There are various ways one might understand ‘instability’. When turned into an adjective – unstable – what comes first to mind is the mental sort. There is also doctrinal instability, following the vagaries of the age. We may also think of the emotional roller coast of life, with its ups and downs, highs and lows. And, of course, spiritual instability, an inability, for whatever reason, to stay the course in our relation to God and His laws.
Here, however, we offer a few words about physical instability, with which these other instabilities are not unconnected. I’ve been meaning to do so for some time, at least since an article by Frank deVito back in the beginning of June on ‘An Unstable Clergy’ put my own thoughts into form. I too have often wondered why priests get moved around so much, with an unwritten custom that they must be transferred at least every six years, if not sooner, for reasons that are never fully spelled out. Perhaps so they don’t get too attached to their parishioners, or they to their priest, lest some sort of ‘cult of personality’ develops. Perhaps so the priests get different ‘experiences’, to train them in different, shall we say, liturgies. Maybe it’s just expediency, as needs change and develop.
But Mr. DeVito is right: What we lose in all this is a sense of stable fatherhood, if that is not redundant, for insofar as any fatherhood is unstable, uncertain, and constantly changing, it is that much less ‘fatherhood’. Do we swap out our own biological dads every six years? Why so our spiritual ones? If a priest is truly the father of a parish family – and what else is he, if he is not? – should they not be treated like our own families?
Look at the list of parish priests in your own parish, if such is posted. You will notice tenures lasting for ten, twenty years or more.
Priests now regularly get moved around, and long tenures rare indeed. My intention here is not to criticize the manifold reasons for this, in dioceses which are woefully understaffed, with new exigencies, and things far more fluid than they once were. My point is only to suggest that we reconsider that original stability of the diocesan priesthood, the loss of which is especially difficult on those starting out in their vocation. They get to a parish, build up a life, altar boys, lectors, choirs, friendships with local families, to say nothing of settling into their churches and rectories, shaping them according to what they hope is most conducive to their pastoral work, hic et nunc, getting to know people and the local history, those who attend Mass and those who don’t, some of the reasons for both. They evangelize, and it’s all quite fitting and nourishing to the diocesan priestly life as they care for the souls in their charge.
Then, after a few years, they’re moved, and have to start all over again. And a new priest has to move into what another has built up, with his own new ideas and ways.
Mr. deVito is also right: There is nothing in canon law that mandates the transfer of priests after a certain time. In fact, quite the contrary. The old Code – 1917 – presupposed the stability of priests, a custom had merit, as does most tradition. I heard of one old priest who was appointed under the old Code, and appealed his proposed transfer Rome using the old Code. He won, and he’s still in his parish.
Whatever the truth of this story, I’m not advocating such, for priests take a promise of obedience to their bishop, which they should take seriously. God will bring good out of whatever sacrifices must be made. Still, diocesan priests are not meant to be ‘missionary’, in the sense of always being sent to new places to evangelize and constantly on the move. Even missionary priests have their own forms of stability, some staying with their ‘people’ for an entire lifetime.
It used to be that the young curate who baptized you was also the one who blessed your marriage and prepared you for judgement at the end of your earthly pilgrimage. Like your biological father, you grew old(er) together.
Now we have multiple spiritual fathers in succession, all likely of different ages, backgrounds, nationalities, cultures, and who all have different views, not least in liturgical proclivities. What’s in today is out tomorrow.
Saint Jean-Marie Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests, who spent almost all his priestly life in the parish of Saint Sixtus in Ars, from 1818 to his death in 1859. He knew everyone, and everyone knew him. His example radiated far and wide – he was a saint, after all – but even a local hero is still a hero. And do not all heroes begin and end in a place?
A return to greater stability in the priesthood would signify a more personal fatherhood, which would be of benefit to the priest’s own soul, as well as the souls they, like the good CurĂ©, are meant to lead from earth to heaven.
