Jean Khoury
Summary: A conversation with a friend priest who once headed a seminary exposes an uncomfortable truth at the heart of pastoral life: holiness, and the spiritual life that leads to it, has quietly become (has always been?) the preserve of religious orders, largely absent from the formation of secular clergy and from the ordinary life of the Parish. This article sets out why contemporary theology, occupied as it is with exegesis, dogma, the sacraments, moral and pastoral theology, canon law and Church history, does not of itself lead to holiness, and traces what this means for priestly formation and pastoral practice. It reads this diagnosis against the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, which grounds the universal call to holiness in Baptism and refuses to treat consecrated life as a separate category of the faithful. From there it draws out the practical consequences for seminaries and parishes and proposes two concrete steps: a renewal of theology from within, and a renewal of the Parish’s own capacity to form its people, all the way to holiness.
I. Introduction
Yesterday I was speaking with a friend priest who, among many other things in his life, was the head of a seminary. We were discussing the School of Mary’s desire to offer a different formation for future priests: one grounded in a stronger spiritual life, which functions as the cement binding together the other areas of formation — theological, human, pastoral, and, I would add, liturgical.
Spiritual Theology is the theological discipline that teaches us about the spiritual life. In seminaries, though not at university, seminarians will from time to time receive a talk on some aspect of it. My friend understood very well what I meant when I described our project as offering a deeper and stronger Spiritual Theology, because we both know that, in the Church, Spiritual Theology today is very often weak and shallow. What struck me was his reply: “You know, Jean, in the Church we, the secular clergy, leave spiritual life to the religious orders.”
I already knew this, in a sense. But now, deepening my reflection on priestly formation after many years of working in this field, I realise that I had been, in a way, in denial about it. My aim is to offer a renewed understanding of priestly formation under the horizon of the universal call to holiness proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council. What follows is an attempt to take that aim seriously: to ask what it would mean, theologically and structurally, for holiness to stop being somebody else’s department.
II. The Status Quaestionis
It is obvious that theology, as actually taught in universities and Catholic faculties, does not have the means to present, explain, and lead us to holiness. Theology is occupied with other major disciplines: the Bible and exegesis, Dogma, Sacraments and Liturgy, Moral Theology, Pastoral Theology, Church History, and Canon Law. We try to convince ourselves that these disciplines, taken together, can lead us to holiness — but this is wishful thinking. To imagine that the sacraments and a morally sound life will, of themselves, produce holiness is simply wishful thinking; everyone, understandably, wants to believe it. But from the standpoint of a serious Spiritual Theology, it is, with all due respect, simply risible.
Here lies a real contradiction, in fact two. First, we claim that all are called to holiness, yet we have no genuine account of how this is meant to work; we soothe our conscience with the drug-like thought that the sacraments, a morally sound life and some commitment to help others are enough, of themselves, to make a saint. Second, we persuade ourselves that our chief pastoral aim is to fill our churches with new people — that is, evangelisation — while the full scope of evangelisation, which is nothing less than holiness, never comes into view at all. The only answer typically offered by a parish priest, a secular priest, is vague: “The religious orders are in charge of that!” It is easy to say, and thoroughly disturbing.
If this is so (i.e. religious are in charge of leading to holiness), then the Parish is not enough, and never will be. It means that it does not offer the full Christian project, from birth to death; it offers a Christian life that dies incomplete, without ever reaching its fullness. If the Parish delegates holiness to the religious orders, it becomes, in effect, only a period in the life of a Christian, rather than the inalienable place that belongs to every Christian as such. These are simple thoughts, yet they are deeply disturbing, precisely because of their incoherence. Do we really want every parishioner to stand with one foot in the Parish and the other in a religious order? Is that a viable position at all? And if so, how?
This is why I have always thought that when John Paul II insisted that “all pastoral initiatives must be set in relation to holiness,” he was, in effect, throwing a bomb into the Church (John Paul II, Novo Millennio Ineunte, 30–31). Our models, or rather our understanding of them, will have to change. The goal is not simply to evangelise in order to gain more parishioners; it is to offer the full journey, all the way to holiness, within the Parish itself. In this sense, it is not only pastoral initiatives that must be set in relation to holiness, but theology and priestly formation as well. We cannot have one without the other two: pastoral life, theology and priestly formation must belong together if holiness is truly to remain the organising principle of the Church’s life.
Nor should we assume that religious orders themselves have this well in hand. Do we really believe that holiness is their principal, central expertise? Not really — scratch the surface, and you will see, especially given the actual state of theology today. The same “disabled” theology forms secular priests, religious, and monks alike. It is “disabled” in the sense that it does not lead us to the fullness of Christian life; at best, it describes Christian life from the outside, or the first steps (Catechesis). All of this is deeply disturbing. It goes without saying, then, that seminarians are consequently not formed in spiritual direction either: spiritual direction, too, is “left to the religious orders”.
III. Theoretical Consequences
This is not only a theological or a pastoral problem; it is also an ecclesiological one. The Second Vatican Council teaches that all the faithful are called to holiness, on the basis of Baptism and of the holiness of the Church herself (Lumen Gentium, ch. V, §§39–42). It teaches, further, that consecrated life is not a separate category of the faithful, still less an added charism or grace layered upon Baptism; rather, the call to consecrated life is, in the Council’s own terms, a development of the baptismal consecration, lived out through the evangelical counsels (cf. Lumen Gentium §44).
The consequence is significant. We move from three ecclesiological categories — the faithful, the religious, understood as those called to perfection, and priests, the ordained clergy — to two: the faithful, and priests. Religious life, as a distinct ecclesiological category, has disappeared. This does not mean that religious life itself has disappeared or should; it means, rather, that the theology of religious life and the theology of Baptism are, in truth, one and the same theology. Religious life is not another call, another grace, another Baptism. It is the same Baptism, lived as a call to deepen it and allow it to reach its full development.
If this ecclesiology is taken seriously, the Parish cannot remain, even in principle, a mere preliminary stage on the way to something else. It must be capable, in itself, of offering the whole journey of growth, all the way to the fullness of holiness.
IV. Practical Consequences
Left as it stands, this diagnosis produces a binary state in the actual life of the Church. If you wish to be an ordinary parishioner, without any real desire for holiness, you may simply remain in your parish: you will be saved, but that is as far as it goes, and some purgatory will presumably be required. If, on the other hand, you are seeking holiness, the fullness of Christian life, you must seek the help of a religious order. You might succeed. Miraculously.
In practice, this “elsewhere” is not confined to the religious orders. Many look, just as often, to the new lay ecclesial movements instead — the Neo-Catechumenal Way, the Chemin Neuf Community, and others besides — for the spiritual life and growth they are not finding in the Parish. The names and forms vary, but the pattern is the same: once again, it is something outside the Parish that people must turn to.
One might object that movements such as the Neocatechumenal Way have already recognised this problem by bringing catechesis and a more intentional form of Christian formation into the Parish itself. There is certainly something valuable in this. But we need to distinguish carefully between catechesis and the spiritual life. Catechesis, however necessary, is not yet a developed theology of spiritual growth, nor does the existence of a structured process necessarily mean that the whole journey towards holiness has been understood.
More importantly, we should be careful not to interpret the present situation as though only a small minority of Catholics were capable of, or interested in, seeking holiness. That may indeed be what we observe in the present form of Catholic pastoral life, but the observation should make us ask why it is so. We have become accustomed to a binary situation: the majority remain within the ordinary framework of Sunday Mass, preaching and sacramental life, while a relatively small number, who desire something more, seek elsewhere for deeper formation. But perhaps the real problem is that our pastoral practice has not sufficiently understood how one leads a person from one stage of spiritual life to another.
We offer catechesis, sacramental preparation and the ordinary life of the Parish, but what comes after? Where is the articulated path from initial conversion to a stable spiritual life, from a beginning of prayer to deeper prayer, from basic Christian formation to spiritual direction, purification, contemplation and the fullness of charity? Where is the theological understanding that enables the pastor to recognise these different stages and to know what kind of accompaniment and formation each one requires? If this horizon is not presented, it is hardly surprising that people tend to remain where they are. The Parish can then go round in circles, not because its people are incapable of growing, but because the spiritual journey itself has not been sufficiently understood or made pastorally accessible.
This is where the need for deeper Spiritual Theology becomes decisive. We need not simply more catechesis, more programmes or more pastoral activity. We need a deeper understanding of the spiritual journey itself, together with a pastoral pedagogy capable of accompanying people through its different stages. Otherwise, the call to holiness remains a theological principle without an adequate pastoral realisation. We end up accepting the fact that only a few go further, when in reality we have not yet sufficiently understood how to lead people further.
This “binary” state is not merely a theoretical inconvenience; it is lived, daily, by ordinary Catholics and by the priests who serve them. It leaves seminarians formed without any real training in spiritual direction, since this too has been handed over to the religious orders. It leaves the parish priest with no answer beyond a gesture towards religious life. And it leaves the believer who does desire holiness with an uncomfortable, largely unworkable choice: one foot in the Parish, one foot in a religious order, hoping that so divided a life is somehow viable.
V. Proposing Practical Solutions
I believe the future will require a genuine resolution of this binary state, and I see it unfolding in two steps.
The first step is to change the theology we receive. It must be renewed from within: offering a deeper Spiritual Theology and establishing real connections between the Spiritual Life (spiritual life) and each of the main areas of theology — the Bible, Dogma, the Sacraments, Moral Theology, Pastoral Theology, and the rest. Spiritual Theology should not remain an occasional talk on the margins of formation; it should run through the whole of theological formation as its unifying thread.
The second step is to renew the Parish itself, empowering it from within with the capacity to offer a proper, deep, and organised spiritual formation, together with spiritual direction. Some parishes — and here we will need to speak seriously of “maturity” in a parish — will then be able to offer the entire span of the journey of growth. Their pastoral plan will cover not only the kerygma (mission ad gentes) and catechesis (OCIA), but the whole journey of Christian growth: initiation into the spiritual life, progressive formation in prayer, spiritual direction, mystagogy, purification, and, finally, the deep spiritual life itself. The point is not simply to add more programmes to the Parish, but to recover an intelligible path by which people can be led from one stage of Christian life to the next, towards the fullness of holiness. The Parish needs an architecture of growth.
It goes without saying that priests, formed by this renewed theology — for it is theology that forms all of us — will in turn be equipped to run such a mature Parish. So renewed, the Parish will finally be in a position to follow through on the ecclesiology of the Council: not a waiting room on the way to holiness, but itself the ordinary place where holiness is reached.
VI. Conclusion
What emerges from a simple conversation with a friend is, on reflection, a genuine conundrum at the heart of pastoral life: a Church that proclaims a universal call to holiness while pastorally organising itself as though holiness were somebody else’s department. The remedy is not to work around this contradiction but to resolve it, by renewing theology from within and by renewing the Parish’s own capacity to form its people all the way to holiness, in keeping with the ecclesiology the Council itself proposed. We need a renewed theology capable of penetrating the depth of the call to holiness and adequately accounting for its demands, rather than merely scratching its surface.
One question remains open, and it is not a small one. If the Parish is called to offer the whole journey to holiness, what, then, is the point of religious consecration? What becomes of the mission of religious orders? These are challenging questions, and they deserve to be asked openly. I think that, if this twofold renewal takes place, Religious Life will certainly continue, but its development, maturity and fecundity will unfold at an entirely new level, opening up a new dimension of its life and mysterious marian fecundity.
Read also:
The Transfiguration of the Parish
Spiritual Formation in the Church
Articles on the Renewal of Theology
This playlist below is intended to help you gain a deeper understanding of Spiritual Demography. The teaching is grounded entirely in the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of Spiritual Life.