When a Diocese Undermines Its Own Vocations

His Lordship's motto is Duc in altum. He has certainly put out into the depths of idiocy in his attempts to destroy the Church in the Diocese of Charlotte.

From Crisis

By Sarah Cain

Bishop Martin of Charlotte is seeking to impose 'a year as a layman' before priestly ordination. This is like an engaged man living an additional year as a bachelor before his wedding day.

One of the measures of the success of a diocese is the number of its seminarians because they reflect a spiritual ecology. If young people are not willing to give their lives in service to God when they hear the call, then either they are not listening for it or their environment represents an obstacle. But how ought we respond when a diocese actively sabotages what was working?

The vocations initiative in the Diocese of Charlotte has been thriving for well over a decade. Under the former bishop (Bishop Jugis), dozens of young men entered the minor seminary that was built in Belmont, North Carolina. The young men who entered provided their stories in publicly available videos or via miniature biographies in the diocesan newspaper. Each young man explained how he heard the call to the priesthood, when he knew, what his family was like, etc. 

One cannot help noticing the similarities between them: they come from large Catholic families, are overwhelmingly homeschooled, had regular access to Eucharistic adoration, went to reverent parishes, and so on. With the aid of that program, they emerged as orthodox, motivated, zealous priests who celebrate reverent liturgies themselves. 

The new and already infamous Bishop Michael Martin began by targeting the reverent churches that have produced vocations, and he has now turned to target the seminarians themselves. He wishes to delay the ordination of young men by a year, forcing them to work as lay teachers midway through the seminary program. After they have received their bachelor’s degree in philosophy through Belmont Abbey College, and before they begin their theology education for their master’s, they will work as teachers in diocesan schools.
During this time, they will not be allowed to wear clerical garb, ditching the cassocks that they had hitherto worn, and will live as lay people in the local rectory. They will pay rent and receive a paycheck in the ordinary manner of a first-year teacher. Most of them would be tasked with teaching religion classes at middle and high schools, though the majority of their theology education has not yet been undertaken. Euphemistically, this is being referred to as a “pastoral year.”

While some priests or seminarians might thrive in a classroom, it is not their primary duty. So, those not suited to such an environment are needlessly delayed and demoralized for a year in regard to their actual vocation. Ultimately, it prompts the question: Is it not enough to be a priest?

It is a distortion to pretend that lay functions must be added to a priest’s repertoire in order for him to fulfill his vocation. While each priest, by virtue of being human, will have different strengths and affinities, it is not the case that these features are a requirement for his priesthood. They are, instead, the avenues through which he might best live that out. This speaks to a theological confusion of incidental skills versus constitutive identity. Having useful skills in the classroom (or elsewhere) does not create priesthood—ordination does.

There is a spiritual harm in undermining the magnanimity of the priesthood itself—the whole sacrifice of the man, the ability to be a conduit of God’s grace through the sacraments, and, of course, his participation in the sacrifice of Christ. There is no parallel to that. The diminishment of the priesthood to that of the ordinary does harm to us all.

Fr. John Eckert, the new vocations director, defended the decision in the diocesan newspaper by stating, “One side benefit of the pastoral year is to help form priests who are relatable and grounded in the lived realities of parishioners.” But parishioners don’t need priests to be more like us in worldliness. We need them to be an Alter Christus, another Christ, and to live in rejection of the world (and the brokenness of those “lived realities”). By not being sullied, they show us a slice of another Kingdom. Priests accompany the laity precisely by not being immersed in the same worldliness; they perform a role different from one’s friends, family, or coworkers.

If we reenvision these young men to be less like priests and more like administrators, it shouldn’t surprise us if they ultimately choose to administrate companies that offer large salaries instead. After all, that would be the epitome of relatability.

If the vision of a seminary is to surround young men with others who are discerning the same call, to immerse them in an environment of prayer, and to help them to be more open to God’s plan for their lives, then this seems to be a clear opposite. This path isolates them from those who are discerning the same call and who share their passion for the Lord, keeps them too busy for regular participation in the Divine Office, and sends them to the primary breeding ground of fallen-away Catholics—diocesan schools. After all, “He went to Catholic school, you know” has become a punch line about those who know nothing and care nothing for the Faith that they abandoned in deed if not also in name.

Some of these young men will find themselves sharing a rectory with an unambitious and burned-out pastor, far from consolation, and dealing with middle/high schoolers each day, worrying about a paycheck. A cynic could opine that we are punishing those who are trying to say yes to God with the self-offering of their lives. 

Even if practicality were our only consideration, this plan fails that placid benchmark too. It is known to be disruptive for schools and students when teachers are present for only one year. Furthermore, even those who plan to become schoolteachers typically struggle through the first year before they find their stride. It is a demanding and draining experience, and it is not for everyone. 

All of this must cause us to ask: Why target what was working? The Charlotte Diocese was thriving prior to its new bishop, as was its vocations program. With the targeting of reverent liturgies and now the seminarians, Bishop Martin could be accused of targeting success itself.

We should rejoice in how these men have rejected the offerings of the world and turned to God to say, “You are enough for me.” Instead, we are asking them to conform to become more worldly, more typical. We have plenty of that in our own lived experiences, but the priesthood is extraordinary precisely because it points beyond the ordinary. When we deny its vertical, sacrificial character, we do not make it healthier, we make it smaller. A diminished priesthood can never sustain a Church that is meant to proclaim eternity.