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!
