Reflections on the 50th Anniversary of Ordination

A friend wondered what feelings surfaced on 2 February when my seminary class celebrated the 50^th anniversary of ordination. The question gave me a chance to do some reflection.

First of all, the fact that I am no longer functioning as a priest would have been totally unthinkable 50 years ago. Such an idea would have been discounted almost as soon as it appeared. To understand something about me at the time, it would be helpful to reference “tunnel vision”, a phenomenon that was first identified by Eric Hoffer, a longshoreman who became a major philosopher. He pointed out the problems associated with people whose insight into life is narrowed by conviction. “Tunnel Vision”, then, would capture my understanding of life as I emerged from the seminary in 1963. I clearly was on a track based on deep convictions. To be sure, my vision was even narrower before the Vatican Council.  However, by the time I was ordained, I felt that I could “see” pretty clearly and my mission was to share this more “enlightened” vision articulated by the Vatican Council with others.

One can imagine what my ministry would have been, if circumstances were different.  However, I somewhat naively experienced an unexpected set of circumstances.

My first assignment presumably was a random selection. I was assigned to a great parish in Concord, MA. I was able to associate with many great people and could expand my service to the sick through the presence of Emerson Hospital. There was also a Catholic High School present that gave me an occasional opportunity to do some teaching. I was aware that the two other priests who shared our parish thought that I was minimally misguided in my zeal to reinforce the teachings of the Vatican Council. Eventually, it became clear that I was seen as potentially evil, or, as one of the priests said to me, “you are extremely sincere, but you are being used by the devil!” Yet, I was unaware until much later that there was an effort to discipline me because I was threatening the community of religious women who taught at the school. Apparently, there were some nuns who could not get enough of what I was sharing, and there were others who considered me a major threat. 

In short, I was transferred to a parish in Norwood, MA where, I later found out, the objective of the assignment was to “straighten me out”. I was told later that one of priests in that parish had the assignment to watch over me. My ministry was limited because the pastor wanted to make sure that I never preached at the mass with highest attendance. As it were, however, people called incessantly on Saturday to find out when I was going to presiding at Mass either so they could hear me or, often, to avoid me. Within 30 days, I was called to the local bishop’s office where he shared that he had received many letters indicating that I was starting a “revolution”. Apparently, my walking through neighborhoods and talking to people had an impact that I did not recognize. At any rate, I quickly processed his statement and decided to be truthful (a characteristic of mine) by telling him how I saw my ministry. And from there, it was all downhill.  Several other meetings with other bishops and leaders occurred during the next few years. My involvement with Biafra (hunger), civil rights, and moral opposition to the Vietnam War only exacerbated the situation. Petitions to remove me were countered by other petitions to keep me in the parish. When I was no longer allowed to teach Christian Doctrine because they suspected that my narrative was not orthodox, I knew that I would never survive the life that I originally wanted.  As one priest who kind of liked me said, “you are one of the most educated priests he knew, but you were outvoted!!!”

What would have happened if I had the fortune to be assigned to a parish where my “talents” were appreciated, I don’t know. What would have happened if my superiors honored by request to be assigned to an urban minority parish?  What would have happened if I had accepted the offer to get a graduate degree so that I could counsel priests with problems, I don’t know. It is quite possible that any assignment working in an urban situation would have resulted in my constantly protesting with further problems. I often think of how I would have handled dealing with priests involved in the sexual abuse of minors. I do know that when this matter became public, I checked with some of my classmates to verify my experience of never knowing about such behavior.  Many of them also never experienced living with a priest suspected of deviant behavior or thought such behavior even existed. (Richard Sipe and others have documented this phenomenon of maintaining silence about deviant behavior to maintain the “integrity” of the institutional church).  And, it is quite possible that any graduate education would not, at least at that time, dealt with sexual abuse of minors, especially by priests. In short, I cannot be sure that I would not have also become complicit in protecting the institution by enabling these priests to avoid prosecution. I am aware that one of the priests who worked in that role  and later became a bishop, was involved in decisions to move priests involved in sexual abuse from one parish to another without reporting them to civil authorities or, removing them from the ministry.  Who I am to say that I could not also be an enabler?  

I do know that I had to leave in order to survive and, 50 years later, I have only increased gratitude that I left before doing something really stupid!  In my frustration, I cannot be sure what I would have done.

Moreover, as it turns out, my understanding of Christianity transitioned from a commitment to a liberal understanding of doctrine to anger that “orthodoxy” is supported by what I (and others) now consider to be lies. All sorts of scholarship contradict the dictates of power structure, e.g., Jesus established the priesthood or that Jesus established a priesthood that could only be exercised by males. These structures are designed to promote the well being of the institution rather than the spiritual message. Similarly, bishops contributed to sexual abuse of minors because they were protecting the institution rather than sanctioning the priest perpetrators.

And then, I transitioned over time even more to the point that I view all religions as reinforcing a tunnel vision of one sort or another. No religion is immune from a myopic perspective. I am aware that individuals can rise above the limitations of religion. However, the fact that they can rise above the general thrust of the official orthodoxy of the religion, e.g., Christianity, Islam, Judaism, only reinforces my perspective. For example, while many may have no problem with Reformed Judaism, they would have problems with the adherents of the Hasidic tradition, and surely vice-versa, e.g., non-Hasidic Jews views of secular Jews are very intolerant. Many people find peace with their adherence to a specific religion because they self-select what they identify as important.

My general view, in short, is that religion in inherently intolerant and I can see my own past in that light. I was never genuinely tolerant of those who wanted the Vatican Council to go away, nor was I tolerant of those with racial bigotry. I surely was strongly opposed to priests who were trying to maintain the status quo. I thought that those who promoted the war in Vietnam were adopting an immoral stance that had to be overcome.

One might wonder whether my departure from adherence to any religion makes me more tolerant and I would say it has not. I am still angry when people display bigotry, whether it is focused on race, sexual orientation, or anything else. Surely, I was livid against President Bush’s push into Afghanistan and Iraq as a major military invasion rather than a more precise police action to capture and bring to justice those involved in tragic 9/11 disaster.

Now, however, whatever intolerance I display is based on me. I do not attribute my views to any higher authority than reason, which I try to nourish by reading as much as I can. If I cannot make someone see the futility of holding views that are both harmful to others as well as self-defeating, then I know that I have to keep learning more so that I can explain myself better. A clear example is the difficulties of trying to promote clean energy. Whatever the economic problems associated with transitioning to a less fossil fuel dependency, it is going to be far less of a problem for future generations if we decide to make some painful decisions to save the planet. In short, I may still get angry with those who hold views that I assess as self-defeating, at least in the long run, but I am not coming from the perspective of a transcendent set of beliefs.

At times, I may have wished for roles with more influence on others. While I enjoyed my work in the Veterans Administration, my influence was minimal. However, in general, I am most happy to have escaped the inevitable conflicts associated with a belief structure imposed by power rather truth.

When viewing my former brothers from a distance, I congratulate those who remained in the ministry but rejoice that I have a life with a few people I love and who love me. I could not be happier. And for sure, I can look no further than Joan to confirm what a wonderful experience it  has been for nearly 44 years. We have wonderful and productive adult children who married great people and have shared their lives now with a total of six children, our grandchildren.

What more could a person want?