The Question of the Priesthood at the Bishop’s Synod 1971

The best way to interpret what happened at the Bishops’ Synod in regard to the priesthood theme, is to work back from the result to its presuppositions. It is the only way to shed some light on the nature and aims of that ‘progressive minority’ which made the whole course of the Synod—at least for those of us working in the Secretariat—so very laborious, yet quite often as exciting as a soccer match.

The result, it will be recalled, was twofold. First, the ballot for the new synod council, in which Cardinal Höffner received by far the greatest number of votes (122), a clear indication of the confidence the Synod had in him. Those chosen with him were chiefly men who had impressed the plenary sessions more by spiritual depth and dependability than by brilliance (not a single one from France, Canada, Benelux). A French periodical, after venting its feeling plainly enough, rightly noted that the Synod had been allergic to ‘stars’, and that the French bishops’ attitude had on the whole been found irritating.¹

The riddle of the consensus

Secondly, there were the results of the final ballot, which we shall briefly summarize, giving the subject-matter of each chapter and the number of votes it received (out of a total of just over 200); it will be remembered that fourteen out of nineteen immediately obtained a two-thirds majority, the remaining five (No.s 1, 4, 8, 12, 14) after the suggested amendments had been incorporated.²

1. Introduction. Bishops’ care for their priests; list of the problems confronting priests today. Relevance of the central Christian message precisely to our own time: 190.

2. (Doctrinal section). Uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood, which supersedes all ritual Jewish and pagan priesthoods, and comprises within its scope all the sacrifices, sufferings and sins of mankind: 138.

3. Origin of the Church from Christ, both as a community and in its organization (hierarchy and congregation): 148.

4. Institution of the priestly ministry by Christ through the Apostles; permanence of the ministry in the Church’s structure: 182.

5. Definitive (life-long) nature of the priestly ‘character’ conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders: 137.

6. The ministry of the New Covenant as a service to the Church community and the permanently communal character of the presbyterate: of priests with one another and with the bishop, of the bishops with one another in communion with the pope: 167.

7. Essential relation of the priestly ministry to the things of this world: 151.

8. (Practical directions). Unity and mutual relations between preaching the Word and administration of the sacraments: 182.

9. Secular activities should be undertaken and exercised by priests from the point of view of their priestly function: 149

10. In political matters, the priest should preach clear maxims of the Gospel but, because he is the representative and symbol of unity, should not himself take part in party politics except in exceptional cases when the good of the Church requires it and the bishop agrees: 143.

11. A vigorous spiritual life is fundamental for the priest; relation to God and to fellow-men, prayer and action, have mutually to support and permeate one another: 136.

12. The traditional celibacy of priests in the Western Church has even today despite the all difficulties, a greater weight of convergent reasons in its favor: 169.

13. Consequently the law of celibacy in the Western Church has to be ‘maintained intact’: 168.

14. a. “Always saving the rights of the Supreme Pontiff, the ordination of married men is not admitted even in particular cases”: 107.
    b. (Alternative formula). “It belongs to the Supreme Pontiff alone, in particular cases, for reasons of pastoral needs, and taking into account the good of the universal Church, to grant priestly ordination to married men of mature age and good life”: 87.

15. Strengthening ties of community between bishops and priests; rôle of the presbyteral council: 148.

16. Strengthening ties of community among priests themselves. Organizations among priests are to be supported when they promote the good and unity of the Church; those that threaten to sow dissentions among the clergy and in the Church, must as far as possible be incorporated into the general structure of the Church: 179.

17. Strengthening of the relations between priests and laity. Pastoral council: 170.

18. Economic questions: Equalization of income and property. Insurance, and gradual prudent disinvolvement from money collections and stole fees: 166.

19. (Conclusion) Confidence for the future, but to the Cross which is promised to Christ’s servants: 168.

How was such an outcome possible? What got into the ‘progressive minority’, that it simply accepted the theses? And this after energetic tactical maneuvers such as the final unexpected postponement of the vote from Tuesday to Saturday in order once more to gain time for canvassing support? An earlier maneuver had been the plan to set aside the appointed secretariat and appoint a special commission of bishops to take over the drafting of the document. The names of the intended members were privately known—they were those of the small group of friends who favored the sociological approach. Article 8 of the Synod Statute, however, only provided for the formation of such commissions if a particular point of the subject-matter needed clarification, or if the style of a draft-text had to be improved. Consequently, the application was refused. The displeasure expressed by L. de Vaucelles in his purely negative article in Etudes is out of place.³

Similarly there is no ground for the idea sometimes expressed, that the bishops voted as they did, so as not to offend the pope. Little heed was paid to his existence and presence, and the final version of the document scarcely mentions him. On occasion clear anti-curial notes were heard, but in general the attitude of the bishops towards the pope was spontaneously cordial.

Was there a second theology?

In view of the surprising result, some people have dissociated themselves from the whole ‘out of date’ Synod and put their hopes in the coming, open-minded generation, among them the General of the Jesuits and Fr. Bernhard Häring. Will this coming generation represent a new theology? René Laurentin, formerly well-known as a mariologist, and now a leader of the progressives, did in fact speak expressly of two theologies which, according to him, confronted one another at the end of the Synod. Which? Clearly that of the bishops, of the unfortunate unanimous institution, and that of Laurentin and those who think like him. But were these two theologies represented in the Synod itself?

Clear disagreement was expressed soon after the start in an argument about method. Cardinal Höffner, following the ‘guidelines’ (lineamenta) laid down for the Synod (which themselves closely followed the International Theological Commission’s report and for the most part had the same author), started from the dogmatic angle as the only possible basis from which to approach the practical questions presented in the report from Cardinal Tarancón. The French and Canadian group, however, were urgently concerned about the practical pastoral difficulties of their priests, and therefore proposed an ‘inductive’ method, leaving the ‘old theses’ in the background because, they said, they are of course well-known to everyone. The Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, one of the clearest-headed members of the group, proposed to omit the whole christological opening thesis and take the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church at the present day as the starting-point. The German Circulus Minor had a noteworthy solution: to start each question from its ‘Sitz im Leben’, the real problems confronting priests, and from that viewpoint seek an answer in faith, thus best combining induction and deduction. Unfortunately, this model was not favored when the ten Circuli met, so in order to satisfy the ‘inductives’, current problems were placed in the introduction, the dogmatic theses followed, and then in the practical section the questions were to be answered as far as possible. It was found, however, that the working group personally assembled by Cardinal Tarancón (consisting mainly of a French and an American Synod member) were, not surprisingly, overtaxed by this assignment. At an early morning meeting in the Spanish College, the draft texts were abridged as inadequate and in part (training of priests) struck out entirely and not replaced at all for lack of time. The who framed the questions were chiefly thinking on sociological lines and would have given mainly sociological answers, the agreement of which Catholic theology had not been thoroughly examined and would have remained open to question.

Certainly on occasion there was something that sounded like a latent fragmentary ‘second theology’. I could not at first quite see why in the German language circle Cardinal Döpfner insisted so obstinately in face of his friend Alfrink on the expression ‘law of celibacy’, which I had advocated absolutely avoiding, but which was in fact retained, in spite of a few speeches against. And when on the part of the French, the harmless-looking suggestion was made that it would be preferable to speak of ‘ministerium sacerdotale’ rather than ‘sacerdotium ministeriale’ as the Theological Report had done, one needed to remember that the very industrious write R. Salaün, one of the priest observers, called in as an advisory member by one of the French-language circles, was circulating numerous papers expressing his profound but not over-lucid theology of the Church, with the central idea that the whole Church is priestly, that this priesthood is shared by various ministries (ministères), among which the presbyterate ‘symbolizes’ the universal priesthood in a special way. Some, too, would have liked to eliminate the whole ‘sacerdotal vocabulary’ as not found in the New Testament; on the other hand J. Medina, the special secretary, several times pointed to the need for linguistic pluralism, and one bishop devoted a whole discourse to showing the disadvantages of any words for the Catholic priesthood.

Another symptom of a ‘latent’ second theology might be indicated. Of course everyone was clear from the start about the specific character and rôle of a Synod of this kind, so that the final reminder by Cardinal Duval that its nature was to be purely advisory, could only arouse astonishment (played up by the journalists) among those who had an interest in forgetting this fact to some extent in the meantime. What had been intended was above all to encourage and strengthen priests, to address them with sympathy and solidarity, and there was an express wish that in the final document they should be directly addressed in that way. But when the ‘progressive minority’ saw that the paper had too theological a ring and that the questions raised did not receive the answer they wished, they campaigned urgently for the said direct address to be struck out, arguing that the document should only be addressed to the Holy Father (and if possible left and forgotten in one of his desk drawers). The publication of these formulas in the form in which they stand, creates a precedent whose consequences are difficult to estimate.

Outcome

Everyone knew all along that fundamentally and necessarily a question of theology was at stake, and not merely because the Höffner draft text had taken that path. And at bottom no one wanted it otherwise/ The roar of slogans (Audace! Ouverture! Recherches ultérieures!) could not drown the question of which theology would finally shape the new orientation that was being called for. The overwhelming majority of the non-Europeans were not to be confused: everything finally depended on standpoints of faith, and these needed to be insisted upon amidst the general perplexity, even more urgently than at the time of the last Council. In fact at this Synod the non-Europeans displayed, probably for the first time, clear intellectual equality if not preponderance, in comparison with Europe. They brought forward the great practical problems—including those of celibacy and ordination of older married men—and it was they who, after mature reflection, carried them through to the solution which they considered the best.

A large section of the Catholic press of Europe indulged in the wildest contortions in order not to see what was simply there in front of its eyes, to reinterpret it, or finally, when all was clear, to picture the world episcopate as utterly out of touch with the world, as too old, out of date, unable to read the signs of the times and therefore God’s mark on living history. Is such an episcopate still really orthodox (if orthopraxis decides the matter) or is not rather the journalists? “The old faith and the new!”

The Synod has inculcated afresh a few elementary ‘old’ truths, and this was certainly not superfluous in view of quite a number of recent publications, among which we will only mention H. Küng’s “Wozu Priester?”: The origin of the Catholic priestly ministry from Christ and the apostolic Church, its functions of preaching, sacraments and pastoral care, of unification in the Church, its indispensability for the celebration of the Eucharist, its life-long duration (even if the ministry is not exercised), the absolute necessity of a spiritual life if the priest is to fulfill the duties of his office. Celibacy is sufficiently anchored in Scripture and Tradition for it to continue to be valid as a Church norm.

The debate on celibacy probably left no aspect of the question out of account, from the tragic situation of some regions which are practically without priests, to the changes estimation of marriage and sexuality, the disappearance of some former safeguards, the loneliness and difficulties about faith that afflict many priests, and even the difficulty of finding suitable housekeepers nowadays… As against all the and much besides, the common good of the Church stood out with ever increasing clarity. And it was the preponderant numbers of non-European bishops, who in view of their responsibility for the picture to be presented by the Church of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow—their decision has been termed “prophetic”⁴—rose above their own immediate needs and necessities and decided for the harder course. For the sake of completeness we may note that the most carefully reasoned specialist statement presented against celibacy came from the major superiors of religious orders, and was not without influence on the original version of the Tarancón report. This partly explains the well-known, irritated but very understandable outburst of Cardinal Seper when it was coming to the vote. The ‘realists’ of the Gregorian University, too, must have taken even more realistic experiences with their married clergy, and (like some of the Orthodox) gave an earnest warning against abandoning celibacy, while bishops from Asia testified that a married Catholic priest would merely be regarded by Hindus and Buddhists with incomprehension and contempt. Africans pointed out with satirical verve that their overworked priests had no time to bother with questions of self-identification or frustration, and would never be able to fulfill all their priestly duties if they were married. Latin-Americans knew perfectly well that the much talked-of older viri probati would never bring themselves to go with their families to remote stations, which is exactly where priests are needed. The example of Protestants and Anglicans, who are in no better case in regard to vocations, was repeatedly mentioned. There was therefore very soon general agreement about the “lex coelibatus”. It was only the supplementary statement that was difficult to frame, as it must not contradict the law that had just been accepted nor formulate the obvious prerogatives of the Holy Father, nor yet concede the right of deciding the question to Bishop’s conferences. At the last moment the formula put to the vote was stigmatized as insufficient by the Roman extreme right-wing, and the party for permitting marriage for priests seconded them, with the involuntary result that modification of the formula could only narrow its scope still further. Of the two alternative drafts, however, the stricter received the majority of 107 votes, the slightly (but how slightly) open one, 87; one wonders why there were only two abstentions.

The Synod therefore, knowing quite well what it was doing, chose the narrow path, guided by its first, christological thesis. It reckons with a period of lean years, but prefers a few good, wholly dedicated priests to a large number of mediocre, half-hearted ones. The diaconate and other forms of service in the Church are to be developed more systematically. Almost all the Synod Fathers realized that sociology, however useful in particular instances, cannot answer the question of what a priest, called by Christ, performing Christian service in the Church and world, actually is. They appeal to the generosity of the young. The Synod, too, wanted to go back from a ‘sacerdotalism’ of a Constantinian stamp to what is early Christian. But while some theologians hoped to find there a Protestant servant of the congregation, the Synod on its ways there met One asks Quo Vadis? and realized once again that the priest’s ministry is a participation in his inimitable service and in Him who is himself both priest and victim.