The Person as the Basis for Love
in Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility
by Margaret Posner

Margaret Posner earned an MA in Spanish literature from San Diego State University, and presently is studying in the MA program in philosophy at Holy Apostles College and Seminary.

Note from Dr. Chervin: Karol Wojtyla, better known as John Paul II, now canonized, was my favorite Pope and is one of the philosophers I teach. However, I was delighted to find that one of my own M.A. students, Margaret Posner, could write about his philosophy even better than I ever could!

This chapter explores important points that reveal how Karol Wojtyla’s discussion in Love and Responsibility rests on the notion of the person. The sections sub-titled “Observation” provide an elaboration of these themes with related topics that could be integrated in a course or lecture focusing on Wojtyla’s personalist philosophy. The comments found in the “Observation” sections are based on common knowledge or current events that can exemplify Wojtyla’s perspectives; it is important that these observations be less formal in tone as  opposed to the more explanatory style applied to the analytical portion of this chapter.  The observations, therefore, are more free-flowing and unreferenced. This contrast is aimed at providing a more relaxed sample of potential commentary that can be integrated into marriage preparation courses, or any other course dealing with issues underlying the person.  Since these courses on not held in rigorous academic settings, a more conversational tone may help in the assimilation of important concepts. For example, topics that deal with mutual respect between spouses can be referred back to Wojtyla’s emphasis on the intrinsic dignity of the person, discussed in the analytical portion of this chapter. The observations may supply a potential commentary on this subject in a less analytical manner. Wojtyla’s unique personalist approach offers a solid frame in which the sacredness of love and its connection to the person is fully appreciated.  His manner of intertwining the person with the truths that underpin the concept of true love represent an important contribution to Catholic Realism, specifically that of the twenty-first century.

The Person as “I”
Wojtyla begins his thoughts on love and responsibility by first delineating the differences between a person and a thing.1  Although this may seem like an elementary distinction to make, it is clear that this simple, yet profound difference is the axis upon which his entire thesis revolves. Inanimate things and animals do not have free will—the defining hallmark of a person that pre-supposes self-awareness and interiority. In describing the person, Wojtyla highlights the fact that even though one person can never be substituted by another, this in itself does explain what a person is.2 The crux of the matter lies in the interior life of the person and how this aspect intersects with the exterior world. The “I” is therefore not simply a pronoun determining originality or irreplaceability; it is an entire experiential synthesis in time that cannot exist identically in another person. Therefore, man in the world “[…] strives to assert himself as an ‘I’ […] since the nature of his being demands it.”3  Additionally, the interiority of a person connotes a spirituality that naturally directs itself to “truth and goodness” since man’s existence revolves around his striving to obtain goodness “at its fullest.”4 Acknowledging that truth cannot be separated from goodness is crucial in understanding man’s innate aspiration toward these two principles.  

Observations

Notice how Wojtyla joins the theme of the spirit with that of truth and goodness.  He doesn’t just mention the spiritual aspect as a constitutive component of man, but connects it to man’s innate desire for transcendence, namely obtaining truth and goodness, two principles whose source is God.  Up to this point, he has presented a structured view of man and personhood that is not just generic.  He explores the meaning of man as a person demonstrating that man is not limited to thinking and desiring in general, rather, he uses these abilities for their natural end—achieving truth and goodness.  Man’s rationality naturally identifies goodness and his ability to desire it, points him in this direction.  So far, the seemingly obvious distinction made initially between a thing and a person begins to unveil the depth behind this difference.
Having described the nature of the person in terms of possessing an interior life, Wojtyla stresses that this interiority is the cause of man’s deep connection to the world.  His inner life makes him able to establish fixed bonds and become “intimately involved” with the exterior world, where there are other persons doing the same.5  Wojtyla’s keen insight into the depth of the self as the cause of this connective relationship with the world is a point that may easily be overlooked.   Man, in secular terms, is usually considered as a part of the world, in the same way plants or animals live in their natural habitat.  His relationship to the world is considered as limited to the natural realm and predicated mostly on his adaptive characteristics.  

While it is true that biologically, man is equipped to survive in his natural setting, his ability to live humanly, as a person, is not solely based on his innate capacity for inhabiting the planet.  If this were so, man would be no different than an animal and his connection to the exterior world would not have the “intimate” character that Wojtyla emphasizes.  In fact, Wojtyla underscores man’s ability for self-determination, a capability that lies within his rationality, as the distinguishing mark of his personhood.6  Understanding that the way in which man perceives, takes hold and functions in the world, within a context of moral and practical values, stems precisely from his inner life does not take away from the notion of man’s natural environment as the necessary component for the unfolding of his nature.7  Wojtyla emphasizes the importance of man’s interiority when he analyzes man’s reaction to any type of exterior input as not merely a robotic reciprocation, but as a change in his relationship with the world.  As he puts it, man’s entire nature, his “I” demands that he act with his whole self.8  Contrastingly, when man sees himself through the lens of routine activity, his reaction to external prompts in general are not considered as being the cause of any type of change in man’s relationship to the world.  Yet Wojtyla’s ability to see through man’s commonly-accepted self-image, that of a being merely capable of rationally interacting with his environment, brings out the spiritual dimension  intrinsic to man’s nature.

Wojtyla upholds man’s goal within the context of his inner and exterior life as that of achieving “truth and goodness,” he then denotes that the incommunicability of the “I” is where all true conceptions about education and culture begin.9   Incommunicability of the person can be defined as the irreplaceable quality of a person as such.10  Therefore, in addressing marriage, love and responsibility must rest on a clear understanding of the person, as the unique, unrepeatable “I”.11   Any explanation that does not adhere to this understanding of the person cannot purport to present an accurate view of the sacred, sacramental relationship between a man and a woman, each as a unique son or daughter of God.  Recognizing Wojtyla’s  personalist premise as essentially united to the sacramental nature of love, enables one to assimilate his discussion on how the “I” as a subject can also be an object, as opposed to being objectified, when he or she is the object of another “I”.12  In order to adequately analyze man within the subject-object context, Wojtyla stresses the two possible meanings of the word “use.”13   

The Person and the Meaning of “to Use”

Wojtyla states that a person can never use another person as a mean’s to an end, as in the first meaning of the word “use.”14 In fact, doing this can be considered a transgression of the other’s essence, which is intrinsically evil, and goes against the man’s innate desire for truth and goodness.  Furthermore, using the other for one’s end is also an evil act on the part of the user.15 


Observations
When a person is considered as an instrument, he or she is, in a sense, stripped of the dignity that comes with being a person.  It could be said that in this case, the personhood of the other is not just simply ignored or overlooked, but the entire meaning of personhood is removed from the existential context of those affected, including the user and the used.  Wojtyla’s insight here serves not only to signal the effect of using a person as an end in particular relationships, his point shows the ramifying societal effects of viewing persons as ends.  The far-reaching results of this “using” attitude produce a utilitarian mentality that influences nearly all aspects of society.  As utilitarian principles in man-woman relationships flourish, they also root themselves culturally, becoming a  norm.  Additionally, utilitarian principles promote the societal re-definition of important aspects related to genuine love, family and offspring.  

To clarify the extended influence of utilitarian principles in non-marriage-related issues, it would be helpful to use a fairly recent episode from the economic arena:  In the financial world, the unfair banking practices that caused many people to lose their homes, exemplified how some corporations used the consumer as a means toward an end.  The lack of safeguards to protect the financial security and livelihood of these people were never factored into the banking strategies that culminated in significant losses for the unwary clients.  The solutions to the problem were implemented as an afterthought and only helped some of the victims. The corporate attitude which brought all this about fits well with Wojtyla’s perspective on how the other can be considered a means to an end. The building collapse in a Bangladesh sweat shop that killed as many as 800 workers is another example of how these persons were used in order to achieve an economic end, while their personal safety was not considered as they labored away, producing income for their employers.  

A person in the man-woman relation can also suffer this type of utilization, unless, as Wojtyla asserts, the full value of the other as a person forms the basis for the relationship. Utilization can be exercised by simply assuming the other is there to satisfy an emotional or psychological need.  If the other is seen as a means to an end, namely, fulfilling some sort of emotional satisfaction, authentic love cannot be considered the basis for this bond.  If the man or woman is used, rather than loved for his or her own sake, his or her full value as a person does not exist in the relationship. 

The Person as Equal to the Other

Wojtyla presents love as the antidote against the utilization of the person.  He brings out a very commonsensical, yet insightful point:  When two people have a good in common, there is no subordination of either one of the members.16  He demonstrates the inter-connectedness of man’s capacity for love, free will, and the desire to achieve a common good,  noting that truth and goodness summarize the yearnings of the human spiritual life;  the sincere desire for the attainment of a common good erases any trace of subordination in relation to the other.17  The only subordination possible in this scenario is focused on the good they are both striving for.  In the case of the man and woman, their common desire to love each other’s person nullifies any subordination one may feel toward the other.  Consequently, the equal footing Wojtyla refers to is the natural outcome of two people seeking a common good.18  

Observation

Elaborating on this topic, one could hypothetically see how two people seeking different goods are not unequal with respect to each other; working toward different goals simply shows they are each working for a different purpose.  The important concept is that in a marital relationship, there must me an overriding goal that represents a common good both spouses work to obtain, as for example, the understanding that both must help each other in their spiritual journey toward heaven.  Two people searching for a common evil, on the other hand, would easily fall prey to an unequal scenario.  In this case, the resulting subordination of one person to another could be the natural result of the negative goal which they both share and the ramifications of this goal could translate into utilization.  Wojtyla’s discussion of how the common good eliminates any subordination or utilization of the other could be thought of as a formula where the end goal determines which factors are at work in a marriage.  



Another scenario that comes to mind in reference to Wojtyla’s affirmation that a common good cancels out subordination is the ill-formed idea of women being automatically subordinate to the man simply because of gender.  The term “subordination” here represents a negative meaning that uses gender as a basis for oppression and to some extent, de-personalization; it is not the same meaning referred to by St. Paul in Ephesians 5:24: “Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.” The bond between the church and Christ is based on the love of each individual for Him.  There is no de-personalizing aspect to this love; on the contrary, each individual is called to reach his or her maximum potential in loving Christ. This distinction serves to support Wojtyla’s thought that both the man and the woman must enter the marriage relationship, consciously striving for the common goal, namely, the good, as the ultimate purpose of their marriage.  Coming into a marriage without this truth in mind transforms the relationship into a contractual type agreement, vulnerable to subordinating scenarios, rather than a sacramental commitment of mutual respect. 

Joining Wojtyla’s context that identifies the person as possessing a spiritual, unique and unrepeatable inner life, to marriage’s goal of a common good, contrasts with the current societal view of marriage that does not uphold the intrinsic value of the person.  The cultural norms that have apparently caused these misrepresentations of marriage cannot have resulted from a desire for genuine “truth and good,” as advocated by Wojtyla.  Prevalent assumptions regarding the subordination of either the man or the woman have seemingly re-defined marriage into more of a functionalist unit of society, as opposed to a loving family relationship between a man and a woman.  It is clearly not difficult to see that if a man or woman feels oppressed in any type of relationship, including that of marriage, there can be no equal footing or common good for which to strive for.  When this occurs, the true objective of marriage, is obliterated.  

Subordinate-type relationships in marriage, perhaps influenced by cultural or religious reasons, may be partially to blame for militant feminist trends.  It is common knowledge that movements claiming to prevent the oppression of women point to marriage as the cause of subordinating relationships.  Without delving deeply into the multiple factors involved in militant feminism, it is clear that the misinterpretation marriage as that of being an unequal contractual enterprise may be the core reason inciting feminist, anti-marriage ideologies.  Frequently, feminists define marriage as a social construct implemented by men in order to uphold their superiority over women.  To answer this, Wojtyla describes man’s intrinsic desire for “truth and good” joined together and aimed at a common good.   Clearly, the authentic love relationship in marriage that upholds the complementary aspect the spouses aspiring for a common good cannot equate with the feminist view of marriage.

The Person and Authentic Love
Wojtyla’s emphasis on equality is addressed in his discussion of equality in marriage with affective-emotional experiences. These responses can only be authentically grounded in love when the subject and object of these experiences are seen as equals:  “This equality between the subject and object of activity forms a special basis for emotional-affective experience…”19  At first, it may seem that Wojtyla is simply re-iterating the importance of equality, but actually, this foundational equality becomes the basis for sexual moral ethics.  The fact that there exists a morality within the emotional-affective contexts of the spouses highlights their equality, without nullifying their complementarity.20  It should be noted that Wojtyla refers to complementarity as an “ontological need.”21  He explains that a man needs a woman to “to complete his own being, and woman needs man in the same way.”22  Considering marriage’s ontological dimension sheds additional light on the meaning of complementarity.

Additionally, Wojtyla cautions that due to the rational nature of man, one is potentially capable of isolating pleasure in the affective activity of the union; in doing so, the person becomes a means to this end.23  Here again, the person is used and his dignity is transgressed.  Wojtyla is very direct when he distinguishes between attitudes that may be held by both the man and the woman, stemming from egoism but disguised as love.24   The intention behind these postures is contrary to the dignity of the person since they represent a union of egoisms within a context of convenience, in opposition with the true equality that generates mutual respect.25  His strong stance reveals a keen awareness of how distorted representations of love can be used as excuses for objectifying the other.  Distinguishing between valid affective responses in marriage and those responses that are the result of using the other as a means to an end is an essential element in Wojtyla’s personalistic analysis.

Wojtyla’s approach to defining love and responsibility revolves around a  personalist core as do the themes within his discussion.  An important topic stemming from the personalist notion emphasizes how true love affirms the value of the person, and how loving itself becomes a “personalistic norm.”26  Recalling his initial distinction between a person and a thing, Wojtyla presents gender as resting on the personhood of the man and the woman.  He accentuates how human beings possess value firstly as a persons, and only secondly as a man or a woman.27 It is important to see that Wojtyla’s secondary placement of gender does not relegate it  as a constitutive principle of the person, to a non-essential position.  His discussion is focused on the value of the person as primordial, especially when the other is considered as an object of another’s affective response.  In other words, the subject must look at the other as a person who is a man or woman.  In doing do so, the affective response will be contained in the context of all those values that comprise the inherent dignity of personhood. 

For this reason, he states that “The value of the person as such must be clearly distinguished from the particular values present in a person.”28 He elaborates on what is meant here by the value of the person:  “[…] the person as person, and not of a distinct nature individualized in a way all its own, independent, then, of particular physical or psychic characteristics.”29  What Wojtyla presents is the paradigm of value derived from personhood overriding any other consideration when one person uses at the other as an object.   It follows that although the masculinity or femininity of the other is an integral part of the person, the reason for his or her value flows directly from the personhood principle.  Of course one can also be valued as a man or woman, but this type of value is encased in the person of each and cannot be separated from it-- a crucial distinction for Wojtyla.  Establishing this unity of personhood with gender dismisses validity of using the other’s gender as a source of affective responses when separated from the personhood principle.  He further states that the affective response of the subject must always be “somehow adjusted to the knowledge that the human being concerned is a person.”30   In other words, loving a man or women because of their gender is not the same as loving this man or this woman.  

Appreciating the value of the person within the affective responses of the subject, therefore, can be seen as the pivotal factor that creates the required setting for the expression of true love, as opposed to a scenario where utilization leads to inequality and subordination of the other.  Wojtyla’s precise description of the prerequisites that must conform to personalistic norms allows him to define true love as a virtue, packed with all the affective responses proper to the relationship between a man and a woman.31  He states that love is not limited to the emotional aspects or to the senses.  He underscores the fact that love is a product of the will “and has at its disposal the resources of the will’s spiritual potential…”32 Wojtyla’s analysis, therefore, reveals how the core of true love between a man and a woman is configured by free will, a spiritual faculty, since both the subject and object of this love are spiritual beings: “ …it [love] is an authentic commitment of the free will of one person (the subject), resulting from the truth about another person (the object).  Love as a virtue is oriented by the will towards the value of the person.”33  In light of the foregoing explanation, one can now understand that the “truth” of the other is his or her value as a person. Wojtyla’s exposition of love does not present the virtue of love as a possible option between a man and a woman in a relationship; rather, it strongly implies that any type of relationship not based on respect for personhood is actually a utilization of the other, under the guise of love.34 

Observation

Wojtyla’s in depth exploration of the nature of love, the nature of the person and the interconnectivity of values within the man-woman relationship sets forth truths that are not difficult to grasp.  Yet, the secularist perspectives on love revolve around other relationship elements such as romance, emotional satisfaction, and convenience.  These issues are spuriously raised above the level of essence, which is the level being addressed by Wojtyla.  The fact that he grounds his discussion on the person as a spiritual being generates concrete conclusions on the true nature of love.  The secularist view, on the other hand, produces relativistic notions of this relationship, resulting in a re-definition of love that allows the utilization of the other.  Wojtyla’s discussion resides in the essence of the person and the points he makes stem from this base.  Although his concepts seem easily accessible, his ability to join these truths requires deep philosophical insights on the nature of the person, and their connection with love in the man-woman relationship.  The secularist view frequently assumes that its perspectives are based on practical human norms that need not be linked with any philosophical ideal.  It would seem that the main stumbling block for the secularist view is Wojtyla’s premise acknowledging the spiritual dimension of the person. 

While this assertion may seem irrelevant to the current relativistic definition of love, its absence in current ideological trends appears to be the governing force behind the moral confusion misrepresenting relationship issues between men and women. Wojtyla’s discussion, then, can be considered a philosophical treatise on the true nature of love and responsibility; it is not simply a guide to getting along lovingly in a relationship.  Once can go even further and say that his manner of unfolding the themes stemming from the Catholic personalist position discloses his intention of reaffirming the necessary components of true love against the backdrop of secularist views.  This position is particularly evident when he implies that a person can be actually used under the pretense of being loved, as discussed above. His intense focus on the person and his subsequent connecting of all themes to this crucial point allows him to solidly present those reasons for which the dignity of the other should always be cherished.  His main assertion, namely, that love can only be called love when it is directed toward the person leaves no space for any other definition of love.35 He seems to answer the alternative stance that would consider love as mere “emotional attitude” towards a person of opposite sex.36  Having an “emotional attitude” toward the femininity or masculinity of the other is in itself a blurred psychological response that, as he puts it, “fades in the emotional consciousness of a man or a woman if it is not firmly tied to affirmation of the person—that specific person to whom the man owes his experience of ‘femininity’ or the woman her experience of ‘masculinity’.”37 

The Person and Cognition

Another theme discussed by Wojtyla, to re-affirm the person as foundational within the context of love between the man and woman, is his focus of cognition as a power that not only reflects reality, but is also aware of truth.  He notes that if cognition were a material power, man would not be aware of truth and falsehood. His description of cognition leads him to make a metaphysical observation of truth:  “Truth is a condition of freedom.  Without this faculty, man would inevitably be determined by them [material goods].”38  If man’s power to have self-determination is non-existent, using the power of self-determination to choose falsehood unavoidably leads to utilizing the other.  Furthermore, if one’s treatment of the other is not grounded on respect for the personhood of the other, the relation becomes analogous to falsehood taking over the subject.39  We can see how Wojtyla’s analysis of the spiritual aspect of cognition with respect to truth and personhood lends to an understanding of how fictitious love can take over a relationship while pretending to be true love.  Wojtyla’s insightful delineation of how matter takes over when the spiritual dimension is ignored serves as a basis for understanding one of the ways in which individuals can become imprisoned in a relationship based on other principles antagonistic to love and the true definition of the person. A common example of this possibility can be the apparent love a spouse can use as an excuse to remaining in an abusive relationship.  External factors other than true love keep the battered spouse in an oppressive situation; these may include financial convenience or emotional need. Clearly, Wojtyla’s vision into the nature of cognition, truth, and its connection to genuine love leads back to acknowledging the full value of the person within the man-woman relationship.

After Thoughts

Wojtyla’s inquiry into love demands that one graft the meaning of the person into those values that are generated from love between a man and woman.40 His emphasis on how true love involves unifying, under the concept of the person, different aspects involved in the relationship between a man and woman, can only be understood in light of an authentic appreciation of the person.  It is also clear that throughout the chapters, Wojtyla has emphasized how “…the person is much more an interior than a body.”41 And because of this, the love of both persons not only unites them on a physical, emotional and psychological level, it joins them at the level of their interiority, a broader principle containing all that which constitutes their unique person.  It is within this context that, a child can be conceived, being that this child, as a spiritual being, also possesses the inner life that both parents will have helped to fashion.42   And it is within this union of spiritual persons-- the only worthy setting for the Divine creative act to happen-- that God infuses the transcendental soul of another unique human being;  the importance of the person as the basis for love takes on a sacred character.  Any version of love that does not fit into Wojtyla’s model cannot be considered authentic.

                                                             Works Cited

Crosby, John,   The Personalist Papers, 
(Washington D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1996).

                          The Selfhood of the Human Person, 
(Washington D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1996).

Wojtyla, Karol, Love & Responsibility, 
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994.

                                                                Footnotes


1 Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsability, (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994), 21.
2 Ibid., 22.
3 Ibid., 23.
4 Ibid., 23.
5 Ibid., 23.
6 Ibid., 24.
7 Ibid., 23.
8 Ibid., 23.
9 Ibid., 24.
10 John Crosby, The Selfhood of the Human Person, (Washington D.C.: Catholic Universary of America Press, 1996), 41.  Crosby refers to this innate characteristic as that which "...sets the person in relation to other persons..." and sustains that a person is not repeatable in any sense and does not share in the being of any other person.
10 Ibid., 22.
11 John Crosby, The Personalist Papers, (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. 1996), 19.  Crosby elaborates on individual uniqueness and dignity: "...this unrepeatable person has value, and the person has it, not as just being unrepeatable, but as being this unrepeatable person."
12 Ibid., 21.
13 Ibid., 25.
14 Ibid., 26.
15 Ibid., 27.
16 Ibid., 28.
17 Ibid., 28.
18 Ibid., 29.
19 Ibid., 33.
20 Ibid., 81.
21 Ibid., 81.
22 Ibid., 81.
23 Ibid., 33.
24 Ibid., 39.
25 Ibid., 39.
26 Ibid., 121.
27 Ibid., 122.
28 Ibid., 122.
29 Ibid., 298.
30 Ibid., 123.
31 Ibid., 123.
32 Ibid., 123.
33 Ibid., 123.
34 Ibid., 123.
35 Ibid., 124.
36 Ibid., 123. 
37 Ibid., 124. 
38 Ibid., 115.
39 Ibid., 115.
40 Ibid., 198.
41 Ibid., 260.
42 Ibid., 260.


                                            Study Questions

• 
  
• 1. When have you experienced or known of authentic love vs. persons using others under the title of love?  Give examples.
• 2. Can you apply Wojtyla’s personalist approach to themes related to family life?
• 3. Within the personalistic context of Wojtyla, explain the characteristic of uniqueness in man.
• 4. How does commitment tie into true love?
• 5. Can you give examples of fictitious love relationships?
• 6. How is the sacramental aspect of marriage connected to true love?
• 7. Do you think is possible to unconsciously use a person as a means to an end?
• 8. Explain the relationship between truth and love?
• 9. Can you give examples that demonstrate Wojtyla’s view of equality between spouse
• 10. Considering Wojtyla’s view of the person, is complementarity between genders a social  construct?

Response from Sean Hurt, who was in the Peace Corp in Malawi, Africa (in italics are the lines from the chapter and in regular type the responses of Sean Hurt).   

The corporate attitude which brought all this about exemplifies Wojtyla’s perspective on how the other can be considered a mean to an end. The building collapse in a Bangladesh sweat shop that killed as many as 800 workers is another example of how these persons were used in order to achieve an economic end, while their personal safety was not considered as they labored away, producing income for their employers.

Talking about these 2 examples from capitalist society in which humans were treated as means unto ends is like talking about two parts of the ocean that are wet. It’s all wet—it can be nothing else but wet.  Talking about these two incidents as if they are isolated obscures the deep-rooted evil of capitalism. It constantly and inexorably tends toward treating people as commodities. It is characterized by a competition which is inherently wounding to human solidarity. Really, look at the typical life of a middle-class American and ask yourself, “how many times a day does that person use another human being as a means to an end?” Do we really treat the cashier or waiter much different than a machine—accepting bills and turning out change? What about all the people who made the things we use every day? Do we know them, did we respect their personhood? Did we pay them a fair wage and ask how they’re getting along? Of course not! Not even close!

The author says, “The far-reaching effects of this “using” attitude produce a utilitarian mentality that can influence nearly all aspects of society”. I can’t agree more, but I think she dramatically understates how deep this utilitarian mentality has advanced in America. We don’t even perceive how wounded modern, industrial society has become. We’re used to using. We can’t even imagine an economy not based on using people. We’ve come to accept it as a necessary evil because we know no other way. But it is possible. 

In the Malawian village, things are different. You know the grocer at the trading center—to exchange money and products without an exchange of humanity is unthinkable. You talk; you converse with the man who made your mat and you know the woman who sold you tomatoes. You know them, you know their families. I remember when the house of the grocer in our village burnt down. We all knew, and we all came along and gave a little money to rebuild their place. There was an exchange there, not of commodities, but of trust, of intimacy, of solidarity—a security of knowing that, if the same thing happened to me a 1000 people would be there to help. You can’t replace that with an insurance policy. Now, I’m not saying that there’s nothing good about capitalism. But still, the fundamental structure of our modern economy is totally irreconcilable with the gospel message.

Additionally, Wojtyla cautions that due to the rational nature of man, one is potentially capable of isolating the pleasure in the affective activity of the union; in doing so, the person becomes a means to this end.

There are, of course, many cultures and sub cultures within mankind and each one deviates from the true life-in-Christ in some way or another. Among the particular culture I came from which is young- liberal-white-middleclass American I would say that there is a general belief that anything two consenting adults want to do to each other  in the bedroom is morally legitimate. Upon conversion I obeyed Church teachings, but I didn’t really understand them regarding this issue. It wasn’t until I came to view it through this lens of personhood that I finally understood. There are so many moral teachings about sex to the point Christians seem like sex-hating prudes. But there’s a good reason for that. It’s so easy to use human beings as objects of sexual pleasure.

 As I was saying in the previous comment, there are so many ways that we use people as means unto ends. Commoditized humanity is now part of American culture because it’s an underlying tenant of our economic life. Is it surprising then that this view of personhood has spilled into our sexual lives?




Response from Tommie Kim, a Post Master’s Student from Korea at Holy Apostles College and Seminary:

It is important to draw parallels between the notion of personality and culture in order to provide justification for their kinship and to understand their reciprocal influence.  Definitions of culture are diverse and can be translated into diverse interpretations.  Similarly, definitions and understandings of personality are also very different according to psychological, philosophical and theological interpretations. 

Culture in most general sense can be defined as a relation or as a system of relations.  However, if relation is considered in its ontological sense, only personality can enter into relationship just as Wojtyla explains, “the crux of the matter lies in the interior life of the person and how this aspect intersects with the exterior world.” 

Confucianism perhaps best explains the complementarity between genders as a social construct.  Confucianism is based on ancient texts that advocate conformity to the law of Heaven, or so called Ultimate Reality that centers on loyalty, especially the filial piety of a son to this father.  Another aspect of Confucianism is based on obedience to rulers, respect for elders, loyalty in friendship, and subservience of wife to husband.  Somehow, this traditional construct has deeply influenced Korean society.  So a woman first must obey and follow the orders from her father, then husband and later her son.  Due to such a strong patriarchal tradition and culture, the role and personhood of man and woman was, in the past, strictly distinguished and demarcated.  Domestic life of women was enclosed away from the public world inhabited by men. 

The Catholic Church has played a crucial role in demolishing this social and cultural discrimination between genders and has helped to heal the conflict that such discriminative life had created.  However, no one can claim that the old tradition was completely wrong.  The modernized life, calling for equality between man and woman, has brought forth numerous broken homes and extramarital relations.

The common goal for marriage in the past was to create a loving family with children. Marriage today no longer has this goal.  Marriage is chosen for the sake of fulfilling financial and emotional needs of each other. In our times, it is difficult to differentiate between true love vs selfish love. I think it is because people have lost the spiritual meaning of our existence, directed toward truth and goodness.  People are simply trying to survive a life that is changing at a fast pace. Along with this change in life-style, the concept of marriage has also lost its authentic purpose.  Love needs to be accompanied by responsibility, but parents no longer want to take  responsibility, or to sacrifice for  children and family.  

Commitment needs to be part of true love because loving a person means taking responsibility for other persons. Being responsible means that true love needs to respect the dignity of the person, just as yourself. 

Priestly Ministry in Community
by
Fr. Dominic Anaeto

Fr. Dominic Anaeto is a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Nnewi, Nigeria. He holds a license in spirituality from Gregorian University in Rome, a doctorate in pastoral theology from the Lateran University, also in Rome, and a diploma from the Christian Institute for the Study of Human Sexuality at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Illinois. He is a certified counselor on topics related to human development and human sexuality. He functions as a director of spiritual life which involves giving spiritual conferences, moderating retreats, seminars, and days of recollection. He offers pastoral counseling and spiritual direction to individuals and groups. Presently, he is a professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut.

Note from Dr. Chervin: I asked Fr. Dominic to write this chapter because I admire him as a priest who exemplifies the qualities he describes here. For better or worse, lay Catholics in academe and especially at seminaries, spend quite a bit of time thinking about the characters of priests in the past and what we would like priests to be like in the future. Fr. Dominic has spent years in the formation of priests in Nigeria and in the United States. I find in his insights just the synthesis I have been seeking of leadership and warmth of ministry. 

Introduction

The pastor is a mediator between God and his people. He is the middle ground between humanity and divinity. On the one hand, he communicates the essence of divinity to humanity and on the other hand, he brings humanity and its problems to divinity. Simply put, being the good shepherd who acts in persona Christi, he ought to be well equipped in the image of Christ so as to live up to the demands of this mediatorship.

Christ, as the self-revelation of God become incarnated within the human culture, understands the human condition. He felt the pains, sufferings, difficulties, joys and the hilarious moments of the human person. Christ equally manifested human emotions himself (Cf. Jn. 11:35) and hence the confidence expressed in his priesthood in Heb. 4:15, “for we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.”

No wonder then, the Church professes the full humanity of Jesus Christ without fear of equivocation. From the standpoint of his humanity, he was and is able to understand the yearning of the human spirit, and, from the standpoint of his divinity, he is ever able to satiate these deepest yearnings.  The pastor, who represents Christ in his ministry of sanctification, governance, and teaching should also manifest to an excellent degree this complementary polarity of being. In as much as he is not of the world and thus ought to have a profound connection with the divine, he should also realize that he is in the world and that the joy and hope, grief, and anguish of the man of the world should genuinely find an echo in his heart (GS no.1).

It is therefore, against this background, that this paper examines the necessity and inevitability  of affectivity in pastoral ministry for our Catholic life in the twenty-first century which Pope Francis has stressed right from the beginning of his pontificate. In the recent address to the  Pontifical Representatives and Apostolic Nuncios on June 21, 2013, he states, “Pastors must know how to be ahead of the herd to point the way, in the midst of the flock to keep it united, behind the flock to prevent someone being left behind, so that the same flock, so to speak, has the sense of smell to find its way.”

The Mission of the Pastor to the People of God

The mission of a pastor expresses in synthesized form the varying aspects of the prophetic, regal and priestly ministry without bypassing anyone of these roles.[1],[2] Each corresponds to the three main functions of Christ: Priest, Prophet and King. These functions are not to be understood as separate activities of Jesus during his life, as if, for example, the priestly function corresponds only to his three hours as priest and victim on the cross. They are rather dimensions that penetrate all his life and ministry. They correspond to the functions of preaching, of cult, and of government. The ministry of a pastor should be understood as an integral process in his ministry.

J. Galot, the theologian, states that these three functions become, in Jesus, the expression of the love of a shepherd and from there they take their inspiration.[3] The image of the good shepherd becomes for Galot “a principle of unity” as that will go a long way to understand and express all the priestly functions.[4]  Pastoral charity expresses in an eloquent manner what the shepherd image means for the ministerial priesthood. It is the source and unifying criterion of all the activities of the ecclesial minister.
The shepherd image gives a sense of unity to the life and ministry of the ministerial priesthood. It allows no dichotomy between the two. The priest does not become holy in spite of his ministry, but rather through his ministry. It is through the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful that the pastor exercises in a supreme degree his sacred function.[5] The Eucharist is the principal and central raison d’etre of the sacrament of the priesthood. The priest carries out his principal mission and expresses himself in all his fullness in celebrating the Eucharist.[6] It is only through the Eucharist that the pastor can be truly so to the people of God and also a relevant spiritual leader of his community.[7]

The priest is in a certain way “from the Eucharist” and “for the Eucharist.” He is also responsible for the Eucharist in a special way. The ministry of the pastor is not, of course, limited to celebrating the Eucharist: “it is a service which includes the proclamation of the word, the sanctification of the faithful through the sacraments and the leadership of God’s people in communion and service.”[8] The Eucharist is the point from which everything else comes forth and to which it returns. The priesthood was born in the upper Room together with the Eucharist. [9]   

The Place of Pastoral Charity in the Ministerial Priesthood

Pastoral charity removes from the ministerial priesthood the note of power in the sense of authoritarianism.[10]. The priest’s authority must be understood in evangelical terms as service, as full dedication, as commitment, which are all the result of love for Christ extended to the flock.  The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all.[11] Within the context of the struggle for authority and leadership, Christ made it clear to his apostles that “the greatest among you must be your servant” (Mk. 10:42). Christ himself realized this ideal in his person when he washed the feet of the apostles demonstrating leadership by service (John 10:1-14). This ideal of leadership continued in the early years of the Church until the Church came in contact with the state and established a relationship. As a result this relationship, bishops and priests became royal figures and received royal privileges. Hence, in the Tridentine Church, the priests are seen at the center of attention and the whole Church was at the service of the clergy.

However, Vatican II  revised this status quo with its emphasis on servant leadership which can be aptly expressed in Christ’s mission mandate “not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28). Thus, in many of the conciliar documents of  Vatican II, this emphasis on service, which also is  correlated with the idea of communion, is seen all over as stressing the importance of the servant leadership in pastoral ministry today (Cf. PO 6 and 9).

The pastor must make sure that all of these pastoral roles flow from love and are motivated by love. This is after the example of St. Peter who received the mandate to feed the flock of Christ after his confession of his love. Hence, the pastor must be self-effacing and not demand anything in return for his ministry. In fact, pastors should not be afraid to lay down their lives for their sheep and, being a model to their flock (Cf. I Pet 5,3), they must foster a growing holiness in the Church by their love. 

Wherever this love flourishes, class distinction disappears and the pastor will no longer be afraid that his weaknesses may be discovered. Such a fear can make the pastor feel lonely even while in a community of the people of God. It is only love that conquers such loneliness.

The Pastoral Implications of the Pastor’s “Being                            with” the People of God

The pastor, while carrying out his ministry must be involved in the affairs of his people. As someone taken  from  among them who has also tread the paths they are treading, he is in a better  position to understand their plight; in other words, he must be sensitive to what they are going through ( Heb 5:1-3). He should try to provide solutions to the problems of the people of God, after the manner of Christ,whether the problem is spiritual, physical, or psychological.
The Code of Canon Law presents a powerful description of the activities of a parish priest thus:
So that he may fulfill his office of pastor diligently, the parish priest is to strive to know the faithful entrusted to him. He is therefore to visit their families, sharing in their cares and anxieties and, in a special way, their sorrows, comforting them in the Lord. If in certain matters, they are found wanting, he is prudently to correct them. He is to help the sick and especially the dying in great charity, solicitously restoring them with the sacraments and commending their souls to God. He is to be especially diligent in seeking out the poor, the suffering, the lonely, those who are exiled from their homeland, and those burdened with special difficulties.[12]

He must act not so much as the stern judge but rather as the merciful Samaritan. Pouring oil and wine into bleeding wounds, practicing charity, kindness, and pity, consoling and blessing the people of God all fall under his sacrificial duties. The pastor, of course, carries these innumerable duties with significant challenges, yet there are also consolations when a pure and holy life, a life dedicated to God in virtue, blossoms under his guiding hand. Such an experience more than compensates the priest for the bitter trials that are prepared for him in other quarters.

The Council Fathers made it clear that the faithful themselves have obligations towards their pastors by stating that, “They should treat them with filial love as being their fathers and pastors. They should also share their priests’ anxieties and help them as far as possible by prayer and active work.”[13] The Council advises priests to recognize, promote, and foster the cooperation of the laity in the apostolate and in the same pastoral ministry within the Christian community, not hesitating to “give lay people charge of duties in the service of the Church” and to “give them freedom and opportunity for activity and even inviting them when opportunity occurs, to take initiative in undertaking projects on their own.”[14] This is consistent with respect for the dignity and freedom of the children of God, but also with Gospel service.

One of the dangers noticeable today is the so-called democratism which practically negates the true doctrine of the distinction between the common and ministerial priesthood. The so-called democratism is a great temptation because it leads to a denial of the authority and capital grace of Christ and distorts the nature of the Church. Such a view damages the very hierarchical structure willed by its Divine Founder. Therefore, the mentality which confuses the duties of the priests with those of the lay faithful cannot be permitted in the Church. No one may licitly change what Christ has wanted for his Church. It is indissolubly linked with its Founder and Head who alone may provide her, through the power of the Holy Spirit, with ministers in the service of the faithful. There must be a cross-fertilization of ideas between the pastor and the people of God. The pastor must see to it that the “ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood.”[15] The tendency to individualism must be eschewed. The pastor should try to foster the positive qualities of Christian family life both in the parish house and in the parish community.[16]

The pastor should always be ready to engage in collaborative ministry with the lay faithful. He should cultivate attributes that make for good human relations, such as: respect for others’ welfare, generosity, openness, truthfulness, ability to listen, ability to engage in dialogue, ability to take advice and correction, ability to delegate functions and responsibilities, basic trust, humility and above all, charity towards everyone.[17] The people of God would want to know the whereabouts of their pastor especially in his official engagements. Therefore, it is demanded that he communicates constantly with the people of God. The community of Christ’s faithful cannot be truly so if communication is lacking.

It is not enough for the pastor to live in a community; he must minister in that community. To be able to minister, the pastor must drop his defenses. Sometimes these defenses are natural and they help us to manage crises but also they can be used negatively to distort reality and shy away from truth. The more the pastor keeps his defenses, the more he separates himself from his inner being, others, and God. Hence, he distances himself from Jesus Christ who is the source and model of the ministerial priesthood. J. O’Donnell and S. Rendina, in their book about the priesthood and spirituality, put it so clearly that

the ministerial priesthood has no sense if it is not lived out as a personal expression of the love which the priest bears for Christ. The spirituality of the priest consists in the fact that his love for Christ leads him to a love for Christ’s people.… For the ordained priest, the love of Christ becomes sacramental and incarnate in the love of Christ’s people. The two become for him a seamless garment in which prayer and ministry are woven into a unified pattern, for it is the same face of Christ which is revealed in both.[18]

The pastor should not look at the people of God in his community as do psychologists view their clients who have problems to be solved. He should rather be with the people of God as a vulnerable brother who loves and is loved, cares and is cared for. When this basic attitude is lacking, shepherding can turn into a mere exercise of power with an authoritarian tone. This contradicts the ideal of a vulnerable brother and leader who is needed by the people of God and also needs the people of God.  Thus, there is an essential unity between the shepherd and the flock. It is only when the pastor surrenders himself to God that he can be free to serve others without using them for his own self-interest. The pastor, in fact, is a master and leader, but he is also a disciple; he is one who renders holy, but he himself should be rendered holy. He is a shepherd, but, like all the other faithful, he is part of the flock.[19] Letting God be God is the only basis for a well-ordered love of ourselves and our neighbor in fulfillment of the Great Commandment.[20]

The pastor should not pathologize or label any of the people of God as being dysfunctional, “mental” or sick. He should see the woundedness of the people of God as genuine efforts at living and coping with their life situation of hurt and disappointments. When the pastor develops his own affectivity, then he can be more empathetic. This affectivity cannot be developed if the pastor lives only in the head and not also in the heart. The pastor should not block away his emotions because Christ did not do so. The pastor must realize and accept his need for intimacy and love in leadership. Such intimacy and love while ministering are not merely ministerial intimacies but also the intimacy of close relations: the ability to relate one’s deepest feelings to the other and then to be ready to make the accompanying sacrifices involved.

It is almost a sine qua non for pastors to cultivate warm, healthy friendship and good adult relationships with fellow priests, laymen, and women. These relationships should not be exclusive or secretive. He should respect boundaries in these personal and or professional relationships. He should be at home, at peace, and comfortable with his celibacy, even as he experiences the sacrifice and the difficulties that such entails. He must meet and minister in an appropriate place or setting, and at appropriate times. While the human experience of intimacy is important, and can serve as a pathway to God, this does not involve touching or gestures that properly belong to courtship, engagement, and marriage.[21]  Pastors are frequently required by daily pastoral and spiritual life to renounce their own convenience and constantly to seek not their own advantage but what benefits the salvation of the members of the community.[22]

An efficient and effective pastor must develop skills for attentive listening to the people of God in their problems. He should not only listen with the ears but be wholly attentive to the feelings. He must develop skills of acceptance, non-judgment, patience, and faithfulness which involves confidentiality in information shared with him by any member of Christ’s faithful. In fact, the entire life of the pastor should speak louder than whatever skill or techniques he uses in teaching; for one who is so regarded that the people are called his flock, must carefully consider how necessary it is for him to maintain a life of rectitude.[23] Gregory the Great emphatically states that,

The ruler should be exemplary in his conduct, that by his manner of life he may show the way of life to his subjects, and that the flock, following the teaching and conduct of its shepherd, may proceed the better through example rather than words. For one who by the exigency of his position must propose the highest ideals, is bound by that same exigency to give a demonstration of those ideals. His voice penetrates the hearts of his hearers the more readily, if his way of life commends what he says. What he enjoins in words, he will help to execution by example.

The Christocentric Dimension of the Being of the Pastor

The biblical anecdote of Jn. 15:1-17 make it clear that Jesus is the true vine and that the only sufficient condition for bearing good fruit is to remain ever attached to Jesus as the branches are to the vine. Christ remains always the principle and source of the unity of the life of the pastors and their ministries.[24] Therefore, pastors will achieve the unity of their life by joining themselves with Christ in the recognition of the Father’s will and in the gift of themselves to the flock entrusted to them (cf. I John 3:16).[25] Blessed John Paul II of blessed memory made it clear that it is “only in loving and serving Christ the Head and Spouse will charity become a source, criterion, measure and impetus for the priest’s love and service to the Church, the Body and Spouse of Christ.”[26] The identity of the priest is rooted in his particular relationship with Christ. His election and consecration, by the power of ordination, configures him to Christ.[27] He is a sacramental representation of Christ a living instrument of Christ the eternal priest.[28],[29] In his ministry, the priest does not act in his own name; he acts in persona Christi representing Christ who acts through him with the power of the Holy Spirit.[30] But if he acts in person Christi, he also acts in persona ecclesia because they represent the People of God, the Church, to which they are united in Spirit.[31]

Therefore, for the pastor to develop meaningful affectivity in his ministry without faltering, he must cultivate a deep sense of inter-personal relationship with Christ, the Master, without which a high sense of meaninglessness would pervade the pastoral ministry. Without this deep-rootedness in Christ, the pastor can fall into the extremes of sympathy (being totally emotionally captured by the problems of the people to the point of irrationality) or apathy (being totally severed from the people to the point of tyranny).

To guard against these risks, the pastor needs to first develop affectivity in his relationship with the Master.

 Affectivity in Ministry

Today we speak of affective balance and maturity as the core element of all human maturity. When we are seeking to test a candidate for the priesthood or religious life, we go to this core element of maturity that we call affective balance and maturity. With mere intellectualism, it is impossible to have affective balance. We recall the beautiful expression of Blaise Pascal which is profoundly insightful: “Man is neither an angel nor a beast. If he plays the angel, he will end up eventually playing the beast.” If one finds it difficult to accept his human affectivity, which is the core of his human person, obviously, he will have trouble in life. The heart cannot be starved of affectivity without seeking for revenge.

The taste for God in prayer is necessary for the balance in a Christian life. More so for the balance of a consecrated Christian life, it is necessary because by God’s own gift of celibacy, we dedicate to God the deepest natural development of this side of our being. But not because we have dedicated this are we to be starved of affectivity. As consecrated persons, our hearts must be fed on God and in God in all that we do for the sake of God.

There is a great fundamental danger and risk in the life of consecrated persons, priests, and religious who have not trusted the way to their affectivity to and to their brothers and sisters in God.  Example are so numerous of people who have great human capacity and tremendous intellectual qualities but who are so caught up in the world of their human capacities and intellectual qualities that they are never fully integrated personalities. They can be intellectual giants but spiritual infants because they have not fed their affectivity. In fact, the more one has human and intellectual capacities, the more need there is to feed the affective dimension.

However, we need to understand equally strongly the crucial need for the education and purification of affectivity. We do not speak of letting affectivity run loose. It is also in this process of the education of affectivity that we see the objective harm that the classical background training and pedagogy has done. Generally, we are in the habit of running away from affectivity as a coping strategy. This is because we are afraid, anxious, and guilty about the expression of affectivity. It is really unbelievable how we tend to handle the whole world of the heart with tragic results. The first stage in the process of the education of affectivity is to become conscious of the experience of affectivity, then, through it to be free for God and, in God, for other brothers and sisters.[32] It is not anything to be guilty of or that we must consistently seek out ways of suppressing.

Conclusion  

Since pastors, while exercising their pastoral ministry, should give much to others, they should as well replenish themselves with wisdom and grace. They should be on their guard so that no one who approaches them should be disappointed but may find in them light for their intelligence, warmth for their own heart, support for their own journey.

This strength needed for effective pastoral ministry cannot be acquired without priests putting on the heart of Jesus, a heart that loves and loves to the end. Therefore, constant communion with Jesus in prayer is the only channel through which this “putting on of heart” can be realized. Of course, his ministry is not without difficulties but his consolation should be that he has done the work assigned to him without losing any of the flock entrusted to his care.

We conclude with a strengthening admonishment which St Paul used while addressing the “elders” of the Church in Miletus. “Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock the Holy Spirit has given you to guard. Shepherd the Church of God which he has acquired at the price of his blood” (Acts 20:32).

For Personal Reflection and Group Sharing

1. Discuss in detail the pastoral implications of collaborative ministry.

2. Pastoral charity expresses in an eloquent manner that the Shepherd image means for the ministerial priesthood.  Discuss.

3. Discuss the necessity and inevitability of affectivity in pastoral ministry for Catholic life in the twenty-first century

4. The Pastor is supposed to be "for" his people and "with" his people. Can there be any tension in those roles? If there is, how can it be resolved?

RESPONSES TO FATHER DOMINIC’S CHAPTER ON PRIESTLY MINISTRY IN COMMUNITY:

Written by Sean Hurt, Dr. Chervin’s grandson-in-law, who wrote this while a catechumen entering an  RCIA program.  (Fr. Dominic’s words are italicized with Sean’s comments in regular print.)

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.”

I want to add another verse from scripture onto this, just to highlight how deep this communion is between God and mankind. I’m referring to some of the last words Jesus spoke before giving up his spirit on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” I can’t tell you how perplexing this verse was to me. At first it seems like Jesus was acknowledging his helplessness on the Cross. The Catechism explains that, in this final outcry, Jesus assumes our position as sinners. So, Jesus, while not sinning himself, stands in solidarity with us, even as sinners.

The pastor, who represents Christ in his ministry of sanctification, governance, and teaching should also manifest to an excellent degree this complementary polarity of being.

… This is important for peace. As I said, I came from a family hostile to religion. Growing up, I got through most of my life without ever knowing a religious person. I just kept in this clique of atheists. I can’t tell you the extent to which Ronda, and a Christian friend, influenced my direction in turning to Christ. Because before I met them, I just thought, “Oh, all Christians are stupid or crazy.”  It’s so easy for an atheist to hate Christians and hate God if they don’t have a Christian friend whom they respect.

Wherever this love flourishes, class distinction disappears and the pastor will no longer be afraid that his weaknesses may be discovered. Such a fear can make the pastor feel lonely even while in a community of the people of God. It is only love that conquers such loneliness.

The author brings up a bunch of interesting topics here—love, solidarity, fear, loneliness, and weakness. I’d like to elaborate more on these from my own experience. I know the fear that causes loneliness. It’s a fear that people will discover my weaknesses and they will lose all respect for me; that fear leads to self-alienation. This is the loneliness Father Dominic is talking about. Other people call this building-walls or pushing-others-away. You can still make relationships but they’re built on respect for authority; the author calls for a relationship built on love.

When we love each other, we see each other fully. “Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” Our fear is what impedes us from loving. However, we can abandon our fear (through Christ) and trust that we are loveable and in turn, we can love others in spite of their weakness. There is another level where we love their weakness, and our own weakness, too. Indeed, weakness is part of God’s plan who distributes the talents unevenly so that people will need each other. So, this love is a basis for human solidarity.

One of the dangers noticeable today is the so-called democratism which practically negates the true doctrine of the distinction between the common and ministerial priesthood.

 I agree with the author’s point here, but I don’t entirely agree with the way he deals with the subject. Whenever we talk about “dangers” to the Church, I wish we could begin with an empathetic attempt to understand the underlying motivation of those who promulgate them. I understand the impulse to democratize the church; I don’t agree with it, but I understand. I think a lot people here in America, in this generation, have a strong distrust of authority. Think of the word” authority.” It can make your hair stand-up. In my mind I associate it with police states, crooked bosses, Stalin, Hitler, etc. There are all sorts of reasons for this distrust of authority: the on-going ideological war between democracy and totalitarianism, changes in parenting styles, unloving parents, etc.

So, I’m just saying that it’s important to recognize dangers to the faith, like democratism, but let’s respond to it empathetically, seeing the great wounds, fear, and despair in the people that advocate for it.

The pastor should not look at the people of God in his community as psychologists view their clients who have problems to be solved. He should rather be with the people of God as a vulnerable brother who loves and is loved, cares and is cared for. When this basic attitude is lacking, shepherding can turn into mere exercise of power with authoritarian tone

I think what the author is talking about here is very important. Here the author portrays the authority, the pastor, in such a radically different light—as the “vulnerable brother.” Authority brings to mind many different (usually awful) things; one thing it doesn’t connote is vulnerability. In this age, the hardest part of the Creed to state is, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” We hate authority, because we don’t trust it.  We don’t think of authority as loving guidance, but as cruel exploitation. I love what this author is saying. The pastor reveals himself to us, not only as the Vicar of Christ but as a fully flawed human, who needs us as much as we need him.

Now, what the author is saying is nothing new; it’s already expressed so perfectly in symbols and language we use to talk about priesthood. The pastor is the shepherd, our “father.” The filial and pastoral symbolism is perfect, but maybe the symbol is so trite to us now that doesn’t make an impact.

The pastor must realize and accept his need for intimacy and love in leadership.

Again, this language is so shocking. How often do we encounter the words “love and intimacy” associated with the word “leadership”? This is because our normal, American interactions with leadership occur in our places of employment. The workplace culture fosters “professional relationships” and “emotional detachment.” The motivation of that leadership is ruthless material self-interest. So, that’s our normal, everyday experience with leadership and hierarchy. American workplace culture contributes to our distrust of authority as self-interested and exploitative. So, you can see that the pastoral paradigm of leadership is just totally foreign to us.

Response from student-seminarian David Tate:

1.      Collaborative Ministry in its simplest form is something very easy. When taking into consideration the aspects of the human male ego, it suddenly gets very complicated. I see in the structure of collaborative ministry the combining of two leverage points that can bring easy success to ministry if combined in the right manner. There needs to be a well- trained priest. He must be able to have access to a great number of solutions for various critical situations. The delicacy here is found in how he brings those solutions into the life problems of the congregation. 

The second leverage point is the work of the Holy Spirit – divine grace. The life of a parish is very different from the military, the government, or a corporate atmosphere. Collaborative is basically meaning to co-labor; to labor together. The secular world is used to people giving orders. It is interesting in the religious world, where you imagine respectful deference being given in abundance, with people that follow obediently a set of rules, like perfectly behaved sheep, order giving is the last welcome component of a local parish. For the local priest, tact is by far the most important tool in his clerical bag.

To summarize, the goal of a priest in his “co-laboring” means that he is truthful, instructive, and cajoling all at the same time, using a priestly tone that is always tenderly inclusive and encouraging. For the priest, he has a tough job ahead of himself because he is, “He is the middle ground between humanity and divinity.”

In a parish family, the average person acts more analogously to a teenager, than to a child. One wrong slip of the priest brings anger and rebellion, severely jeopardizing future open cooperation. For this reason, from the first day at a new parish, the priest needs to work everyday building a strong bond of trust between himself and the congregation. The greater the bond of trust is in the future, then the greater the cushion of forgiveness will be when a priest does directly or indirectly act offensively. On a positive note, it is true that the mark of a very successful collaborative ministry is, in fact, the level of trust that a priest has gained with his parish. The dangerous part in earning trust comes when the “teenager” meets the challenges of adult spiritual life. Just like it is easy to spoil the children that we love, so also if a priest does not prepare parishioners to embrace humility, hard work, and true love of God and others, then the presumed trust bears bitter fruit for it can become only self-serving. At such times ll the work of the priest will burn up as so much hay and stubble, without any eternal remnant. 

2.      In our previous discussion above, the various levels of maturity were mentioned. So also with the expression of pastoral charity, it is mandatory that priests are aware of the different abilities that exist in parishioners to love. Some Church Fathers spoke of our ways of responding to love that has been extended to us. The greatest difficulty in expressing charity (that is, God’s charity) is that we are not God. AsPersona Christi we can only depend on the grace given to us, as we are not naturally disposed to divine charity.  By His daily grace though, the priest can grow in “being the good shepherd who acts in persona Christi.” The hope of every priest is that pastoral charity permeates our person as a priest, teacher, and brother to our parishioners. The authority that is characteristic to the priest should also be well lubricated with divine charity. Through all these scenarios, divine charity would never cause oppression or insecurity in a person…

3.      As was stated, the effective leader is like the perfect shepherd who can express his presence among the sheep by going ahead of the sheep, and being a leader to follow; by walking with the sheep to keep them comforted; and by going at the rear, and keeping an eye out for ones that could wander off and become separated. This understanding has never been out of fashion. Why is this statement true? It is true because God has never changed, and the presence of sin has never changed. The cure for mankind’s sin is Christ. The job of the priest is to express Christ. The affective love of Christ is a constant. The affect of the Persona Christi is a constant. 

The last thing the priest wants to do is get involved in some gimmick that is touted to decrease spiritual fat without any change in diet or exercise! Instead, the priest realizes that hard work, prayer, and obedience will “develops his own affectivity, then he can be more empathetic [more charitable].” The Sacraments and pastoral charity are his first tools. It was, is, and always will be the function of the priest to be Persona Christi for his sheep.

Response of student Kathleen Brouillette, parish DRE:

The most outstanding part of this chapter, for me, is Father Dominic’s statement, “The priesthood was born in the upper Room together with the Eucharist.”  As many times as I have taught my students that the Last Supper was the First Communion, and also the institution of the priesthood, the exact way Father phrased his statement had me in tears as I read it.  God is so unbelievably good.  The significance of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, as well as in the priest who acts in Persona Christi, is strikingly brought home to me in Father’s statement.  How intertwined these two truths, these two sacraments!

If we understand and appreciate the truth and significance of the Eucharist and the Mystical Body of Christ, we must have profound reverence for the priests, who act in Persona Christi, and without whom there can be no sacraments.  We must give to them the love and support we look to receive from them. But how do we get to that point?

As vital as it is that we are taught and understand our faith, we also need to understand the fall of the father figure after World Wars I and II and the Great Depression.  In Dr. Arden’s course on the Psychology of the 1950s (Dr. Angelyn Arden teaches psychology and other courses in the humanities at Holy Apostles) we explored this topic, which was particularly eye-opening.  Men came home wounded emotionally as well as physically, and women came more and more to the fore as strong figures in the family as well as society. Fathers either lost their proper place as head of the home, or over-compensated by denying their vulnerability and being particularly patriarchal in the negative and non-holy sense of the word.  Children and teens rebelled against their parents’ conventionalism.  That rebellion of youth against authority spilled over into faith and the Church. 

Pope Pius XII addressed the significance of the father figure in the midst of a decline into materialism in his 29 October 1951 address, Moral Questions Affecting Married Life, comparing it to the significance of God the Father Himself:  “At the birth of the child, hasten…to place it in the arms of the father…it is an act of homage to and recognition of the Creator, an invoking of the Divine blessing, the duty of carrying out the office given by God with devotion and affection…what praise, what reward will He reserve for the father who has cherished and reared for Him the human life entrusted to him, a life worth more than all the gold and silver in the world!”

Indeed this quote can be applied as well to our spiritual fathers in the priesthood.  If we can only understand and appreciate the unique role of the priest as the bridge between Christ and us! We are placed in their care from our new birth in Christ. They are placed in authority over us for our good.  If they carry out their office, God will give them great reward, worth more than anything in this world.  We need to help form one another, in a sense. The priesthood can be a very lonely life.  As fathers in the 50s needed family support and healing, we must help heal each other’s wounds in the Body of Christ, share our struggles and lift each other up, share our humanity and strive to live in the dignity of having been made in the image and likeness of God.  We must, as St. Paul says in Eph 5:21, “serve one another out of reverence for Christ.”  That’s a choice we can all make.

   [1] The prophet of old already enumerated the duties of one whom the Holy Spirit has chosen and sent for the salvation of the people: he is to announce the joyful news of the Truth, he is to console those whose hearts are broken with sorrow, he is to bind the wounds of the afflicted, to preach the mercy of the Lord (Is 61: 1-3). Pastors in fact, should be a rock of truth and at the same time should have a heart full of tenderness, so that every brother can hold on to him for support as he travels the path of life.

[2] “L’immagine del pastore riesce  ad esprimere bene in sintesi I vari aspetti del  ministero, profetico, regale, sercerdotale, senz trascurarne nessuno,  P. Laghi , “Le principali chiavi di lettura” in  Vi daro pastori second il mio cuore: Esortazione Apostolica “Pastores dabo vobis” di S.S. Giovanni Paolo II circa la formazione dei sacerdoti nelle circostanze attuali, (25 Marzo 1992). Testo e commenti, Prefazione di S.E. il Card. Angelo Sodano, Quaderni del L’Osservatore Romano 20, Citta del Vaticano 1992, 193-201. (This article was amplified in: “Pastores dabo Vobis” Presentazione”, Seminarium  32(1992) 505-517.)

[3] Cf. J. GALOT, Teologia del Sacerdozio,  Nuovo Collana di Teologia Cattholica 14, Firenze 1981,  142.

[4] Cf. J. GALOT, Teologia del Sacerdozio, 142. Christ remains always the Great Shepherd of the flock; he associates to himself some chosen ones who remain completely dependent on him. The minister remains always a member of the flock, underlining the fact that he is to continue to follow Jesus, the Good Shepherd. A very close relationship is created between the shepherd and the sheep, so that one does not exist without the other.  

[5] LG 28.

[6] JOHN PAUL II, “Address to Priest Jubilarians” in Rome, 22 April 1982,  L’Osservatore Romano, ed. English, 10 May 1982, p.16.

[7] Cf. L’Osservatore Romano, ed. English, 17 May 1982, p. 2.

[8] St Augustine, struck by the duties of the pastor who guides the people on the way of salvation, said once to his faithful: “It may be that many normal Christians follow a more easy way leading to God, making a more rapid progress as the weight of responsibility on their shoulders is light. But we must render account to God first of all of our lives as Christians and then in particular of the service we have performed as pastors” (Cf.  Serm. 46: 1-2).

[9] Cf.  L’Osservatore Romano,  ed. English, 5 April 2000, p. 4.

[10] Pastoral charity removes the danger of activism and functionalism (Cf. CONGREGAZIONE PER IL CLERO, Direttorio, n. 44. This same pastoral charity is the dynamic inner principle capable of unifying the many different activities of the priest. In virtue of this pastoral charity the essential and permanent demand for unity between the priest’s interior life and all his exterior actions and the obligations of the ministry can be properly fulfilled, a demand particularly urgent in a socio-cultural and ecclesial context strongly marked by complexity, fragmentation, and dispersion. Only by directing every moment and every one of his acts towards the fundamental choice to give his life for the flock can the priest guarantee this unity which is vital and indispensable for his harmony and spiritual balance. ( Pd V 23)

[11] CCC. No. 1551. The sanctification of the people of God, entrusted to the pastor, which is essentially pastoral must be lived with humility and coherence. It can also be subject to two opposite temptations: The first is that of exercising his ministry in an overbearing manner (Lk 22: 24-27, 1 Pt 5: 1-4) while the second is that of disdaining the configuration to Christ Head and Shepherd because of an incorrect view of community. The first temptation was also strong for the disciples themselves and was promptly and repeatedly corrected by Jesus; all authority is exercised in the spirit of service, as Amoris Officium ( Cf. St Augustine, In Johannis Evangelium Tractatus, 123, 5, CCL 36,678 and as  unselfish dedication for the good of the flock (Jn 13: 14; 10: 11).

[12] CIC, c. 529 & 1

[13] PO 9

[14] PO 9

[15] CCC.  no. 1547.

[16] Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Nigeria, I Chose You, The Nigerian Priests in the Third Millennium,  Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria, 2004, p. 20.

[17] On the negative side, priests should strive not to be arrogant, rude, selfish, opinionated, ill-mannered, ill-tempered, abusive, lazy, disrespectful, or partial in their judgments and decisions. Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Nigeria, I Chose You, The Nigerian Priests in the Third Millennium,  Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria, 2004, p. 22.

[18] “Il sacerdozio ministeriale non ha senso se non e vissuto come espressione personale dell’amore del sacerdote per Cristo. La spiritualita del prete consiste nel fatto che is suo amore per Cristo lo conduce ad un amore per  il popolo di Cristo…. Per il sacerdote l’amore di Cristo diventa incarnate e sacramentale nell’amore per il popolo di Cristo. Questi due amori formano un’unita inscindibile in cui la preghiera e il ministero sono integrati in modo taleche lo stesso volto di Cristo viene rispecchiato in ambedue” ( J. O’Donnell, S. Rendina, Sacerdozio,  e Spiritualita Ignaziana, Roma 1993,  49-50.

[19] Trape A., Il Sacerdote: uomo di Dio al servizio della Chiesa, Considerazioni patristiche,  Collana Studi Agostiniani I, Roma 1988, p. 192-193.

[20] J. Navone, The Dynamic of The Question in Narrative Theology, Editrice Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, Roma 1986, p. 57.

[21]  Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Nigeria, I Chose You, The Nigerian Priests in the Third Millennium,  Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria, 2004, p.  25.

[22] Cf. PO 13

[23] St. Gregory the Great,  Regular Pastoralis II, I.

[24] PO 14

[25] Frisque, J., -Congar Y.  (ed.), Les Prệtres, Dềcrets “Presbyterorum Ordinis” et “Optatam Totius”: Textes Latins et Traductions Francaises, Paris 1968, p. 169.

[26] John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Pastores dabo vobis  (25 March 1992)  (AAS 84 (1992) 23.

[27] PO 2, PDV 21.

[28] PDV 15

[29] PO 12

[30] “The priesthood of  presbyters, while presupposing the sacraments of initiation, is nevertheless conferred by its own particular sacrament. Through that sacrament presbyters, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are signed with a special character and so are configured to Christ the Priest in such a way that they are special character and so are configured to Christ the Priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of  Christ the Head” (PO 2; CCC,  1563.  The Second Vatican Council speaks of presbyters as ministers who do not have “the supreme degree of the priesthood” and who in exercising their power depend on bishops. On the other hand, they are associated with them “by reason of their priestly dignity” (LG 28; CCC 1564) Presbyters too bear “the image of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest” (LG 28) Therefore, they participate in Christ’s pastoral authority: this is the characteristic note of their ministry, based on the Sacrament of Holy Orders conferred on them. In the New Testament books, it is not always easy to distinguish between “presbyters” and “bishops” regarding the duties assigned to them. In this chapter, too, I will follow the same principle of the New Testament of referring to the duties of the bishops and priests as pastoral ministries—duties of  a pastor.

[31] Okeke, Cornelius Uche, On Being a Fulfilled Catholic Priest, Understanding the Experience of Meaning and meaninglessness in the Priesthood, Rex Charles and Patrick limited, Nimo, 2008, p. 31-32.

[32] John of the Cross in his Ascent to Mount Carmel, all the stages that he puts there, including the stages of the dark night, of the senses, and of the Spirit, are expressions of an going education and purification of affectivity. The same with Teresa of Avila in her Interior Castle, the soul’s progression through the mansion is nothing but stages of on-going education and purification of affectivity. The exercises of St. Ignatius are all about the education and purification of affectivity at a very deep level.