of an inferior officer, who while he is leading others, is also in
contact with one in supreme command, helping him, advising him, and
sharing in part his responsibilities. One of the earliest experiences of
a priest when he first goes on the mission is to find the power and
influence which he exerts over his people. This power he is free to use
with little restriction. He may use it in subservience to his rector--if
he is a curate--or to his Bishop, to help on their work, to make the
people loyal towards them, and to endeavour that everything shall
proceed in harmony with their wishes and plans; or he may criticise
their ideas, speak and act against them, and take refuge in self-defence
on his "rights" and the position he occupies. Undoubtedly there will be
rules and regulations laid down by his superiors which will grate on him
and of which he may at least profess not to see the use. When young, he
may be ready to find fault with the work to which he is appointed, and
be discontented; and when he grows into years, he may get the impression
that he is not appreciated, that others are unjustly preferred before
him, and so forth. To put it on its lowest ground, a priest of this kind
is a continual trouble to his Bishop, and a source not of strength but
of weakness.
Now the remedy for this evil frame of mind is by no means to become
passive, or to resemble a dead body which is moved about by others. He
is called upon to do something more difficult to human nature--to act
positively in loyal subservience to his superior. Such obedience is less
tangible than that of a religious, and in that proportion it is harder.
[2] It involves a whole spirit of loyalty, and the very vagueness of its
application makes it harder. We are not brought to book, so to say, by
the advantage of a definite command, and yet with all our outward
liberty, we are called upon to regulate our whole life on submission and
obedience. Now if there is a course of action which goes against our
taste and judgment, it is comparatively easy to overcome our reluctance
and to perform outwardly what we are told to do; but when we have no
definite command given, and are simply called upon of our own free will
to act positively to forward some particular course of action, this is
often far harder.
Yet this is what a secular priest is continually called upon to do. His
rector runs the parish on lines which he considers old-fashioned and out
of date; he seems to discourage new works which the needs of the day
seem to call for. There may be some truth underlying these criticisms,
though probably there is much to be urged on the other side. However
this may be, a priest in the flower of his youth and activity can do
much to direct the course of public feeling among the parishioners. He
can either defend his rector to the best of his ability, explain that
there may be many circumstances, important factors of the case, which
are not publicly known; and try and carry things on in accordance with
the rector's ideas and schemes; or he can fan the discontent by joining
in the criticism, with alas! too great effect, for discontent easily
spreads and develops. Needless to say, the priest with the spirit of
obedience adopts the former course; the one without such spirit the
latter. But in neither case is he or ought he to be in a passive state;
he has to be all life and action.
In like manner, when a Bishop wishes to change the work of a priest, and
offers him a new mission, undoubtedly one who makes difficulties about
accepting this or that place, or any that does not fit in with his
tastes and requirements, is not showing the spirit of obedience; and one
who holds himself passive and ready to undertake whatever his Bishop
suggests is doing better. Nevertheless, there may be a better stage
still and a more obedient one, which is to discuss the matter with his
Bishop and give him the advice he seeks. For one of the most important
factors in helping him to make up his mind is to know what his priests
think they are qualified to undertake. If the priest remains passive,
all the onus of deciding is thrown on the Bishop; and though this is far
better than opposing him or raising difficulties, it is not the most
perfect course. But, granted that he has talked it over in the manner
indicated, should the Bishop decide not in accordance with his wishes--
which will frequently occur, in view of the many and complicated needs
of the diocese--then is the time for the obedient priest to accept his
Bishop's decision as the voice of God, and to set himself to the work
indicated however distasteful it may be to himself. The ruling idea in
his mind should ever be, how he can be of the greatest service to his
Bishop and help to lighten his heavy burden. It is difficult enough to
govern wisely at any time: it becomes ten times harder when it is a case
of governing unwilling subjects. An obedient priest will strive to make
it not harder but easier.
We can perhaps contrast our obedience with that in the army. There
discipline is carried to a high pitch, as is necessary for efficiency,
but interior obedience there is none. Most soldiers seem to spend the
greater part of their time in finding fault, sometimes in strong
language, with the orders of their commanders. There are indeed means of
enforcing obedience and the commands have to be obeyed: but the thought
of rendering the commander's task easier does not enter in. In the case
of priestly obedience, no such material sanction exists, or at least it
plays a very secondary part. The whole relation between him who commands
and the subject who obeys is on a spiritual and sacred footing, and
enforced almost entirely by such considerations--for the punishments at
a Bishop's disposal, such as censures or the like, are very rarely
available, and, even if available, only used when other motives fail.
Hence the practice of obedience becomes a positive virtue.
If we wish to find out whether we ourselves are practising the proper
spirit, we can do so by watching an unguarded and spontaneous
conversation, for "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaketh." [3] If we find ourselves instinctively talking against those
above us, it is a sure sign that we are not obedient men; if, on the
other hand, we are truly obedient in mind, this will show itself by the
whole turn of our talk about our superiors. It is hardly too much to say
that it is this spirit of obedience which alone will make a priest's
life happy, or even bearable.
We may ask, then, are there no circumstances in which we are justified
in resisting authority without prejudice to our obedience? Is a truly
obedient priest precluded from taking part in any action which has for
its object the resistance of episcopal or other rulers? Surely the
negative answer is indicated by the whole practice of the Church and of
Canon Law which gives and regulates the right of appeal in certain
cases. And we all know of instances in which saints have resisted
authority. Cannot we safely follow their example?
The answer in the first place is that they were saints. A person who has
such perfect control over his lower nature may venture on a course which
to us would be dangerous. And indeed resistance to authority is always
dangerous. The author of the _Imitation_ warns us how many people are
moved with passion and mistake it for zeal. So long as we are obeying,
we are on safe ground: there is no motive possible to us but that of
obedience. Once change our condition to one of resistance, and there may
be hundreds of motives such as injured pride, self-will, want of charity
to our superiors, and the like which may be influencing us to a far
greater extent than we know.
If, then, we think it necessary at any time to resist our superiors, our
first care should be to test ourselves, to see whether we are in truth
actuated by unworthy motives. There are two means ready to hand. One is
prayer, earnest and long continued; the other is prudent advice. If we
go to a disinterested party, whether a priest or a Bishop--for laymen
will not be in a position to understand the circumstances--the adviser
will be better able to judge of the position than we are, from the very
fact that he is disinterested. Then he will realise better than we do
that there may be circumstances unknown to us, on which our superior has
based his action, and in many cases charity demands that we should
believe such circumstances to exist until the contrary is proved. Then
let us beware of the plea which is so often put forward by the priest
who is by nature disobedient, that he is not contending for himself--so
far as he is concerned he would willingly put up with the injustice--but
that it is his duty to defend a principle for the sake of the rights of
other priests similarly situated. In most cases this is in truth a thin
covering of self-will. His first statement is indeed most cogent: it
_is_ oftentimes far better to put up with supposed injustice, which
after all may be _only_ supposed; and a really obedient man will fall
back on that whenever he possibly can. It is only when he is advised by
a competent authority that he ought to act, that he will adopt a
position so distasteful to him.
Granted, however, that a priest is advised that he ought not to let
matters rest as they are, let him act with confidence and all charity.
His first step will of course be to see his Bishop and talk the matter
out. This stage, indeed is fairly often reached. Cardinal Vaughan quotes
a great authority of his day on obedience, speaking to him as follows:--
"In his administrative capacity, a Bishop may err in judgment, he may be
narrow, inconsiderate and at fault. This may be a trial to a priest; but
his duty is perfectly clear. He should say, 'God can appoint such a one
to be my superior, and the means of my sanctification. He stands to me
in the place of God; I must obey.'"
Nevertheless, he continues:--
"The priest in such a case may legitimately make respectful
representations to his Bishop. It may be his duty to make such
representations. Let him do this once, but let him beware of morally
forcing the Bishop by his importunities." [4]
If these representations are made in a proper spirit, and with due
submission, they ought not to form an act of hostility: on the contrary,
they may in fact be the highest form of obedience, for the priest in
this manner may put before his Bishop facts of which he was unaware, or
considerations which had not occurred to him. In the great majority of
cases an understanding may be arrived at in this manner.
In the few instances in which the Bishop does not modify his action and
the priest remains of the same opinion, it may be necessary to carry the
matter further. If so, the spirit of charity becomes doubly needful. No
word of "tyranny" or "injustice" or "ill-temper" applied to his superior
should escape him, and a favourable interpretation should always be
given to his superior's actions. Let the appellant priest fortify
himself continually with prayer, so as to obtain the gift of counsel,
and let this be joined to a special intercession on behalf of the
superior against whom he is acting. These are ordinary means for ensuing
his purity of intention; and if these means alone are taken, we may be
confident as to the result. For whatever the final verdict may be, if we
have taken the requisite precautions, it will be a victory, for God's
will is done. When the late Cardinal Vaughan, then Bishop of Salford,
had his long dispute with the Jesuits in Rome, when the letter came to
him announcing the result, before he opened it, while still ignorant of
its contents, he went to the tomb of St. Peter to return thanks.
Alas, that this spirit is so often wanting in the appeals of our clergy.
All those who are acquainted with the Holy See will bear witness to the
readiness to hear the appeal of the weak against the strong, and all
such appeals have sympathetic consideration. The fact that the majority
of them go in favour of the Bishops is an unfortunate testimony to the
frequent insufficiency of the grounds of appeal, and indicates a want of
the spirit of obedience.
Such, however, is not always the case, and one can point to instances in
which the appeal has been conscientiously made, even though it proved
unsuccessful, and some also in which the verdict has been in favour of
the priest and against his superior. In such rare cases, it is hardly
necessary to add there must be no note of triumph or of
self-congratulation. A disagreeable duty has been done, and properly
accomplished, and we go back ready to resume our work for God and souls.
But it is not necessary to dwell on this eventuality, considering how
exceedingly rare is its occurrence. Let us end as we began by alluding
to the words at our Ordination:--
"While the sacred body and blood of Christ are still within him, he
gives his newly consecrated hands into the hands of the Bishop, who
says: 'Promittis mihi et successoribus meis reverentiam et obedientiam?'
To which he replies 'Promitto.' And as the personal fruit of obedience
is peace of conscience and the peace of God, the bishop adds, 'Pax
Domini sit semper tecum.'
"The formal acceptance by the Church of the solemn promise of obedience
made by the priest contains an assurance and a pledge full of
encouragement and consolation to the priest himself.
"He is an officer in the army of Christ: he has promised loyalty and
obedience. All the works of his ministry undertaken in obedience to his
Bishop, or in conformity with the discipline and canons of the service
are henceforth to be accounted not as private and particular works, but
as works belonging to the Christian ministry. They are of a higher
order; they are the works of Christ Himself, and deserve a special
reward." [5]
[1] _Fifth Treatise_, chapter vi.
[2] It is not intended to deny that there are cases in which a
religious has to use initiative or judgment when under orders: but it
can hardly be questioned that the other is the ordinary course of
things; and that while a secular priest has to use his judgment and
initiative far more, he has proportionately less guidance in the way of
command. He has to depend on his own judgment; yet all the time his
decisions must be actuated by submission and obedience.
[3] St. Matt. xii. 34.
[4] _The Young Priest_, p. 116.
[5] Cardinal Vaughan, _The Young Priest_, p. 119.
APPENDIX ON OBEDIENCE AT THE SEMINARY
IT would seem at first sight an anomaly that if the obedience practised
by a secular priest is so different from that of a religious, in the
time of preparation at the Seminary the life is modelled on that of a
religious congregation; for, although it is no doubt easy compared with
that of any religious Order, it is, nevertheless, of much the same
character, and the occasions of practising obedience in a Seminary are
very similar to those in a monastery. There are fixed hours for rising,
for prayers and mass, for study, recreation and meals, and there are
times of silence--as after night prayers, or before the morning
meditation. The students are, in fact, expected continually to obey the
bell as it calls them from one duty to another in much the same way as a
religious does. Why, it may be asked, if their future obedience and
future life are to be so different from that of a religious are they
asked to go through a daily routine at the Seminary which seems to be
based on theirs, or at least to be similar to it?
This is a pertinent and natural question; but the answer is simple. The
essential difference is that one is permanent and the other temporary. A
Seminarist is called upon to exercise the easier forms of obedience, to
train him for the harder. He leads a regular daily life, in obedience to
authority made known to us by definite commands and by fixed rules, in
order that he may acquire a habit of submission which may give him his
tone when he shall have gone forth from the Seminary and have no such
definite rules or commands to guide him.
It is this consideration which gives the true importance to the daily
observance of such rules as he has. We sometimes hear the question, "Is
it a sin to break a rule?" Surely this is looking at the question from
an unworthy standpoint. Theologians say that it is not a sin even for a
religious who has taken a special vow of obedience to break a small
point of his rule; much less can it be a sin for a Seminarist, who has
taken no such vow. But there is a higher way of looking at it than this.
It is not a question whether this or that isolated rule binds under sin;
the question is rather how the Seminarist's general attitude towards the
rules is affecting his training, how far the object for which they have
been imposed upon him is attained, or how far impeded, by the spirit in
which he accepts them. The proper spirit should be something of this
kind. He has come to the Seminary to undergo a definite training, which
is administered by those set over him, through the instrumentality of
the rules. It is the traditional Catholic training, which has formed
holy priests and even saints. All the incidents of his daily life are
part and parcel of it. To neglect or put aside any of them deliberately
is to put aside part of that training, with its corresponding means of
sanctification, both natural and supernatural. To put it on its lowest
grounds, he cannot afford to lose it.
Indeed, one would hope that a well-behaved Seminarist would never
deliberately and of set purpose break rules. Small failings through
thoughtlessness, or in the weakness of the moment, are indeed excusable;
but that is essentially different from open and premeditated breaches of
discipline. A Seminarist who frequently fails to come down in the
morning, or who evades his work when he conveniently can, who is slack
and unpunctual at his various duties, is misusing his time and omitting
that which the Church and his Bishop reasonably expect him to do. He may
be clever enough to conceal his idleness; he may even after an ill-spent
term make up time and pass his examinations by cramming up at the end--
for which some have a great facility; but he will never make up the
training he has lost, nor will he obtain the graces which would have
been his had he used the means which God gave him to obtain them.
Moreover, the spirit of obedience or disobedience in community life is
very catching. One grumbler will make many. The Seminarist owes a duty
to the institution which has done and is doing so much for him, to set
up a high ideal for himself which will spread itself to others and
affect the whole life led within the walls of the Seminary. It is a duty
which he owes to his Bishop and likewise to his fellow students.
This whole question is so vital to the life of the Seminary that we may
be excused for appealing to high authority in support of what has been
said. In his _Lex Levitarum_, the late Bishop Hedley discusses it at
some length, and all that he says will repay careful reading. His first
conclusion is that although single rules can in single cases be broken
without sin, "It is sinful and a sin against obedience to violate them
in grave matters, or with a persistence which causes grave results in
the house. But," he continues, "the aspirant to the holy priesthood
should take a higher view of the rules of his Seminary. They are,
indeed, not fetters to bind his liberty, but steps or occasions to
deepen his purity of heart, and his love of his heavenly Father. In
themselves they are wise and useful, tending to the well-being of each
individual. Even therefore if they carried no obligation, it would be
the part of a true servant of God to observe them religiously. Obedience
is the most essential virtue of a heart which aspires to imitate Jesus
Christ; a real, interior obedience, not merely external, but grounded
upon general humility of heart. It is obedience which most effectively
clothes the spirit with the mind and temper of Christ. It is obedience
which has the promise of victory over passion, and of success in the
ministry of souls. To promote and to deepen in the character the spirit
of obedience is certainly one of the principal purposes of the training
of a priest. . . . A life of rule which is accepted and loved is the
very best preparation for the priesthood because it is the very best
discipline of a truly Christ-like mind, and the most effective
instrument for acquiring perfection." [1]
[1] Lex Levitarum, p. 67.
CONFERENCE VI
THE RELIGIOUS EXERCISES OF THE PRIEST
THERE is a sense in which it may be said that the religious exercises of
a secular priest are of more importance than those of a religious; for
he has no definite rule to impose most of them upon him, while from the
nature of his life they often have to give way before the pressure of
work. It has been said that the sanctification of a religious is
effected primarily by his religious exercises, and secondarily by his
work; but that of a secular is effected primarily by his work and only
secondarily by his religious exercises. Of course in those exact words
we cannot accept the statement: it is something of a paradox; but a
paradox usually covers a real truth, and in this case the truth is that
there is always a danger of a secular priest failing to realise the
necessity for such regular exercises from the fact of their having so
often to be postponed or curtailed or even omitted in favour of works of
charity, and from having no regular binding rule for any except the
recitation of the Divine Office. There may indeed be individual days
when a priest dispenses himself from all else: but as a regular
practice, he well knows that other exercises are an absolute necessity
if he is to lead a priestly life.
In the new Codex of Canon Law, for the first time we find an enumeration
of the exercises expected of a priest [1]--not indeed binding under sin,
but the norm put before us by the Church--_ratione sacerdotii_. They
include, besides his mass and Office, daily Meditation, Rosary, visit to
the Blessed Sacrament, and Examination of Conscience, and a Retreat at
least every third year. It may be well to take these in order and say a
few words about each.
_Mass_
There is no need to emphasise the power and consolation to a priest of
his daily mass. It is the direct object of his priesthood and the one
which he is least likely to allow to pass out of his mind. In view of
his being a priest, he is bound to offer the Holy Sacrifice on Sundays
and on the chief feasts of the year [2]--Christmas, Easter, etc. In
practice in this country, he is usually bound, _ratione officii_, to
celebrate much more often: in many cases daily mass is his duty; in
almost all, several times a week is his minimum. One result of this is a
tendency to look on his mass as a duty for the sake of the people who
hear it and to lose sight in some degree of its effect on himself. In
days gone by when daily mass was not usual, we have stories told of how
a travelling priest or a French _emigre_ might come in and ask to say
mass, and the priest who was actually vesting for the parish mass, would
let the visiting priest say it, and himself go to breakfast. Happily,
however, this state of things has passed away. At the present day the
vast majority of the clergy are only too pleased to celebrate daily.
They may indeed like to omit a morning occasionally, while on a holiday:
possibly they are sometimes over free in giving themselves a rest out of
holiday time: but this is the exception. Even the practice recommended
by St. Alphonsus of omitting one day in every week out of reverence, now
seems to be a thing of the past: the movement of Pius X in favour of
frequent or daily communion seems to have swept away the last trace of
it. At any rate, most priests of necessity, and others by preference,
usually celebrate daily, and no reform is called for in this respect.
When, however, we come to the circumstances of celebration, we find a
good deal calling for attention. There are indeed many priests who begin
the day with mental prayer, and say the Preparation for mass, so that
when the time comes they are ready to celebrate with devotion: but there
are many who do not act so well. Dr. Grant, the first Bishop of
Southwark, used to lament the number of priests who came straight from
their bedrooms to the altar, and he would quote this as one of the
greatest obstacles to the spread of Catholicity in this country. It is
manifest that such a practice is fatal to the devout celebration of the
Holy Mysteries. The new Codex of Canon Law has drawn special attention
to this by enacting that a priest should make a proper preparation and
thanksgiving as of obligation. [3]