Priest, Prophet, and King
In baptism, each Christian rises to new life in Christ and
is anointed priest, prophet, and king.
To this threefold sharing in the identity of Christ correspond three munera, or aspects of his saving
mission: the priest sanctifies, the prophet preaches, and the king
governs. The ontological change brought
about in baptism therefore also enacts a commissioning in which the Christian
receives the grace and the responsibility to exercise these munera in union with the risen Lord. I remember well the lesson that our venerable
canon law professor, Gianfranco Ghirlanda, drilled into our heads again and
again when speaking of this commissioning: you cannot separate the munera.
Authentic Christian discipleship requires a continuity and harmony among
the three: a Christian cannot authentically preach the faith without offering
prayer and sacrifice, cannot offer sacrifice without serving others as Christ
has served us, cannot serve others without telling them of the great gift we
have received in Christ.
The way in which the munera
are exercised undergoes a transformation in the man who receives the sacrament
of Holy Orders. Christ’s example shows
us that this ministry is profoundly human and relational, also entailing the
full breadth and scope of the munera:
one united action of teaching, sanctifying, and governing. How many of the events in the life of Christ
clearly demonstrate this three-fold harmony in his ministry. We need only to look to the Last Supper,
where Christ first arranged for the upper room to be made available, then
taught his disciples and prayed for them, then bent to wash their feet before
finally rising to break the bread and offer the chalice. Every element of the last supper was
important and was part of Christ’s ministry – not only the breaking of the
bread. Jesus is not only the one who
offers the Eucharist – he is also our teacher and our Lord. And likewise, a bishop or priest cannot only
be the one who sanctifies – he must also be one who teaches and who
governs. Thus, from the earliest days of
the Church, it has been clear that a bishop cannot authentically preside over
the Eucharist while at the same time abdicating his duty to teach the faith or
govern the local church.
In recent years, however, an understanding of this necessary
unity of the munera has been
undermined, and particularly in the ministry of priests. In the common understanding, and even among
many members of the clergy, it is often either explicitly or implicitly held
that priests are ordained as ministers who share only in Christ’s ministry of
sanctification. Often one hears “Father,
if only you did not have to worry about the practical concerns of the parish
and could just focus on the spiritual matters.”
And it is common today to speak of the priest and of priestly ministry
in a way that resembles the work of a magic man – of one who whisks into the
room, waves his hands and makes something holy, and then moves on to the next place. But clearly such an understanding of the
priest cannot be reconciled with the actual priestly ministry of Christ, who
did not just sweep in and sanctify. This
mistaken notion that focuses the identity and ministry of the priest almost
exclusively on the work of sanctification has had widespread negative repercussions
in the Church.
Reticence in the
Laity to Follow the Teaching and Governance of Church Leaders.
How many conversations in recent years among priests have
unfolded something like this: “Did you read the editorial page this
morning?” “Yes, I assume you’re
referring to Betsy’s letter to the editor?” “Can you believe that? And she is a daily communicant! I just don’t understand how she could really
believe that.”
Today we often find faithfully practicing Catholics who
either blatantly dissent from the Church’s teaching or who openly oppose the
leadership and authority of their priests or bishop. It is an everyday occurrence. Many of us assume that such dissent and
disobedience are the signs of a lack of faith – that if the person just had
more faith they would believe what the Church teaches and be more respectful of
the clergy. While faith certainly plays
a role, I think it is important to also recognize how an impoverished understanding
of priestly ministry has also fed into this problem. If I believe that the priest shares only in
Christ’s ministry of sanctification, or at least only fully in this aspect of
his ministry, whereas I believe that Christ’s ministry of teaching and
governing are not intrinsic or at least not entrusted in their fullness to
those who have receive holy orders, then it seems perfectly logical that I
could go to Mass and yet at the same time reject the teachings and the
authority of my bishop and his priests.
I would say to myself “Well he is out of his element. He should stick to what God has given him to
do: which is to sanctify.” And I would
be more inclined to resent the bishop or priest for attempting to teach or
govern with authority, because I would see such authority not as having come
from God by virtue of his sharing in the Christ’s ministry, but instead as
coming from his own desire for power and control. Why would I follow someone who is trying to
push me around or tell me what to think of his own authority?
Diminishment in the Number
of Priestly Vocations.
Vocations to the priesthood have been growing throughout the
United States in the last decade, and yet this growth has not been even. Some diocese have had an incredible boom in the
number of men entering the seminary, whereas others have seen anemic growth. Why?
People opine continually, and clearly there are many factors that affect
the overall number of vocations. Yet a
critical factor that I do not believe is given nearly enough attention is the
extent to which the understanding of priestly identity and ministry operative
in a diocese or religious community affects its ability to attract vocations.
Men do not have a vocation to be a magic man, particularly a
celibate magic man. If the understanding
and exercise of priesthood and priestly ministry are impoverished to entail
sacramental ministry alone, it is very possible that men who have an authentic
vocation to priestly ministry will not feel called. And this is particularly the case for men who
are intelligent and have leadership ability.
Articulate and intelligent men know that God would not call them to a
vocation that did not allow them to use the intellectual gifts that he had
given them in service to the Church. And
so if they do not understand that the ministry of preaching and teaching is
intrinsic and essential and defining of priestly ministry, they will be less
inclined to be open to a priestly vocation.
Similarly, those men who possess strong leadership ability and
administrative skills will be less likely to consider a vocation to the
priesthood if their understanding of priestly ministry either does not include
or includes an impoverished sense of the ministry of service and governance
exercised by the priest.
Damage to Community
The priest is ordained to ministry in the Church in persona Christi… capitis. This last word is often left out,
particularly among those who promote an impoverished notion of the
priesthood. The priest is called to act
in the person of Christ the head. Jesus is not the big toe of the body. He is the head who shows his humility
precisely in that as head he bows low
and serves, even to the point of death.
For the toe to bow low means nothing, but for the head to bow
demonstrates true humility. As Saint
Paul so eloquently wrote: “Though he was in the form of God, Jesus did not deem
equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself. (Phil
2:6-7)” So it must be for the
priest. The priest is given and must be
understood to possess real authority not only sacramentally, but in matters of
teaching and governance as well.
The undermining of the priest’s authority in non-sacramental
ministry undermines his sense of responsibility to act in service of and for
the good of the body. And so it is
common to find a correlation in priestly ministry between the loss of authority
and absence from ministry. This absence, the 9-5 syndrome, the
complaining of being overworked, the multiple days off and extended periods of
vacation, make more sense when the priest thinks that his ministry is supposed
to be merely sacramental. Pastoral
council meetings, managing staff, teaching at vacation bible school, and going
to the woman’s sodality meeting – these are all seen as impositions and
activities that lie outside of the priestly vocation. And so the priest quite easily can begin to
excuse himself from building up and maintaining community life in his parish
because he does not see such activities as being intrinsically tied to his
ministry as a priest. Instead, he
becomes a sacramental accessory to the life of the parish, and may say things
like “This is your parish, you decide what you need to do.” And many of those who seek to dominate
particular parts of parish life may encourage him in this thinking and
commiserate about how overworked the poor priest is. “Poor Father, you have so much going on,
don’t bother coming to the meeting – we’ve got it covered.”
Lack of Subsidiarity
and the Adoption of Secular Governance Models
Another symptom of the impoverishment in understanding of
priestly ministry manifests itself at the diocesan level. Since a magic man is
clearly not capable of running a parish, it becomes necessary to
institutionalize and even require lay positions and structures that can fill
this void in priestly ministry. Large diocesan
offices must be created to oversee finance and business administration and to
direct religious education. These
offices, in turn, begin to communicate and work directly with lay staff and
volunteers from the parishes, rather than the priests themselves, since the
work of teaching and governance is no longer considered to be intrinsic to
priestly ministry. Soon, lay staff
outnumber ordained clergy and religious, and because of this shift toward non-clerical hierarchies within the diocese,
the model of governance adopted by the bishop and his lay staff is increasingly
influenced by secular employment practices.
The context of governance within a diocese that is
envisioned by Lumen Gentium and by
the codes of canon law is nowhere to be found.
While finance and administration meetings may begin and end in prayer,
the spiritual relationship of shepherd and flock that is at the heart of
Christ’s priestly ministry entrusted to the apostles and their successors is seriously
compromised. Fewer and fewer administrative
decisions are made by those who have been directly entrusted with the salvation
of those under their care and have received the grace of holy orders to carry
out their ministry.
Conclusions
What results when the three munera of priestly ministry are separated in favor of a purely
sacramental model is destructive to the life of the Church. Vocations
to the priesthood are lost, dissent from church teachings and authority among
the laity is fostered, parish community is weakened, and priests become
apathetic and frustrated. A priest can
only carry out Christ’s ministry as he is baptized: priest, prophet, and
king. Just as Christ stooped to wash his
disciples feet, so must the priest stoop to pay the bills, oversee a youth
minister, or attend the finance council meeting. The priest acts in the person of Christ the
head, in the person of Christ who is the bridegroom to the Church, in the
person of Christ who offered himself, priest, prophet, and king, to his
beloved.
