My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian witnesses and writers in reflecting on life, encounters, and various situations, in a desire to enhance our understanding of what it means to be a missionary disciple of Jesus Christ at the service of the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Who am I?
As a seminarian, I was deeply moved and inspired by Jesus' Easter encounter with the two discouraged disciples walking on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus. A dear friend, who is now with the Lord, sketched the incident in the above illustration as the visual theme for my ordination to hte priesthood. I've been a priest serving in my home diocese now for going on 43 years. For most of that time, we priests lived through what could be called blissful neglect: blissful in that one could be happy not to draw too much attention to oneself, to one's ministry or lifestyle. Not eliciting much attention could be a sign of a ministry that is fruitful and a lifestyle that is holy; although that may not necessarily be the case.
The fundamental principle of "subsidiarity"
As a young priest, I heard stories told by our elders about "being called in by the bishop", which was generally not good news. Either one had "stepped out of line" or the bishop was about to "demote" one to a less important assignment, or else promote one to a more demanding assignment. One elderly priest related how the bishop called him in, as a relatively young priest, to confide in him the important assignment of establishing a new parish. He was both terrified and exhilarated, and flattered. What the bishop omitted to tell him was that six months later, his territory was part of a region separated from his home diocese to become part of a new diocese. He was cut off from all his friends.
Thus it was deemed a good thing to remain "under the radar" of the bishop's observations or those of his officers. Most of the formation needed by priests was dispensed and acquired "on the job" and under the wings usually of an experienced pastor and, subsequently, a mentor. The Church functioned generally smoothly as each person exercised fully the responsibility that was theirs, at their "level", not trying to "micromanage" those under them, nor disrupting the responsibility of those "above" them, or supervising them. This was known, and still is, as the "principle of subsidiarity", the way in which the Lord Jesus shares his authority and power to serve throughout the Church, among both clergy and laity.
The new buzzword "new evangelization"
Among those just a little older and more experienced, I often heard other priests complain that they did not feel supported by the bishop, that the bishop and his offices were "grinding out too much" material, all designed to give priests and parishes "more work". There was talk about mobilizing "the new evangelization" but not much in the way of suggestions about how to do it. There were monthly or so meetings organized by geographic region or, in our case, among the English speaking clergy, which included deacons and their wives and others with pastoral mandates from the bishop. We were generally left to our own devices locally but also encouraged to engage in "coresponsibility", that is, to proactively collaborate among ourselves and especially with the laity.
Another new buzzword "coresponsibility"
After a few decades of encouragement to engage in this coresponsibility - as opposed to the clericalism whereby priests insist everyone knows they are "in charge" - these regional meetings were abolished and somewhat replaced by something resembling a "deanery meeting" but not in the canonical definition of anything usually designated by this term. It was and is for us just a meeting of priests with our director who serve in English.
Nothing much has changed in the past four decades regarding any "attention" we might have or not on the part of our bishop with the exception that in our case, we have enjoyed having an episcopal vicar and an office director closer to us than anything the rest of the clergy may have enjoyed. At times, both functions have been served by the same person, sometimes an auxiliary bishop. At other times, the functions have been invested in two different persons, including a lay woman. We've had more than one, and they have all been remarkably competent, caring, and effective.
No real reports or work reviews in the Church
The Church here has operated differently than the world of work. A wonderfully competent lady, who became our friend, was hired from the world of work where she had been in H.R., i.e. "human resources" services in the business world. She explained how in the business world people apply for a position, must submit a C.V., i.e. a curriculum vitae, undergo one or more interviews, be hired on probation, undergo evaluations at 3, 6, and 12 months, and have to wait before being vetted for any kind of permanent status. In this environment, workers never get away from having to make regular reports and undergo evaluations, and work under the certainty of constantly being observed, tested, and assessed.
Anyone wanting to take over their position can lodge complaints against them, which requires them to be ever ready to give an account for their performance, behaviour, and attitudes. Perhaps some wealthy dioceses in the world have introduced such workplace practices among church workers, but I haven't heard of anything like it in Canada.
The new age of the "ombudsman"
There has been one very dramatic change in our local church world, and that has been the attention given to "underage and vulnerable persons", which was prompted by the worldwide awakening to cases of abuse perpetrated by a few deranged clergymen on innocent children or vulnerable women or elderly persons. Since priority has been given to "responsible pastoral ministry" for the protection of those who are or may be vulnerable, i.e. potential victims, formation has been given to all those who work with people in the name of the Church, as well as police checks and other filters in order to reduce to a minimum the risks of exposing the vulnerable to potential predators. This is only right and just, but requiring dramatic changes.
Further mechanisms have been put in place to initiate rapid responses to complaints and red flags indicating potential harm to the vulnerable. There can be no doubt that one would find a wide range of credibility and gravity among such complaints, from simple human relations or personality conflicts to out and out crimes of abuse and violence. In principle, those invested with authority to manage and operate these mechanisms are able to "sort all these complaints out" in order to apply to each one the appropriate response and remedy.
However, human nature being what it is, what happens when the distinction between a simple personality conflict and a violent crime is not so clear? Moreover, is any scrutiny applied to those who formulate those complaints; given that they too are human beings and quite capable of exaggerating or even outright lying, or perhaps even setting out on a jealous rampage or thirsting for revenge?
Ambiguous consequences of sanctions
When sanctions are deemed necessary, or at the very least a preliminary investigation, action is at times taken to remove a priest from his ministry, or place of work, or even his place of residence. Apparently, in such cases very little information is given to the priest himself; let alone to the people whom he had until that precise moment been ministering. They, like he, are left mostly in the dark and left to suffer the worst scenarious their imaginations can conjure up. That would be bad enough were the uncertainty to last a few weeks, but when it extends into months and even years, the harm done can be incalculable; both to the priest - especially if he turns out to be mostly innocent - and for the people.
What about the "observer effect"?
Zoologists, people studying wildlife, have been prowling about the wilds of Planet Earth for centuries, but it is only relatively recently that they have become aware of the effects that their very presence actually has on that wildlife, and that they have taken measures to mitigate that effect or influence. Here is a quote from AI in answer to the question:
"When did zoologists become aware of the effect even observing wildlife was having on the wildlife?"
AI Overview
Zoologists and naturalists began to develop an awareness of the observer effect in wildlife studies during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with formal recognition and mitigation strategies becoming standard in the 1960s to 1980s. While early naturalists understood that studying animals required long-term observation, the understanding that the presence of the observer itself altered behavior—a concept similar to the "Hawthorne effect"—developed as ethology matured into a scientific discipline. National Institutes of Health (.gov)
Is there an "observer effect" from actions taken by leadership?
For those placed under preliminary or extended investigation by church authorities and, for the duration of those investigations, when they are removed from their specific ministry, or from all ministry, and / or from their place of residence; what effect do these actions have on them in the first few weeks? In subsequent months? What about years? Beyond those under investigation, what effects may be observed in the people who had become familiar with those priests; whether they appreciated them and their ministry or not?
We can easily imagine how such a priest, living in some degree of suspended living, might feel consigned to some sort of "acquarium or terrarium", with all eyes turned to him, and a sense of being unable to extricate himself from such a very difficult and helpless situation. The season in life in which he finds himself will generate very specific questions. His state of health will also generate other questions, interacting with those first questions.
How long will this situation last? What is he to do during the investigation with his capacity and need to work? How does he recover, if possible, from the damage to his circles of relationships? If he turns out to be guilty of human relations or human resources blunders; how does he recover and move on? If he is guilty of a crime; then of course he will have to endure the consequences. Wherever and whenever he may have harmed anyone, he will want to atone and repair, but he may or may not be able to do so under the circumstances or timeline.
What about parish communities of faith? How do they make sense of such developments, particularly when they happen suddenly, as if in the shadows of the night? How do they maintain their trust in the Church leadership and their faith in the Church herself as the Bride of Christ? What happens to their trust in the Church's shepherds generally and in the chief shepherd in particular? There are many questions but few answers; since we seem to be in a time of experimentation forced upon us by a serious crisis. The crisis is real and worldwide. Sadly, so are all the intended and unintended consequences of all of our actions; including the "observer effect".
Lord, we are your Church; have mercy on us.
We very much need to renew our confidence in the Lord, the Most Holy Trinity, and in Jesus as our One Lord and Saviour. Lord, have mercy on us all. Mary, Mother of God and of the Church, intercede for us. We desperately need your motherly protection and love.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian witnesses and writers in reflecting on life, encounters, and various situations, in a desire to enhance our understanding of what it means to be a missionary disciple of Jesus Christ at the service of the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004-2026 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal QC
© 2004-2026 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
