2

TOWARDS GREATER EPISCOPAL COLLABORATION

IN PRIESTLY FORMATION

Fr. Anthony Akinwale, O.P.
Dominican Institute

Ibadan

I would like to begin with a long quotation from the Second Vatican Council. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, paints a beautiful picture of Episcopal collegiality in these and other words.

Individual bishops, in so far as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches nor the Church universal. But in so far as they are members of the Episcopal college and legitimate successors of the apostles, by Christ’s arrangement and decree, each is bound to have such care and solicitude for the whole Church (sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum) which, though it be not exercised by an act of jurisdiction, does for all that redound in an eminent degree to the advantage of the universal Church. For all the bishops have the obligation of fostering and safeguarding the unity of the faith and of upholding the discipline which is common to the whole Church; of schooling the faithful in a love of the whole Mystical Body of Christ and, in a special way, of the poor, the suffering, and those who are undergoing persecution for the sake of just; finally, of promoting all that type of active apostolate which is common to the whole Church, especially in order that the faith may increase and the light of truth may rise in its fullness on all men and women…..

Consequently, the bishops, each for his own part, in so far as the due performance of their own duty permits, are obliged to enter into collaboration with one another and with Peter’s successor, to whom, in a special way, the noble task of propagating the Christian name was entrusted.[1]

What the Council is saying in those words is that each local Church must be open to other local Churches. The work of God that goes on in one local Church is greater than the local Church. We all heard the same Gospel, profess one Lord, we were baptized in one baptism, we celebrate the same Eucharist. These are grounds for the communion and solidarity of local Churches, for each local Church to be opened to others.

It is gratifying to note that since the Second Vatican Council, various initiatives have been and are still being undertaken by bishops, not only in Nigeria, but elsewhere in the world, at national and at regional levels, to implement this teaching of the Council. In this respect, I want to single out the Regional Pastoral Institute, where this meeting is taking place. It represents a noble and commendable expression of Episcopal collegiality on the part of the bishops of the region. The resurgence of activities at the Institute is also a sign that the bishops intend to continue the good work that the Institute has always done. This will continue to be a joint effort to provide on-going formation for the clergy, the religious and the laity in the region.

Yet, as we all know, there is always work to be done in the Church. And I would like to focus on another area where there is visible collaboration even as the needs of our time call for increased collaboration. I have in mind priestly formation. But before making my proposals for greater collaboration, it will not be out of place to take another look at what the Church has in mind when it comes to how her priests are to be formed.

The Church’s Vision of Priestly Formation at Vatican II

The vital role of the priestly ministry in implementing the renewal envisioned at Vatican II was accorded its due recognition in the opening sentence of Optatam totius:

The Council is fully aware that the desired renewal of the whole Church depends in great part upon a priestly ministry animated by the spirit of Christ and it solemnly affirms the critical importance of priestly training.[2]

Against the position of some at the Council who saw the seminary as a Tridentine creation that has outlived its usefulness, the Council made a clear and unambiguous affirmation of the necessity and objective of major seminaries. Seminaries are loci for the formation of “true shepherd of souls after the example of our Lord Jesus, teacher, priest and shepherd”.[3] The importance of the affirmation about the need for seminaries is to be seen alongside the portrait of the priest in Vatican II’s Presbyterorum Ordinis.

Through the sacred ordination and mission which they receive from the bishops priests are promoted to the service of Christ the Teacher, Priest and King; they are given a share in his ministry, through which the Church here on earth is being ceaselessly built up into the People of God, Christ’s Body and the temple of the Spirit.[4]

With these words, it can be asserted that implicit in the renewal which the Church desired at the Council is a theology which portrays the priest as sacramental configuration of Christ. The priest has no identity apart from Christ and the Church. He is to be formed to be at the service of Christ and at the service of the Church. He is neither a pop star nor public relations officer of any ideology, ancient or modern, but the sacramental presence of Christ who is prophet, priest and king in the Church, and through the Church, to the world. In the same way that the renewal envisioned by the Church at the Council was not meant to be a compromise of the Church’s identity, the identity of the priest is not to be compromised by his insertion in the world. And in order not to compromise this identity, he lives in the world without conforming to the world.[5] It is from his identity as sacrament of Christ’s redemptive presence to the Church and to the world that his functions flow, functions which are beautifully described by Presbyterorum Ordinis: it is as Christ’s redemptive presence that he is minister of God’s word, of the sacraments and the Eucharist, and ruler of God’s people.[6] The objective of priestly formation is to form candidates who put on Christ in his munus triplex and, for that reason, do what Christ would do. This corresponds to the directive of Optatam totius:

They [priests] should be trained for the ministry of the Word, so that they may gain an ever increasing understanding of the revealed Word of God, making it their own by meditation, and giving it expression in their speech and in their lives. They should be trained for the ministry of worship and sanctification, so that by prayer and the celebration of the sacred liturgical functions they may carry on the work of salvation through the eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. They should be trained to undertake the ministry of the shepherd, that they may know how to represent Christ to men, Christ who “did not come to have service done to him, but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for the lives of many” (Mk. 10:45; Jn. 13:12-17), and that they may win over many by becoming the servants of all (1 Cor. 9:19).

Hence, all the elements of their training, spiritual, intellectual, disciplinary, should be coordinated with this pastoral aim in view, and all superiors and teachers should zealously cooperate to carry out this program in loyal obedience to the bishop’s authority.[7]

I have used italics to highlight the munus triplex in the quotation, to point out that each of the elements of priestly formation mentioned here corresponds with the being of the priest. The spiritual element would correspond to the sanctifying or priestly office and would require holiness, the intellectual element would correspond to the teaching or prophetic office and would require intelligence, while the disciplinary element would correspond to governing or kingly office and would require competence. In this respect, to be a priest, holiness is necessary but not sufficient, intelligence is necessary but not sufficient, and competence is necessary but not sufficient. Consequently, the priest is to be formed to be holy, intelligent and competent. Each is necessary, but none is sufficient without the other two. To be quickly added is the fact that the required competence is not just professional. The priest must equally a man of moral competence, a man of good judgment and good character.

One should go further to point out that these elements—holiness, intelligence and competence—come out in the lives and writings of the Church fathers, and that for this reason, importance of familiarity with Church fathers on the part of the candidate for the priesthood cannot be overlooked. Despite what authors rightly describe as their eccentricities and excesses, the combined characteristics of profound spirituality, orthodox theology, and pastoral solicitude in patristic thought make of the Fathers good guides in the formation of holy, intelligent and competent priests.[8]

The elements of priestly formation identified in Optatam totius find an echo in the Post-Synodal Exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis where Pope John Paul II speaks of four aspects of priestly formation: intellectual, spiritual, moral and human. It would seem these do not correspond to what is itemized by Vatican II. After all, there is a difference between three and four. While Optatam totius speaks of a “spiritual element”, Pastores Dabo Vobis speaks of a “spiritual aspect”, and while the former speaks of an “intellectual element”, the latter speaks of an “intellectual aspect”. Pastores Dabo Vobis’ “moral and human aspect” could be seen as belonging to what Optatam totius calls the disciplinary aspect”.

The priest is to be formed to be a man of faith. But faith, contrary to what many think, is an intelligent act. The Catholic priest must be a man of faith who never trivializes the tedious task of tidy thinking. A priest can and must be a philosopher (lover of wisdon).[9] It pertains to him to be at the service of the communion of the people of God in search of the universal cause of things, in the quest for the meaning of life. In this regard, good philosophy is presented as an indispensable instrument of doing good theology. In order not to separate faith and reason, the priest endeavors not to separate philosophy and theology. Such separation would impede the possibility of a comprehensive understanding of the human person, of the person and office of the priest himself, of the world, and of the centrality of the mystery of Christ.[10]

At Vatican II, the Church, largely western, was faced with a religious situation threatened by secularism even as the humanism of this secularism espoused values that no one who rightly understands the Gospel would fail to work for. Today, while the challenge of secularism has become greatly heightened, she has to contend with a militant Islam which highlights the ever-growing imperative of dialogue with peoples of other faith, an aggressive Pentecostalism that retards the wheel of ecumenical initiatives, and the noble ideal of inculturation in the young Churches in Africa that risks being adulterated with superstition. Good philosophy is needed to respond to these multifarious challenges, to the challenge of secularism in the north and to the challenge of sacralism and superstition in the south. The Second Vatican Council anticipated this need when it outlined the teaching method of philosophy.

The teaching method adopted should stimulate in the students a love of rigorous investigation, observation and demonstration of the truth, as well as an honest recognition of the limits of human knowledge. Careful attention should be paid to the bearing of philosophy on the real problems of life, as well as to the questions which engage the minds of the students. The students themselves should be helped to perceive the connection between philosophical arguments and the mysteries of salvation which theology considers in the higher light of faith.[11]

The priest must be formed to be able to encounter people who, broadly speaking, pose two types of questions in matters of faith: questions that seek to debunk faith as nonsensical, and questions that seek to understand faith. Good philosophy relates with faith, not by asking the first type of questions, but by asking the second type. One who studies philosophy with the aim of placing her at the service of intelligentia fidei may subject faith to analysis, and that is, contrary to what some cynics and even well-intentioned believers think. Philosophy is understood here, not as the pursuit of fables and inventions of the zeitgeist, but as the pursuit of wisdom.

The priest is to be formed to use philosophy to understand divine revelation, and, by so doing, understand the human condition. The use of these two to understand the human condition enables him to see the distinction—not a separation—between nature and grace. Grace sublates but does not suppress nature. Where the power of grace to sublate nature is forgotten, there is no recourse to grace. Where there is no recourse to grace, it becomes a comfortable option to see fidelity as impossible, dispensable and disposable.

Our age, like every other age, seeks wisdom. Yet, the fact must not be overlooked that the Wisdom being sought by the priest is different from the wisdom of the age despite the good intention of the age. Long before Vatican II, John Newman already pointed out that the goal of priestly formation is to train the future priest to deepen his desire for the Wisdom who is Christ and to learn the truth about Christ. In a homily he gave at the opening of St Bernard’s Seminary, Olton, Birmingham, on October 2, 1873, somewhat anticipating Optatam totius’ description of the Seminary as locus for the formation of “true shepherd of souls after the example of our Lord Jesus, teacher, priest and shepherd”, Newman had this to say:

This handing down of the truth [about Christ] from generation to generation is obviously the direct reason for the institution of seminaries for the education of the clergy…Catholic doctrine, Catholic morals, Catholic worship and discipline, the Christian character, life, and conduct, all that is necessary for being a good priest, they learn one and all from this religious school, which is the appointed preparation for the ministerial offices.[12]