The Priestly Vocation Part 4

If these representations are made in a proper spirit, and with due submission, they ought not to form an act of hostility: on the contrary, they may in fact be the highest form of obedience, for the priest in this manner may put before his Bishop facts of which he was unaware, or considerations which had not occurred to him. In the great majority of cases an understanding may be arrived at in this manner.

In the few instances in which the Bishop does not modify his action and the priest remains of the same opinion, it may be necessary to carry the matter further. If so, the spirit of charity becomes doubly needful. No word of "tyranny" or "injustice" or "ill-temper" applied to his superior should escape him, and a favourable interpretation should always be given to his superior's actions. Let the appellant priest fortify himself continually with prayer, so as to obtain the gift of counsel, and let this be joined to a special intercession on behalf of the superior against whom he is acting. These are ordinary means for ensuing his purity of intention; and if these means alone are taken, we may be confident as to the result. For whatever the final verdict may be, if we have taken the requisite precautions, it will be a victory, for G.o.d's will is done. When the late Cardinal Vaughan, then Bishop of Salford, had his long dispute with the Jesuits in Rome, when the letter came to him announcing the result, before he opened it, while still ignorant of its contents, he went to the tomb of St. Peter to return thanks.

Alas, that this spirit is so often wanting in the appeals of our clergy.

All those who are acquainted with the Holy See will bear witness to the readiness to hear the appeal of the weak against the strong, and all such appeals have sympathetic consideration. The fact that the majority of them go in favour of the Bishops is an unfortunate testimony to the frequent insufficiency of the grounds of appeal, and indicates a want of the spirit of obedience.

Such, however, is not always the case, and one can point to instances in which the appeal has been conscientiously made, even though it proved unsuccessful, and some also in which the verdict has been in favour of the priest and against his superior. In such rare cases, it is hardly necessary to add there must be no note of triumph or of self-congratulation. A disagreeable duty has been done, and properly accomplished, and we go back ready to resume our work for G.o.d and souls.

But it is not necessary to dwell on this eventuality, considering how exceedingly rare is its occurrence. Let us end as we began by alluding to the words at our Ordination:--

"While the sacred body and blood of Christ are still within him, he gives his newly consecrated hands into the hands of the Bishop, who says: 'Promittis mihi et successoribus meis reverentiam et obedientiam?'

To which he replies 'Promitto.' And as the personal fruit of obedience is peace of conscience and the peace of G.o.d, the bishop adds, 'Pax Domini sit semper tec.u.m.'

"The formal acceptance by the Church of the solemn promise of obedience made by the priest contains an a.s.surance and a pledge full of encouragement and consolation to the priest himself.

"He is an officer in the army of Christ: he has promised loyalty and obedience. All the works of his ministry undertaken in obedience to his Bishop, or in conformity with the discipline and canons of the service are henceforth to be accounted not as private and particular works, but as works belonging to the Christian ministry. They are of a higher order; they are the works of Christ Himself, and deserve a special reward." [5]

[1] _Fifth Treatise_, chapter vi.

[2] It is not intended to deny that there are cases in which a religious has to use initiative or judgment when under orders: but it can hardly be questioned that the other is the ordinary course of things; and that while a secular priest has to use his judgment and initiative far more, he has proportionately less guidance in the way of command. He has to depend on his own judgment; yet all the time his decisions must be actuated by submission and obedience.

[3] St. Matt. xii. 34.

[4] _The Young Priest_, p. 116.

[5] Cardinal Vaughan, _The Young Priest_, p. 119.

APPENDIX ON OBEDIENCE AT THE SEMINARY

IT would seem at first sight an anomaly that if the obedience practised by a secular priest is so different from that of a religious, in the time of preparation at the Seminary the life is modelled on that of a religious congregation; for, although it is no doubt easy compared with that of any religious Order, it is, nevertheless, of much the same character, and the occasions of practising obedience in a Seminary are very similar to those in a monastery. There are fixed hours for rising, for prayers and ma.s.s, for study, recreation and meals, and there are times of silence--as after night prayers, or before the morning meditation. The students are, in fact, expected continually to obey the bell as it calls them from one duty to another in much the same way as a religious does. Why, it may be asked, if their future obedience and future life are to be so different from that of a religious are they asked to go through a daily routine at the Seminary which seems to be based on theirs, or at least to be similar to it?

This is a pertinent and natural question; but the answer is simple. The essential difference is that one is permanent and the other temporary. A Seminarist is called upon to exercise the easier forms of obedience, to train him for the harder. He leads a regular daily life, in obedience to authority made known to us by definite commands and by fixed rules, in order that he may acquire a habit of submission which may give him his tone when he shall have gone forth from the Seminary and have no such definite rules or commands to guide him.

It is this consideration which gives the true importance to the daily observance of such rules as he has. We sometimes hear the question, "Is it a sin to break a rule?" Surely this is looking at the question from an unworthy standpoint. Theologians say that it is not a sin even for a religious who has taken a special vow of obedience to break a small point of his rule; much less can it be a sin for a Seminarist, who has taken no such vow. But there is a higher way of looking at it than this.

It is not a question whether this or that isolated rule binds under sin; the question is rather how the Seminarist's general att.i.tude towards the rules is affecting his training, how far the object for which they have been imposed upon him is attained, or how far impeded, by the spirit in which he accepts them. The proper spirit should be something of this kind. He has come to the Seminary to undergo a definite training, which is administered by those set over him, through the instrumentality of the rules. It is the traditional Catholic training, which has formed holy priests and even saints. All the incidents of his daily life are part and parcel of it. To neglect or put aside any of them deliberately is to put aside part of that training, with its corresponding means of sanctification, both natural and supernatural. To put it on its lowest grounds, he cannot afford to lose it.

Indeed, one would hope that a well-behaved Seminarist would never deliberately and of set purpose break rules. Small failings through thoughtlessness, or in the weakness of the moment, are indeed excusable; but that is essentially different from open and premeditated breaches of discipline. A Seminarist who frequently fails to come down in the morning, or who evades his work when he conveniently can, who is slack and unpunctual at his various duties, is misusing his time and omitting that which the Church and his Bishop reasonably expect him to do. He may be clever enough to conceal his idleness; he may even after an ill-spent term make up time and pa.s.s his examinations by cramming up at the end-- for which some have a great facility; but he will never make up the training he has lost, nor will he obtain the graces which would have been his had he used the means which G.o.d gave him to obtain them.

Moreover, the spirit of obedience or disobedience in community life is very catching. One grumbler will make many. The Seminarist owes a duty to the inst.i.tution which has done and is doing so much for him, to set up a high ideal for himself which will spread itself to others and affect the whole life led within the walls of the Seminary. It is a duty which he owes to his Bishop and likewise to his fellow students.

This whole question is so vital to the life of the Seminary that we may be excused for appealing to high authority in support of what has been said. In his _Lex Levitarum_, the late Bishop Hedley discusses it at some length, and all that he says will repay careful reading. His first conclusion is that although single rules can in single cases be broken without sin, "It is sinful and a sin against obedience to violate them in grave matters, or with a persistence which causes grave results in the house. But," he continues, "the aspirant to the holy priesthood should take a higher view of the rules of his Seminary. They are, indeed, not fetters to bind his liberty, but steps or occasions to deepen his purity of heart, and his love of his heavenly Father. In themselves they are wise and useful, tending to the well-being of each individual. Even therefore if they carried no obligation, it would be the part of a true servant of G.o.d to observe them religiously. Obedience is the most essential virtue of a heart which aspires to imitate Jesus Christ; a real, interior obedience, not merely external, but grounded upon general humility of heart. It is obedience which most effectively clothes the spirit with the mind and temper of Christ. It is obedience which has the promise of victory over pa.s.sion, and of success in the ministry of souls. To promote and to deepen in the character the spirit of obedience is certainly one of the princ.i.p.al purposes of the training of a priest. . . . A life of rule which is accepted and loved is the very best preparation for the priesthood because it is the very best discipline of a truly Christ-like mind, and the most effective instrument for acquiring perfection." [1]

[1] Lex Levitarum, p. 67.

CONFERENCE VI

THE RELIGIOUS EXERCISES OF THE PRIEST

THERE is a sense in which it may be said that the religious exercises of a secular priest are of more importance than those of a religious; for he has no definite rule to impose most of them upon him, while from the nature of his life they often have to give way before the pressure of work. It has been said that the sanctification of a religious is effected primarily by his religious exercises, and secondarily by his work; but that of a secular is effected primarily by his work and only secondarily by his religious exercises. Of course in those exact words we cannot accept the statement: it is something of a paradox; but a paradox usually covers a real truth, and in this case the truth is that there is always a danger of a secular priest failing to realise the necessity for such regular exercises from the fact of their having so often to be postponed or curtailed or even omitted in favour of works of charity, and from having no regular binding rule for any except the recitation of the Divine Office. There may indeed be individual days when a priest dispenses himself from all else: but as a regular practice, he well knows that other exercises are an absolute necessity if he is to lead a priestly life.

In the new Codex of Canon Law, for the first time we find an enumeration of the exercises expected of a priest [1]--not indeed binding under sin, but the norm put before us by the Church--_ratione sacerdotii_. They include, besides his ma.s.s and Office, daily Meditation, Rosary, visit to the Blessed Sacrament, and Examination of Conscience, and a Retreat at least every third year. It may be well to take these in order and say a few words about each.

_Ma.s.s_

There is no need to emphasise the power and consolation to a priest of his daily ma.s.s. It is the direct object of his priesthood and the one which he is least likely to allow to pa.s.s out of his mind. In view of his being a priest, he is bound to offer the Holy Sacrifice on Sundays and on the chief feasts of the year [2]--Christmas, Easter, etc. In practice in this country, he is usually bound, _ratione officii_, to celebrate much more often: in many cases daily ma.s.s is his duty; in almost all, several times a week is his minimum. One result of this is a tendency to look on his ma.s.s as a duty for the sake of the people who hear it and to lose sight in some degree of its effect on himself. In days gone by when daily ma.s.s was not usual, we have stories told of how a travelling priest or a French _emigre_ might come in and ask to say ma.s.s, and the priest who was actually vesting for the parish ma.s.s, would let the visiting priest say it, and himself go to breakfast. Happily, however, this state of things has pa.s.sed away. At the present day the vast majority of the clergy are only too pleased to celebrate daily.

They may indeed like to omit a morning occasionally, while on a holiday: possibly they are sometimes over free in giving themselves a rest out of holiday time: but this is the exception. Even the practice recommended by St. Alphonsus of omitting one day in every week out of reverence, now seems to be a thing of the past: the movement of Pius X in favour of frequent or daily communion seems to have swept away the last trace of it. At any rate, most priests of necessity, and others by preference, usually celebrate daily, and no reform is called for in this respect.

When, however, we come to the circ.u.mstances of celebration, we find a good deal calling for attention. There are indeed many priests who begin the day with mental prayer, and say the Preparation for ma.s.s, so that when the time comes they are ready to celebrate with devotion: but there are many who do not act so well. Dr. Grant, the first Bishop of Southwark, used to lament the number of priests who came straight from their bedrooms to the altar, and he would quote this as one of the greatest obstacles to the spread of Catholicity in this country. It is manifest that such a practice is fatal to the devout celebration of the Holy Mysteries. The new Codex of Canon Law has drawn special attention to this by enacting that a priest should make a proper preparation and thanksgiving as of obligation. [3]

Yet there are often practical difficulties about a satisfactory reform in this matter. Those who say ma.s.s at a convent, for example, are in nearly every case expected at an early hour, and on arrival are usually shown into the sacristy as a matter of course; to get up sufficiently soon to have time to spare needs considerable stimulus. A difficulty of the opposite kind is created when a priest has to say a late ma.s.s, whether on a weekday or a Sunday. He naturally makes it the occasion of a long rest, and too often prolongs it to the very last minute, arriving in the sacristy only just in time to vest. If it is a Sunday, and he is duplicating, he makes that an excuse for sparing himself, so that he may not be over fatigued.

Neither of these difficulties are insuperable; but in practice they commonly hold the field. Without any drastic remedies, however, it is sometimes possible to suggest at least a partial way out of the difficulty. A priest who has to walk some distance to the convent, for example, may well keep up a state of recollection during his journey, and when he knows the liturgical prayers by heart, he can usually say them on the way. But after all, the proper remedy is to rise a little earlier, so as to make his preparation either in the sacristy or even on a _prie-Dieu_ in the convent chapel, [4] which the nuns will very willingly provide if asked. And in this case he need not limit himself to the liturgical "Preparation." Still more easily can he, if only he adverts to the necessity, come down for a late ma.s.s some little time before he has to vest. And for the ordinary parish ma.s.ses he can do the same, if only he is sufficiently serious-minded to do it; and he will be well rewarded in the additional fervour which he will bring to his ma.s.s.

Nor should we omit an allusion to the negative preparation, which consists in avoiding all kinds of distraction before ma.s.s. To refrain from reading one's letters, even before a very late ma.s.s, is a practice the very definiteness of which makes it easy to perform. In similar way every kind of arrangement for the work of the day, or any unnecessary speaking or intercourse with others should be strictly avoided.

With respect to thanksgiving after ma.s.s, there is less to be said, as the temptation to omit or curtail it is less. It is regularly looked for and expected wherever the priest goes. The importance of a good thanksgiving, to gather up the fruit of the ma.s.s, can hardly be overestimated. Hence when a priest has to take Communion to the sick-- which he so often does after ma.s.s--it does not seem much to ask that he should allow at least a few minutes to pa.s.s for his direct thanksgiving: after which he can well continue and complete it as he carries his Lord through the streets to the house of the sick man. It is not too much to say that his fervour as a priest will be the reflection of that of his daily ma.s.s, and the manner in which he says ma.s.s will depend on his preparation and thanksgiving.

With respect to the intention for which ma.s.s is offered, in a populous mission that almost settles itself, as our paris.h.i.+oners have the first right to our ma.s.ses, within reasonable limits. But a priest would do well to keep a certain number at his own disposal, in order to foster the spirit of his piety. And every priest should from time to time say ma.s.s for his people. This is now laid as an obligation on those rectors of missions who have by recent legislation become _parochi_, on all Sundays and holidays, including the suppressed feasts. For others it is still a matter of option; yet one would think that a priest's own interest in his work would suggest to him the propriety of doing so at least occasionally. It sounds strange to hear many priests regret the obligation and refuse to comply with it unless it can be shown to be absolutely binding. It would have appeared that if a priest has a proper spirit of zeal, the one end of his life would be the sanctification of his people, or those among whom he works. They have few enough prayers offered for them: one would have thought that an occasional ma.s.s would have been freely offered by the priest as a privilege. Unfortunately the question of income comes in, and many a priest hesitates between the two motives. Yet even in the ma.s.ses which his paris.h.i.+oners ask him to say, some have to be without a stipendium, and this ought to be so, to prevent the danger of the mercenary spirit over-running his better instincts.

It remains to say something on the manner of saying ma.s.s. There is no necessity to labour the fact that the rubrics ought to be faithfully observed, for they are commonly considered to bind under sin. Yet consistently with observing them it is possible to be either unduly long or unduly short. Both are objectionable from different points of view. A priest who takes from half an hour to forty minutes will prevent many who could otherwise attend from hearing ma.s.s; while one who gets through in a quarter of an hour will give no small scandal. The rule sometimes given of thirty minutes "from amice to amice" means about twenty-five minutes at the altar, and it is a reasonable allowance. But, after all, the actual time consumed is of less importance than the manner of celebrating. Some people have a rapid utterance; others are quick in their movements; others again save much time by not dawdling, but proceeding from one act direct to the next. Others, however, are by nature slow, and inclined to be hesitating in their action. Due allowance must be made for difference of temperament in this regard, so that no strict limit can be laid down. Even the well-known rule of St.

Alphonsus that a priest must occupy at least a quarter of an hour is not always a safe minimum; for it must be remembered that on different days ma.s.ses vary considerably in length. A short ferial ma.s.s without _Gloria_ or _Credo_, especially if there is no _Imperata_ prayer, or a _Missa Quotidiana_ for the Dead, omitting the _Dies Irae_, are instances of very short ma.s.ses which might take less than twenty minutes. The really important thing is that ma.s.s should be offered by the priest with dignity and recollection, as though conscious of the greatness of the act, a spirit which will show itself in every movement and gesture, and help the devotion both of him who celebrates and those who a.s.sist.

A word ought to be added about reading the Latin audibly. The late Pope tried to reintroduce the practice of the faithful following the liturgical prayers, etc. Undoubtedly this is a good method of hearing ma.s.s, though it had fallen largely into disuse. It can hardly be said that the Pope's wishes have led to any substantial result, and the reason is not far to seek. For the tradition of saying ma.s.s in an audible tone, such that even those near can follow, has almost entirely died out. In the vast majority of instances, the priest reads the Latin rapidly, and in a tone of voice that effectually precludes anyone hearing him. It seems sometimes as though his special object was to prevent anyone from following. Now there are other ways of hearing ma.s.s which do not need attending to the words, such as saying the Rosary, reciting Office, or private prayers, or using the prayers in the _Garden of the Soul_ or other book. The first of these methods has been especially approved by being actually commanded by ecclesiastical authority for the month of October in every year. Nevertheless, it is not too much to say that those who prefer what many people consider to be the highest way of a.s.sisting at ma.s.s, have a right to do so, and it is the priest's duty to enable himself by practice to read the Latin in a tone which can be heard at least by those around him. We say deliberately "by practice," for the power to read Latin audibly and intelligibly is not so easy as many people seem to think, and requires considerable trouble to acquire.

The above of course only applies to a congregational ma.s.s: those who celebrate privately at a side altar will naturally speak in a low tone of voice, so as not to disturb their neighbours. Even they, however, should be practised in reading Latin, so as to read it intelligibly to themselves, for the liturgical prayers should be a great aid to their own devotion. The old habit of saying a black ma.s.s on every free day is now almost obsolete; and it has been replaced by the various concessions of Pope Pius X with respect to certain days, on which we may either say ma.s.s _de Tempore_ or _de Sanctis_; and occasionally, as in a vigil in Advent, three different ma.s.ses are possible. All this helps to the appreciation of the liturgy, and should be used by the priest for that purpose.

_Mental Prayer_

It is admitted by all that a priest must be supereminently a man of prayer, and that the most important form of prayer, both in obtaining what we ask for and in its reaction upon ourselves, is Mental Prayer: yet, strange to say, of all the priest's duties, that of Mental Prayer is the one which is unfortunately too often put in a secondary place, or even neglected altogether. The name usually given to it--Meditation--is unattractive and misleading. It seems to put before one the idea of day-dreaming, and it is possible that all the practice of several years at least in the Seminary has not fully dispelled this idea. In point of fact, the Meditation is only one part, and that by no means the most important, of systematic Mental Prayer. It is a means to an end. Mental Prayer may be defined simply as prayer without a set form of words, and the Meditation is that which is usually--though not always--necessary to set the mind and heart in motion; but the end to be obtained consists of the aspirations of the heart and the acts of the will. It is these which make St. Alphonsus say that it cannot co-exist with sin; [5] and to promise that anyone who practises Mental Prayer for half an hour daily will certainly save his soul.

It is to be hoped that now the Church has laid it down definitely as part of a priest's daily duty, greater strictness may be observed by our clergy in practising it with regularity. Yet there are undoubted practical difficulties in the actual circ.u.mstances in which we are placed. The ideal practice is undoubtedly to make half an hour's Mental Prayer before saying ma.s.s; but in many instances, especially in the case of the junior clergy, this is hardly possible. For they frequently have to say ma.s.s either very early or very late, or sometimes one, sometimes the other; or to go out to say ma.s.s at a convent or other centre some distance away, at a comparatively early hour.

The difficulty is thus the same, only in a more acute form, as that which has been mentioned in connection with a proper preparation for ma.s.s. For if it is difficult to find time for a preparation of five or ten minutes, a priest is not likely to find the longer time necessary for a proper Meditation. If he has to celebrate early at a convent, his ma.s.s will be followed by breakfast, after which he will return to the Presbytery somewhere about eight o'clock. He may then have letters to read, and in any case will consume half an hour or more over the daily paper, accompanied with his morning cigarette. Often he cannot spare the time after that, as he may have to be in the school at nine. But even if he can, he is not well circ.u.mstanced for a Meditation: the distractions of the day are on him, and he is in the midst of his work. The conclusion forces itself upon us that the morning Meditation, whether before or after ma.s.s, should be made at least before breakfast, or it will not be made at all; and whereas the rector is usually in a position to do so without inconvenience, this is not always the case; and whereas a curate can easily do it if he really wishes on days when he says a late ma.s.s, it is not always easy when he says an early one.

Undoubtedly the duty will not be complied with without serious effort, and the first stage is a realisation of its practicability as well as its necessity. Some priests meet the case by uniting their mental prayer with their thanksgiving after ma.s.s. This is always better than nothing; and if a priest has the courage to prolong the exercise to twenty or twenty-five minutes, and can guard against interruption from having to take Communion to the sick or other causes, it may be a complete solution of the difficulty.

But should the obstacles in the morning prove too great, so that practically the exercise is frequently curtailed or elbowed out; it may be better to capitulate to circ.u.mstances and set apart a time in the evening, when it will be done less effectively, and perhaps less regularly, as a priest is sometimes out at that time; but it can usually be done. The Canon Law lays down no definite duration for the exercise; and though the traditional half-hour a.s.signed by custom ought not to prove too long, it is better to occupy half that time or even less, than to omit the exercise altogether.

Granted now that twenty minutes or half an hour is to be spent in Mental Prayer, the next question is how to spend it. And here the present writer wishes thoroughly to endorse the view put forward by Canon Keatinge that it should be spent in the church and nowhere else. The whole pa.s.sage is worth quoting:--[6]

"Let me plead for the habit of using the church as our pious lay folk do. The church is not merely the priest's workshop, where he gives the sacraments and preaches to others. It is his own home, his sanctuary, and he is the appointed guardian of this dwelling-place of G.o.d with men.

Here at least his surroundings will help his prayer, not mar it, and the sacramental presence of his G.o.d will tend to warm his heart and to lift his first thoughts above the teasing distractions of his daily life."