Because of my previous national and international involvement with married  priest groups (or, if you prefer, former priests, resigned priests, free  priests, independent priests or laicized priests - take your pick), I receive  the newsletter of several national associations/organizations of married  priests. Many of these indicate in one way or another a numerical decline in  their memberships. Various explanations for this phenomenon have been put forth,  none more brilliantly, in my view, than that given by Anthony Padovano in Regina  last September.

The problem doesn't seem to be as critical at the local level where  most people gather for support and encouragement in small faith communities.  Its a different story at the national level. Minimal communication  (national conferences, newsletters, e-mail) make small faith communities almost  impossible to establish at the national level.

So, the national level exists for other purposes, most notably, the  attainment of certain goals, the most important one being what I would loosely  term "the acceptance of a more open form of priesthood." The use of  such a liquid expression of a national goal reflects well the major difficulty  facing married priest associations at the national level.

There are many different, legitimate views concerning both A. priestly  reform/renewal and B. the means to attain it.

A.
   •There are those (very few) who would want an optional married
   priesthood within the existing clerical system.

   •Some want an optional married priesthood within a reformed
   clerical  system. This group sub-divides according to the extent
   of reform of the clerical  system.

   •Some want a complete overhaul of "priesthood" and the
   abolition  of the clerical system.

B.
   •There are those who believe that dialogue with the hierarchy is
   necessary and will bring about reform.

   •Others feel that such dialogue with the hierarchy is useless.
   They prefer  to dialogue with the other reform-minded Catholics
   in the hope that such  communication/education will in some
   trickle-down fashion bring about a critical  mass of opinion
   that would eventually produce the changes they seek. I believe
   that the editorial team of The Journal is in this category.

   •Others feel that dialogue, whether with the hierarchy or with
   other reform  groups, though useful, is too slow and directed
   to the wrong audience. In their  view, the real power for
   change rests with "Joe and Mary Catholic,"  and the way to
   reach them is through action: "Just Do Reform."  The married
   priests of CITI are in this category. They use a sacramental
   ministry directed toward unchurched Joe and Mary Catholics as
   a means for  proclaiming Gospel values that eventually bring
   about structural changes.

   •There are other "resigned priests" who feel that the hierarchy,
   if not the entire institutional church, is -to be charitable-
   inconsequential.  They too prefer action. They do not exercise
   a priestly/sacramental  ministry. However, they involve
   themselves most admirably in practical Gospel  ministries
   among the marginalized in the secular world: e.g. soup
   kitchens,  cooperatives, third world development, prison
   ministry, etc.

Obviously, the above categorizations are theoretical and incomplete. In  reality, there are probably many "laicized priests" holding hybrid  views. Whatever. The main point is that with so many different points of view,  its hard for a national (never mind international) "married  priest" association to set goals and actions that would please all. So,  its natural (humans are varyingly intolerant of differences) that many  would distance themselves from such national associations.

Is the situation hopeless? Not if you have faith in the power of God’s  Spirit........just as Jesus did. Gethsemani and the cross will pass, followed by  the Resurrection, if we let go and let God.

François Brassard
Ladysmith BC