First, I want to offer a word of gratitude to NFPC for the invitation to speak at this gathering. In so many ways, you represent all the priests serving God's holy people across the United States. It is a privilege to share some thoughts with you, and it is a graced opportunity for me to learn from you how we can better serve our people. Thank you.

Before I begin, I want to offer one qualification. In offering my reflections, I have in mind mainly diocesan priests or priests who are involved in parochial ministry. With some adjustments, I think what I have to say can also apply to religious who serve in other contexts.

I have been asked to speak about intellectual formation, one of the four pillars or dimensions of formation identified in Pastores dabo vobis, along with human, spiritual, and pastoral formation. The kind of intellectual formation that I have in mind is certainly not limited to a traditional academic framework of classroom learning, nor is it limited to formal programs of continuing education. The heart of intellectual formation, in my estimation, is a thoughtful reflection on our experience in mission and ministry, a reflection that is challenged and expanded by the resources of our faith tradition. Intellectual formation for priests and their growth in it correlates with a development of thinking that is in service to the Gospel.

It seems, at first, that the ongoing intellectual formation of priests is not such a pressing issue. There are so many other things and so many other constituencies that clamor for attention—and do so legitimately. We are reeling from the international scope of the abuse crisis. We struggle with diminished numbers of priests. We are trying to integrate international clergy who now make up about 20% of the active clergy in this nation. In the media and in our local situations, we along with our people frequently hear the call to deal with the hot-button issues of women in the Church, contraception, and gay rights. We are clearly aware of issues and challenges that deeply touch our culture and our Church, such as racism, economic justice, peace-making, and a plethora of complicated life issues. So, in the midst of all this, it does not seem that the ongoing intellectual formation of priests is that important. But it is. It is decisively important.

My purpose this morning is to convince you of the importance of intellectual formation, its urgency, and that it deserves priority attention. I will suggest two reasons that underscore the importance and urgency of intellectual formation: (1) priests need to reclaim their responsibility to be teachers and, therefore, they need intellectual formation; (2) priests need to think out a series of issues and challenges that press in on the Church and the world and, therefore, they need intellectual formation.


Priests as Teachers

When priests serve as teachers, they do so in a number of different ways. Teaching can, of course, take place in a classroom setting. Sometimes, this is the case for priests, especially those who have a parish school. Sometimes, it is a matter of an adult faith formation session or giving a talk. Sometimes, it is teaching embedded in a homily or a bulletin article. There is, however, another range for exercising our teaching, and it follows the pattern of Jesus in the gospels. In brief encounters, in the moment, in a simple story or illustration, Jesus teaches. His teaching—and this is especially notable in Mark's gospel, the gospel of discipleship or learning—always brings people along. He accompanies them, stays with them even and especially when they seem to miss the point, as his closest disciples often do. His teaching seizes opportunities, perseveres patiently, and will not rest until people are brought into the light of truth. This teaching in the way and pattern of Jesus is at the heart of what we are to do as priest-teachers.

Over forty years ago, Raymond Brown in his book Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections identified the diminished sense of priests as teachers. He spoke of an encounter with a Jewish rabbi and friend. Brown described to the rabbi the reluctance of priests at that time (1970) to be engaged in teaching. Brown then describes his friend's reaction: "The rabbi literally became white and exclaimed, 'Have you Christians lost to such an extent your roots in Judaism? Have you forgotten that the man who teaches is performing one of the most sacred of all functions, one that brings him close to God Himself?' I could not but hear in his words a distant echo of that unknown prophet whose book is the last in the collection of prophets and who castigated priests because they had lost the vision of their vocation: 'Teaching is to be sought from the mouth of the priest, for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts; but you have turned away from that course' (Malachi 2:7-8)."

Why do we not see ourselves as teachers? Why does this mission and ministry not factor so prominently in our identity, the sense of ourselves as priests? I think that there are a number of reasons and explanations. Consider the following.

We do not think of ourselves as teachers, and probably many of our people do not think of us as teachers. Cardinal Francis George, my archbishop, once remarked that today (unlike years past) most people do not turn to priests for wisdom about life, society, the culture, or the basic directions we are taking individually or collectively in the world. I would add that many of our own people may not be inclined to approach a priest for an explanation or defense of Church teaching. "Well, I just disagree with what the Church teaches" trumps everything else. This statement of subjective assessment (informed or not informed) closes the issue. Your opinion, my opinion, the Church's opinion—it is all on a level field. If the priest does not consider himself a teacher and if the popular assumption that truth is whatever is truth for me goes unchallenged, then there should be scant surprise that people do not turn to priests for teaching or wisdom.

Let us consider for a moment how the teaching ministry of priests came to be diminished within priests themselves. We can begin with the understanding of Jesus Christ as priest, prophet, and king. From that flow the three munera or tasks or responsibilities or offices that are entrusted to priests who serve and act in the name and person of Jesus Christ, head and shepherd of the Church. These are the classic munus docendi or teaching, the munus sanctificandi or sanctifying, and the munus regendi or governing.

It is one thing to have these three munera set out before us. It is another to experience them in life. Consistently in various soundings of priests, they identify the most satisfying and even, at times, exhilarating moments of their priesthood with the celebration of the Eucharist with their people, especially at decisive moments. The task of sanctifying, especially in a sacramental context, is central in the identity and mission of priests in their lived experience. Also consistent in priests' reporting are their complaints about the burdens of administration. They do it, and it occupies their time and, sometimes, preoccupies their psyches. The task of governance includes administration but is not limited by it. There is a way, however, that the munus of governance, at least under the rubric of administration, clearly has a central spot in the ministry and life of priests. Finally, a third area, more general in its scope, occupies priests. That is what I would term "pastoral responsiveness." Priests are very good at responding to troubled people who have experienced loss or sickness or addiction or failed relationships. They expend quite a bit of emotional capital in trying to help people in trouble.

What should be obvious in this description of the lived experience of the ministry of priests is the eclipse of the munus docendi, the task and the responsibility of teaching. It can easily be "crowded out."

Finally, there is a generational analysis of priests that can help us to understand their reluctance to take up and live out the teaching ministry in the model and pattern of Jesus who "brought people along" to a knowledge of truth.

Consider those ordained between 1965 and 1985.  A good starting point is sociologist Sheryl Kleinman's 1984 book Equals before God: Seminarians as Humanistic Professionals. Kleinman captures a kind of prevalent ethos at the time among Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish clergy. There was a democratizing movement that re-shaped the minister-congregant relationship. Whoever ministered was not to impose a truth on anyone but rather was to elicit and affirm their experiences. The key was responsiveness to others in a community of equals and a willingness to "share the journey." Not every Catholic priest in this cohort matched this description, but the description does reflect the religious Zeitgeist. The description may also identify some of the roots of reluctance to assume the formal role of teacher among those ordained between 1965 and 1985.

Consider those ordained between 1985 and the present. They may enjoy greater clarity about priestly identity, in good measure developed by Pope John Paul II in his important apostolic exhortation Pastores dabo vobis. However, this cohort also labors with limitations concerning the teaching ministry. If they are young, they come from a post-modern scene of drift and relativism, and they thirst for precision and clarity. They may not know, however, that teaching is more than citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law. It is a matter of "bringing people along" in the manner and pattern of Jesus and so forming disciples. If they come from an international background, they may have a different sense of authority. In some of their contexts, teaching means communicating the truth and then moving on. Teaching in a United States context generally requires some interaction, involvement, and participation, so that truth can be appropriated and "owned." An authoritative word is insufficient to teach well. If priests come from a previous career, such as accounting, engineering, law, or business, they may be inclined to see teaching as a technical application. Again, "to bring people along" as disciples means that teaching must be more an art than an application.

These comments about those ordained in the last forty-five years are very synthetic. They deserve much more development and nuance. I offer them, however, just as an indication that there are formidable challenges to reclaim our ministry of teaching as Jesus taught and as he made disciples. And as formidable as they are, they are not insurmountable, especially if we understand the urgency of reclaiming this dimension of our priestly mission and ministry.
 
Some of the urgency stems from the very real need that our people have for good teaching and a convincing proclamation of the truth of the Gospel. If we do not embrace the task, others will fill the void, and they will not do well. In our own family of faith, fringe elements whether of the left or the right can claim the truth and offer clarity but at a terrible cost of accuracy or a false accommodation to the current cultural climate. Either way the full truth of the Gospel is not served.

Pope Paul VI used a wonderful phrase to describe the Church community in the world. He said that the Church was an "expert in humanity." Priests share in that title because of their pastoral experience and because of their training. They are experts in humanity, even if they are not always explicitly conscious of this identity. As experts in humanity, priests have an opportunity to offer a saving truth that transcends the flood of bits and pieces of information in today's world. Through their teaching, priests have the possibility of offering wisdom, direction, and hope to a world in desperate need of these gifts.

My conclusion to this point: priests need to reclaim their task and responsibility for teaching as Jesus taught. It will not be easy to do so, but it is a fundamental and urgent task. If they are to be true teachers, they need ongoing intellectual formation.


Priests Addressing Some of the More Urgent Questions of Our Time

Priests also need a vibrant and developing intellectual life, because they need to address some of the more urgent questions of our time that press in both on the Church and the world. Priests are uniquely positioned to respond to these questions. These pressing issues and questions will be worked out in the course of our mission and ministry, if they are worked out at all. Neither the academic theology of the university nor the Church's Magisterium meets these issues on the frontline. Priestly ministry does. The resources of academic theologians and the teaching function of the Church must obviously be brought to bear on these issues and questions. And further reflection will benefit from theology and the authoritative teaching of the Church. A first and most critical step, however, is the engagement of the issues in the context of priestly ministry itself.

What are these issues that will require the thoughtful reflection and response of priests? What are these issues that will summon us to take seriously our own ongoing intellectual formation? I identify four specific issues or questions: (1) Do we continue to move in the direction of what has been called "massive Christianity" or do we focus on a more intentional and deliberate Christian commitment? (2) How will we engage our culture, by accommodation or resistance? (3) How shall we respond to the movement of peoples, ideas, and goods? (4) In what way can we not only offer moral direction but also offer a moral infrastructure for people today?

These are issues and questions in the backyard of nearly every parish in the nation, and perhaps in the front yard as well. These issues and questions are decisively important for the future of the Church and Christian life. Finally, although these questions do not belong exclusively to priests, priests will be a critical force in moving toward adequate responses and resolutions. I will describe each question in greater detail.

Among others, Albert Mirgeler in his book Mutations of Western Christianity identified a fateful pastoral decision that we made about fifteen hundred years ago. Persecutions and the prospect of martyrdom marked the first several centuries of the Church's life. There were no accidental Christians in that context. Christian commitment was deliberate and intentional. With the peace of Constantine and the conversion of the barbarians, the Church moved in a new direction. From a deliberate and intentional Christianity, we moved toward a "massive Christianity," baptizing large numbers with the hope that catechesis and formation would follow initiation. In cultures suffused with the Christian spirit, this massive approach could work if not always perfectly, at least adequately. Fifteen hundred years later, we are at a different point. The culture is not supportive; indeed, in many respects it is hostile to faith. As a Church we are shifting and calling people to a more intentional and deliberate Christian commitment. This is evident, for example, in the various forms of sacramental preparation that have emerged after the Second Vatican Council, most notably in the RCIA. The pastoral issue is that we are in fact moving in two different directions at the same time. In many ways we are trying to maintain a "massive approach" in the way that we deploy physical resources and personnel. And, at the same time, we are seeking more deliberate and intentional commitment from those who are part of the Church.

Will we be faithful to the great commission to bring the Gospel to the whole world, if we become a smaller but more committed Church? Or will we be faithful, if we are like that dragnet of which Jesus speaks, the dragnet that brings in all manner of fish and maybe a few old boots and other odd objects besides and then leave the sorting to God? These are questions that are latent, not yet fully explored in the New Evangelization. Every day, priests are on the frontline of these complex questions, and they need the intellectum fidei, the understanding of faith to analyze properly, synthesize appropriately, and act effectively.

It has become a catchphrase and piece of conventional church-circle wisdom to say that the Christian faith is countercultural. Countercultural? Perhaps and in some ways but by no means absolutely. Catholicism is religion deeply embedded in faith in the Incarnation, the mystery of the Word made flesh, the Word come among us in time and space and in the particularity of culture. Catholicism is expressed and alive in a sacramental economy which depends on tangible signs and shared symbols and "common webs of meaning," the phrase of Clifford Geertz to describe culture. All this means that faith must be inculturated or find a home in the culture. For us this means United States culture in 2010, because that is all that we have, and it is not entirely bad. At the same time, if you accept Alan Wolff's premise in his book The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith, religion, all forms of religion in America, have been co-opted by American culture—from the use of religion to sustain personal and individual fulfillment to a comforting domestication of the mystery of God. For priests and for priestly ministry, there is the double-edged sword of making faith relevant, that is, in tune with the culture, and, at the same time, making it prophetic, that is, honestly and constructively critical of the culture. It takes penetrating intelligence to sort out what is this American culture and what is good in it and what is bad and what is neutral: individual initiative? The individualistic pursuit of personal goals? Freedom from external constraint? Autonomy and independence from objective values? The priority of convenience in the face of life choices? The decency evident in trying to give everyone a fair break? making what is difficult invisible or putting it out of sight, if it has to do with race, unborn status, disability, foreign birth? It is a complicated dance to make faith come alive in a culture and, at the same time, to critique and purify that culture, to embody faith in culture and to resist the culture prophetically. All this takes wisdom and intelligence. And it is a task that daily confronts a priest who has his eyes open.

3. How shall we respond to the movement of peoples, ideas, and goods?

In the United States, Catholicism is growing and becoming more diverse. That growth has its origin in large measure in immigration, the movement of peoples from other parts of the world. The diversity of people has often focused us on concern for multicultural sensitivity. Put a sarape on the altar, use some kente cloth, say "The Lord be with you" in Vietnamese or Tagalog. In fact, the deeper issue is immigration—a process and a journey of profound deracination and upheaval followed by an often-heartbreaking process of re-construction and re-configuration in alien territory. All this, as I have personally discovered, has reverberations well into the third generation. Along with the movement of peoples, there is the rapid movement of ideas and information. This has to do with computers and iPods, with the cultural export of America via Hollywood, and the mass media that occupy so much of our life space. There is also the movement of goods—world trade for better or worse, globalization, outsourcing, the realignment of local economies with lost jobs and collapsed pensions. Nearly all this movement of people, ideas, and goods plunges everyone into a death, sometimes with a hope resurrection but often without such a hope. This movement is like a swirl, and priests living in the world and with their people are in the middle of it all.

It takes a sharp intellect to analyze and understand this movement. It takes a heavenly wisdom to bring the pieces together in faith. It takes prudence to sustain practical hope in the midst of this flux. And priests who are on the frontline of it all must be intelligent, wise, and practical to make the difference that only faith can make.

4. In what way can we not only offer moral direction but also offer a moral infrastructure for people today?

This is a complicated and immensely important question. Generally speaking, the perception of the Church from the outside is that of a moralizing institution that is always ready to preach values that are scarcely compatible with contemporary sensibilities, values that are not even lived out in the very Church itself. It is a hard sell to promote our teaching about sexuality or justice for that matter.

I am completely convinced of the correctness of our moral teaching. For example, has the disjunction of the unitive and procreative dimensions of human sexuality led to healthier, happier, more fulfilling relationships? In fact, the opposite has happened. Has an economy driven mindlessly by various market forces and detached from human concerns for justice and equity brought us world prosperity and peace? In fact, the opposite has happened.

As correct as our moral teaching is, there is a catch and a major deficiency that priests must deal with daily. And it will be up to them to take steps to remedy this deficiency. It is this. Although our moral principles and directives are clear and correct, we have not been so clear and helpful in providing people with a moral infrastructure for living them out. A moral infrastructure means those resources and supports that enable persons to deal with the challenges of embodying the values of the Gospel, most especially in a non-supportive world.

I think, for example, that the origin of the ferocious hostility of some gay activists directed against the Catholic Church stems from the Church's teaching on homosexual activity. Even more, I believe, that hostility has to do with the failure to provide a moral infrastructure to live out the values that the Church proposes to those with same sex attractions. In other words, the Church correctly teaches that homosexual acts are disordered, that is, they are incoherent with God's design for human sexuality, and, therefore, cannot be endorsed. But unless the Church through its ministry offers those who struggle with same-sex attractions some means to deal with their conflicts and dilemmas, the Church seems to leave struggling people in a lurch—with a clearly defined moral demand but no practical resources for addressing it. That is a surefire formula for intense rage. Similar things could be said about abortion, artificial contraception, divorce and re-marriage, immigration questions, just wages, and so forth.  Here is an interesting side note. Pope Paul VI dedicated the third and little read-part of his encyclical Humanae vitae to help struggling married couples with resources and encouragement as they would strive to live out the Christian life in their particular circumstance. In other words, he offered them a moral infrastructure.

Priests are on the frontline of dealing with moral values and teachings. At the same time, they are the ones who—with intelligence, prayer, study, and prudent discernment—can begin to address the pressing issue of moral infrastructures, resources for living out the Christian life. Obviously, this requires significant intellectual engagement.

My conclusion: these four questions represent important and urgent issues, which priests face on a daily basis. Priests are uniquely positioned to begin to respond to them and to develop practical solutions. Again, let me repeat that these questions will not be solved by magisterial teaching nor by academic theology. The Magisterium does not have a creative and imaginative function. It is meant to keep us faithful and together. And it is my assessment that academic theology, overall, is not connected with the pastoral realities that priests face every day. So, if these questions are to be answered and if these challenges are to receive some practical resolution, priests will play a decisive role. The questions are in the priests' court. If, however, priests are going to take up these questions, they will need a lively intellectual life. They will need ongoing intellectual formation, that is, a way of cultivating intelligent and informed reflection on life in the light of faith.


Conclusion

At the beginning of these reflections, I indicated that my purpose was to motivate you to consider reclaiming the ongoing intellectual formation of priests as a central task and challenge. I offered two reasons why intellectual formation is so important: (1) it is the foundation upon which the priestly mission and ministry of teaching is based; and (2) it is the necessary basis for responding to some of the more significant and urgent questions of our time, questions for which priests are uniquely positioned to respond and which require clear thinking guided by faith.

What I have not indicated are the practical measures that we can take to develop a high quality of effective ongoing intellectual formation for priests. We priests need to develop those practical steps. The Basic Plan for the Ongoing Formation of Priests contains some helpful indications. The National Organization for the Continuing Education of Roman Catholic Clergy (NOCERCC) can provide very valuable resources and bring the educational experiences of priests across the nation in dialog with each other. If there is a will and if there is motivation, it can be done.

If we can reclaim ongoing intellectual formation and reclaim our task of teaching and begin to address the important questions, a very exciting and promising future lies ahead for us and for the Church. We will more truly be servants of the one who came to witness to the truth, the truth that can set all people free.