Do you think your priests are lazy and selfish?

It is a serious question.

In the context of the Beacons of Light project, in which the Archdiocese of Cincinnati is presently immersed, there are many decisions and steps being taken, to address two shortages:

a) People in the pews in many parishes, and

b) Priests suitable to be pastors.*

Some people deny that there is a shortage of pastor-capable priests; or they dispute that the specific tasks demanded of a pastor are really that demanding; any priest should be able to do it. Or, they dispute that a priest is even needed to administer a parish, it can be done by others. Or, they dispute that reorganizing things will do anything helpful.

Or, they ignore all these issues and simply oppose the changes because of the bad effects they foresee.

Most upsetting to many is the plan for the legal structures of parishes to be reorganized: so that, where there were multiple stand-alone parishes, there will be a combined parish, that will include multiple churches and other facilities, or for lack of a better word, "campuses," that correspond to the previously stand-alone, legally separate, parishes.

Nothing I'm saying here is dismissive of the concerns. So let's, please, not get sidetracked into reactions such as, "why don't you care?"

Which brings me back to the question posed by my headline: Do you think your priests are lazy and selfish?

It really is a serious question and here's why I'm posing it.

Your priests are telling you:

1) They cannot and will not continue with arrangements in which they are tasked with being multiple pastors. The "cluster" model, where a priest is named pastor of parish A, while being pastor of parish B, parish C, and so forth, with each parish a legally distinct administrative entity -- is wholly unworkable. It is BAD.

2) Being pastor is demanding in particular ways, even if that's not obvious to you; so not any priest can do it. That is no more a knock on those priests than saying that not all players on a team can be the pitcher or the wide receiver is a knock on those athletes.

3) The idea of having priests no longer be the administrator of parishes leads places the laity do not want. It may lead places our Lord does not want. In any case, such alternatives have not been well articulated.

4) The consequences of delaying and denying are worse than you think.

5) The Beacons of Light project is certainly not perfect, and there are plenty of legitimate criticisms. Still...

6) The two basic tasks -- reorganizing things to facilitate effective administration, and pivoting to evangelization -- are the best ways forward.

Again, this is what your priests are telling you. The Archbishop is telling you this. Why do you think?

Do you think we are lazy or selfish? Are we all stupid?** If not, then what?

I get that people don't like this. Neither do I. I very much get that many people really don't understand the realities of administering a parish, so they don't see why a priest would be so emphatic about the "cluster" model. But why is dismissing my observation the right answer? I submit the better response is to ask and listen. Especially to find out what I mean by points 3 and 4, because realize: that if these points are valid, the resistance to Beacons of Light may have worse consequences than people understand; wouldn't knowing the costs better make a whole lot of sense?

Finally, attack the messenger if you wish, but that's basically answering the question in the headline with a yes. What else is it?

Update, 2/4:

An anonymous commenter (or two) does not like this question. S/he claims it is an "attack" and an attempt to silence people.

May I suggest contemplating the following. Sometimes people -- say, teachers in a classroom, or speakers giving a talk -- will ask questions that are designed to be "provocative" in the best sense, meaning to provoke thought; to induce the listeners to approach the matter from a different angle.

You may not like the provocative question; you may not understand it. There are many ways to respond. You can ask more questions for clarity, or simply shrug it off. But telling the speaker who is posing a provocative question to shut up is missing the point.

Also, about anonymity: I choose not to disable anonymous comments, yet I tell you, if you choose to be anonymous, that hurts your cause. It's not necessary to sign up for anything in order to be non-anonymous. All you need to do is include a name or pseudonym with your comment. I don't care about your real name; you can be Daffy Duck for all I care. But when a series of anonymous comments are posted, how many actual people are involved? How does anyone know? Don't hide behind anonymity.

____________________

* A fellow priest adds this clarity: it isn't precisely a question of being capable of being a pastor anywhere; but having enough who are capable of being pastor in the great majority of parishes. The tight availability of priests for pastorates means mismatches, and the problems that arise are what I have in mind. Strictly speaking, Father X might be capable of being pastor in certain parishes, but not in many, or even most, others. This becomes a huge problem when your "bench" (to use a sports analogy) is extremely thin.

**I will be the first to acknowledge some are stupid, lazy and selfish. But all of us?