Personnel
From Archbishop: Inside the Power Structure of the American Catholic Church (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989) The biggest problem for any archbishop running a diocese is to get the right people
in the right place. Priest personnel. Those are the most difficult, the most delicate, the most
sensitive decisions I have to make in the course of the year. The most important influence a bishop has over his diocese is through the recruitment,
training, and assignment of personnel to parishes and diocesan agencies. Most archbishops
and chancery officials agree that personnel is their greatest concern. Dedicated and
trained laypersons, religious, and priests are necessary to the operation of an
archdiocese. They staff the parishes, schools, hospitals, and other archdiocesan
institutions. If the personnel are hardworking and creative, these institutions will
flourish and provide a structured basis for the religious and spiritual life of the people
in the archdiocese. Although there is some support for a personnel system that treats priests, religious,
and lay employees the same, most dioceses have different policies that apply to priests,
religious, and lay employees. Priests and religious, for example, usually are paid less
than lay employees. In the past, sisters were paid less than priests, although this
injustice is becoming less common. As far as the archbishops are concerned, the key personnel issues relate to the
diocesan priests. This is not to denigrate the importance of the religious and laity, but
simply to indicate that most of the personnel issues that reach an archbishop concern his
priests. Most lay and religious employees of an archdiocese are hired by and report to
someone other than the archbishop--a pastor, a school principal, or the administrator of a
hospital or of another archdiocesan agency. On the other hand, all diocesan priests are assigned by the archbishop to their jobs
whether it be in a parish or other church institution. In addition, diocesan priests
pledge obedience to the bishop and his successor. Their commitment to the diocese is
unqualified. Religious normally can serve their orders in other dioceses, and a layperson
can seek employment elsewhere. Finally, if the priest has a personal problem, it can
become the concern of the bishop. As a result, bishops consider clergy personnel issues
special. In dealing with priest personnel issues, bishops and personnel directors are always
trying to balance the good of the priest with the good of the diocese. In a sense, the
personnel problems and opportunities faced by a bishop are similar to those faced by any
family business. A family business thrives on the dedication and enthusiasm of the family
members who are willing to work long hours at low pay. Dean Hoge, for example, found that
"Catholics pay much less for religious leadership than Protestants." He
estimates that "the institutional cost of a full-time priest averages $26,376 at the
local level plus $1,428 at the diocesan level (plus $1,039 for continuing
education)." The cost for Episcopalians would be "$45,005, followed by
Lutherans, $39,059, and Methodists, $35,308."/1
But in a family business you don't fire Uncle Charlie because he could be replaced by
someone more efficient. The head of the family must simultaneously be concerned for the
welfare of the business and the members of the family, even when these conflict. Similarly in the church, the bishop must be concerned about the good of the parishes
and also the good of the priests. The dedication and commitment of the vast majority of
the clergy gives life to the church. But the less successful priests are not simply
replaceable parts in a machine. It is almost impossible for a bishop to fire a priest. And
even if he could, there is not a large pool of priests waiting to replace him. As one
archbishop explains, "By and large, you do the best you can with what you've got to
work with." Dealing with clergy personnel issues is considered by church administrators as the most
difficult job in an archdiocese. A comprehensive personnel service would deal with
recruitment, screening, selection, assignment, training, development, evaluation, support,
counseling, crisis intervention, retirement, and termination./2 A large diocese might have different people working
full time on many of these functions, but in smaller dioceses many functions would be
performed by one person or by part-time personnel. In most dioceses, for example,
recruitment would be taken care of by a part-time director of vocations. Training is done
in seminaries either inside or outside the diocese. In the past, the archbishop usually dealt with postseminary personnel issues directly,
with the help of his priest secretary or chancellor. Since Vatican II the number of
priests helping a bishop with this work has grown. Today most archdioceses will have a
personnel board to help advise the bishop on assignments. Large dioceses might also have a
priests' personnel director, vicar for clergy, director of continuing education, and vicar
for retired priests./3 In smaller dioceses some of
these positions might be held by one person or the jobs might be part time. In Milwaukee,
Archbishop Weakland considered the personnel office so important that he placed his two
auxiliary bishops in charge of it. The National Association of Church Personnel Administrators notes that in the business
world a rule of thumb "is that one personnel specialist should be on the staff for
every 100 persons served."/4 By such standards,
church personnel offices are understaffed considering the large numbers employed by an
archdiocese. The creation of personnel offices was overwhelmingly supported by the priests in the
mid-1960s./5 Confusion and unrealistic expectations
often are present when the creation of a priests' personnel office is considered. Should
the priests' personnel director be an administrator, counselor, ombudsman, mediator, or
all of the above? Some confusion arises because the bishop and priests sometimes have
different expectations for people in the personnel office. For example, are they
representatives of the bishop to the priests or of the priests to the bishop? Or both?
"I have my own expectations of what I should be doing," reports one personnel
director. "The bishop has expectations of what I should be doing, and every priest
has expectations. At times there are unreal expectations placed on us." Bishops usually perceive the personnel director, like his secular counterpart, as
someone who can help the chief executive with assignments and personnel problems. Often,
however, the personnel office has been created at the instigation of the priests' council
because the council feels the bishop is failing to hear the needs and desires of the
priests. The priests hope that a good personnel person can act as an intermediary between
the priests and the bishop. They may also want him to fulfill other roles. The vicar for
clergy in Hartford noted that besides being involved with assignments, "The priests
wanted the vicar to be a mediator, advocate, confidant, someone with whom they could share
their problems." In fact, most personnel directors represent the bishop to the priests, but they also
conscientiously attempt to look out for the needs of the priests. In all the archdioceses,
it is clear that the personnel director works for the bishop even in cases where the
bishop allows the director to be nominated by the priests. Even the elected personnel
boards see their role more as advising the bishop than as representing the priests. In an effort to deal with the multiple personnel roles, some archdioceses (Chicago,
Newark, Milwaukee) distinguish between the priests' personnel director, who deals with
assignments, and the vicar for clergy, who deals with priests' problems. Diocesan priests
like this distinction because they do not want the person who deals with their personal
problems to have anything to do with their assignments. But even with this distinction, it is still unclear whether the vicar for clergy should
be a counselor helping the priests or an authority figure intervening in the name of the
bishop. As a result, they can be caught between the expectations of the priests and the
expectations of the bishop if their job description is not clear. For example, how much of
what the priests tell the vicar can be passed on to the archbishop? In Chicago, the vicar
for priests would not pass on to the archbishop information without the priest's consent
if the priest came to him. But if the archbishop initiated the contact because of his
concern for the priest, then the priest is told that anything he tells the vicar can be
passed on to the archbishop. Some people working in priests' personnel believe that there is need for at least three
persons: a counselor/advocate whose only concern is the priest's welfare, a personnel
director concerned about assignments, and a vicar who challenges, evaluates, intervenes,
or corrects priests in the name of the bishop. Cardinal Hickey in Washington has his
chancellor deal with complaints about priests rather than his vicar for clergy or priests'
personnel director. "I would not give it to the secretary for parish life or the
secretary for clergy," he says. "I don't want to prejudice the program or the
secretary. I don't want his or her credibility chewed up." On the other hand, priests are biased against any bureaucracy that separates them from
their bishop. In Cincinnati at a priests' convocation the men appeared to favor an
ombudsman, but when they were later surveyed, the response was negative. "On further
reflection they saw it differently," explains the priests' personnel director.
"It wouldn't help things that much just sticking another person in the
bureaucracy." But in many dioceses, the priests' personnel director has all these multiple and
sometimes conflicting roles. Some of this is inevitable because it reflects the multiple
and sometimes conflicting roles of the bishop, who must be simultaneously concerned with
the good of his priests and the diocese. In any case, a priest dealing with personnel is a man in the middle. It has been
recommended that he have skills in several fields: theology and pastoral care, church
teaching and policy, professional personnel administration, and counseling and behavioral
science./6 But most have had little or no training
in professional personnel administration or in behavioral science. They tend to be
pastoral men with interpersonal skills and good judgment who are respected and trusted
both by the bishop and their peers. After they are appointed, they get on-the-job
training. Many have found the job very burdensome. Sister Christine Matthews, O.P., director of
the National Association of Church Personnel Administrators, reports: The personnel directors know it all [the virtues and vices of the priests]. They find
it a tremendous burden. They find that their relationships with the other priests changes.
I have had one say to me, "I am not invited to the same parties. The whole
relationship changes. In six years when this is over, I won't forget all of that stuff,
and I will be treated the same way." One personnel director told how his appointment affected his friendships among the
clergy. I have a priest who is a nervous wreck every time I call. I am not calling except to
talk to him about something else. I went by to visit one day because I was nearby. He
said, "Why are you here." "I just came to say Hi." "Are you
sure?" I said, "Yes, no ulterior motive at all." His term as pastor is
nearing its end, so he knows that one of these times I am going to call for that reason. On the other hand, many priests involved in personnel work experience it as a
fulfilling ministry. "I really enjoy the opportunity to be pastor to priests,"
says Bishop Richard Sklba who is co-vicar for clergy in Milwaukee. "There is
something so gratifying about that pastoral ministry. They are very good guys. Almost
everybody is praying hard and working hard. The chance to sit down and spend time together
is very gratifying." Despite the ideal of a comprehensive personnel program, the primary concerns of
priests' personnel directors are the assignment of priests and crisis intervention. Most
of their time is spent on assignments and on priests with problems. Concern for continuing
education often takes a back seat to these primary concerns except where a person's sole
responsibility is to encourage priests to update their training. What has made all of
these personnel issues even more difficult is the shrinking of the personnel pool. The decline in the number of priests has church administrators very concerned because
it is making clergy personnel issues even more difficult./7
The shortage of priests is only just beginning to affect the church, but already 34
percent of Catholics have personally experienced a shortage of parish priests./8 And it is going to get worse, much worse. One
national study estimates that there will be half the number of active priests in the year
2000 as there were in the 1960s./9 Projections on the supply of priests are being done in many archdioceses. Portland, for
example, is projecting thirty to fifty priestless parishes by the year 2000. Archbishop
Whealon of Hartford reports, "I had a study done by our insurance people that
indicates that the 500-plus priests that I had when I came here in 1969 is gradually being
reduced so that at the end of the century there will be 360 active priests. At the same
time the average age is going up steadily, relentlessly in fact. Priests are fewer, older,
having many health problems." The impact of the shortage in the large urban dioceses (Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Washington) has been lessened by the large numbers of priest students or teachers at
educational institutions who help on Sundays. But even in the large urban dioceses, the
effects of the shortage are beginning to be felt as there are fewer associate pastors to
help in parishes. "In the last nine months," explained the Philadelphia chancellor in 1986,
"we have had fifteen parishes where we could not replace an assistant pastor when he
was transferred. We have had a number of priests forty-five and older suffering heart
attacks and getting seriously ill. Not so much burnout as unexpected heart attacks." But some personnel directors do not consider the shortage of priests their biggest
problem. "My biggest problem," reports one personnel director, "is that I
have people I cannot place. They can't get along with the staff at the parish; they have
different ecclesial models of the church or they won't fit in with the lay staff or lay
participation. Of the sixty moves this year, there were five or six I can't fit anywhere.
I spend 80 percent of my time on these." This problem is not simply with older
priests. Some personnel directors complain of newly ordained priests who did not fit in./10 Unassignable priests and priests with other problems are a major concern of bishops and
personnel directors. Bishops are especially concerned about priests who leave the ministry
or get in trouble. "I can ride with almost everything except the priest not taking
advantage of the grace that's available to them and this leading to misdirectedness,"
said Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia. "I can shake off almost anything, but when it
comes to things of that nature, you wake up at two o'clock in the morning, and you have
been thinking of it all night long." Cardinal Manning of Los Angeles also admitted worrying about similar problems at four
o'clock in the morning. "That's when they surface, the problems of personnel. Our
Lord had his disciples around him, and they had their problems, and Jacob had problems
with his sons. Those are probably the hardest things to reconcile." Every archbishop's secretary told me that if a priest telephones and wants to see the
archbishop, he gets in as soon as possible. "Any priest who calls can see the
archbishop," says the secretary to Archbishop Roach of St. Paul. "I will ask if
it is an emergency or whether it can wait. I don't ask for details, although they often
give them to me. If it can't wait, I will bounce a staff person, who can see the
archbishop later, so that he can see the priest." Archbishop Quinn gives to his
priests the numbers of the private lines that ring in his office and residence so that
they can reach him without going through a switchboard or secretary. Most archbishops, even those who on the surface seem gruff, have a reputation for being
very good at dealing with a priest who comes to him with a problem such as alcoholism,
drugs, gambling, or a failure in celibacy. One personnel director described his
archbishop: He is very formal, demanding, insists on 100 percent obedience. But if a man is in
trouble in any way, any kind of trouble, trouble with the law, drinking or drugs, women,
boys, anything--he is the most kindly, understanding, helpful man you would ever hope to
have on your side. If he can help you come to terms with whatever the problem is and you come back to
active ministry, then the whole thing is off the record like it never happened. There is
no grudge held, no "Well, we can't trust him anymore." He is very fair. The priest with serious moral or legal problems is the rare exception. But when these
problems do surface, they take a great deal of the bishop's and personnel director's time.
A number of personnel directors felt that, at the time of this study, their work in this
area was especially high because they were dealing with problems that had been ignored by
bishops in the past. In any case, if the priest approaches the archbishop before there is
a public scandal, usually all can be forgiven and dealt with if the priest is willing.
Here the bishop is not an employer, but a father or the representative of the forgiving
Christ. If the priest reforms (and sometimes even if he does not, as long as it does not
become public), he can continue in his ministry. Many archdioceses also have policies and procedures for intervening to help priests
with problems of substance abuse./11 Often the
intervention team is headed by priests who are already members of Alcoholics Anonymous. In
one archdiocese, the intervention team even talked to the archbishop about his drinking
problem. Programs of counseling and therapy are offered and willingly paid for by the bishop. A
variety of treatment options are available in larger archdioceses that would include AA,
counseling, and treatment programs such as Guest House, which specializes in alcoholic
priests. Bishops willingly spend money for treatment. In New York the personnel director
says that any decent program will cost $30,000. He says he has an open-ended budget for
this purpose. After treatment, it is common for a priest to return to his ministry. The major exception today is in cases of child abuse. In the past, because of
ignorance, some bishops were lenient in dealing with priests who sexually abused children.
There was little understanding of the problem as an illness and a crime or of the
archdiocese's liability as an employer. In 1986, however, a jury awarded $1 million in
damages to the family of an abused child which had to be paid by the diocese of Lafayette
(LA) because the bishop knew the priest had problems and moved him to another parish where
he abused more children. Additional payments were made to thirteen other families in out
of court settlements. Insurance companies quickly added an exclusion for child abuse to
their contracts with churches or at least placed a cap on their liability. Few bishops will risk that kind of liability in the future. Bishops all across the
country, under the guidance of their lawyers, quickly established policies and procedures
for reporting and dealing with accusations of child abuse by any church employee. Some
lawyers recommended against dealing with the parents lest any sympathy or help be
considered an admission of responsibility. Stonewalling, however, often angered the
parents into the suits the lawyers were trying to avoid. Most dioceses found that the
parents are primarily concerned with getting help for their child and with making sure no
other child is abused. When the diocese is forthcoming, the parents usually prefer not to
sue lest further damage be done to the child. The Christian response proved to be the
smart response. But getting evidence of child abuse if the children or parents do not come forward is
almost impossible. One personnel director describes the problem: When it blows, it blows all over the place. You think there are two families, then
forty families come out of the woods just angry as heck. But you never have concrete data
until something like that happens. That is what is so bad about it. You got insinuations,
you got kids that will say, this might happen, nothing happened. You really don't know. The kids are afraid for their parents, afraid of being disloyal to the church or
father. They are not going to say anything. We had a kid who came back much later as an
adult. Today we don't know, but there are a lot of red flags. How do you handle those without
barging in and ruining somebody's reputation? People find out in a hurry. We have a couple of possibles, but you don't ever have data on which to really act. We
did take two out of circulation and put them into counseling. There was no hard-core
evidence, parents or anything, but always insinuations that this happened or that
happened. Psychologically they are hard nuts to crack as far as admitting any need for help. Both
of these denied the whole works. I suppose you get a little paranoid when you see a guy
with a couple of servers on a trip or in a car. It is dangerous. Although they take an inordinate amount of time, priests with serious legal, moral, or
psychological problems are the rare exception. The bishop must also be concerned about the
rest of his priests. A major concern of the bishops since the early 1970s has been the
morale of their priests. Bishops worry about low morale because it is bad for the priests,
bad for the church, and bad for the bishop. Priests with low morale are unhappy, they
don't work so well, and they are less likely to support and follow the leadership of their
bishop. And they may leave the ministry. In fact, the morale of priests is higher than comparable American males who are married
and much higher than unmarried males./12 But low
morale among any priests is a concern of bishops. The causes of low morale are many./13 In the past, priest morale problems often centered
around conflicts with authoritarian bishops and, for associates, conflicts with
authoritarian pastors./14 The appointment of
bishops sensitive to priests' concerns under Archbishop Jadot did much to neutralize this
area of conflict, so that in 1985 only 9 percent of the diocesan clergy said relationship
with their bishop was a problem for them./15 New
structures (personnel boards and priests' councils) and new governance styles after
Vatican II also have improved relations between bishops and priests. Surveys have shown
that priests' "self-esteem, work satisfaction and morale all increased between 1970
and 1985."/16 But feelings of being overworked
and lonely remained at the same level as 1970. Recently, however, the appointment of more
conservative bishops has led some American priests to fear a return to authoritarian
governance. These bishops would more quickly step in to stop experimentation that goes
beyond what would be permitted by Rome. Low morale is also caused by loneliness and the desire to marry. Surveys have found
that many priests favor optional celibacy, but most recognize that this option will not be
available in their lifetime. Celibacy "is a real problem, especially as we have more
priests living alone," says the executive secretary of the Chicago personnel board.
"Priests [are] working longer and longer days and saying, `who really loves me, who
really cares about me, or what kind of relationships do I have that really matter?'" The numbers of men leaving the priesthood and the decline in the number of vocations is
also troubling to priests./17 The same Chicago
priest notes: The same number of people [about 9 per year in Chicago] have taken leaves of absence in
the last few years, but the quality has changed. In the past, guys would take leaves and
you kind of say, "I always thought that would happen. It was obvious that he was not
happy; he is struggling with a lot of stuff." But this year, some of the really best priests have taken leaves of absences. People I
really respect; this is really what a priest is. And he says, `I want to take a leave of
absence.' That has been very, very hard. The bishops find this depressing also. "The hardest thing of all is when a priest
is leaving," reports Cardinal Hickey of Washington. "I mean, I die a little bit
every time. It just saddens me to see this man in whom there is so much promise and so
much hope. If it were a thoroughly bad person...but that's so rare. When you see a man
leave, you just say, `Did I fail him? Did the church fail him? What happened here?' That's
my greatest sorrow." Recent media attention to pedophilia and homosexuality among the clergy have also
contributed to low morale. Priests' morale is also affected by changing concepts of what it means to be a priest
today and by their lifestyle and work. The identity and roles of priests prior to Vatican
II were fairly clear and stable. Priests in the past normally lived in a milieu where they
received the unquestioning respect and reverence of their parishioners. They administered
the sacraments from the church to which people came. The pastor was boss. He knew what was
good for his people, and they accepted his leadership. He had a theology that was
unquestioned. Today, the role of the pastor is not clear, because it has changed and is still
evolving. While survey data does not support the notion that priests lack a clear idea of
what a priest is or have been negatively affected by theological change in the concept of
priesthood,/18 the practical implementations of
these ideas may be more problematic. How is he supposed to be a leader and at the same
time a member of a team? Is he a teacher or a coordinator of ministries? Is he supposed to
minister to parishioners or facilitate ministers who do that? And what is the role of the
associate pastor in all this?/19 Is his time being
wasted in administration? Should he be involved in the school or religious education
program? Is he supposed to be sympathetic or prophetic? Should he spend his time in
one-on-one counseling or dealing with large groups? Which groups in the parish should he
reach out to--school children, teenagers, young singles, engaged, newly married, families
in crisis, the sick, elderly, grieving, dying, blacks, Hispanics, ethnics, Yuppies,
churched, unchurched, Protestants, Jews, altar guild, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, altar
servers, St. Vincent de Paul Society, athletes, the poor, unemployed, homeless, drug
addicts, abused women? Since he cannot do everything, how should he budget his time and
energies? And how does he say no to those he cannot serve? Today, the pastor must deal with a parish council, questioning parishioners, and
expectations that he be all things to all persons. And all of this is happening at the
same time priests' numbers are fewer and their average age is rising. In Chicago,
"there is a growing concern over the huge parishes that we have," says a priest
working in personnel. "What does it mean when there is just one priest or two priests
to run that? You have a funeral every day, three or four weddings on Saturday. How do you
revive yourself, keep yourself alive and alert in that kind of situation?" Between
1970 and 1985, the number of priests complaining of too much work increased slightly (9 to
11 percent) as did the number complaining of unrealistic demands and expectations of lay
people (8 to 16 percent)./20 This is especially
true of younger priests. While few priests want to go back to the old ways, many experience frustrations their
predecessors never dreamed of. Not infrequently they suffer from burnout and stress./21 Part of this stress comes from the inability to
have a private life. The expectation is that priests are always on duty. In addition,
parish rectories have become less homes for the priests than offices and meeting places
for parish activities. Some would prefer to live elsewhere. "Priests under forty are
finding it intolerable," explains the personnel director in Chicago. "They live
in public buildings. It is living above the store, and they can't stand it anymore. They
are not with people they want to live with. It offers neither privacy nor community." Their morale will be especially low if they think those in authority do not understand
or appreciate their problems./22 A number of
priests dealing with personnel expressed shock at the pope's speech in France declaring
that the priests' identity crisis was over. "I feel really bitter about those kinds
of statements coming out of Rome," says one priest. "I have felt so much of the
personal pain of really good men who have tried so hard to do a good job, and I see what
they are going through. And then to hear that there is no crisis, that is really
bad." Another personnel director says, "What the pope said is just absurd. I am stunned
by that remark, because it is just so ignorant. Diocesan priests, we have no idea what our
charism is. How we fit in. The morale is abysmal. Bishops are denying it, or they are
paralyzed by it. You have some one like the pope saying that it is all over. That is
idiotic. Just idiotic. He is just poorly informed." Some archbishops, especially older ones, admit that they were not sensitive to priests'
problems. They grew up in the Depression and the Second World War; they were used to a
life of obedience and sacrifice. When they faced problems, they gritted their teeth and
bore it. They also began their ministry in a time when most questions had a simple answer.
They enjoyed being priests, were successful, and reached the top of their profession. As a result, some, such as Archbishops Donnellan and Whealon, did not realize until
late in their careers how important it was to work at improving priests' morale. Archbishop Donnellan of Atlanta explained: I grew up in a tradition that said, "Here I am Lord, send me." I found the
priesthood a wonderfully happy experience, and my classmates have been very close to one
another and supported one another so that I was probably not sensitive enough to stress. I am inclined to say, "Hey, look, the average guy out there with a wife and
children and a job has more stress in a week than we have in a month." There is a lot
of truth to that, but just because you don't feel that much stress, doesn't mean that it
isn't there for other people. Maybe that is an area that I should have been more sensitive
to. Likewise, Archbishop Whealon of Hartford at the conclusion of a 1985 Emmaus, a renewal
program for priests, confessed in his homily: The major lesson which I take from Emmaus is the need, in the 1980s, to affirm priests.
That may sound to you younger men like a self-evident truth. Let me explain to you why
this is something new. The training of my generation was not to work for or expect human
praise. Priests did their best, for Christ and the church, and were not singled out for
praise by either their bishop or their fellow priests. But I now see this situation as not good, because in the 1980s a brother can feel
unsupported, isolated, not understood. A bishop needs to be available to his priests, to
encourage and thank and love and affirm them. If a bishop only says thanks to his priestly
co-workers and encourages them, he has spent a good day. But how to do that, with
knowledge and sincerity and without deflating the value of words of gratitude--that is a
challenge./23 A similar admission was made by Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee. As a Benedictine,
"I thought that the diocesan priests liked that individualism. `Don't touch me, let
me alone, let me do my own thing.' I didn't understand soon enough the enormous amount of
strokes they need and the care they need. So I mishandled the priests for a few
years." How a bishop is to relate to his priests is a complex problem. He is both their boss
and brother. The old style bishop was aloof and clearly the boss. Some bishops avoid
having friends among their priests lest they be accused of favoritism or cronyism. Despite
his desire to affirm priests, for example, Archbishop Whealon would not attend dinners in
honor of priests--"You would have to go to all of them." Archbishops have tried a number of strategies and programs for improving morale and
communications with their priests. Archbishop Whealon was one of the first bishops to
support team ministries in the parishes and his primary motivation was improving the
morale of younger priests who were not pastors. Workshops and sabbaticals and other forms
of continuing education are also seen as helpful in aiding priests' morale and ministry./24 The Emmaus program tries to help the priests'
spiritual development and to foster a feeling of solidarity among the priests. In
Hartford, three groups of priests did this program, and the archbishop went through the
program with all three groups. Another program, "Ministry to Priests," was used
in New Orleans, and again the archbishop attended each one. To improve communications between priests and their archbishop, the Chicago archdiocese
had "overnights," jokingly referred to by the priests as pajamas parties, which
began at noon and went to noon the next day. At these affairs Cardinal Bernardin invited a
group of priests of varied ages (e.g., everyone ordained in a year ending in five). The
day involved a "state of the diocese" address by the archbishop together with a
no-holds-barred question period. Discussions were also organized to improve communications
between priests of various ages. Time also was available for the priests to simply relax
together. A strategy used frequently by bishops when they first come to their dioceses is to go
around to the deaneries or vicariates to dialogue with their priests. Archbishop Quinn did
this when he first came to San Francisco as did Archbishops Levada of Portland and Law of
Boston in their archdioceses. Others have invited small groups of priests to lunch or
dinner at the archbishop's house so that they could talk informally. In New York, Cardinal O'Connor late in 1986 decided to set aside one day a week to see
any priest who wanted to see him at his residence. "I'll be available to priests all
day long at the house," he explained. "It will be like a barbershop. They can
come without appointments." Priests' morale involves many issues outside of the bishop's control, but he can do
much to improve it or make it worse. Sensitive listening and sincere love and respect for
his priests is essential. "A bishop's relationship with his priests is
all-important," comments one archbishop, "but it is not all that easy to
establish a level of trust or understanding [where priests accept] a decision where you
can't really share all the reasons for it. A bishop can't do a thing without his priests.
You shouldn't do things just to please them, I guess if you wanted to you couldn't. But
you should be honest with them, open with them. If they ask a direct question, you give
them a direct answer, don't say, `That is none of your business.'" An area about which priests are especially interested is the assignment of priests to
parishes. The appointment of priests to parishes and diocesan offices is a major
preoccupation of bishops. "The toughest thing about being a bishop," says
Archbishop Sheehan of Omaha, "is making the appointments." In making
assignments, bishops want to take into consideration the needs of the priests and the
needs of the diocese. Balancing these needs and getting the right man in the right job is
the problem. Another archbishop, for example, recalls the trouble he had finding a priest secretary. The first man I had as secretary was absolutely hopeless. He was one of the most
interesting fellows I ever met in my life, but he was totally hopeless as a secretary. He
just couldn't get himself organized, but, boy, could he talk about philosophy or theology
or Rahner or Schillebeeckx. I used to love to ride with him, but he was hopeless. Then I got another secretary to succeed him. But here again he was a very fine pastor
subsequently and a very wonderful priest. But as secretary you cannot become emotionally
involved in the people who are calling you up all the time. They get hundreds of calls and
people are complaining about this and that. And this guy would be falling apart. So he
went on to better things. I named him a pastor. Finally, after three tries I got the best secretary in the world, just perfect for the
job. In order to help them put the right person in the right spot, archbishops have set up
various systems and procedures. Many have a priests' personnel director who gathers
information on the parishes and interviews priests for various positions. But Archbishop
May was reluctant to appoint a full-time priest to personnel work in St. Louis: I have dealt with personnel matters in three different situations. I was director of
the personnel board in Chicago, and then worked on personnel in Mobile and here. I'm concerned about expectations. Everybody feels that this approach or having certain
policies and having a personnel board is going to create a situation in which everybody is
going to be satisfied. They've all been consulted, therefore, they're going to be in a
place that is fulfilling them, and so on. You raise expectations, and then it will never, never be that way. There's a greater
disillusionment very often when you do all those things and still there is a great deal of
disappointment. Chancery officials consider working on priests' assignments to be the most thankless
job in the diocese. It is impossible to give everyone the assignment they want, and
suspicions and complaints abound among priests over personnel assignments. In response to
these complaints, many members would agree with Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle: "It
would be important for every priest in the diocese to have a stint on the personnel board
so that they would know how hard it is. It is easy to stand out there and criticize
it." Archbishops feel that priests will complain no matter what the system is. A new
priests' personnel director told this story about a conversation with his archbishop: [I said to the archbishop,] "I really want to run this office in such a way that
guys will have no complaint." The archbishop laughed and roared, "Shame on you!" I said, "What do you mean, `Shame on me'?" "Shame on you, I thought you loved your priests!" I said, "I do." "Cripes," he said, "you want to take away their number one
pastime." Most archbishops have instituted an elected personnel board (sometimes called
committee, commission, or council), consisting of about seven priests, to advise them on
the assignment of priests. The establishment of these boards often came in response to
requests from the priests, but how well they work depended on the style of the bishop./25 Most bishops have come to depend heavily on these
boards in the appointment process. "All that used to be done by the bishop,"
explains Archbishop Kelly of Louisville. "I don't know what else he could do; he
could spend his whole life doing that. What is more, I would make bad judgments if it was
all up to me. The priests' personnel board is the greatest invention of Vatican II." The written procedures usually recognize that the archbishop can bypass the board if he
wants. "Anytime I want to I can bypass this process and make an appointment,"
says Archbishop O'Meara of Indianapolis. "But obviously, if I would do that very
often, why have them? Implicit in that is that you can do it, but you really won't." A few archdioceses do not have elected personnel boards, for example, Philadelphia
(under Cardinal Krol), Newark (under Archbishop Gerety), and Kansas City (under Archbishop
Strecker). "Our priests will take an appointment from the bishop," explains
Cardinal Krol, "but if it's [from] a personnel committee, they are resentful, they
are cantankerous, they complain." In Newark and Philadelphia, the auxiliary bishops
acted as a personnel board, meeting with the archbishop and the personnel staff. In Kansas
City, KS, the board is appointed by the archbishop. Surveys have indicated that priests, in fact, overwhelmingly favored personnel boards
as early as the mid-1960s./26 Although most priests
like the idea of personnel boards, some priests bypass them, especially in a small
diocese. In Mobile the chairman of the personnel board remarks: Some priests say, "I made my promise to a bishop, I didn't make it to a board, and
I will deal with the bishop." A lot of guys when they have to do with appointments,
they talk to the bishop. Sometimes things get settled that the board doesn't have a whole
lot of definite input into. But this is a small archdiocese, and after all, we are
advisory. There is nothing iron clad about our "rights." Most priests prefer personnel boards to the old assignment process that was totally
dependent on the archbishop and his appointed staff. The old system was attacked for being
insensitive to the needs of the priests and for being subject to cronyism. Personnel
boards are seen as being more democratic and more sensitive to the views of the priests.
In addition, if a priest does not relate well to the priests' personnel director or the
bishop, he can usually find someone on the board he can talk to. Personnel boards are usually elected directly by the priests. Normally, each age group
elects its own representative, but sometimes the age group nominates candidates and the
entire presbyterate votes on all the candidates. In a few archdioceses (for example in Los
Angeles, and Indianapolis), the members are elected by the priests in particular
geographical areas. The board members serve as volunteers while holding down other full-time jobs. The
staff work in a large diocese is done by a full-time personnel director. In a small
diocese it might be done by the chairman of the board or by a chancery official who works
part-time on personnel. The archbishops have found boards to be a good source of advice. "We have a
personnel board, elected by the priests, that is simply fabulous," reports Archbishop
Kucera of Dubuque. "I take no credit for it because it was here when I arrived. It
has done a tremendous job in being sensitive to the needs of the priests and the parishes.
Working with them is a pleasure." Being new to the archdiocese and not knowing the
priests, he found the board especially helpful. "Listening to these people talk
filled me in very quickly," he explains. "It gave me a background on who's who,
and the nuances were much more easily viewed." But even when the archbishop is from the archdiocese, he usually finds the board
helpful. "The personnel board certainly has brought to me special dimensions of
priests' capabilities and priests' weaknesses when we are making appointments that I would
not have had knowledge of," explains Archbishop Lipscomb, a native of Mobile. "Our job is to match the skills and abilities of the priests with the needs of the
parish and the diocese," explains the director of personnel for the St. Paul
archdiocese. In order to do that, the personnel director and the board must have
information on the parishes and the priests. In 1960, 50 percent of the pastors and 84 percent of the curates said that they were
"simply told to report" to their current assignment without being consulted./27 Today, this would be atypical. What the St. Paul
personnel board does to gather information about the desires and needs of the priests is
more common: In January we send out a letter asking the priests if they want to move, if they want
to be interviewed by the board, how they are getting along with their pastor (or
associate). About 80 percent of them answer the questionnaire. We first interview those who want a change, then those who want to be interviewed
simply to keep us informed about what is going on. Then we look at those who did not
answer the questionnaire, and, if we have not interviewed them in three years, we do so. Formally surveying the priests about their interest in moving and the type of parish
they are interested in helps personnel boards match up the needs of the diocese with the
desires of the priests. Some boards also have interviews with the priests, although this
is usually left to the personnel director. In Milwaukee the personnel office uses an interview procedure constructed by
Development Dimensions International to measure skills, especially management skills, of
the priests in order to match them up with the right parish. For example, to examine a
priest's staff leadership ability, the office might ask him the following: What approach do you use to work with the parish council when one of its committees is
to consider a new idea or policy? What ways have you found to make your associate pastor
or parish employees' jobs easier and more rewarding? Tell me about the toughest groups in
the parish that you have had to get cooperation from, and what did you do to get that
cooperation? Can you think of a parish project or policy (not necessarily your own) that
was successfully implemented because of your efforts? What changes have you tried to
implement in your own area of responsibility as pastors, and what have you done to get
these changes underway? The Milwaukee personnel director defends using an interview procedure developed by
business: "We look at pastors and priests as managers of a lot of things. The skills
required in any position are basically the same. It is how you apply them. There is a set
of questions for each skill category. It basically measures behavior in given work
situations." In the past, a pastorate would become open if a pastor died, retired, or moved. A
pastor's death would be known to all the priests, but often his retirement or transfer was
kept secret by the chancery until after a replacement had been found. Priests complained
that this system favored "insiders" or people with friends in the chancery. It
did not treat priests equally or fairly. In addition, this system was considered
paternalistic because it presumed that those in authority knew what was best for a man
without even asking him. Now the trend has been towards open listing, where all the priests of the
diocese are informed of an opening through the diocesan newspaper or through a special
mailing from the chancery. Any priest may apply for the position if he wishes. A financial
and historical profile of the parish is given to anyone interested in the parish so that
he can decide whether or not he wants to apply. The first advantage of this process is that it provides the bishop and personnel board
with information on the specific desires of the priests. They do not have to guess whether
a priest would be willing to go to a particular parish. Through the applications that they
receive in response to the open listing, they know which priests are interested in which
parishes. Second, many personnel directors feel that open listing treats priests as mature adults
who should have something to say about their lives. It requires that the priests take
initiative rather than waiting to be told what to do. "It has been psychologically
healthy for priests to take some responsibility for their own lives," explains a
director, "instead of sitting back and waiting to be recognized by authority.
Obedience as a genuine call to a difficult service is a very important spiritual part of
our lives, but the passive stuff that it frequently creates is very unhealthy." Or as another personnel director says, "It is very mature because it puts
ownership on the men involved. You make your own bed, you lie in it." The Louisville
priests' personnel director notes that open listing "takes some of the blame off of
the board and the archbishop for making a decision that affects their lives. Now the
priests have to make a decision that affects their lives or at least let us know which way
they are thinking." Some archdioceses (Atlanta, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Kansas City, KS, Mobile,
Philadelphia, San Francisco) do not have open listing. Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia
explains, "We don't advertise vacancies. To me that is a kind of helpless leadership.
I think you have to fill places, and unpleasant places." Some priests object to open listing in principle. "Some of your better people, for
spiritual reasons as well as psychological reasons, feel they should not apply,"
explains the chairman of the Omaha personnel board. "It is a matter of principle or
just fear. Sometimes spiritual: `If the Lord wants you to do it, the bishop will ask.' But
how is the bishop ever going to know if you don't say something?" In some small dioceses there is fear that open listing would be destructive to priestly
camaraderie. The priests' personnel director in Louisville says that the priests were
reluctant to go to open listing. "They are afraid of competition, afraid of
dog-eat-dog type stuff." A member of the personnel board in Kansas City, KS, reports: We are a small archdiocese and guys know each other pretty well. They all know
resources are limited and the parishes are limited. To pit guys--have them bid against
each other for a parish--could end up being pretty destructive. But he admits that "some guys would like to know that so-and-so is going to be
moving, so they would know some other things might be possible." But even in those places without formal open listing, a priest can still request an
assignment if he knows about it, although this was not common in Philadelphia. In Kansas
City, a member of the personnel board notes, "Obviously word gets around about some
of the places that are going to be open." In San Francisco, the personnel director
explains, "The archbishop has said that people can let him know if they are
interested in a particular opening, which means that we, in fact, have a modified open
listing." In places that have open listing, some priests just tell the personnel director that
they are open to a variety of assignments. The Seattle personnel director reports: We had a good number of priests who said, "Yeah, I am interested in a move. I am
not committed to any one particular parish. If you see a place where you think I might be
good, I want you to know I would be willing to talk about it." That freed us up a
lot. Those dioceses that do not have open listing must face the issue of when in the process
a priest should be consulted about a specific assignment. Everyone would agree that it is
best to consult the priest as soon as possible about his general preferences and needs.
But when it comes to asking him whether he would be interested in going to a particular
parish, the key question is, do you consult him before or after conferring with the
archbishop? Some prefer to consult the man first. These personnel directors see no reason to
propose to the archbishop an assignment that the priest is going to oppose. In addition,
they feel that the archbishop should know what the views of the priest are before he makes
up his mind. If this is the procedure followed, then the personnel director must stress to
the priest that no decision has been made and that other priests are being consulted for
the same position. On the other hand, some personnel directors prefer to get tentative
approval from the archbishop before approaching a priest. They do not want to raise false
expectations among the priests that may not be fulfilled. One difficulty with this consultation is that sometimes the appointment falls through.
The Atlanta personnel director reports: It can raise expectations. But it is made clear, and all the priests know that it is
only a feeler, only by way of trying to work up a cohesive slate that will work all the
way around. They know from past observations that most of the time it doesn't work out the
way they were first approached. A few weeks ago, we approached a young priest about making him a pastor in a small
church in the mountains. I called him, he was all gung ho. Then something else happened
that did not involve him at all, and we ended up sending someone else. He may be
disappointed, but I think it also flattered him and encouraged him because he realized
that even in spite of his young age, he is needed and wanted. Obviously, there will be
other offers. Another problem of priests' assignments is how to relate the work of the personnel
board to the desires of the regional vicars, especially if they are auxiliary bishops. The
vicars want the best priests in their regions and would oppose the appointment of a man
who would cause problems. As a result, there are fights among the vicars and fights
between the vicars and the personnel board over assignments. When there are disagreements,
the archbishop has to find a solution or choose sides. In some archdioceses (Detroit, Miami, and Washington) the regional bishops sit with the
personnel boards and participate in their deliberations. The personnel board chairman in
Detroit reports that this works well: The role of the regional bishops is crucial because they are the ones who are actually
preparing for the meetings by looking at their region and all their priests, meeting
personally, individually with those whose terms are due, getting a sense of what those
priests are like, what their own desires are, how they want to be assigned. It is based on
that information that we proceed in the assignment process. The elected priest members of the board have equal say with the bishops at the
meetings. They will add or subtract. But what the bishops do is very important. Plus they
have the personal element too. They are the ones who are in touch with these priests, to
communicate that they did get it or they didn't. Problems are more frequent where the bishops do not sit in on the personnel board
meeting. In one such archdiocese, a regional bishop questioned the appointment of a priest
in his region. When the personnel board made the recommendation anyway, he asked,
"What is the point in asking us?" The appointment was then put on hold so the
auxiliary could review the matter. When the priest asked the personnel director why the
decision was taking so long, he was told the vicar had some problems with the appointment.
At this the auxiliary exploded and complained to the archbishop, who agreed that the
priest should not have been told this since it would cause resentment against the vicar
under whom the priest would have to work if the appointment did go through. This example raises the question of how much secrecy should surround personnel
decisions. Personnel boards have been criticized by some as incapable of keeping secrets.
Archbishop Gerety, when he was bishop of Portland, Maine, heard in casual conversation in
a rectory the results of the personnel board meeting he had attended earlier that day. Most boards brag that there are no leaks. One director noted, "You got some guys
out there who are good at guessing. Many times they come up with the right answer, and
everyone thinks that somebody must have leaked it." Another director agreed that often the guesses are on target: I go home, and one of the associates where I live tells me what we did that day. Often
he is either on target or a step ahead. I tell the priests, "I listen closely to the
rumors so that we know what to do in the personnel board, because you guys are spending
all this energy thinking it up, we might as well take full advantage of it." Everyone would agree that a priest's personal reputation should be protected in the
process, but how much does he have a right to know about who opposed his appointment and
why? Most boards keep their internal discussions confidential and tell the man that it is
the decision of the board as a whole. But as will be explained later, boards have
difficulties explaining why a priest did not get a position. Many times a pastor wants it kept confidential that he is applying for a new parish.
Problems can arise if a priest's parishioners find out that he has applied for another
parish--"Why do you want to leave us?"--especially if he does not get the new
post. "The man wants to move but doesn't want to put his parish up for open listing
until he knows what he is getting," reports the chairman of the Omaha personnel
board. "You are in a catch-22. You know that, if you open list his place, you would
get all kinds of movement, but you can't do it. We had two of those this year. If you
could just get the movement started, you open up a lot of things for a lot of
people." Some priests, after getting a new post, prefer to blame the archbishop for their move.
"He gets up in the pulpit and says, `I really don't want to leave, but the archbishop
says I have to,'" says the chairman of the Omaha personnel board, "when the
buzzard really asked for a change. Then we get all kinds of letters. You can't say he is a
liar." In another archdiocese, the archbishop was rather philosophical about being blamed. A pastor wrote twice and said, "I might be ready for a change." But when it
came time to speak to the people, "Well, the bishop wanted me to move." The bishop must be willing to take full responsibility for the unpopular decision. That
just goes with being the top authority. If we want to have the authority that enables us to make decisions, even unilateral
decisions on occasion, we also have to be willing to accept that perception on the part of
the people when you cannot explain all of the reasons that you do what you do. There are
times when you have to exert it that way, so we can't play the game both ways. Secrecy breaks down when the priests begin to be consulted about specific assignments.
"Once you start feeling these guys out, then there is no more secrecy," explains
the personnel director in Atlanta. "Everybody then knows probably who is going where.
Of course, they usually get it wrong. Within twenty-four hours everybody knows what the
board is proposing, but they never know why." Another debated issue is whether the archbishop should sit in on the meetings of the
personnel board. Whether he does or not depends primarily on his own inclinations, but
there are disagreements over which is the best policy. Some people argue that he should
not participate so that he can act on appeals from priests who disagree with the board. If
he participated in the decision, it would be more difficult for him to be an unbiased
judge of an appeal. Many board members, on the other hand, believe that they can act more efficiently with
the bishop present. In Washington, the archbishop and his auxiliaries began meeting with
the personnel board in December of 1985. The personnel director reports: Before, we would meet and we would make recommendations, memos would go to the
archbishop and the auxiliaries. Maybe three days or a week would go by, and then we would
find out, "No, we are not happy with this suggestion." By meeting with them, if there is anything that they know that would preclude a certain
appointment, we hear it right away. We have done in three hours what would have normally
taken us two or three weeks to finally clarify. One archbishop tried not meeting with the board for a couple of months but found that
unsatisfactory. "I felt the need to find out why they were presenting this man for
that job or that parish," he says. "I would have to go ask the board and go over
these suggestions. I felt that I would be better served if I were part of the discussion
so that I would know exactly why they were proposing this person for that location." The level of participation by archbishops at the meetings varies. Some take an active
role and influence the outcome by their questions, comments, and proposals. Others are
less active and let the board or the personnel director take the initiative. In describing
Archbishop O'Meara's style, the personnel director in Indianapolis reports, "Normally
he tries to sit back and listen and let us come to consensus. But if we are going in a
direction he is not going to be able to live with, he jumps in. He doesn't feel it is fair
to let us agonize over these things when he knows it will not go. He makes an effort to
stay out of the discussions until we have come to a consensus." Sometimes the bishop takes a leadership role and the board reacts to his suggestions.
This is common in small dioceses. The chairman of the personnel board in Mobile notes: Technically, the board handles all the spade work and comes up with a name or two. That
is the theory. But in practice very often the initial recommendation of somebody for a
particular parish may come from the top [the archbishop]. It is brought to the board and
the indication is that this is what the top wants. Unless some real powerful objections
can be raised, that ends up being what it is. It is not like he comes to the well to take water out; he knows what he wants before he
gets there. We are a very small archdiocese, and very often he will know some of the
people better than the board. If the archbishop meets with the committee, he can hear their deliberations and know
the reasons behind their recommendations. He can respond immediately with questions and
comments. "We meet with each other and we change each other's minds," says
Archbishop Lipscomb of Mobile, explaining the process. Sometimes, as in Atlanta, the
archbishop will attend part of the meeting. "They meet for about two hours,"
explained Archbishop Donnellan, "and they call me in, and we go over what they have
been meeting about." Attending personnel board meetings is difficult but important work according to
Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle: It's time consuming. It is very, very frustrating, and it's hard work. I don't find it
easy to deal with the lives of other people. We are so restricted in what we are able to
do. You have so many priests and so many appointments and so many needs. And to try to put
the right person in the right place, it's a struggle. It's never easy, and it's never
absolutely ideal. Is it important that I go to that? Yes, I think it is. The only other way is to let
them struggle and to come back to me with a package, and then I say yes or no to it. I
would be hard pressed to say no to anything that came back unless it was a glaring
something or other there. If that were so, I would feel the responsibility of pointing out
quite at length to the personnel board that had worked so hard why I would want it to be
different. So I feel the need to be part of it. Some archbishops do not attend the personnel meetings because they don't like that kind
of work. Others fear that their presence might be overpowering. "I just think they
act better without me," says one archbishop. "I am an inhibiting presence here,
not because of me [laughter], but because my predecessors dealt with a strong hand here.
If I sat in on such a meeting I just know that they would feel that I was there to tell
them what I expected them to endorse. That is the last thing in the world I want." When an archbishop is present, some board members say they are uncertain whether the
archbishop is sometimes playing the devil's advocate or whether he is putting forward his
true beliefs. It takes time for board members to figure out the archbishop's style and
just how hard they can push him. One St. Louis member admitted, "At first I thought I
would be hesitant. Now if he says, `What about Fr. Jones going here?' I wouldn't hesitate
to say, `You can't be serious. He has had a problem with this, this, and this.' I never
thought I would do that with the archbishop, but he never holds that against you."
Another member agreed, "He not only allows it, he welcomes it. He enjoys being
challenged. We had one member who was extremely outspoken." In some archdioceses where the archbishop does not attend the personnel board meetings,
he meets with the personnel director before the board meeting so that the director can
bounce ideas off him before the meeting. Archbishop Kelly of Louisville says, the
personnel director talks to me before they make their final recommendation. He finds out what I think, but
it is just another opinion. I want them to make their judgment. That is very important to
me. I don't think I have ever overridden them on anything. But sometimes when they were surfacing possibilities, I would say "No, not that
one and not that one and not that one. He is having trouble." Or "He is too good
for that," or something like that. So they take those into account. Similarly, the Atlanta director noted, "The chairman has already spoken to the
archbishop before the meeting. That is where he would rule out the totally impossible or
hopeless." Or as the Newark personnel director put it, the archbishop "will let
you know even before you come to a meeting that he has some problems. The vicar general
will say, `He is having some problems with X as the first choice there.' So we back off or
we decide to build a case." Rarely is a board inclined to make a recommendation that
it feels the bishop will reject. In the assignment of priests, it is necessary to distinguish between the assignment of
associates and pastors. A newly ordained priest hardly ever is appointed a pastor. He is
usually assigned to a parish as an associate or assistant pastor where he works with a
pastor. Typically, the associate assignments are all made at the same time in the spring.
In the past, having two or three associates in a parish was not uncommon, but today this
is becoming rare. Depending on the number of priests and parishes in a diocese, a priest
could remain an associate for one and a half (Santa Fe) to 25 years (Boston). Everyone involved in the process says that special care is taken in the first
assignment of a priest to get him a parish where he will have a good working relationship
with his pastor. Parishes with serious conflicts among the parishioners or staff will not
get a newly ordained priest. "For newly ordained priests," explains the St. Paul
personnel director, "we try to find the best situations we can." "A good
assignment," explains another personnel director, "is one where there is a good
community (or at least a potential for it), a collaborative staff, and a pastor who is not
an ogre." Sometimes this involves moving the current associate to a less desirable parish to make
room for the newly ordained priest. "We want the good parishes for new priests,"
explains the director of priests' personnel in San Francisco, "so after a new priest
has been there a few years, we have to move him out to make room for another new
priest." This reverse seniority occurs because the archbishops and personnel people
believe that a new priest should have a good experience of his priesthood during his first
years of ministry. "We see this as an extension of their training," explains one
personnel director. Part of this training also involves working in a variety of situations. In some
dioceses this could include working in the inner city, suburbs, and rural areas. "We
like to give them a variety of experience," explains the San Francisco personnel
director, "so the associates move about every three to five years." In general, the fewer the number of associates, the greater their voice in determining
their assignments. In some archdioceses, an associate has a virtual veto over his
placement in a parish. Nor will an associate be sent to a pastor who does not want him.
Some associates would find working for certain pastors intolerable, while some pastors
would rather hire a lay associate than get a priest who does not fit in. "We try not
to put people together who we think would have a conflict," explains the chairman of
the personnel board in Miami. In the past, associates were simply assigned. But many people feel that bad relations
between pastors and associates led many associates to leave the priesthood during the
l960s and 1970s. In addition, with so few associates today and so many parishes with
openings, it is usually not difficult finding one that wants him and that he likes. But
one personnel director complained, "We have people going to places where they are not
needed, where their skills are not being used. Before they had nothing to say, now they
have too much to say." The solution to that problem in some dioceses is to offer to associates only the
parishes that really need help. For example, in Chicago the placement office must approve
the open listing of a parish for an associate. "Every parish can't be on the open
list," explains the executive secretary of the personnel board. "Otherwise the
forty most popular parishes would just pick up another priest. If what the pastor is
really saying is `I need a youth minister, therefore I want an associate pastor,' we will
suggest he hire a youth minister." One problem with this approach is that the least attractive parishes tend to be those
without money to hire lay ministers. Many inner-city pastors want an associate because he
is cheaper than a lay minister. The Hispanic caucus in Chicago complained, for example,
that the personnel board was not doing enough to attract men to the Hispanic parishes. In
addition, a parish with a "bad" pastor is not going to attract a
"good" associate, thus leaving the parishioners with little recourse except
transferring parishes. Assigning associates requires that the personnel director act as a matchmaker first by
advertising openings and then by attempting to fit pastors and associates together. This
is not always easy. In Newark the personnel director explained, [If you wanted to be an associate pastor here] I would say to you, "These are
twelve places that are open. Here is the data sheet on each one of them. Feel free to go
visit and come back to me and tell me what you think. I will check it out to see if they
are interested, and if we can strike up the marriage between the two of you, we will move
on the recommendation. If there is any problem, we will just have to keep going back to
the drawing board until you and they click." For some priests this is a threatening process. "Some pastors are just not good at
attracting personnel," reports the executive secretary of the Chicago personnel
board. "Many pastors do not possess the interviewing skills you need for this new
system. It is going to be very frightening and create a lot of worry and concern. A lot of
associates are like that too." In the absence of open listing, for the appointment of an associate in San Francisco,
the committee would first check with the archbishop. If he approves, they ask the pastor
to see if he would accept the associate. "Then we check with the associate to see if
it is OK with him. If either says no, the process stops there, and we have to rework it.
One such change can have a domino effect on the other assignments." This chapter continues... 1. Jackson W. Carroll, Dean R. Hoge, and Francis K. Scheets,
O.S.C., "Costs of Professional Parish Leadership: A Cross-Denominational Study,"
(Washington, DC: Catholic University, January 13, 1988, Mimeographed), to be published in
upcoming annual volume of the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches (New York:
National Council of Churches). In 1983, total pay (including benefits but not room and
board) for priests ranged from $4,512+ to $14,179 for newly ordained priests to $4,512+ to
$16,040 for a priest ordained forty years. Also see "...the Laborer is Worthy of His
Hire," (Chicago: National Federation of Priests' Councils, 1984). 2. John Kinsella, In Service to Church Ministers: A Brief
Introduction to the Ministry of Church Personnel Administration (Cincinnati, OH:
National Association of Church Personnel Administrators, 1983), 35. 3. Helen Morrison, O.P., The Third Age: Retirement Concepts
for Clergy and Religious (Cincinnati, OH: National Association of Church Personnel
Administrators, 1986). 5. In 1966, 86 percent of the priests supported a personnel
office to work out clergy assignments. Joseph H. Fichter, S.J., America's Forgotten
Priests: What They Are Saying (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 142. 7. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., "Fewer Priests for Better or
Worse?" America 149 (September 24, 1983): 149-50. 8. George Gallup, Jr., and Jim Castelli, The American
Catholic People (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 53. 9. See Dean Hoge, Future of Catholic Leadership: Responses
to the Priest Shortage (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1987); Richard A. Schoenherr and
Annemette Sorensen, "From the Second Vatican to the Second Millennium: Decline and
Change in the U.S. Catholic Church," Respondent Report 5 (Madison, WI: Comparative
Religious Organization Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1981). 10. For description of today's seminarians, see Eugene F.
Hemrick, "The Evolving Church and Church Governance," in The Ministry of
Governance, ed. James K. Mallet (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1986),
142, especially footnotes 7-9. 11. Bishops' Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, Recommendations
and an Enquiry about Alcoholism among Catholic Clergy (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic
Conference, 1978) and Joseph H. Fichter, S.J., Rehabilitation of Clergy Alcoholics
(New York: Human Science Press, 1982). 12. Andrew M. Greeley, The Catholic Priest in the United
States: Sociological Investigations (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1972),
216. 13. See Fichter, Forgotten Priests, 115-80; Greeley, Catholic
Priest, 199-266. For recommendations on improving morale, see The Report of the
Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Priestly Life and Ministry (Washington, DC: U.S.
Catholic Conference, 1974). 14. On conflicts between bishops and priests in the late
1960s, see John Seidler, "Priest-Protest in the Human Catholic Church," National
Catholic Reporter, May 3, 1974, 7ff. 15. Dean R. Hoge, Joseph J. Shields, and Mary Jeanne Verdieck,
"Attitudes of American Priests in 1970 and 1985 on Church and Priesthood," Study
of Future Church Leadership, Report No. 4 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America,
March 1986, Mimeographed), table 9, p. 1. 16. Hoge, Future of Catholic Leadership, 20. See also
Hoge, Shields, and Verdieck, "Attitudes of American Priests." 17. On priest resignations, see John Seidler, "Priest
Resignations in a Lazy Monopoly," American Sociological Review 44 (1979):
763-83; John Seidler, "Priest Resignations, Relocation and Passivity," National
Catholic Reporter, May 10, 1974, 7ff; and Greeley, Catholic Priest, 275-310. 18. Hoge, Shields, and Verdieck, "Attitudes of American
Priests," table 9, p. 1. 19. Paul M. Dudziak, "The Marginalization of Associate
Pastors: Some Implications for Seminaries," Jurist 43 (1983): 199-213. 20. Hoge, Shields, and Verdieck, "Attitudes of American
Priests," table 9, p. 2. 21. Bishops' Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, National
Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Priest and Stress (Washington, DC: U.S.
Catholic Conference, 1982). On other health problems, see Bishops' Committee on Priestly
Life and Ministry, The Health of American Catholic Priests: A Report and Study
(Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 1985). 22. In 1960, 44 percent of the priests surveyed reported the
degree of their bishop's personal interest in them at "hardly at all" or
"not at all." In 1966, the percentage was 61. See Fichter, Forgotten Priests,
54-55. 23. John F. Whealon, "Homily--Closing of Emmaus
Convocation," St. Joseph's College, Archdiocese of Hartford, June 15, 1983. 24. Bishops' Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, The
Continuing Formation of Priests: Growing in Wisdom, Age and Grace (Washington, DC:
U.S. Catholic Conference, 1984) 25. Between 1967 and 1972, the number of U.S. dioceses with
personnel boards increased from 2 percent to 80 percent. See Robert F. Szafran, "The
Effect of Executive and Professional Organizations: Accounting for Organizational Patterns
and Individual Perceptions," Sociology of Work and Occupation 7 (May 1980):
188-209, and "Preliminary Conclusions about the Creation of Clergy Personnel Boards
in Roman Catholic Dioceses," Respondent Report 2 (Madison, WI: Comparative Religious
Organization Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1976). Also see Richard A. Schoenherr and
Robert F. Szafran, "Growth and Decline Rates, 1966-1973, and Personnel Operations in
the United States Catholic Dioceses," Respondent Report 1 (Madison, WI: Comparative
Religious Organization Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1976). 26. In 1966, 89 percent of the priests surveyed said they did
not have a personnel board but wanted one. Another 7 percent had boards and approved the
idea. Fichter, Forgotten Priests, 64.
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
Copyright © 1989 by Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
All rights reserved
For the previous chapter and table of contents, see Chapter 5 and
Contents.
Archbishop Gerety
Archbishop SalatkaPriests' Personnel
Priests' Personnel Office
Shrinking Personnel Pool
Priests' Problems
Priest Morale
Assignment of Priests
Personnel Board
Desires of the Priests
Open Listing
Regional Vicars
Confidentiality
Presence of the Archbishop
Assignment of Associates
Footnotes
See also: