Validity Is Not Enough
PART 3
The Vocation and Suitability of Candidates for Holy Orders
We have now seen all of the factors which must be taken into account to ensure the validity of ordination, and we have gone through the unpleasant catalog of the warning signs–the irregularities and impediments–by which Holy Mother Church has indicated danger ahead. It remains now to see the positive qualities which young men must possess in order to give a reasonable foundation to the judgment that they are truly called by God to the sacred priesthood, for His glory and the salvation of souls.
The Twofold Vocation: Divine and Ecclesiastical
Before proceeding to the positive qualities themselves, it is necessary to dispel a serious misconception about “having a vocation.” Vocation means “calling”1; one who has a vocation has been called. Too often, even in traditional circles, one is tempted to think that “having a vocation to the priesthood” means experiencing some sort of emotional desire to become a priest.2 This desire can indeed accompany a true vocation, but it need not. Many fine priests have experienced no such emotional desire to become priests, and many men who have such a desire do not have vocations.
This confusion seems to result from having imbibed just a bit of the Protestant spirit whereby one ends up following the emotional impulses of the soul as if they were infallible signs of grace at work–or as if they were grace itself. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Grace is an essentially supernatural reality. It cannot be “felt” with the senses, experienced by the emotions. Certainly, the actual graces sent by God to direct us can, by His permission, cause an emotional response within our souls, but practically anything can cause an emotional response within our souls! An emotional desire for the priesthood–indeed for anything holy–can come either from God, from the devil, or from our own nature.3 One must attempt to discern the origin of any emotional movements in the soul before basing any important action on them, especially such an important action as becoming a priest.
Vocation to the clerical state is...an act of Divine Providence whereby God selects some above others for His priesthood and prepares them with suitable gifts for the worthy exercise of priestly duties. For this reason, and because this sacrament has been instituted not so much for the recipient as for the common good of the faithful, one who is conscious of a lack of vocation or who has made insufficient inquiry or who is in serious doubt about his vocation is liable to grave sin in approaching the reception of Holy Orders. (Halligan, The Administration of the Sacraments [1962], 376)
Since the emotional desire for the priesthood in an unreliable guide, how is it possible to tell if one is being called by God? It is customary to speak of certain “signs of a vocation,” objective factors which can already point out a man’s suitability as a candidate for the seminary. Among those commonly named are reasonably good physical and moral health, reasonable intellectual ability, and an upright intention (namely, the willingness to put oneself at God’s disposal for His glory and the salvation of souls).
This is precisely why the seminary is the place for trying one’s vocation. Try is not used here in its common meaning of “attempt,” but in its older meaning of “test.”4 A young man concretely enters the seminary because he has asked for permission to do so and because the superiors have judged that sufficient signs of a vocation are objectively present in him, but the entire process of seminary formation contains a major element of trial. The candidate for Holy Orders tests his aptitude for the priestly life, and he is tested–not only in his studies–by those who have charge of his formation.
The object of these combined tests is to determine whether an otherwise apt young man’s intention to become a priest is in line with God’s will. In other words, the “trial” aspect of seminary formation is to allow the superior to form a judgment–a judgment not only about the aptitude of the candidate but about whether God is calling him to the priesthood. Discovering the interior Divine vocation, which God gives mysteriously and invisibly to those whom He chooses, is the object of the trials of the seminary.
If a candidate for Holy Orders requests ordination, his superior must make a judgment based upon the cumulative results of years’ worth of seminary trials. If he judges that, after all, the young man has a Divine vocation, he recommends the candidate for ordination by his proper bishop.5 If this bishop agrees, then the candidate’s ecclesiastical vocation is sure. Strictly speaking, this ecclesiastical vocation to the priesthood only comes during the ordination ceremony itself, when the archdeacon calls the ordinand’s name and he answers, “Adsum”; “I am here.” Until this point, no vocation is certain, but the formal calling of the candidate by the representative of the Church hierarchy is considered both to reflect and to guarantee the Divine vocation of the ordinand.
Following the chanting of the Litany of the Saints, with the ordinands prostrate on the floor, the ordaining bishop asks the archdeacon, “Scis illos esse dignos”; “Do you know them to be worthy?” The archdeacon then responds, “Quantum humana fragilitas nosse sinit, et scio, et testificor ipsos dignos esse ad hujus onus officii ”; “As far as human frailty allows to know, I both know and testify that they are worthy of the charge of this office.” All of this presupposes the considered judgment which has been made, over the course of a serious formation, of the ordinand’s aptitude and upright intention. It is not an overstatement to say that such a judgment is morally impossible without, as was stated earlier, a stable relationship between the ordinand and his superior and a reasonably complete seminary formation.
Here is the crux of the problem: In most, if not all, of the irregular traditional ordinations, there is a lie told officially and liturgically during the rite itself. If there has been no prolonged seminary formation, the one presenting the candidates for ordination can scarcely claim both to know, “as far as human frailty allows,” and to testify that the candidates are worthy.
How can anyone expect the Holy Ghost to confirm what is thus done? How can anyone expect God to bless the apostolate of a bishop who “lays hands lightly” on a man of whose vocation he cannot be sure, or of a priest who so rashly accepts ordination without heeding the voice of God, as expressed objectively through centuries of canonical regulations whose purpose is precisely to verify the presence of a Divine vocation?
Suitability in Detail
More is necessary in a candidate for Holy Orders, generally speaking, than a mere absence of bodily defects. The physical demands placed on the typical traditional priest in the 21st century are very great; long hours, multiple apostolates, and heavy travel combine to age a new priest quickly. At the very least, decent health and a certain degree of energy are of inestimable value to the priest.
The absence psychological problems is only the beginning of the story when one comes to evaluate a candidate for the priesthood. Not only must a young man be free of serious mental illness; he should be notably balanced. There needs to be solid proof both of his sound judgment and his common sense.6 All candidates for Holy Orders must be observed carefully for signs of psychological problems, and, if there is suspicion of such problems, experts should be consulted. While such scrutiny should obviously not be used as a weapon against otherwise apt candidates, as has often happened in conciliar seminaries, it has its proper place in the discernment of the vocation. Whatever the case, a superior must be convinced of a candidate’s good psychological health, his balance, his solid judgment, and his common sense before advancing him to Holy Orders.
While an average intellectual ability is considered to be an initial sign of a vocation, a man who asks to be ordained a priest must already possess a great store of theological and philosophical knowledge, and a thorough knowledge of–and competence in–the Latin language is indispensable for learning what is required. Other important subjects such as Sacred Scripture, canon law, and patrology complete the priestly formation, but secular subjects should in no way be omitted from a well-rounded seminary program.7
The popes of the early to mid-20th century were adamant that the priest must be a man of learning, not only in order to refute false arguments against the Faith and to teach true doctrine to the faithful–the priest must seek the source of his union with Christ in the contemplation of the sacred sciences.8
St. Pius X wrote:
All those who are preparing in the quiet of the seminary for the exercise of the sacred and difficult functions of the priesthood must take timely steps to see that they are equipped with the rich resources of learning. (Sacrorum Antistitum)
Pope Pius XI warned that, even for religious priests destined not for the external ministry but for the cloister, the sacred sciences are necessary:
Anyone who undertakes the sacred ministry without training or competence should tremble for his own fate, for the Lord will not suffer his ignorance to go unpunished; it is the Lord who has uttered the dire warning: “Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, and thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me” (Osee 4:6). (Unigenitus Dei Filius)
Finally, Pope Pius XII states that,
In conformity with Our Apostolic duty, We have insisted earnestly on the importance of a high standard of intellectual training for clerics. (Menti Nostrae)
The example of St. John Vianney is sometimes brought up to argue that piety and a quite basic knowledge are sufficient for an ordinand in a time of crisis. After all, the Curé d’Ars never even learned Latin properly! The answer is that the exception proves the rule–the fact that something is seen as exceptional shows that there is a norm.
The fact of the matter is that this Saint’s primary handicap was his inability to learn Latin well; he certainly studied philosophy and theology using manuals written in French. He learned the material, rather slowly, under the patient tutelage of his own pastor, who believed so much in his vocation because of his other outstanding qualities. The fact that the holy Curé received special infused knowledge directly from God is another factor often overlooked by those who claim his example as a justification for downplaying the importance of intellectual competence among the clergy in a time of crisis.
If intellectual suitability is crucially important for the future priest, moral suitability is even more necessary. Living fairly consistently in the state of grace and practicing some virtues well may be sufficient for a new entrant to the seminary, but, the closer the approach to Holy Orders, the greater holiness is required of a candidate.
Clerics are bound to lead a more saintly interior and exterior life than the laity, and to give them the example by excelling in virtue and righteous conduct. (1917 Code of Canon Law, c. 124)
A candidate for the priesthood must not only enjoy a good reputation and be free from gross external sins; he must live habitually in the grace of God and consistently show a high degree of solid virtue, especially in the area of chastity. How can any of these things be known with a moral certainty unless the candidate has lived for a long period with the one who must make the judgment of his suitability?
Among the gifts of grace and nature of which there must be positive proof in order to recognize a Divine vocation to the priesthood, chastity must be singled out as the “sine qua non” condition. (Sacred Congregation of Seminaries, Reserved Instruction, July 1, 1955)
As stated above, virginity, in imitation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is the ideal for the priest, and perfect chastity is the ancient standard. Like other virtues, chastity in the cleric must not merely reflect the absence of deviation. Heroic virtue is required of an alter Christus. Chastity must be
The Church has traditionally taken severe measures against unchastity among priests, and it was always seen to be easier and better to “weed out” seminarians who have difficulty keeping chaste than to deal with the problems arising from sensual priests. Before the Second Vatican Council, detailed instructions from Rome told superiors how to handle problems of chastity among seminarians–which sins were automatic disqualifications, which level of chastity was necessary for promotion to which level of the seminary, etc. Superiors, spiritual directors, and confessors all had their roles to play. How is such a discernment practically possible outside a seminary–or at least outside a stable relationship over time between a superior and an ordinand? The fact is that it is scarcely possible at all, and the propensity of some “independent bishops” to ordain men of untried chastity–or even married men–is one of the clearest signs of their departure from the “accumulated prudence of the Church.”
(To be continued.)
1 From the Latin vocare, meaning “to call.”
2 “Having a vocation is like a cup of hot chocolate [sic],” said one conciliar seminarian in the Winona Daily News during the late 1990’s.
3 See the works of St. John of the Cross.
4 As judges “try” cases by testing the arguments of one side against those of the other
5 Or by the proper bishop’s delegate.
6 Scarcely enough can ever be said of the necessity of common sense, especially when it comes to the question of giving or receiving Holy Orders. In fact, almost the whole study of this subject can be summarized by saying, “Use common sense in deciding whom to ordain or whether to receive ordination.”
7 “[I]t is Our most earnest wish, that in literary and scientific studies, future priests should at least be in no way inferior to lay students who follow corresponding courses...” (Pius XII, Menti Nostrae).
8 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre insisted that priests must find their spirituality in the Summa of St. Thomas and in Holy Mass.
Current Issue
