Some expert(?) comment... (Priesthood Discussion)

by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Saturday, March 21, 2009, 23:30 (1522 days ago) @ PeterR

It's interesting that earlier today I was reading the section of Paul Collins' book "Believers" where he has some things to say on this subject that might be of relevance to this discussion. In this part of the book Paul Collins is discussing the general question of the shortage of priests and the way Pastoral Associates are having to take over much of the work of priests in many places across Australia. In this part I'm quoting his focus is on the specific question of the qualification for Ministry and quotes two theologians. John N Collins (no relation to Paul) and Edward Schillebeeckx are two of the "experts" Paul turns to for a view...

Part of the difficulty in identifying PAs (Pastoral Associates) arises from the ambiguity that surrounds the use of the word 'ministry'. Despite the fact that almost everyone nowadays with some theological education talks about Christians having a 'ministry', church officials are wary about the word and usually only apply it to ordained ministry. Bishops, priests and deacons have a 'ministry'; the best laypeople can hope for is an 'apostolate'.

In Greek the word is diakonia, meaning both ministry and service. It is common in the New Testament. The problem is that within Catholicism since Vatican II the meaning of the word has been over-extended and the term itself overused. Listening to some people nowadays you would think that everybody in the church has a 'ministry', from the pope to the humblest member. What has happened is the word has been used as though everything that the Christian did, whether it was within the context of the church or not, was 'ministry'. In other words 'ministry' is evacuated of all meaning. Further confusion has arisen because in common parlance we have lost the distinction between discipleship and ministry. Every baptised person is a disciple of Jesus and has a general mission to serve others and proclaim their faith in the risen Christ, but that is not the same as being a minister. In the New Testament the word 'ministry' has a more specific meaning.

Australian theologian John N Collins in a detailed study has established the meaning of the term diakonia in the New Testament[19]. For Collins being a disciple is not the same as a minister, and he maintains that far too much emphasis has been placed on the notion of ministry as humble and lowly service to others. Part of the problem is that we read back into and impose upon the New Testament our contemporary interest in social welfare activities and care for the poorest. Collins says that being a minister in the New Testament's understanding meant that a person was called by God and the church to a public role in the proclamation of the gospel and celebration of the sacraments and that the role didn't necessarily imply a menial or lowly status. In fact it might even denote a person of significance, just as we use the word 'minister' today to denote someone of cabinet rank. In the early church people acting as ministers were not only officially appointed, but were subject to accountability and oversight. So when asked 'Are all Christians ministers?' Collins unequivocally answers 'No.'[20]

Some are critical of Collins' views on ministry because he clearly disagrees with the popular and widespread interpretation of ministry in progressive church parlance where everyone is a 'minister'. He limits the word to those individuals called to specific ministries. At first sight it seems that Collins is supportive of an almost hierarchical understanding of ministry in contrast to those at the more Protestant end of the spectrum who argue that baptism qualifies all Christians for ministry. Such an interpretation is to misunderstand Collins completely. Essentially he is arguing for a more exact use of the word to apply where the minister, whether man or woman, is called and commissioned by God through the church and the community to carry out a specific task which often has leadership or educational implications.

The context of ministry is always the church community. The minister is called to serve the community or to go out as a representative from it. It is the community that is basic and all Christian ministry is a service to it or an expression of it. The church is grounded in a community of equal disciples all of whom have the potentiality to be called to ministry. Ordination in the early church was specifically aligned to the community. That is a person was called and ordained to serve this community. That made sense in small urban communities in the late Roman world or in the early medieval world where travel was less common. To some extent this practise survives with diocesan priests tied through incardination to their diocese, but the problem is that theologically the emphasis nowadays is on that aspect of ordination which separates the ordained man from the community. It is seen as something 'absolute', something that ontologically changes the inner self of the ordinand. 'Once a priest, always a priest', as the saying goes.

Edward Schillebeeckx has shown that absolute ordination is contrary to the practise of the New Testament and the early church, which saw this sacrament as intimately related to the service of a particular community. This reveals the anomaly of moving priests around the world, usually from Africa and Asia to work in places where there is a so-called shortage of priests. As Schillebeeckx argues, there are always leaders and ministers already available, both men and women, but because of their blinkers about 'absolute' ordination and the requirement of celibacy the papacy and many of the bishops won't recognise them. Schillebeeckx doesn't mince matters: 'According to the views of the ancient church a shortage of priests was an ecclesiastical impossibility. The modern so-called shortage of priests therefore stands to be criticised in the light of the ancient church's view ... because the modern shortage has causes which stem from outside the ministry'; that is requirements like celibacy, seminary formation apart from the local community, and male gender issues.[21] The problem is not the Spirit of God who constantly raises up leaders for the local church, but obstacles falsely imposed by church law in the process of clericalising the ministry.

So what does all of this have to do with PAs? It means that the Holy Spirit has already provided leadership for the church which simply needs to be recognised, formed and commissioned. A PA in a parish has a specific and official task and this person is, in a proper theological sense, a minister and leader. PAs are not just lay replacements for the priest shortage, but Catholics with clear, specific and commissioned tasks. [Emphasis added]

[19] John N Collins, Diakonia: Reinterpreting the Ancient Sources, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990 and Are All Christians Ministers?, Sydney: EJ Dwyer and David Lovell, 1992. Although I have known John for many years, he is not a relation.
[20]Collins, Are All Christians Ministers? p1
[21]Schillebeeckx, Ministry, pp72-73

I think Paul Collins puts forward a powerful argument that the so-called "crisis" in Catholicism in this country is largely artificial and as much a product of recent mismanagement of the institution by the papal leadership of the last two centuries as much as it has been created by forces external to the church. If we could somehow shake this "clerical culture" and get back to the original vision of what priesthood and episcopal leadership was perceived to be in the early church we would not have a crisis. This was not some "free-for-all" — the people chosen to lead did need qualifications. They were just different kinds of qualifications to those that developed under the clerical culture. That entire Chapter of Paul's book, Chapter 5, How Should the Church Respond? is well worth studying.

Paul Collins, Believers: Does Australian Catholicism Have a Future?, UNSWPress. 2008 pp131-133

Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]