The Pastor as Shepherd, Bridegroom, and Father and Pastoral Planning

This week, in the Archdiocese of Boston, the implementation of a new pastoral plan began.  As a first step, 12 collaboratives were designated consisting of 28 parishes. Among them were the three parishes of my city.  I am currently pastor of one parish and the administrator of a second.  As part of the plan, all pastors in those twenty-eight parishes were required to resign.  They, along with any other priest, is then free to apply to any of the now open collaboratives.

Icon of Christ the Bridegroom

For me, writing that letter was akin to filing for divorce despite wanting to stay married. At any moment in time, priests must always be willing to fulfill the pastoral mission of their diocese (and even beyond their diocese.)  At the same time, I think we must zealously guard the Church's long-standing tradition of the stability of pastors. Church law still holds as its first option the indefinite assignment of pastors, and secondarily permits dioceses to have renewable terms for pastors. The Church's wisdom in promoting stability of office for pastors should not be underestimated.

This deterioration of the importance of the stability of pastors is often defended by rather banal discussions of  " new blood," or "new ideas."  At times there are attempts to overly spiritualize it by saying, "Well, this is part of the life of a priest."  But we should not be so quick to do that. Before knowing how to act, we should first know who we are.

In the life of the Church, the pastor is not a mere extension of the bishop.  He is an intimate cooperator of the bishop and he exercises his priestly office only under the authority of the bishop.  And, in this sense, every priest should have the pastoral concern of the whole diocese at heart.  If the bishop needs a particular pastor to move for the good of souls, then a good priest is willing to do so.  In this way,priests should always be willing to exercise missionary zeal in caring for the whole Church, even beyond the boundaries of his particular diocese.  But, at the same time, a pastor exercises his office in his own right. In other words, the pastor does not represent the bishop in his parish.  The pastor exercises the pastoral office under the bishop and dependent upon the bishop, but the pastor represents the person of Christ, the Good Shepherd in his parish.  The pastor is shepherd, bridegroom, and father.

As a shepherd, he is called not only to lead and to lay down his life for the sheep, but he is also called to know the sheep.  Knowing the flock takes time--a long time.  The sheep also need time to know the shepherd, to know the voice of the Good Shepherd through him, and to follow him.  Parishes aren't corporations.  Things take time. It took St. John Vianney over forty years!

As a bridegroom, the pastor lives Christ's spousal relationship with the Church.  He is with his people in good times and in bad, for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health.  The stability of pastors is a necessary condition for living this spousal relationship. Without this stability, it can seem as though pastors are always on the lookout for the next best parish.

As a father, stability is important because fatherhood is a stable presence in the lives of people. To say, "Well, all priests are fathers" would do a disservice to the theological foundation of the office of pastor.  In the Canon of the Mass, even though we pray for all bishops, we pray for our own bishop by name. He is not simply just one among the many bishops.  Specificity matters.  Similarly, the people of a parish have been given a father in the person of their pastor.  Moving him, while sometimes necessary, ought to be done with serious consideration.  "Is this so important that the father of these people should be taken from them?" If the answer is, "yes," then there's no doubt that the pastor ought to move.  But that question ought to be asked.

There are always going to be good reasons to move a pastor.  The argument for stability is not an
argument for leaving an unhappy pastor in a difficult assignment or for leaving an ineffective pastor in a parish.  Rather, the argument for stability concerns the very identity of the pastor himself  and his place within the ecclesial communion and in the life of a parish.

When I think about my own parishes, I can say that I know I am a shepherd, a bridegroom, and a father to them. So, it is natural that I would want to maintain stability.  If a pastor isn't heartbroken about leaving his flock, his spouse, and his children, then he really should be leaving his parish!  By setting the threshold for moving pastors high, we go a long way toward emphasizing the beautiful relationship that exists between the pastor and his flock.  By setting the threshold high, it also builds trust so that when such moves are made, we can have confidence that it was for very good reason.

To be clear, this isn't a public appeal to be left in place. But, it is, I think, a very critical part of the conversation about pastoral planning that is necessary. A profound appreciation for the stability of pastors would paradoxically encourage a greater acceptance of those instances when a pastor needs to be moved. 

It is an interesting moment in time. We most definitely need priests with a missionary spirit and yet, the goal of every missionary ought to be to create stable communities with a stable pastor.  We need pastors who have stability of office and who possess a willingness to take new assignments when necessary.  For all of us, priests and laity, it is important for us not to yield simply to emotion or to a corporate model of the Church.  All of us continually need to return to a meditation on who the priest is and who the pastor is.  It is from meditating on the reality of the priest that we will know how to interpret the way forward.  And, of course, we should all pray for our bishop and for those he has entrusted with the task of overseeing this pastoral plan.  It is undoubtedly an overwhelming task and they deserve our respect and our prayers. We are all in this together, bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and laity. I think discussions about this are beneficial and, in the end, will help all of us to be better disciples in mission. 

(As an aside, when looking for an image to incorporate into this blog post, I thought of finding one of Christ the Bridegroom.  I was rather shocked when I found the icon above.  It is not exactly what I would have imagined for an image of the bridegroom and it honestly beckons me to deepen my own understanding of what it means in my vocation to be an icon of Christ, the Bridegroom.  I encourage you to go to this link and to read what the icon means.  It is really fascinating.  http://iconreader.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/behold-the-man-christ-the-bridegroom-icon/)