Today, more than ever, the Catholic Church is in need of men and women who can lead. Easier said than done! We are in desperate need of leaders who have the courage to do and say the things that need be said and done. We also need leaders who possess a great deal of common sense and a practical understanding of the "real world"

In the not to distant past, the priest was the best educated man in the community. He was looked up to and respected...no more!......Today the lay men and woman in the pews are often better educated than the priest and they expect more from their spiritual leader. A priest who spews pious platitudes and proves to be an ineptitude leader will fade quickly into irrelevance and take the Church with him.

I saw a very interesting article today that described two different types of Episcopal Authority. One is "de lure", or legal authority that is given to a bishop by virtue of his "office". In the civil world this would be similar to the authority given to a police officer. A man with a badge has a certain amount of authority given to him/her by the municipality...a man with a miter has a similar type of authority, given by the church.

The other type is "de facto" authority which does not presume any "office" but is based on the personal charism or moral authority the an individual may possess. Mother Theresa and Dorothy Day were two great examples of individuals who exercised this authority in the church.

While it is possible for a Bishop to exercise both types of authority, we unfortunately seem to have too few Bishops who possess or display any type of personal charism. They are good at reading the rule book to you but not great at building a sense of love and loyalty among their flocks.

Maybe this explains why some 22 million people who were raised Catholic no longer consider themselves Catholic. The second largest Christian denomination in America is made up of "former Catholics". Sad isn't it?

JP II or Vatican II

I find that the "Intelligentsia" involved and interested in the formation of priests look favorably on those who they consider to be JPII priests. They seem to view with a great deal of suspicion those priests and students who could be labeled as Vatican II priests. The idea that JPII priests seem to be into rubrics and cassocks while Vatican II priests are into social ministries and and odd liturgies capture a bit of the negative stereotypes of both.

How unfortunate it is that in a Church wracked by enormous problems, we categorize, label and attach value judgments to the men who will be the leaders of the Church of tomorrow. what type of priest was Jesus? Each man come into the formation process with certain talents and experiences but each is thrown into the same "meat grinder" of a process in the hopes of "forming the right kind of priest.

I believe that the priest who will be the most effective in ministering to his flock in the future will be the one who can most consistently avoid being labeled. It will be the priest who can adjust to the needs of the parish and parishioner. Stiffness and rigor won't do.

The effective priest will be a servant of his flock ...not a showman or a parliamentarian. I believe that one of the most effective tools of a priest, a tool as important as any scripture passage or perfectly timed genuflection, may be a smile and a handshake!