In the March issue of the Salesian Bulletin, sociologist Franco Garelli informs us of the many reasons for the decline in priestly and religious vocations in Italy.
“When responding to this question, people do not cite an overriding factor, but a number of concomitant reasons. Among these, there are two in particular which stand out: ‘not being able to marry and have children’ (cited in 34.6% of cases) and having to ‘give up too many things’ (32.8%). Thus, the label of renunciation is strongly attached to being a priest or to a religious vocation, both because of Roman Church law which requires clerical celibacy, and the reduced level of freedom and autonomy generally attributed to those who choose this lifestyle. The idea of sacrificing a vital part of oneself - do you want to give up an emotional bond, life as a couple, the experience of fatherhood, do you want to limit your expressive possibilities - is very undesirable according to current sensibilities, which aim toward a diversity of lifestyles and tend against the closing off opportunities, in all aspects of life.”
In perfect continuity, the most recent issue of National Catholic Reporter, released yesterday in the U.S., presented the latest study on the condition of American priests and some interviews on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II).
The average age of priests is rising
The correspondences: In 2003 in Italy, the average age was 60 (13% were over 80, with less than 19% under 40), while in the United States today, the ageing factor is the most notable among the clergy, who have now reached an average age of 59 (in 1970 it was 45 - a 31% increase).
Without payment of the “8 per mille” or eight per thousand contribution (an Italian law under which taxpayers can choose to whom devolve a compulsory 0.8% ('eight per thousand') from their annual income tax return between an organized religion recognised by Italy or, alternatively, to a social assistance scheme run by the Italian State) the consequences of the increase in elderly priests affects the dioceses and the Christian communities, who must take responsibility for their care.
In 1970, writes Dan Morris, less than 10% of priests were over 65, while today this figure is as high as 40%.
Meanwhile, the study shows, the average age of professionals such as doctors or lawyers has increased by only 3-5%.
A more recent study by CARA (Centre for Applied Research in the Apostolate), at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., uses a different sampling method, resulting in an even higher average age of 64.
The data from these studies are contained in a soon-to-be-published book entitled: Same Call, Different Men: The Evolution of the Priesthood Since Vatican II. “It’s hard to think of a ‘profession’ whose connotations have so radically changed in the last forty years,” writes Stephen J. Fichter, co-author of the study and priest in the archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. “If it’s possible to make a comparison, the only profession that has changed in this magnitude, maybe more, is membership in the religious orders.”
Changing sensibilities
The American weekly also anticipates some issues arising from the study.
The age at which priests are ordained is also rising.
Young people today already have a degree or work experience before entering the seminary.
The perception of Vatican II is changing as well: the newly ordained tend to consider it an “historic event” rather than something to be experienced first-hand.
But, unlike in previous generations, newly ordained priests are perceived as set apart from society. Priests born between 1943 and 1960 - “Vatican II priests” - were greatly encouraged in their vocation by family and community, which saw the priest as a servant-leader who cared for society’s poorest.
The priests of the last 20-30 years tend to emphasize theological orthodoxy, they are considered perhaps happier than Vatican II priests, and they express greater appreciation of the hierarchy.
The voices of some “Vatican II priests”
A few American priests ordained in those years had some comments to make about the data, particularly regarding their perception of the Council - the “spirit of Vatican II,” as it is commonly called.
The common feeling is a concern for too many doors and windows that the Council had left wide open, but which were later closed, half-closed, or locked.
Some areas which were given a greater focus were: the leadership role of the Church, the stalemate in the ecumenical dialogue, the decline of episcopal collegiality, the coming role of women and the implementation of liturgical reform.
Thomas Reese, an authority on the subject (ordained in 1974, he became a Jesuit in the Council’s opening year and became editor of the journal America until his resignation in 2005) said: “We were shut up in the seminary without any news of what had happened. When we heard about the Council, we went to ask our Superior for permission to get copies of the documents. It took an advisory meeting to grant us permission, which excluded all other seminarians from reading the documents. Within a month, they had become required reading,” he explains, smiling.
“Today the fear is not so much that the brakes have been applied, but that the gears have been shifted into reverse.”
Severyn Westbrook (ordained in 1962, diocese of Spokane in Washington State) is more pessimistic: “It seems like everything is already settled, that people should just learn the truth, and that’s the end of it. This is the dominant view. But the Church must be a living and vital thing. Are we a ‘body’ or an ‘organization’?” In 1982 he was asked to carry out a study on priestly celibacy and the phenomenon of married priests, but the topic was never included on the agenda of the Conference of Bishops. “I have not lost hope because I trust in the Holy Spirit, but the game does seem rigged.”
Compared with their younger “colleagues,” the openness of these priests to the laity - entrusting them with leadership roles – becomes apparent. “We are the priests of Gaudium et Spes,” Eric Hodgens wrote in an essay two years ago.
Gary Lombardi practices his ministry in Petaluma, California, after directing the training of priests in the diocese of Santa Rosa for 16 years: “In many ways, everything is back to being hierarchical and top-down authoritarian. Everything comes from Rome - the bishops are appointed without local consultation. There is an emphasis on orthodoxy and fidelity to the magisterium - especially the Pope - just as it had been before the Council. The emphasis is on people fitting the Church instead of the Church fitting people. But today there is a growing clericalism by the younger priests.”
Norbert Dlabal, a pastor in Kansas who previously completed a 5-year mission to Peru, agrees: “The new generation of priests seems to want to put up a wall between the laity and themselves,” he says. He points out that the statement “Ordination gives the priest a new status which makes him fundamentally different from the laity within the Church” garners the agreement of 48% of pre-and post-Vatican II priests, but only 36% of Vatican II priests.
“Even clothes make a difference: today if you wear the Roman collar, you are seen as compliant and trustworthy, but if you choose a colourful shirt and leave your robe in the closet, you’re already considered a traitor.”
And Vatican II priests seem more willing to openly discuss the role of women in the Church, as well as other issues such as the acceptance of gays and lesbians, and the topic of science.
“The Church has still not considered the idea of having to deal with a cultured and mature laity,” Reese added. “We still think of the Vatican as a place that treats everyone else like adolescents or children. If you yell loud enough, maybe they will hear you. But the Church needs to develop a teaching that is relevant to the twenty-first century - not the thirteenth.”
A “creative theology” is what Pettingill is advocating, with regard to an “exegesis of [papal] documents.” And the saga of the new English translation of the Roman Missal was a warning sign: “He just wanted to show them who’s boss. No one asked people what they thought of it; even the bishops were not consulted on the final changes.”
Finally, they remember the words of a young theologian who attended the Council, whose name was Joseph Ratzinger: “For many people today, the Church has become the main obstacle to faith.”
And that was in 1963.