Priestly Formation: A Suite in Four Parts

Being a pastor is more like being a jazz musician than it is being say an engineer. All three of these occupations require a great deal of technical skill to be sure. But the pastor, like the jazz musician, is often called upon to improvise on a theme more than, like the engineer, apply a theory to a problem. This is all to say that pastoral ministry is more art than science.

Over the last 10 years or so I’ve worked with communities in transition. What I’ve notice is that typically problems arise in the parish when someone—it needn’t be the pastor—takes what we might call an engineering approach to the life of the congregation. They have a theory and they are going to fit the community into its framework.

This is also something I see frequently as a spiritual director and confessor. When I talk with people about the different ways they go off track in their prayer lives, at work or with their family and friends the source of their suffering is that life just isn’t working out according to [their] plan. Problems in living arise when life becomes a project to be completed or a problem to be solved and not the other way around. When I lose a living sense of awe in the face of reality, or when I don’t see my life as a mystery to be lived, this is when life becomes a problem. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Affective Intuition & Human Formation

Mostly what priests encounter in our flocks is what existential or humanistic psychologists call problems in living. Life just becomes flat. Relationships that once were easy and life giving just aren’t anymore. Saddest of all, what was once a source of joy in life is now merely “blah” if not something much worse.

The first step in responding to those moments when life becomes a problem is the accurate apprehension that this is the case. This is the step of affective intuition—I need to have at least a sense of the contours and content of what is wrong. In the human sciences we use a technical term—verstehen—or the “interpretive or participatory examination” of the situation. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Young Adult Spiritual Formation and the Family

My earlier post on campus ministry (here) brought some very good responses and questions both on this blog and on Facebook.

One of the questions I was asked is a question I frequently hear. How do we keep our children in the Church? Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 8.5/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

The Parish in Transition

For most of the last 10 years, I’ve served Orthodox parishes in transition. Having done this 7 or 8 times, I thought it might be helpful to offer for consideration some of what I’ve learned.

The most important thing I learned is that, somewhat counter to what had been my initial expectations, the particular reason while a given community is in transition is always secondary. What matters most is the fact that they find themselves betwixt and between what they were and what they are becoming. In fact, and again this is counter intuitive, focusing on the particulars will more often than not result in the community failing to make the transition successfully.

Cultural anthropology has a technical term (liminality) that has helped me understand the needs of the parish in transitions and while tempting to do so, focusing on the reasons for the transition is not the best way to help the community in transition. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tradition and Human Flourishing

Here some of Robert George’s major theoretical points underlying his argument in a recent court case about the federal Defense of Marriage Act (you can read the whole thing here):

Laws characteristically embody and reflect moral judgments. This is true of the law of contract and the law of murder, and it is no less true of the law of marriage. Laws should be made carefully so that they embody sound understandings of good and bad, right and wrong, justice and injustice; but as careful thinkers about law from Aristotle in ancient Greece to Dr. Martin Luther King in our own time have made clear, laws cannot be morally neutral, nor should we try to make them so. Efforts to mask the moral judgments embodied and expressed in our laws have no effect other than to wrap those judgments in a cloak of obscurity—creating a mere illusion of neutrality.

In the case currently before your honor, the Court is being invited to replace the moral understanding at the heart of the historic conjugal conception of marriage with a competing moral understanding according to which marriage would be redefined as sexual-romantic domestic partnership—thus rendering sexual-reproductive complementary unnecessary and irrelevant. Marriage, on the new moral understanding, would be an emotional union—a union of hearts and minds—but not a bodily union of the type made possible by the biological complementarity of husband and wife.

However, this Court should not choose between the competing moral understandings on offer from supporters of the conjugal conception of marriage and the revisionist conception. This is because nothing in the Constitution settles the issue between them. It is left, rather, to the people acting on their own in referenda and initiatives in states that provide for those decision-making procedures, and through their elected representatives in the state legislatures and the Congress. It is up to the democratic process, not the courts purporting to act in the name of the Constitution, to make the moral judgment that marriage should be retained as a conjugal partnership, or to make the competing moral judgments that would redefine marriage, whether to accommodate polygamous, polyamorous, or same sex partnerships.

Shifting our focus from civil society to the life of the Church, George’s argument reminds us that whether we are concerned with canon law, administrative procedures, or pastoral care (more on this last point later) these are all expressions of both a moral vision and a particular understanding of what it means to be human (anthropology). In other, in church law, administration, and pastoral ministry we are pursuing one or more goods that both reflects and reinforces our vision of human flourishing. This is done as far as it goes but it carries with it a certain level of risk. The risk is not simply that of a practical failure. We all of us fail. While our failures can be useful to the degree that we are willing to change there’s a real danger.

Typically I am only intuitively aware of the moral and anthropological models that those my practical decisions. Put another way, my life is structured around assumptions which, even if objectively true, may not be applicable to the situation. Consequently I am often undone because I give the right answer to the wrong question. Learning to ask the right questions is hard work. It is the work of not just my lifetime but of several life times. This is why tradition is essential as a guide to human living.

It is important to keep in mind that fidelity to tradition is no guarantee to a life of human flourishing. This is not because tradition is untrustworthy–though it may be–but because there may not be a correspondence between tradition and situation. This lack of fit between tradition and situation can be especially wide in practical matters. For this reason tradition generally serves us better as a guide for what NOT to do then what to do. Thus isn’t to criticize tradition or the traditional life. Rather it is, I hope, a sober acknowledgement of the occasional complexity of human life. While tradition is essential for human flourishing it is as the foundation not the goal of such a life. What is required along with tradition is creativity. But more on this in a later post.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Bravo and Axios!

Bravo and Axios!

I think His Holiness Patriarch Kyrill is absolutely correct in his recent report presented before an assembly of rectors of Russian Orthodox theological schools. Among other things he says:

We constantly speak about obedience in our theological schools. But does not this mask a desire to obtain totally obedient and intimidated individuals incapable of speaking up before authorities under any circumstances? Do we not, along with obedience, inoculate them to act like toadies and cow-towing hypocrites? Can such a person be a spiritually unimpeded and a responsible pastor, a true leader of their flock? We both know too well that often, behind a noble external facade, there lurks hypocrisy, pretense and cynicism. I am now reading some of your reports asking about canonical procedures for coping with certain clerics. I also read correspondence from the laity. I sometimes wonder what kind of priests some of these people are… I read all this with a heavy heart. Somewhere and somehow these priests received their formation. They didn’t drop from the heavens. The majority of these are seminary graduates; some even finished an academy. We both know what hypocrisy and cynicism can be found in Church circles.

We must prepare and educate neither slaves nor rebels, but free and, at the same time, responsible people. Freedom does not mean a lack of discipline. Freedom must primarily be an internal freedom, a freedom in Christ. We must be convinced that all restrictions and burdens placed by sacred ministers are accepted by them consciously and voluntarily. This recognition of the voluntary acceptance of the burden of the Cross must be a characteristic of every priest since, the taking up of the Cross is inherent in the very desire to be a priest.

Discipline must first of all be self-discipline, and obedience to the hierarchy must not be motivated by fear but by a firm and conscious adherence to tradition as a preservation of the Divinely established structure of the Church. This canonical discipline and obedience is not something dreamed up by the present hierarchy. This is a principle from the Lord Himself. It lies in the foundation of Church life and every priest must understand this clearly. Every seminarian must understand this before his ordination, that he is entering upon a path of obedience.

What is needed in not only our priests but also our laity is not slavishly obedience but emotionally and spiritually maturity. I agree with the comment left on AOI (#2), it’s quite sad that something so fundamental needs to be said at all. And yet, it needs to be said and said again.

Too many men are attracted to ordination with the thought that the cassock will allow them to side step the normal stages of adult development. But ordination isn’t magic and the cassock’s only cloth. Having been involved with both clergy misconduct cases and working with parishes in transition, it has become increasingly clear to me that most of the pastoral problems we see in both parishes and the clergy aren’t the fruit of malice. Rather it seems for many of the priest who get into trouble of one sort or another the problem is that they simply don’t have the resources (psychological, social and spiritual) needed to respond to the normal challenges that they will face in a healthy parish. And even if a man does, he is often not equipped to deal with extraordinary pastoral challenges.

For their candidates for holy orders, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago looks for men who have (1) accurate self-knowledge and wholesome self-acceptance in Christ, (2) the ability to give themselves over appropriately to others in Christian love and service, and (3) the ability to establish collaborative, working relationship as a peer with other professionals. I don’t know how well they hold to these standards but they do seem to me to be pretty good minimal standards that need to be in place BEFORE a man is ordained much less assigned to a parish.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 10.0/10 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

Trust and Obedience in the Parish

The Great Schema or Megaloschema

The Great Schema or MegaloschemaImage via Wikipedia

An issue that often comes up in parish life is the proper level of obedience the laity owe the clergy.  In answering this question many people assume a monastic model of obedience.  For some this monastic obedience is an ideal to be embraced.  The parish is a mini-monastery.  In reaction to this,  monastic obedience is something to be rejected. When this happens however, there is usually an over-reaction and relative abandonment of standards of Christian life.

While monastic life is central to the life of the Church, I think framing the conversation in such terms really distracts from the question being asked and instead turns it into a plebiscite on monasticism.  More helpful I think to take an anthropological approach and look at obedience in developmental terms.  Erik Erikson’s developmental theory is helpful here. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Fostering Specialization in the Parish

Just before Christmas, I received a note from a reader, Debbie, letting me know that Benedictine University‘s Online Program is offering scholarships for those who have volunteered in disaster.  From their website:

The Disaster Volunteer Scholarship will be awarded to those who have volunteered their time and traveled to serve others impacted by a natural disaster that has occurred since 2005. For those who qualify, the cost of one full course will be awarded to offset tuition in any online program. Benedictine University will award up to $250,000 in tuition.

The reasons I’m letting folks know here–besides the fact that some of the people who read my blog might avail themselves of the scholarship money–is because I want to encourage more broadly what Benedictine University is doing.  Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Why They Get Away With It

One of the puzzles in the psychology of parish life is why—even when the evidence is plain and we know better—we tend to remain passive in the face of clergy misconduct. To be sure, not confronting bullying or other forms of abuse is not a unique failing of the Church. It is rather sadly a common social lapse and I’ve encountered it in business, academia and even among mental health professionals.

Before trying to answer why abusers get away with it, I should make an important distinction. Not every bully or abusive person is given a free pass. Anyone following the news in recent years knows that while they may have been, and still are, some missteps along the way, religious communities are responding more and more effectively to clerical sexual misconduct. In the main though, when abusive or bullying behavior is confronted it is typically confronted in group members who have a relatively low status.

No the real conundrum is not why do we punish the marginal pest but why we turn a blind eye to the leader who bullies, lies, cheats and abuses his (or her!) authority? Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Psychology and Ministry I: Anger and Spiritual Blindness

Now and then I’m asked to comment or consult on issues pertaining to psychology and the pastoral life of the Church. Not unexpectedly, I’ve noticed that I usually asked to offer assistance after something has gone wrong in a parish or the life of a clergyman. While I’m always happy to oblige and offer what help I can, I think prevent is better therapy than even the best psychological and pastoral response. My thinking on this isn’t profound—I just think it is better for people to grow and develop in a healthy fashion rather than not.

What I’ve also noticed is that for all the anthropological depth and sophistication of the Church’s tradition, we very easily fall into thinking about healthy parishes or clergy in merely functional terms. However understandable this is, a functional approach lends itself to thinking of psychological, spiritual or pastoral health as the absence of pathology or problems. But the absence of evidence, as the saying goes, is not evidence of absence. A merely functional approach to the psychology of pastoral care is simplistic. We not only cannot but must not assume, for example, that simply because a priest can serve Liturgy or the parish meets its financial obligations to the diocese that all is well. All may of course be well until it isn’t well and this is usually when my phone rings or an email appears in my inbox.

In this series of posts, I want to outline for you the psychological foundations of the spiritual life and pastoral care. As valuable as it is to focus on the various liturgical and practical skills needed for ministry, a merely functional approach invariable does violence to the person and so the parish. Why do I say this?

As I pointed out in an earlier post, sentimentality—the tendency to see the world of persons, events and things as I want them to be rather than as they are—is the source of violence in human affairs. This isn’t simply my view. In his discussion of the vice of anger, St John Cassian says that anger is not a matter of affect, that is of emotion, but of spiritual blindness. We all suffer from this blinding of “the eyes of our hearts” because of sin. As a consequence “we can neither discriminate what is for our good, nor achieve spiritual knowledge, nor fulfill our good intentions, nor participate in true life.” And all of this, the saint says, is because we are “impervious to the contemplation of the true, divine light” (“On the Eight Vices,” Philokalia, vol I, p. 82).

Without prejudice to divine grace or human freedom, my next post will look at the psychology of spiritual blindness. What are the personality or character traits of someone whose suffers from blindness of “the soul’s eyes”? Cassian offers us a hint when he says that the person so inflicted is held in the grip of his “own impassioned or self-indulgent thoughts” (p. 83).

After looking at the psychological of spiritual blindness, we’ll turn briefly to a description of the personality that is relatively free of anger. Again, Cassian offers us a hint as to what we are looking for when he say that we are healed of anger, we come to see spiritually in other words, not “through the patience which others show us, but through our long-suffering towards our neighbor” (p. 85). Again, without prejudice to divine grace or the practical skills ministry requires, the question here is what kind of personality is psychological able to be appropriately patient with others (and not incidentally, himself).

Building on this foundation, I will look at three different models of parish ministry: the passive, the functional and vocational.

Until then, and as always, your comments, questions, and criticisms are not only welcome but invited.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)