“Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. … [Charity] gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbor; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones).”

By Russell Shaw

Speaking to 800 priests at the shrine of Fatima in Portugal, the cardinal who heads the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy recently leveled criticism at priests for whom the priesthood has become “a kind of ecclesiastical profession which they carry out as civil servants.” Having only news reports to go on, I strongly suspect Cardinal Claudio Hummes said more than just that. I certainly hope so, because, although the comment contains much truth, it is seriously inadequate as it stands. In this current Year for Priests it’s important to point out why.

My biggest objection to the remark as reported concerns the slighting use of the expression “ecclesiastical profession.” What I suspect the cardinal meant — and what’s true enough — is that the priesthood isn’t just one more job alongside others. In making this perfectly reasonable point, however, it’s a mistake to say or imply that there’s something intrinsically wrong with, or at least inferior about, professions and jobs in general.

The Christian ideal of work is to do one’s job, whatever it may be, for the glory of God and the service of other human beings. Many people in many lines of work try to do exactly that each day. There is every reason for priests to try to do it, too. Looking down our noses at the notion of “profession” isn’t helpful to that.

Nor is it helpful to suggest that there’s something wrong with having priests approach their work with a professional attitude. To be professional means doing one’s best to meet high standards of excellence in one’s work. People who aren’t professional are prepared to settle for sloppy, careless, just-getting-by performance. Surely this is not what we want of our priests.

I also take exception to the slap at priests who function as “civil servants” in the Church. Over the years I’ve encountered many of these men in chancery offices, national organizations, the Holy See, and other settings, and — making allowance for the occasional time-server — I’ve found many to be admirable priests whose administrative tasks are as much an expression of their priestly commitment as preparing a homily or teaching a catechism class.

True, priests in this situation often feel a need for some form of directly pastoral work on the side — to keep their hand in, as it were — and I admire them for that. But this is not a reflection on their office work as such.

Around the time Cardinal Hummes made his remarks, Pope Benedict XVI also spoke to a group of Brazilian bishops about the priesthood. In this case, I have the advantage of having the full text of the pope’s remarks, and I find them notably more nuanced and helpful than the snippets attributed to the cardinal.

The pope’s central statement was this: “The role of the priest is essential and irreplaceable for the proclamation of the word and for the celebration of the sacraments.” That was said in the context of a discourse touching on questions raised about lay and clergy roles in the changing circumstances of today’s Church, including the shortage of priests in some places.

Against this background, Benedict insisted, there is need for a “harmonious, correct and clear deepening of the relationship between the common priesthood [the baptismal priesthood or priesthood of the faithful] and the ministerial [ordained] priesthood.” The more aware lay people become of their responsibilities in the Church, he said, “the more clearly stand out the priest’s identity and his irreplaceable role.”

Here’s a challenge and an opportunity for us all.

"Prof. Marci Hamilton of the Cardozo School of Law writes that the Stupak amendment 'violates the Constitution’s separation of church and state. The anti-abortion movement is plainly religious in motivation, and its lobbyists and spokespersons represent religious groups, as is illustrated by the fact that the most visible lobbyists in the Stupak Amendment’s favor have been the Catholic Bishops.'

"By this standard, Professor Hamilton would have to conclude that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is also unconstitutional. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference, along with other religious leaders and groups, led the fight for its enactment. 'We needed the help of the clergy, and this was assiduously encouraged,' said Senator Hubert Humphrey. 'I have said a number of times, and I repeat it now, that without the clergy, we couldn’t have possibly passed this bill.'"

"[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

"The committee’s narrowing of the exemption leaves religious organizations and individuals at risk for adhering to the teachings of their faith, and could prevent social service providers such as Catholic Charities from continuing their long-term partnerships with the District government to provide critical social services for thousands of the city’s most vulnerable residents.

"The bill provides no exemption for individuals with sincerely-held religious beliefs, as required under federal law. In fact, one council member opposed an amendment that would have respected an individual’s federally-protected, deeply-held religious beliefs by saying that would encourage a 'discriminatory impulse.'”

Dolan's Catholic Crusade: Uncle Tim has taken off the gloves in his fight for the Church

"And in this despair, in advocating the use of the death penalty, our society has moved beyond the legitimate judgment of crimes," Bishop Loverde wrote in the Nov. 5 issue of the Arlington Catholic Herald. "Brothers and sisters, we are better than this. We are called to be more than slaves to despair; we are called to be heralds of hope."

"It is understandable for us -- all of us, myself included -- to have these reactions, and to be outraged at the way in which innocent lives were so senselessly taken, with their families left to mourn and to ask questions which have no satisfactory answers...We are called to choose hope -- hope in redemption of an immortal soul -- over the despair embedded in the death penalty."

By Russell Shaw

For me at least, the most dismaying thing about criticism of Pope Benedict XVI’s plan for easing the way for Anglicans who seek to enter the Roman Catholic Church is the critics’ apparent indifference to the spiritual welfare of these Anglicans. As a consequence, a compassionate gesture by Rome is smeared as something sinister.

Clueless as usual where Catholicism is concerned, the secular media have tended to treat Benedict’s action in political terms, as a power grab. This interpretation ignores the fact that the Anglican traditionalists most likely to take advantage of the new provision for “personal ordinariates” have been pleading for something like this for years. The pope has simply responded to those pleas.

But secular journalists aren’t the only ones to get it wrong. Catholic voices also have been raised in this chorus of callousness. Consider the final paragraph of an article in the London Tablet, a reliable platform for progressive Catholic views: “It is hard to see how this new development will do anything but further sow division in the Anglican Communion and confusion among Catholics who have long been committed to the work of ecumenism.”

As to Anglican “division”: The departure of Anglicans who’ve anguished for a long time over the direction of their fractured communion is much more likely to restore a semblance of unity to that deeply troubled body than it is to create more division.

As to Catholic “confusion”: The confusion admittedly felt by many Catholics about the nature and intent of ecumenism is largely a product of a post-Vatican II interpretation that reduces the ecumenical enterprise to endless dialogue leading — God knows how — to some sort of corporate merger in an unimaginable future. Confusion is a mild word for it.

Most of all, though, such critical comments miss the fundamental point — the relief potentially afforded to those Anglican groups most directly affected by Benedict’s generous gesture. That is best understood in human terms.

A year ago in Rome I had a substantial chat with an Anglican woman who is a member of one of these groups. Moved by her faith and her ardent desire for communion with the Holy See, I told her at the end of our conversation: “I can only hope and pray that you get what you want — and get it soon.”

It’s often said that conservative Anglicans are upset about things like women bishops and openly homosexual bishops. No doubt they are. But much else is involved.

Several years ago an American woman — a contented member of the Episcopal Church — told me an anecdote concerning an Episcopal clergyman which she insisted was true. It seems that this gentleman, in a fit of whimsy, was seen one day to give communion to a dog. The lady seemed to think that was just fine. I was appalled — at what had happened, at her approval of it, and at what it disclosed concerning the state of Episcopalian belief in the Eucharist.

A man who’d been an Episcopalian for years but finally came over to Rome once shared a useful insight with me. “The trouble with those people,” he said of his former co-religionists, “is that they’re sentimental.”

A number of present Anglicans seem to agree. I am glad that Pope Benedict has offered these troubled believers a congenial way out of the dilemma in which their sentimental Anglican brethren placed them. As for those who don’t like what the pope has done, I suggest they remove their blinders and congratulate him on an act of Christian charity.

Russell Shaw is an OSV contributing editor.

“The vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like ‘ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘incarnate,’ ‘inviolate,’ ‘oblation,’ ‘ignominy,’ ‘precursor,’ ‘suffused’ and ‘unvanquished.’ The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic,” Bishop Trautman said at an Oct. 22 lecture at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., as reported by CNS. “The (Second Vatican Council’s) Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language,” he added. “Did Jesus ever speak to the people of his day in words beyond their comprehension? Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer’s understanding?”