TheSecond Vatican Council rediscovered and re-valued the concept of thepresbyterium and the role priests have in collaborating with each other andwith the bishop. This renewal isnot simply theological, but needs to be implemented and realized in concreteand juridical ways. "Since allclerics are working for the same purpose, namely the building up of the body ofChrist... they are to seek to cooperate with one another, in accordance withthe provisions of particular law." (Can. 275 §1)
Inthis article I want to examine two juridical institutions by which "theprovisions of particular law" can build up the presbyterium and contribute tothe exercise of the presbyteral co-responsibility: the common life of priestsand associations of priests.
Thechurch commends the common life because it has a long experience of theadvantages it can bring to the life of clergy. Common life often began as a desire to imitate the lifeearliest Christian communities, where "those who believed were of one heart andsoul" (Act 4:32). Although not thefirst bishop to practice a common life among his clergy, the most influentialto do so was St. Augustine.
Uponbecoming Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine transformed his episcopal residenceinto a clerical house. Hebelieved, along with his clergy, that the common life would assist incorrecting abuses and promoting the apostolate. In effect, common life with a sharing of possessions becamethe general rule for the clergy of his diocese.
Thisbecame a forerunner of the later Chapter of Canons. Priests who lived in common at a Cathedral or othercollegiate church were called canons because they followed a definite rule, andwere members of a corporate body called a chapter. Yet this movement toward a common life quickly approachedthat of religious life, envisioning an almost monastic rule for priests.
Asecond juridical manifestation of common life developed from the need forgreater priestly stability. Each priestto be ordained had a "title" or benefice, his assignment to some church,chapel, or monastery. Thus, whentwo or more clerics were assigned to the same church, the custom of livingtogether in a house attached to or nearby the church had its beginning. However, as the chapters of canons[regulars] developed and flourished, the community life of the other [secular]clergy waned, and by the end of the twelfth century, common life all butdisappeared.
TheCouncil of Trent did not mention the common life of priests, but it did callfor a general restoration of the life, conduct and learning of clerics byreturning to the teaching of earlier popes and councils. After Trent many were inspired tospeak, write and develop common life among the clergy.
Firstamong these in creating priestly communities was St. Charles Borromeo. He created a community of priests inhis episcopal household, living according to a rule and performing spiritualexercises in common. He alsofounded the Oblates of St. Ambrose, an institute of diocesan priests.
Amongthe many others animated by a spirit and zeal for the priesthood and commonlife were: St. Philip Neri (Oratorians), St. Vincent de Paul (Priests of theMission and Lazarists), Cardinal Berulle (French Oratorians), Jean JacquesOlier (Society of St. Sulpice), St. John Eudes (the Eudists), and St. LouisMontfort (Company of Mary). Whilethese organizations of common life originally grouped diocesan priests togetherinto permanent unions, in time most became religious congregations of priests.
Therefore,in search of a new form specifically for the diocesan clergy, one encounters aless familiar priest, Bartholomew Holzhauser. In 1640, in the diocese of Salzburg in Austria, he formed aninstitute of common life for diocesan priests, hoping to offer priests involvedin parish ministry the benefits and spiritual perfections that common lifeoffers, without, at the same time, forming an order or religious congregation.
Animportant point in his Constitutions was the importance of sharing property incommon as a help for common life and effective ministry. This was not a renunciation made undera solemn vow of poverty, but rather the revenue earned from ministry becamepart of a common fund. A secondemphasis was Holzhauser's insistence upon obedience to the local bishop,maintaining complete dependence on the Ordinary without any exception.
Lastly,while Holzhauser included the norm of common living within his Constitutions,his other innovation was not to exclude the possibility of common life withoutactual cohabitation, since this was often impossible for parish clergy. Thus Holzhauser's Institute, whichspread rapidly throughout almost all of Europe, is also a model for the firstassociations of priests.
Recallingthis rich history, Pope St. Pius X, in his 1908 Apostolic Exhortation toclergy, Haerent Animo, expressed hope and joy that priests might decide to live incommon, that such an institution would again produce good results as it had inthe past.
The1917 Code of Canon Law urged the clergy to live a common life by sharing thesame house and table. It calledfor this praiseworthy custom to be favored and preserved, especially for thepriest cooperators of the same parish.In many of the newer countries, e.g. Canada and the United States, wherethis was the custom, it was often incorporated in diocesan statutes.
PopePius XII also recommended the common life, particularly for younger priests,priests of the same parish, and even priests of nearby parishes. He saw many great advantages, such asnourishing charity, zeal, detachment and safeguarding priestly chastity (MentiNostrae, 110). Vatican II, in Presbyterorum Ordinis, lists the advantages of common lifeas promoting intellectual and spiritual life, aiding ministry and fightingloneliness; and it expects that priests will share their goods and help otherpriests in need (8).
Sincethe Council, there is a wealth of magisterial statements encouraging,emphasizing and motivating the common life of priests. The 1973 "Directory for Bishops"suggests common life to combat isolation and loneliness, especially for youngerpriests (112); and it sees advantages for a parish to have a pastor and atleast one other priest that live in common (179). Pastores Dabo Vobis highly commends common life, not only as an advantagefor the apostolate, but as an example of charity and unity (81, cf. ChristusDominus, 30 §1).
Itis clear why the 1994 "Directory for Priests" states: "A manifestation ofcommunion is also the common life always supported by the Church,recently emphasized by the documents of Vatican Council II and of thesuccessive Magisterium, and applied in many Dioceses with positive results."(29)
The1983 Code of Canon Law, almost identical to that of 1917, inserts thisencouragement of priestly common life among the rights and duties ofclerics. "Some manner of commonlife is highly recommended to clerics; where it exists, it is as far as possibleto be maintained." (Can. 280) TheEastern law also calls for "praiseworthy common life" to be fostered, and addssome motivations: "so that they may be mutually helped in cultivating thespiritual and intellectual life and may be able to cooperate more effectivelyin the ministry." (CCEO Can. 376)
Priestsare to live within their parish boundaries, but one exception is explicitlymentioned in the law, living "in a house common to several priests" with thebishop's consent (Cann. 533, 550 §1).Thus, it is also useful to form communities of priests who work indifferent but neighboring parishes.In fact, even those not assigned to parishes might profit from communalliving (e.g. seminary and curia officials). If possible, no priest - especially if he is young - shouldremain for a long time on his own.However, since necessity often obliges priests to live alone in theirparish, the bishop should try to help them develop a community spirit andorganize regular meetings, in small groups or at the diocesan level. Theserecommendations mean seminaries should form priests in ways that prepare themto live and work as part of the presbyterium. Such formation must include the necessary virtues and properunderstanding so that not only are they prepared to integrate into the clericalcommunity, but even to live a common life, after leaving the seminary. This is a reason why seminaries includecommon life in the training of diocesan priests: "they are to be prepared forthe fraternal unity of the diocesan presbyterium, in whose service of theChurch they will share." (Can. 245 §2) TheCouncil and Code allow freedom in the implementation of this eminentlyrecommended discipline of common life, which they have not imposed asrequired. In practice, particularcircumstances may sometimes prevent living together under the same roof, yetthere is still a broad flexibility in the different ways that priest canachieve "some manner of common life" (Can. 280). Presbyterorum Ordinis suggests three possibilities: living together, sharinga common table, or at least frequent meetings (8). Common liturgical prayer such as the Liturgy of the Hoursshould also be added. Therealization of common life is not, however, the sole initiative of thepresbyterium, as bishops have a role in helping priests form a communityspirit, promoting community life, and foreseeing it within the diocesanstructure. If he cannot mandate it(in places where it has not been customary), he can encourage and suggestcommon life to his priests, trying to overcome understandable organizationaldifficulties and possible psychological reticence. Insummary, the Church strongly recommends community life, based on thepresbyterium and as an expression of fraternity, for diocesan priests. Whether priests reside together -especially recommended for priests of the same parish - or they simply sharetogether in prayer, meals and community, it has many advantages. The benefits that common life affordsfor priests indicate that it should never be rejected out of hand, and shouldbe encouraged, even if some sacrifice is required. Ashas been seen, the common life of priests is often connected with priestlyassociations. The phenomenon ofpriestly associations is not new in the Church. The many priestly movements since Trent, mentioned above,clearly demonstrate this. Yet inthe nineteenth century, a new trend emerged: diocesan communities orassociations for the renewal of priestly holiness and effectiveness in theapostolate, but without the obligation of cohabitation. TwoFrench Bishops, Felix Dupanloup and V. M. Lebeurier, were instrumental informing an association of diocesan priests, following the spirit and norms ofHolzhauser's Institute. Thedifference, however, was opening it to priests who could not join in thetraditional common life; instead of physical cohabitation, it would be aspiritual or moral union. This wouldbe entitled the Apostolic Union of Diocesan Priests of the Sacred Heart,constituted in 1862. Its mainprinciples include a common rule of life, regular (monthly) meetings andspiritual conferences, and accountability to a "superior" regarding the ruleand one's finances. While nevernegating the importance of traditional common life, the spiritual and practicalvalue of the Apostolic Union to combat the loneliness of isolation and thedangers of individualism was soon realized, as it spread quickly throughoutChristendom. InHaerent Animo,Pope Pius X gave strong praise to priestly associations, recalling his ownmembership in the Apostolic Union. He cites their good results in history and sees them as not only a helpin times of difficulty, but also an aid to learning and ministry. While the 1917 Code did not directlyaddress priestly associations, it does not question the right and desirabilityof associations, including for clerics, as their advantages are obvious. Pope John XXIII also commended approvedpriestly associations as a means of perfection (Sacerdotii nostri primordia, 12). VaticanII views the right of association as a fundamental right of all the faithful. Recognizing the right of association forclerics in Presbyterorum Ordinis, the Council expresses the usefulness of associations forpriests, which are "to be highly esteemed and diligently promoted" (8). Itestablishes, however, that associations always be fostered in a spirit ofcommunion which requires that the statutes be recognized by the competentauthority (who grants a nihil obstat, not a juridical erection). The1989 Pastoral Guide for mission churches encourages associations as a means topromote fraternity and unity in the presbyterium, foster spiritual, human andcultural development, and aid pastoral ministry. The Congregation for Clergy recognizes the importance ofassociations and approved movements, appreciating what they do forpriests. Yet, it especiallyesteems those associations with a "diocesan" character. "The help which must be given topriests in this field can find support in the different priestly associationswhich tend to form a truly diocesan spirituality." (1994 "Directory for Priests",88) Thefact that priestly associations are so highly esteemed is directly related totheir purpose and finality. Inessence, associations should promote priestly life, holiness, communion andministry, helping priests to realize their proper identity, maintain theirspiritual life and direct their activity in conformity with the sacramentalconsecration and divine mission of priestly life. Canonlaw recognizes for secular clergy a full right to associate for ends suitableto the clerical state (Can. 278).There is a preference for associations with four characteristics: thosewhich "promote holiness in the exercise of their ministry", "foster the unityof the clergy with one another and with their Bishop", whose "statutes arerecognized by the competent authority", and have a "suitable and well triedrule of life" for clerics. Becauseit specifically favors associations that encourage unity of diocesan clerics,the Code gives a privileged position to forming associations within thediocesan presbyterium. Clericsmust therefore avoid associations incompatible with their clerical state oroffice. Care is also needed thatpriests do not establish associations like "unions" or adversarial groups,representing their needs and wants to the bishop. Associations need to safeguard and favor communion with theBishop and will normally augment the communion among priests, thus reinforcingthe diocesan presbyterium whenever priests join such a clerical association,even a national or international one. PopeJohn Paul II, in Pastores Dabo Vobis sees associations as spiritually enriching for bothindividuals and the whole presbyterium.He also recognizes the role of new ecclesial movements that welcomepriests into their associations such as societies of apostolic life, andespecially priestly secular institutes.Those "which have as their characteristic feature their being diocesan -through which priests are more closely united to their Bishop." (81) He sees all such forms of priestlyassociations as useful for both the spiritual life and the apostolic andpastoral ministry. Aswith common life, bishops can have an active role, especially by supporting andapproving private priestly associations, and founding public ones. Besides the types of priestlyfraternities and associations already discussed for spiritual, intellectual andpastoral ends; a typical diocesan association could also be one by which thepriests provide material assistance to one another, such as assistance for thesick or retired. Also common is anassociation for keeping the deceased members in the prayers of their brotherpriests. Whilethe Apostolic Union is one of the older and more widespread examples of anecclesiastically approved priestly association, it is far from unique. Mention can be made of the Associationof Priestly Perseverance (Vienna, 1868), the Pontifical Missionary Union of theClergy (Blessed Paulo Manna, 1916), and the Priest Fraternity Jesus-Caritas (France,1952). Manyrecent ecclesial realities also promote association, as priests share a commonbond through their involvement in their mission. These include the secular Institute of Jesus-Priest (BlessedJames Alberione), the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross (St. JosemariaEscrivá), and Regnum Christi (Fr. Marcial Maciel). Other new movements also incorporate diocesan priests, suchas the Focolare Movement, the Neo-Catechumenal Way, and Communion andLiberation. Inconclusion, priestly associations and the common life among clerics are juridicalinstitutions that concretize and reinforce the presbyterium. It is important to recall that theseare manifestations of priestly fraternity, ministry and collaboration, andtherefore cannot be artificial or simply external. Yet where priests forge a life in common and in association,these can become great weapons against individualism and loneliness, assets foran effective apostolate, and means for growth in holiness and charity. In the words of Pope John Paul II,"Today, it is impossible not to recommend them" (Pastores Dabo Vobis, 81).History of Priestly Associations
Priestly Associations Today