Class reunions divide and unite priests - Column

National Catholic Reporter, March 21, 1997 by Ed Kohler

I have attended every five-year reunion of my St. Paul Minn. Seminary class of 1957 except 1972, the year I married. I have found these gatherings a joyful experience as classmates come together to renew friendships made during many years together at school.

Since the early '70s, the inactive priests (numbering 23) and their wives have been invited to all reunions. Because of our presence, a few priests boycott the reunions. Some attend reluctantly. Others have accepted their married classmates warmly.

A committee, including my wife and me, met more than a year ago to plan our 40-year reunion for June 1997. We put together two days of activities with a celebration of the Eucharist on the final evening.

Last June, after consulting with the 38 active priests, five priests decided to add two days for active ones only. My class now has two committees that will send two invitations to attend two reunions with two celebrations of the Eucharist two days apart. A total of 30, at most 40, priests will attend one or both events. One classmate won't make it for sure: He's in the state prison for pederasty and threatening to kill a witness.

The priest committee avoids calling their two-day gathering a "reunion." They prefer to call it a component, a mini-retreat, a professional gathering to discuss issues such as retirement. They would like to have a few days alone together to celebrate their 40 years in the active ministry. They do admit they are trying to accommodate or attract those priests who rarely attend or attend reluctantly.

I find these two consecutive gatherings divisive and an unhappy precedent, a departure from successful past practices that bodes ill for the future. Therefore, I have decided not to attend the June 1997 reunion. Uninvited to part one, I will not attend part two.

Also, I found this concept such a novelty that I decided to interview other alumni about their reunions. I learned that St. Paul Seminary classes of '46, '58 to '64 and '67 practice inclusivity, that is, they invite all alumni, active and inactive priests, and in many cases the wives of married priests.

Three classes -- '55, '56 and my class, '57 -- seem to have the deepest divisions and depart sharply from how most seminary classes do reunions.

The class of '55 invited inactive priests to the 1980 reunion. Since then, priests hosting the 1985, 1990 and 1995 reunions invited only the 28 active ones. The 15 inactive priests have been deleted from the mailing list.

The class of '56 has its own divisions. Because so many of the 33 active priests opposed inviting the 10 who were inactive, the hosts of the 1996 reunion were forced to compromise.

They sent two letters for two reunions. One letter, in effect, offered the active priests four choices: Stay home, come to days one and two, days three and four, or all four days. The second letter offered inactive priests two choices: Stay home or come to days three and four. Their letter made no mention of days one and two for active priests.

Reunions usually culminate on the last evening with a celebration of the Eucharist, a reading of names of class members who have died, a social hour and banquet. The priests of the class of '56 scheduled this major event for the evening of day two, before the inactive priests arrived. The six inactive priests who attended went home unaware that their active classmates chose not to share a eucharistic meal with them.

While I learned of the behavior of seminary class reunions, the explanation for the behavior was more difficult to come by. I was offered, however, a number of reasons that some priests refuse to invite inactive priests or gather, with them.

The most frequently cited reasons: Some priests are "uncomfortable" if inactive priests attend reunions or "more comfortable" if they don't attend.

Some priests are angry at inactive priest's for leaving us with all the work." They feel betrayed and deserted. "They left us," these priests say, "We didn't leave them. We have little in common."

Then there's jealousy. "I wish I had the courage to do what you did," one priest confided to a friend. "But now it's too late."

One inactive priest suggested some active priests don't want to face their classmates because back home they have either a male or female friend. At our 1982 reunion, a priest friend told my wife and me over lunch: "Maybe next time we can all bring our significant others."

Morale is another frequent reason. "Why should we have them come," one active priest said. "It would be demoralizing to us priests to commend their behavior."

And this blends into righteousness. Active priests stayed the course, the thinking goes. Inactive priests should have hung in there, but didn't.

I wonder if some powerful force is at work that inhibits a priest saying to a married classmate, "I may not like your decision, but I accept it as right for you. And I accept you. And your wife. I love you both."

I call this force the Catholic priest ethic. Catholic doctrine teaches that priests are forever, according to the order of Melchisedech. Leaving is considered a very grave matter.