ARTICLES

Groovy St. Patrick’s

New Rector Says, “All You Need is Love”

BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER

The new rector of St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park might well heed this warning:

“If he doesn’t respect the fact that many of the students are orthodox, it will look like he’s jamming the ’60s and ’70s down these students’ throats and will continue to be out of touch with these students.”

So a close observer of St. Patrick’s told me in May. We were discussing the imminent arrival of Sulpician Father Gerald Brown as rector, replacing fellow Sulpician priest, Gerald Coleman. Brown’s term was to start July 1. The 65-year-old Brown is no stranger to the Bay Area — he attended St. Patrick’s and was ordained for the archdiocese of San Francisco in 1964. He later became a Sulpician priest and served as president for the Conference of Major Superiors of Men. His last position was as president/rector at Assumption Seminary in San Antonio, Texas.

My observer (who requested anonymity), told me that at St. Patrick’s, Brown will find a seminary in transition. The students, he said, “want an orthodoxy in theology, they want a distinct and full Catholicism, they don’t want it to look like liberal Protestantism, which is the result of this failed ecumenical movement.” The number of orthodox professors, he said, is increasing as well; there are now five solidly Catholic professors in a faculty of 22. “They’re very intelligent and they’re nicely vocal; they’re gentle. And they’re writing,” he said.

Though this number may seem small, the recent past has witnessed “an exodus of heterodox professors,” said my source, with Father Coleman being “the last dramatic one.” With Coleman went the acting vice rector, Sulpician Father Nelvin Blanchette. “No one was talking about this,” my source said, “but when the rector and vice-rector both leave — that might make people suspicious as to what is going on.”

My observer attributes the faculty changes to the presence of vocal, orthodox faculty, but also to the “presence of Archbishop Levada,” who “stands for certain things that [the heterodox faculty] don’t. They’re not going to make much headway when he’s there, except in the community of the Sulpicians, where they’re sort of protected. I can count about half a dozen people who have left since Levada came in.”

What did my source know of the new rector, Father Brown? “I’ve heard only positive things about this man from liberals,” he said. “I’m not expecting someone to come in to be faithful to the Church’s teaching, but I’m hoping he acknowledges and can encourage this orthodox movement, because it’s real.”

Whether Brown will acknowledge the orthodox movement remains to be seen. But is he orthodox? I could find little material on Father Brown, but what I did find would perhaps lead one to question his orthodoxy — or, at least, his ability to express ideas clearly.

What does Brown see the role of the priest to be? In an article in the Spring 2002 Seminary Journal, “Many Faces in God’s House: A Spiritual Perspective,” Brown wrote that as part of the renewal of Vatican II, “diocesan priests were called ... to center themselves in the word of God, to enter fully as celebrants of God’s mysteries into the heart of the paschal mystery and to commit themselves generously to service in the Church after the mind of Jesus, the Good Shepherd.” He also writes that “the spirituality of the diocesan priest, grounded in Scripture, is above all eucharistic.”

All well and good. But in the 2002 Seminary Journal article and in two other pieces printed in the Fall 1998 and Winter 1995 issues of the same journal, Brown speaks only of this-worldly goals when speaking of the purpose of the priesthood and of seminary training. For Brown, the priest’s chief function, it seems, is to bring about “communion” of races and ethnic groups, of Christian churches and world religions, and of ministries and “roles of service in the Church.” Related to these forms of communion, according to the 1998 article, are “other related millenial themes, such as, respect for life and human dignity, solidarity among religious and world leaders for harmony among peoples, evangelization and inculturation and “reverence for our earth and for all of creation.” Nowhere in these articles does Brown speak of the priest as God’s instrument for the eternal salvation of souls of the faithful entrusted to him. Nor does he treat of the priest as missionary — an agent to draw all men into the unity of the Catholic Church.

But this is scarcely surprising, for another key concept for Brown is inclusivity. Other religions, it seems for Brown, are merely an aspect of human diversity — a diversity that is to be celebrated. Speaking of John Paul II in the 2002 article, Brown says the pope is “willing to receive the criticism of those who feel he is selling out on the mission of Christ by not condemning those of other religions rather than inviting them in to collaboration for the sake of world peace and justice. The pope, according to Brown, “celebrates with such genuine joy the rich diversity that is ours as a human race.”

For Brown, “the efforts of John Paul II are also rooted in another “conciliar” conviction, that we cannot limit the times and places for God’s revelation.” In speaking of “each culture and each person,” Brown makes no distinction between Christian and non-Christian cultures, nor Christian and non-Christian individuals; he simply says, “each culture and each person in any culture has a unique experience of God’s grace that must be respected and understood.... In my judgment we are living at a time where many have too little tolerance for diversity in thinking and expressing belief. It is for this reason that John Paul II is often criticized for not being rigorous enough in calling men and women from other world faiths to belief in Jesus Christ.”

In this context, Brown says, “we ourselves must learn to set aside our own theological and spiritual prejudices.” So must seminarians. These, says Brown, must be capable of “conversion” to a greater inclusivity so they may be priests — “persons set apart ... for the building of communion and for the fostering of mission.” Questions to ask of seminarians, according to Brown, are: are they “able to listen, to set aside their own egos to learn from the experience of others? Can they tolerate new understandings, adapt to new needs and follow a new call in their spiritual journey? Are they able to let God in?”

Brown is quite vague on “new understandings;” in his 1995 Seminary Journal piece, in speaking of spiritual leaders, Brown says they need to “see the ‘both/and’ dimensions of life and negotiate comfortably with social, political, and theological dichotomies.” Brown doesn’t bother to explain what his “theological” dichotomies are. But, if seminarians “are not yet capable of conversion on a fundamentally human and spiritual level,” said Brown in his 2002 article, “then it might be best for them not to enter the seminary now but wait until they demonstrate to themselves and others that they are malleable to the grace of God in their lives.” Seminarians, he says, need help “to grow beyond narrow understandings that sometimes hinder their growth.” Helping them so to grow with patience and confidence that the work “is God’s, not ours,” says Brown, “does not mean that from time to time for the sake of the person and the wider Church we do not need to ask a man to leave the seminary precisely because he is incapable of growing beyond a type of arrogance that sees only his approach as valid.” What is meant by “approach”? Brown does not say.

Brown, though, is clear on what kind of priests he thinks seminaries should churn out. They must be the kind that “exercise their leadership within a collaborative understanding of the church.... Diocesan priests must be comfortable both at giving and receiving, teaching and learning, leading and being led.” If the priest, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “shares in the authority by which Christ himself builds up and sanctifies and rules his Body,” in what ways, and by whom, is he to be led? Brown does not say. [Emphasis added.]

Whether or not Gerald Brown will jam the ’60s and ’70s down St. Patrick’s seminarians’ throats, he will certainly stay the post-conciliar course. For Brown, the ‘60s were the beginnings of a new spring in seminary training. In the 1998 Seminary Journal piece, Brown asserts that “the quality of seminary formation has improved. Our faculties are better trained in the theological disciplines and much more skilled at theological reflection and interdisciplinary dialogue. Pastoral and internship programs provide more effective testing for fitness and generate readiness for priestly ministry.”

What is perhaps more revealing is that Brown titled his 1998 piece, “Love All — Serve All” — the motto of artist Peter Max. Who is Peter Max? According to a website Brown provides in his article (www.petermax.com), Max is the originator of the “Cosmic ’60s” art style “with its distinctive line work and bold color combinations” that “captured the imagination of the entire generation.” For Brown, Max is an “icon” who teaches us “that all peoples are connected, must reverence the other, and must pull together for the survival of our world.”

Whether today’s generation of St. Patrick’s seminarians will groove to Brown ‘s style is, perhaps, doubtful. But, according to my source, they may not have to put up with it long. For health reasons, Brown might be serving only a three-year term, said my source. This, he said, will give Archbishop Levada the time he needs to find a rector more amenable to his views.

TOP