It's also about formation from other provinces and regions and foundations. Some orders will send their members to America for early formation and then they return home. Others get cycled through. Sabattical programs in the UK had to shut down because some religious couldn't get visas because they had no bank accounts, that was all moved to Rome and the EU now.
While I would rather this program continue and for the priest visa program to be fixed after the Biden admin’s meddling, we really ought to focus on why we need programs like this at all. Why do we need to import from other countries to serve needy diocese instead of taking surplus from our biggest diocese? Why do NY, Boston, LA, etc not constantly throw off large numbers of excess vocations to serve Alaska? Why does southern Illinois need to import foreign priests instead of using excess from Chicago?
I suspect the USCCB would rather not face this issue head on.
There are not 'excess' vocations in our large dioceses. The Pillar published a great report on this recently, detailing how far below replacement level most American dioceses (and all the large ones) are. There are maybe 10 American dioceses that could be said to have excess vocations, and while the Diocese of Wichita is doing very well, they're not going to fix the country
Canon Law attaches a priest to the diocese in which he has been incardinated. Under the Law a (diocesan) priest is not required to serve anywhere other than the diocese in which he has been incardinated.
There are many reasons that a man may wish to remain in his diocese, not the least of which would be his familiarity with the presbyterate, the bishop, and the people of the local church.
There is also a distinct possibility that a priest from say, Lincoln Nebraska might receive a chilly reception in a diocese like San Diego.
Please don't treat priests like "resources" that can be shifted hither and yon simply because a Diocese is not producing vocations and another one is. The very fact that a priest is incardinated in a diocese that is flourishing may be why he would not want to be sent somewhere else.
Everything you just said applies even more so to priests from India, Nigeria, or Vietnam who are currently filling gaps across the US. I’m not treating the priests like resources, the USCCB is; that is my point.
I do think some of the foreign priests enter seminary in their home counties expecting to be missionaries while men in the US are not usually formed to that end. I’m sure formation with an intention for foreign missions or even distant domestic ones differs in at least some important ways than formation for home-turf service.
I’m not completely disagreeing with you, but I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as American from diocese A with training to minister in diocese A should be at the ready to serve in diocese Z. Although the Apostles did exactly that so probably we are messing it up somewhere.
I had a meeting with one of the religious orders I represent today about planning for the EB-4 backlog, non-ministerial sunsetting and the five year limitation on R-1 status. It’s a big mess.
If they don't address this and the changes take effect, I will have a pretty hard time believing the rhetoric that the current regime is actually friendly toward the church. This is not the behavior of a friend.
I'm with the US bishops on this. Their core responsibility is teaching the gospel and providing the sacraments and the liturgy. If they need to beg and borrow from elsewhere to accomplish that, then they should do what they have to do.
They need also to address the glaring questions about US vocations. There's a lot that could be said about that, but whatever the current deficiencies are, I doubt that having the sacraments less available is a win.
So far the USCCB have chosen a hardline confrontational approach to the administration, so it may not get a friendly hearing on issues like this one. If they do, it'll likely be because of back channel communications from places other than DC and Chicago.
We could probably enable some of that back channel communications by contacting our Congressmen. At the end of the day, Trump and the Congressmen are not particularly beholden to the bishops, and may not be on good terms with them... but they are beholden to the voters. And presumably some of those voters include people who would like to have religious able to come to the US.
A lot of the religious visas aren't for permanent residency, but for formation, education, etc. But there is also the fact that for many contemplative and monastic orders, you are called to that specific house. The vocation is not to move around to wherever a diocese needs you.
The Benedictine sisters in Gower have the opposite problem with vocations - getting applications approximately every day, and more in a year than they have total beds. There may not be a lack of vocations, so much as a lack of religious orders that match the vocations that do exist. The Franciscan order exists because a bunch of guys had a vocation that did not match any religious orders that existed at the time. Part of a bishop's job is recognizing those things and fostering orders appropriately.
I admit, I am confused as to how much of this is congressional vs. presidential. Regardless, and regardless of right/wrong on the part of the government, my initial thought went to the parable of the dishonest steward. From the first week, this administration and the bishops (including Francis) have not exactly been getting along. Regarding those things in which the Church in America is dependent on the U.S. government, the bishops may need to take a note from the dishonest steward.
It's kinda hard to track, when the executive branch is in the habit of writing "laws" - I mean regulations that apply to people outside the executive branch and have the force of law.
It sounds like it ought to be congressional, but the president has been handling it for a long time, because Congress is lazy? Or something? And then no one complained because it was being handled, even though it isn't something that the presidency should be handling long-term.
I have noticed that it is becoming quite difficult to serve in the Church in the United States. The application for the permanent diaconate for ADW was intrusive and 25 pages long. In order to help serve food to the homeless in Baltimore, I need Virtus certification, background check, signing of multiple waivers. And each diocese has its own youth protection policy and they don't accept the policy from neighboring diocese, so frequently I have to complete separate trainings for each place I volunteer. So I suspect all this paperwork discourages some Catholics from volunteering and helping out.
The US government is promoting home grown vocations in America, in tragic irony.
It's also about formation from other provinces and regions and foundations. Some orders will send their members to America for early formation and then they return home. Others get cycled through. Sabattical programs in the UK had to shut down because some religious couldn't get visas because they had no bank accounts, that was all moved to Rome and the EU now.
While I would rather this program continue and for the priest visa program to be fixed after the Biden admin’s meddling, we really ought to focus on why we need programs like this at all. Why do we need to import from other countries to serve needy diocese instead of taking surplus from our biggest diocese? Why do NY, Boston, LA, etc not constantly throw off large numbers of excess vocations to serve Alaska? Why does southern Illinois need to import foreign priests instead of using excess from Chicago?
I suspect the USCCB would rather not face this issue head on.
There are not 'excess' vocations in our large dioceses. The Pillar published a great report on this recently, detailing how far below replacement level most American dioceses (and all the large ones) are. There are maybe 10 American dioceses that could be said to have excess vocations, and while the Diocese of Wichita is doing very well, they're not going to fix the country
I think that was the point Kevin was trying to make.
On reading his comment again, yes I think you're right.
Canon Law attaches a priest to the diocese in which he has been incardinated. Under the Law a (diocesan) priest is not required to serve anywhere other than the diocese in which he has been incardinated.
There are many reasons that a man may wish to remain in his diocese, not the least of which would be his familiarity with the presbyterate, the bishop, and the people of the local church.
There is also a distinct possibility that a priest from say, Lincoln Nebraska might receive a chilly reception in a diocese like San Diego.
Please don't treat priests like "resources" that can be shifted hither and yon simply because a Diocese is not producing vocations and another one is. The very fact that a priest is incardinated in a diocese that is flourishing may be why he would not want to be sent somewhere else.
Everything you just said applies even more so to priests from India, Nigeria, or Vietnam who are currently filling gaps across the US. I’m not treating the priests like resources, the USCCB is; that is my point.
I do think some of the foreign priests enter seminary in their home counties expecting to be missionaries while men in the US are not usually formed to that end. I’m sure formation with an intention for foreign missions or even distant domestic ones differs in at least some important ways than formation for home-turf service.
I’m not completely disagreeing with you, but I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as American from diocese A with training to minister in diocese A should be at the ready to serve in diocese Z. Although the Apostles did exactly that so probably we are messing it up somewhere.
Coming from LA diocese I laughed out loud at having excess vocations. Le sigh
America is full. We don't need any more immigrants coming here.
well, when it comes to priests and religious, we apparently do.
I had a meeting with one of the religious orders I represent today about planning for the EB-4 backlog, non-ministerial sunsetting and the five year limitation on R-1 status. It’s a big mess.
If they don't address this and the changes take effect, I will have a pretty hard time believing the rhetoric that the current regime is actually friendly toward the church. This is not the behavior of a friend.
I'm with the US bishops on this. Their core responsibility is teaching the gospel and providing the sacraments and the liturgy. If they need to beg and borrow from elsewhere to accomplish that, then they should do what they have to do.
They need also to address the glaring questions about US vocations. There's a lot that could be said about that, but whatever the current deficiencies are, I doubt that having the sacraments less available is a win.
So far the USCCB have chosen a hardline confrontational approach to the administration, so it may not get a friendly hearing on issues like this one. If they do, it'll likely be because of back channel communications from places other than DC and Chicago.
We could probably enable some of that back channel communications by contacting our Congressmen. At the end of the day, Trump and the Congressmen are not particularly beholden to the bishops, and may not be on good terms with them... but they are beholden to the voters. And presumably some of those voters include people who would like to have religious able to come to the US.
A lot of the religious visas aren't for permanent residency, but for formation, education, etc. But there is also the fact that for many contemplative and monastic orders, you are called to that specific house. The vocation is not to move around to wherever a diocese needs you.
The Benedictine sisters in Gower have the opposite problem with vocations - getting applications approximately every day, and more in a year than they have total beds. There may not be a lack of vocations, so much as a lack of religious orders that match the vocations that do exist. The Franciscan order exists because a bunch of guys had a vocation that did not match any religious orders that existed at the time. Part of a bishop's job is recognizing those things and fostering orders appropriately.
I admit, I am confused as to how much of this is congressional vs. presidential. Regardless, and regardless of right/wrong on the part of the government, my initial thought went to the parable of the dishonest steward. From the first week, this administration and the bishops (including Francis) have not exactly been getting along. Regarding those things in which the Church in America is dependent on the U.S. government, the bishops may need to take a note from the dishonest steward.
It's kinda hard to track, when the executive branch is in the habit of writing "laws" - I mean regulations that apply to people outside the executive branch and have the force of law.
It sounds like it ought to be congressional, but the president has been handling it for a long time, because Congress is lazy? Or something? And then no one complained because it was being handled, even though it isn't something that the presidency should be handling long-term.
I have noticed that it is becoming quite difficult to serve in the Church in the United States. The application for the permanent diaconate for ADW was intrusive and 25 pages long. In order to help serve food to the homeless in Baltimore, I need Virtus certification, background check, signing of multiple waivers. And each diocese has its own youth protection policy and they don't accept the policy from neighboring diocese, so frequently I have to complete separate trainings for each place I volunteer. So I suspect all this paperwork discourages some Catholics from volunteering and helping out.