altar Servers. As an Altar Server, they could climb the ranks to positions of leadership and responsibility among their peers.

In addition, the findings of these psychological experts verify these observations.
Doctors Pollack, Kindlon, and Thompson all point out that the lower academic achievement of many boys of this age is due in part to their fear of competing for academic honors with or against girls. If they succeed, their peers will immediately ridicule them for being “girly boys.” It is not cool for boys in co-educational settings to try too hard to excel academically. All three doctors maintain that the co-educational public school system sets boys up for academic failure. They agree that boys perform academically better in an all boy educational environment. Many parents and teachers fail to consider this, when wondering why their intelligent son or student will not give school his best effort. It is safer for him to stay below the radar academically in middle school and high school. “’Once you’re thirteen or older, you can’t be the same person at school as you are at home. It’s not considered cool’” (RB p.158) There is a less shameful price to pay at the hands of disappointed parents and teachers than form the cruel enforcers of the “Boy Code.”

The result of all this is very predictable and understandable. There are fewer and fewer boy Altar Servers and hence a statistically shrinking pool of candidates for the seminary and the priesthood. Here is an illustrative example. Recently, an extremely fine priest celebrated a mass of thanksgiving for his sixtieth anniversary of ordination. Nearly seventy priests, two bishops and perhaps one thousand parishioners, family, and friends packed the church. The worthy Monsignor at the end of his homily told the assembly that he had hoped for three things during his 26 years as pastor. He hoped the Red Sox would win the World Series. Monsignor is a life long fan. They did win in 2004. He hoped to pay off the $3,300,000.00 debt on the new church. They still owed $900,000.00. Finally, he hoped that some young man from the parish would enter the seminary. In the long history of the parish no one had entered the seminary or been ordained form that parish. There still is none. Not one young man from that parish entered the Seminary during the 26 years of his pastorate. As Monsignor related this sad truth, the 5 Altar Servers sat and politely listened, four girls, and one boy.

Meanwhile, in another parish, with very similar demographics, during the recent six-year term of that pastor, two Altar Servers answered the call. One is already in seminary and one who will enter in September. They are from a parish that had not had a seminarian for the Archdiocese of Boston in its existence since 1855. Remember that the two Altar Servers who entered the seminary from this parish did so after and despite the “scandal” and the introduction of girl Altar Servers. Which indicates it can still be achieved. What made the difference? The Altar Servers’ program at this parish played an essential role in the development and discernment of the vocations of these two young men. It was a well-structured, disciplined, uniformed, spit and polish organization and the boys relished and thrived in it.

The task for priests and others interested in promoting vocations have been greatly compromised by the “scandal” and complicated by the introduction of girl Altar Servers. Girls began serving in the mid-nineties after the US bishops had received “permission” form Rome. The bishops, however, did not consider the affect it would have on the boys and the future of the priesthood. It was in their eyes a matter of fairness. It was un-American to discriminate against the girls. There were unintended effects.

In the USA, it is becoming ever more common to see only girls serving mass. Perhaps anecdotally, but also illustrative, St Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican has only boy Altar Servers, in Italian Chierechetti or Piccolo Clero, both meaning “little cleric.” As they have for centuries, some of these boys will one day become priests. (Inside the Vatican, by Bart McDowell, National Geographic Society, Book Division, 1991, pages 18-21) No doubt, well intentioned bishops and chanceries wanted to include girls in this important ministry. Many Americans saw their exclusion as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church towards girls and women. Traditions become such because over time they are seen to be meaningful and effective. They stand the test of time and experience. At least some traditions are in place for very good reasons. The tradition of male Altar Servers in the church grew out of its proximity to the priesthood. Boys and young men for centuries served mass for the ordained and frequently they were later ordained. Long before there were seminaries to educate and prepare young men for ordination, there were priests and altar servers. This rich vocational source is now seriously compromised.

The argument could be made that although there are fewer boy Altar Servers it does not necessarily follow that there will be fewer priests, because there will remain other points of contact with the boys and young men for vocation directors and the promoters of priestly vocations. For example, about 43% of all diocesan priests surveyed had some Catholic education on some level. This is true. However, it is made clear by the report that the respondents had multiple contacts with the church via family, mass attendance, serving mass, parish priest, and school. There is one place where multiple statistics intersect. That is at church. If a family faithfully attends Sunday Eucharist, and their son serves the liturgy the parish priest is much more likely to know him and his family. The priest is more able to recognize the possibility of a priestly vocation in that young man. This is certainly the experience of many priests as priests and as servers. Interestingly, young men who enter religious congregations and are ordained probably did so because that particular religious congregation taught at one of his schools. He would become familiar with it and with the Brothers and/or Priests teaching and administering the school. The statistics support this, 13% more Religious priests report having attended Catholic high school. However, 12% fewer attended Catholic colleges. The overall percentages are a statistical dead heat.

Attendance at Catholic School*
All Priests Diocesan Priests Religious Priests
Elementary 50% 51% 50%
High School 36 33 46
College 42 44 32
*Percentages sum to more that 100 because respondents could select more than one category.

It remains fair to say that the statistics support the conclusion that the real locus for vocational development and nurture remains the family and the local parish, and particularly the interaction of the Altar Servers with their priests. Conclusion, the advent of girl Altar Servers and the sexual abuse scandal- admittedly in very different ways- leaves the Roman Catholic Church in the USA vocationally challenged. The fewer families attending mass results in fewer boy Altar Servers and logically leads to fewer priests. While, girl Altar Servers tends to depress the number of boy Altar Servers and makes it more difficult for priests to encourage priestly vocations among them.

What are we the Church to do? In regards to girl Altar Servers, returning to the status quo ante is “politically” volatile. A few pockets of resistance exist here in the USA. (Two dioceses in the USA maintain the tradition of male only Altar Servers.) Those interested in promoting vocations to the priesthood will have to develop parish based Altar Server programs that take the nature, spirituality, and reality of the life of boys into consideration. At the same time, ministering to the spiritual needs of the girls and assisting them to find roles in the Church that take into consideration their femininity and their particular gifts and individual abilities.
“In the name of liberation from male "domination,” women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine "originality.” There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not "reach fulfillment,” but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.” (Emphasis in original)
Thus writes the great John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, (MD) chapter IV, section 10. What might this look like? What might a program that will encourage priestly vocations among the boys and at the same time include girls according to “their essential richness” look like?

Borrowing form the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts there would be a definite course of advancement in rank and responsibilities. An Altar Server might first be taught how to be crucifer (Cross bearer), then acolyte (candle bearer), book bearer, how to set the altar and how to assist the priest or deacon with the water and wine and the hand washing ritual. As the Altar Servers learned these elements of ministry, they would be recognized and given appropriate rank and title, e.g. Crucifer, Acolyte, Second Server, First Server. The servers in consultation with the priest or other adult coordinator could have input in choosing the head Altar Server, usually titled the Master of Ceremonies, or as at the Vatican the Dean of the Altar Servers. The girls would be included in this, which will cause some boys to hang back. However, structures like these appeal to boys and may assist them in overcoming their hesitancy. They will require constant and intentional affirmation by adult males. The priest and other involved laymen can provide this effectively for the boys. Older boys who have achieved the higher ranks and honors can in turn encourage and teach the younger ones. This is exactly what Baden Powell the founder of the Boy Scouts intended and how St John Bosco organized his “boys’ town” in Turin, Italy, which he referred to as the “Oratory,” a place for prayer.

The role of Dean or Master of Ceremonies could be reserved for one of the older boys. The vesture of the girl and boy Altar Server could be distinctive. The cassock (and surplice for liturgy) the traditional vesture for clerics and by extension of Altar Servers (Chierechetti, little clerics) could be retained as the church intends. The girls could be vested in albs or other vesture that they themselves would find more appealing and of similar appropriateness and quality.

All of this would be very much in line with the ancient traditions of the Church.
Redemptionis Sacramentum states the following:
“[44.] Apart from the duly instituted ministries of acolyte and lector, the most important of these ministries are those of acolyte and lector by temporary deputation.”
“47.] It is altogether laudable to maintain the noble custom by which boys or youths, customarily termed servers, provide service of the altar after the manner of acolytes, and receive catechesis regarding their function in accordance with their power of comprehension. Nor should it be forgotten that a great number of sacred ministers over the course of the centuries have come from among boys such as these. Associations for them, including also the participation and assistance of their parents, should be established or promoted, and in such a way, greater pastoral care will be provided for the ministers. (Emphasis mine) Whenever such associations are international in nature, it pertains to the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to establish them or to approve and revise their statutes. Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.”
“This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned. From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004.” (Emphasis mine)
Remptionis Sacramentum encourages the preservation of the tradition of boys or young men serving at the altar and it recognizes the “acolytes” or “servers” as an ancient source of priestly vocations.
Let us reiterate what we are attempting to achieve, the promotion of priestly vocations among the boys of our parishes, while including girls in the ministry of Altar Server. The chief concern of those wishing to cultivate vocations to the priesthood should be both natural and supernatural solicitude for the human growth and development of the boys, among whom vocations to the priesthood will be found. Care for their human well-being precedes and is the foundation for the development of their universal call to holiness.
Remember as St Thomas Aquinas teaches grace builds on nature. Assisting the youth, male, and female, of our parishes to recognize and live out their universal call to holiness is one of the major responsibilities of the pastor and his collaborators. A fortiori how eager should the parish be in fostering priestly vocations among its boys and young men? Those among them who recognize their universal call to holiness will become the good soil in which the seeds of a priestly vocation can germinate. These can in turn be transplanted to the seminary, literally a place for seedlings.
The parish priests and their collaborators for the good of the Church will also be sensitive to the special needs of the girls and encourage them to follow their particular vocations. Encouraging them to be faithful to the teaching Magisterium of Church, which will lead them to find their proper roles in the Church, modeled on the indispensable role of Mary the mother of God. We can do no better than consider the words of the late great John Paul II in Mulieris Dignitatem.

“7. We must (now) focus our meditation on virginity and motherhood as two particular dimensions of the fulfillment of the female personality. In the light of the Gospel, they acquire their full meaning and value in Mary, who as a Virgin became the Mother of the Son of God. These two dimensions of the female vocation were united in her in an exceptional manner, in such a way that one did not exclude the other but wonderfully complemented it…
“Man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of self… Motherhood… brings about - on the woman's part - a special "gift of self “
“20. In the teaching of Christ, motherhood is connected with virginity, but also distinct from it… On the basis of the Gospel, the meaning of virginity was developed and better understood as a vocation for women too, one in which their dignity, like that of the Virgin of Nazareth, finds confirmation. The Gospel puts forward the ideal of the consecration of the person, that is, the person's exclusive dedication to God by virtue of the evangelical counsels: in particular, chastity, poverty, and obedience.”

It would be of incalculable value to families, civil society, and the Church, for girls and young women to receive catechesis, concerning their singular and necessary vocation as future mothers or consecrated religious. Integrating their lives into the spiritual and sacramental life of the Church will also open up for them the rich possibilities of lay apostolate. Religious Education, Youth Ministry, along with Sacramental preparation, for First Communion, Reconciliation, and Confirmation all have a place in the spiritual development of the youth of the parish, therefore also in the promotion of vocations to the priesthood and religious life.

Boys need encouragement, form older males, and their peers who are already Altar Servers, to dare to serve the Lord at His Altar. If they are convinced, they are being brave and are fighting a spiritual battle against evil they will respond. Boys love uniforms, pomp, and circumstance the church has plenty to offer them in this regard. St John Bosco always stressed frequent Holy Communion and Confession with his boys, we should not be afraid to do the same. Catechizing the all Altar Servers concerning the Eucharist and Liturgy will enhance their understanding and participation. The encouragement and good example of frequent confession will enrich their lives of grace, assist them in developing a Catholic conscience, and is essential for their vocational discernment and salvation.
Although the promotion of priestly vocations is far more difficult today for all the reasons argued above, it is still by God’s grace possible. It is needed now as much as at anytime in the history of the Church. Some parishes are producing good vocational fruit; they are the branches vitally connected to Christ the vine. These faith communities pray constantly for priestly and religious vocations, at liturgy and in private devotions.
There is an opportunity here to reestablish the dignity and reverence that were once important characteristics of the ministry of Altar Servers. This in itself will benefit all of the young people involved. It will also produce the harvest of vocations promised by our Lord himself, who has asked us to pray to the master of the harvest, to send workers into His vineyard. There is reason to hope, God will not abandon His church.
Where do priest come from? They come from good Catholic families and especially from their sons who are dedicated Altar Servers, involved in faithful and prayerful parish communities. Although statistics demonstrate that most Altar Servers will not enter Seminary College, the spiritual and religious formation provided for them during the years of ministry will enable them to navigate more successfully their college years. It will assist them in the discernment of God’s loving plan for them and prepare them to accept the grace of a priestly or religious vocation if it has been placed on their hearts by the Lord. Let us continually entreat the Lord of the harvest to provide us all with the grace to achieve His will. The Lord continues to call generous young men to follow Him as priests. Let us do what we can to support and encourage them. As Don Bosco would say to his boys “Corragio,” take courage.