Fullness in Christ : a report on a study of clergy retirement


^Rvitb fathers
assumption church
C23 WEST ILLINOIS STREET
Chicago. Illinois eoeio

c ^752-V

A REPORT ON A STUDY OF
CLERGY RETIREMENT

The Bishops Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry





FULLNESS IN CHRIST:

A REPORT ON A STUDY OF
CLERGY RETIREMENT

THE BISHOPS’ COMMITTEE ON
PRIESTLY LIFE AND MINISTRY

1979

Publications Office

UNITED STATES EATHDEIE EDNFEHENEE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.E. 20DD5



Copyright (c) 1978
United States Catholic Conference

All Rights Reserved

DssfifdgjscJ



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Clergy Retirement 1

The Objective of the Study 3

Use of the Term 4

SECTION I—THE NATIONAL EXPERIENCE 5

DIOCESAN CLERGY RETIREMENT 5

A. Retirement Age 5

B. Pension Benefits 5

C. Housing and Living Arrangements 6

D. Continued Ministry 6

E. Pastoral Services for Retired Priests 7

F. Pre-Retirement Program 7

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY RETIREMENT 7

SECTION II—ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIENCE 9

A. The Elements of a Retirement Program 9

B. Fundamentals of the Clergy Retirement Program .. 11

1. Pension Funds and Benefits 12

2. Housing 13

3. Continued Ministry 14



Page

C. The Growth and Development of Retirement

Programs 14

1. Pre-Retirement Planning 15

2. Pastoral Care for Retired Clergy 16

3. Spirituality 17

SECTION III—THE FUTURE OF CLERGY RETIREMENT 18

A. Mandatory Versus Optional Retirement 18

B. The New Model 20

1. Diocesan/Community Responsibility:

Establishing the Role of Senior Priest 21

a. Scriptural Background 21

b. The Position or Role of Senior Priest 21

c. A Call to Continued Service 22

2. Individual Responsibility: Growing into

the Position of Senior Priest 23

a. Scriptural Basis 23

b. Ministry as Growth 23

CONCLUSION 24

RECOMMENDATIONS 25

REFERENCES 28



Part II

Page

1. List of tables 30

2. Chapter I. RESEARCH PROBLEM 31

3. Chapter II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 35

4. Chapter III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 45

5. Chapter IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS 47

6. Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. 73

7. Footnotes 76

8. Appendix I 79

9. Appendix II 81

10. Appendix III 83

11. Bibliography 91





FOREWORD

The Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry of the National

Conference of Catholic Bishops expresses its gratitude to Father

John F. Kinsella for researching and preparing Fullness in Christ,

Part I of this publication and to Father Walter H. Jenne for his

Study of Pre-Retirement and Retirement Programs for Diocesan
Priests, which constitutes Part II.

The Committee is appreciative of the work of its Subcommittee

on Spiritual Renewal and Continuing Education, which was charged

with the supervision of the preparation of this document: Bishop

William A. Hughes, Chairman, Archbishop Ignatius J. Strecker,

Bishop John L. May, Fathers James B. Dunning, Jose A. Lopez,
John J. Malecki, James E. Ratigan and Ignatius J. Roppolo.

Grateful acknowledgement is also paid to Msgr. Colin A.

MacDonald, Executive Director of the Secretariat on Priestly Life

and Ministry, who represented the Committee throughout the
formation of this Report and Study and to Miss Kathleen Barrett

who assisted in preparing them

Most Rev. Raymond J. Gallagher,
Chairman

Most Rev. George H. Guilfoyle

Most Rev. Timothy J. Harrington

Most Rev. P. Francis Murphy
Most Rev. Francis R. Shea

Most Rev. John J. Snyder

Most Rev. Sylvester W. Treinen

publication.

Msgr. William J. Barry

Msgr. Emerson J. Moore

Msgr. Leonard R. Toomey
Rev. Donald F. Bargen, O.M.I.

Rev. John A. Egan, O.P.

Rev. Reid C. Mayo
Rev. John J. O'Callaghan, S.J.

Rev. Gerald M. Quintal

November 1978



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/fullnessinchristOOcath



FULLNESS IN CHRIST:

A REPORT ON A STUDY OF

CLERGY RETIREMENT

INTRODUCTION

There was a time when growing old in America was a hidden

experience. More recently, however, the negative connotation of

aging and society’s expectation that older citizens are the un-

productive wards of the community have been stoutly challenged.

The challenge is issuing not just from younger spokespersons

for the elderly, but from the elderly themselves. Senior citizens

groups, once content to reside quietly among us, have become
politically active. There is heated debate over such concepts as

mandatory retirement in business and government, the fiscal

soundness of the social security system and the fundamental as-

sumption that retirement is a social benefit.

CLERGY RETIREMENT

For the past ten years, the Catholic priests of this country have

been part of this social experience. The challenge, questioning,

and struggle for reformulation of the experience of aging and

retirement that are typical in the lay community find parallels
among the 3000 priests already retired and among their younger
brothers in the priesthood. The retirement of clergy is a relatively

recent experience but its roots can be found in the Catholic com-

munity’s abiding concern for the welfare of its priests.

The Church has always been sensitive to its responsibility to

care for the needs of infirm and disabled priests. As early as

1884, the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore explicitly cited the

need to secure funds from parishes to minister to infirm clergy.

But like the larger society within which they served. Catholic

priests expected to minister their whole lives until death or dis-

ability brought their service to a conclusion. Little thought, and

1



certainly no planning, went into preparation for the reduced

responsibilities of retirement.

It was the renewal of Vatican II that introduced, for the first

time, the concept of “resignation” from the pastorate. In its

decree on the pastorial office of the Bishops, Christas Dominus,

the Council stated in 1965:

Pastors who were unable to fulfill their office properly and
fruitfully because of the increasing burden of age or some
other serious reasons are urgently requested to tender their
resignation voluntarily or upon invitation from the Bishop.’

One year later, in his Motu Proprio, Ecclesiae Sanctae, the
document implementing Christas Dominas, Pope Paul formu-

lated a policy statement on “resignation,” adding for the first

time in official Church documents a stated age for resignation for

both bishops and pastors:

... all diocesan Bishops and others who are equivalent
to them in law, are earnestly requested to tender their
resignation from office of their own free will, not later than
at the completion of their 75th year of age, to the compe-
tent authority, which will act on the request after consider-
ing all the circumstances of each case.^

... all pastors are asked to offer spontaneously to their
Bishop their resignation from office, not later than the com-
pletion of their seventy-fifth year of age. The Bishop will
decide whether to accept or defer the resignation in view of
all the personal and local circumstances.^

The Pope also applied the concept of age-determined compe-

tence to his own administration by eliminating members of the
College of Cardinals who are over 80 years of age from voting in
papal elections.

Thus, the documents of Vatican II and the Holy See introduced

two notions—that of “voluntary resignation” from the pastorate
and that of resignation date determined by age. The purely “vol-

untary” nature of resignation was rendered somewhat ambiguous

by such phrases as “(Pastors) are asked to offer spontaneously

. . . their resignation” or “upon invitation from the Bishop.”

Nonetheless, based on these concepts, dioceses and religious

communities across the United States began to discuss and im-

plement programs of “retirement” for aging clergy and reli-

gious. To date, no comprehensive analysis of the dimensions.

2



the development and the results of this new program has been

carried out. There seems to be a sentiment, shared by many

priests, that the experience has been a mixed one. The priests

who have entered retirement willingly have felt some sense of re-

lief at being free of administrative responsibilities. They were

able to pursue personal goals or to assume more personally ful-

filling pastoral roles. There were many priests, however, who

went into retirement unwillingly. Some did so only under obedi-

ence. Others found retirement preferable to ministering in a

Post-Vatican II Church for which they were never prepared.

Whether a priest went willingly or unwillingly, he seldom joined

the ranks of the retired without some anxiety or small feeling

of rejection.

THE OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, through its own

consultation process, realized that there was a growing sense of

concern about retirement among the clergy of this country.
Topics such as pension plans and pre-retirement planning pro-

grams were appearing on the agendas of Priest Senates and

Councils with increasing regularity. The Committee commis-

sioned its subcommittee on Continuing Education to undertake

a study of the experience of the more than 3000 priests who
have retired in the past ten years. It was hoped that such a study

would provide background material for the current discussion

occurring in various dioceses throughout the country.

This report contains the results of that Committee's efforts.

With the cooperation and assistance of the NCCB Committee,
Reverend Walter Jenne, a graduate student in the School of Social

Work at Catholic University, conducted a thorough study of the
clergy retirement experience in the United States.^

Father Jenne’s paper sought to determine the extent to which

dioceses across the country have implemented a series of rec-

ommendations made in 1969 at an Institute on Planning for
Retirement and Pre-Retirement for Priests sponsored by the

National Conference of Catholic Charities.^ In the process of

ascertaining the extent of implementation of the Institute recom-

mendations, the Jenne study sketches a general picture of how
the national Church is organizing and carrying out its clergy

retirement programs.

3



The results of his study, contained in full in the appendix of

this report, furnished the Committee with a much needed data
base for their analysis of the clergy retirement experience. The

Committee then proceeded to summarize the Jenne study and

to develop this report which combined the findings of the study

with current thinking of those who were working in the field of
clergy retirement and to formulate recommendations and sug-

gestions that might assist dioceses and local Senates or Per-

sonnel Boards in their efforts at responding to the retirement

needs of the clergy.

This brief report has obvious limitations. It is not intended to

be a planning guide or a “how to” presentation for those en-

gaged in the field of clergy retirement. It gives only marginal

treatment to the area of retirement in communities of men religi-
ous. The issue confronting women religious and lay employees
of the Church, although related to clergy issues and of vital im-

portance in themselves, are not considered here at all. The re-

port is not intended to be definitive or final in any of its conclu-

sions. While the statistical data from the Jenne study was judged

to be very reliable, the remainder of the report. Section II, the

analysis of the data, and Section III, the proposal of a new model,

were written with the hope that they would evoke a response, a

challenge or a suggestion for improvement.

USE OF THE TERM

Throughout the course of this report, the word “retirement”

will be used. The problem in the use of this word, even though

it is commonly accepted in clergy circles, is that it does not

mean the same thing in society in general as it does within the

priesthood. In society, retirement is generally understood to

mean removal from the active work force and applies more to

industrial than to professional workers. As will be seen later, it

has taken on an accommodated sense for the priest. Most priests

who are technically retired remain active in the ministry in some

manner. To function in ministry is so integral a part of a priest's

life that it continues even many years after official retirement.

The process that the word retirement describes for priests is

more a process of laying aside demanding administrative respon-

sibility while maintaining pastoral duties.

4



SECTION I—THE NATIONAL EXPERIENCE

DIOCESAN CLERGY RETIREMENT

In the 139 dioceses which responded to the Jenne survey,

there are 2,988 diocesan priests who are retired and of these

about 25% live outside of the diocese in which they ministered.
Of the dioceses responding, over 90% (123 dioceses) state that
they do have a definite retirement policy and that it is clearly

stated and followed. The issues determined in these policy state-

ments cover a broad range of concerns including retirement age,

pension benefits, housing and living arrangements, continued

ministry, pastoral services for retired clergy and pre-retirement

programs. The policy and program considerations in each of

these areas will be briefly summarized here.

A. Retirement Age

A major policy question in determining the date or age of
retirement is whether retirement will be mandatory or optional

at the designated age. Ninety-one dioceses report having a

mandatory age. Of the remaining 48 dioceses, some have an
optional age while others indicate that the date of retirement is

determined on an individual basis by the local Ordinary in con-

sultation with the priest. It is not uncommon for a diocesan pol-
icy to designate both an optional and mandatory retirement age.

The designation of actual optional and mandatory retirement

ages varies on a range from 60 years to 80 years. Seventy years
(in 38 dioceses) and 75 years (in 51 dioceses) are the most
commonly designated mandatory retirement ages, while 65 years
(in 68 dioceses) and 70 years (in 36 dioceses) are the most
commonly designated optional retirement ages.

B. Pension Benefits

One hundred thirty-three dioceses report having some form of
pension plan for retired priests. The amount of monthly benefit
varies among dioceses on a range from $200 to $700. The cur-
rent average benefit is close to $400 per month.

A wide variety of adjustments exists where the monthly pen-
sion benefit is linked to living and other arrangements. To quote
directly from the Jenne study:

5



In most dioceses, if a priest resides in a rectory or diocesan
institution (clergy retirement home or other diocesan
home) a percentage of the pension goes to the place of
residence. If a priest is living in his own home or apart-
ment, he receives the maximum pension.

In some dioceses, the monthly pension is determined ac-
cording to years of service. . . . There is usually a stated
maximum amount.

In some dioceses, the monthly pension is dependent upon
the age of retirement, e.g., at age 70 maximum amount
and declining scale at an earlier age.

In addition to a money amount, many dioceses provide other
benefits. Most have some type of medical insurance—Blue Cross,
Blue Shield,, Major Medical and reimbursements for Medicare. A
few dioceses also provide for car and life insurance, oral surgery,

nursing home care, all doctor bills, therapy and retreat and work-
shop costs.

The main sources of funds for diocesan pension plans are the

parish or institution to which a priest is assigned, an annual

diocesan collection and contributions by the priest himself.

C. Housing and Living Arrangements

Thirty-four dioceses report that they have a residence available

for retired priests if they choose to live there. Other options

available are private homes and apartments, chaplain’s resi-
dences, mobile homes and homes for the elderly. Several dio-
ceses commented that the retired priest could reside in a rec-
tory of his choice but not in the parish of his last assignment.

Among retired priests, the most frequently available and most
popular choice is their own home or apartment.

D. Continued Ministry

The phenomenon of continued ministry after retirement is
universal. All of the dioceses reporting indicate that their retired

priests are involved in a wide variety of full and part-time min-

istries. The level of involvement ranges from saying Mass daily

to remaining fully active in ministry. The ministries which emerge

as the most popular are part-time parish work, sacramental min-

istry, visiting hospitals and the elderly, chaplaincies and spiritual

direction.

6



£. Pastoral Services for Retired Priests

Twenty-four dioceses report that they have a delegate or vicar

for retired priests. Of these, only three vicars are full time in

this ministry. The vicar is charged with responding to the physi-

cal and pastoral needs of the retired clergy, maintaining dioc-

esan communication with the retired priests, as well as organiz-

ing some form of retirement preparation program.

F. Pre-Retirement Program

Thirty dioceses report having some form of pre-retirement or

retirement preparation program. On closer analysis these pro-

grams are often informal and individual in nature, and only eight

dioceses consider their programs comprehensive. There was a

high level of interest expressed in this area, and many dioceses
are actively studying the possibility of initiating such a service

for their priests.

A final observation in the Jenne study relates to the reaction
of priests to the diocesan retirement program. Sixty-five dio-

ceses report the reaction of their priests as “positive,” 65 report

a “mixed” reaction, and only two indicate a “negative” reaction.

It was noted, however, that these estimates of priests' reactions

were the subjective judgments of diocesan officials.

Father Jenne concludes from his study that the implementa-

tion of the Catholic Charities Institute recommendations was still
“very much in progress”; that the vast majority of dioceses
“have revealed a very real concern about the welfare of their

retired priests”; and that “many dioceses could use some type
of assistance in developing and implementing their pre-retire-

ment and retirement programs.”

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY RETIREMENT

The Jenne study focuses exclusively on the retirement of dioc-

esan priests. In the spring of 1976, Brother John D. Olsen, C.F.X.

surveyed all of the dioceses and religious communities of the

country concerning religious retirement programs. The results
were published as an NCEA publication^ entitled, “Retirement
Programs for Religious in the United States.” The diocesan sur-
vey revealed that a high percentage of dioceses provide health

care and retirement benefits to the religious currently employed.

7



Only a small percentage (25% or less) of the dioceses shared
the cost of federal social security payments or made contribu-
tions for past services. The funds for religious retirement bene-

fits come mainly from employer contributions with only a frac-
tion (1/10) coming from special collections for fund drives. Of

the men's religious communities surveyed, over 2/3 have estab-

lished retirement plans and pension funds, but only one commu-
nity in every four has elected to participate in the federal social

security program.

The Conference of Major Superiors of Men has been active in
organizing seminars and workshops for their retirement and per-

sonnel directors. They have published the proceedings of their

1977 Workshop conducted at Georgetown University under the

title, “Completing a Vocation: Retirement and Religious Life.’’ ^

Among religious, questions of housing and pension benefits
take on different dimensions from those of diocesan priests. The

community’s responsibility of providing housing is much more
pressing than is the diocesan responsibility. There is only the

beginning of an experience of independent or small group living

among communities. Many religious have lived in large commu-
nities and their retirement expectations and needs often are best

met in the setting of a larger community.

Religious communities have done extensive research on the

benefits of incorporation in social security. After actuarial stud-

ies, communities must determine the feasibility and advantages

of paying substantial amounts to the government to bring their

entire community into the system. The financial pressures cre-

ated by retirement and geriatric care costs are very severe. Some
communities are beginning to explore the advantages of coopera-

tion with each other in providing adequate preparation for and

care during retirement.

One very significant development among communities is the
amount of attention that is given to pre-retirement planning. The

most popular form of planning—called “life-work planning’’
originated among and has been developed by women’s religious
communities. Increasingly, men’s communities are organizing the

same form of service for their members. In some instances, life-

work planning seminars are organized cooperatively. The life-

work planning seminar assists religious in identifying their per-

sonal and professional strengths, and on the basis of this analy-

8



sis, plan the form of ministry they wish to assume or continue

during their final years.

There has been some recognition recently that the retirement

problems facing diocesan priests have many parallels among the
religious communities. For example, the need for residential and

geriatric care facilities is similar. Religious communities are

discovering that many of their members have forged close bonds
with the local Church and they would rather spend their retire-

ment years in the area where they actively ministered.

SECTION II—ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIENCE

The dozen years of experience and development summarized

here present an interesting example of the practical implications

of the pastoral directions set by Vatican II. These bare facts,

however, need analysis and comment for their true import to be
appreciated. The data made available by the Jenne study will be
combined with observations that come from the experience of
those who have been working actively in the field of clergy re-
tirement.

A. The Elements of a Retirement Program

While clergy retirement programs had no precedents to go by,

they have begun, by trial and error, to define the limits and con-

struct the framework for comprehensive services to aging and

retired clergy. The Jenne study had identified and described five

specific elements:

1. Pension and Benefits

2. Housing

3. Continued Ministry

4. Pre-Retirement Planning

5. Pastoral Care for the Retired Priest

There is another element not included in the statistical data

that is beginning to emerge as a central issue in retirement con-
ferences and discussions. That element is the spiritual develop-
ment of aging clergy and religious. This sixth element of spiritu-
ality needs to be added to the five above, not only to make any
analysis comprehensive, but the spiritual dimension is what gives
the distinctive character to the entire experience.

9



These six elements constitute a comprehensive retirement pro-

gram. The first observation about these six elements is their

relationship to each other. They range from the most practical

(pension) to the most important (spirituality) issues. This range

suggests a particular arrangement of these elements. Abraham
Maslow, in his theory of the hierarchy of human needs, main-
tains that it is necessary to respond to the elemental human
needs of sustenance and shelter before the higher level social

and spiritual needs can be addressed. It is possible, then, to

display the relationship among the six elements of a clergy re-
tirement program in the same hierarchical fashion that Maslow
utilized to define human needs in general, starting with the fun-
damental elements and rising to the more significant.

It is possible to carry the analogy of the hierarchical relation-

ship of these elements one step further. Maslow maintains that

higher level social or personal needs only assume importance

when the more basic survival needs have been satisfied to some
degree. This truth seems to be borne out in the data gathered in

the Jenne study. Most dioceses have been very active for several

years in providing pension benefits, housing arrangements and

continued ministry opportunities. Issues such as pre-retirement

planning, pastoral care for the retired, and spiritual growth are

only beginning to surface as primary developmental considera-

tions. Again, building from the former graphic representation,

this phenomenon could be described in this manner:

10



PASTORAL NEEDS

What this analogy and these representations suggest is that

dioceses and communities need to invest considerable resources

in providing for the fundamental needs of their retired clergy but

that retirement programs cannot be confined to fundamental

needs. More personal and pastoral dimensions become obvious

as the program develops. This developmental sequence might

provide communities and dioceses with some standard or indi-
cation about the direction or future development of their own
programs.

This schema also provides a convenient outline for further,
more detailed consideration of each of the elements in the retire-
ment program.

B. Fundamentals of the Clergy Retirement Program

The three fundamental elements of the clergy retirement pro-

gram-pension, housing and continued ministry—correspond to
the most basic needs of priests—the need for financial support,
a home to live in, and the opportunity to remain an active priest.
Each of these elements has developed in a very distinctive man-
ner and merits closer attention.

11



1. Pension Funds and Benefits

The existence of a large number of trust and pension funds
and annuity programs represents a significant financial invest-

ment by the dioceses and religious communities of this country.
The management of these funds, which are growing in number
and size, presents an increasingly complex set of problems to

the Church. Conscientious stewardship will demand that dioceses
begin to evolve investment policies to govern and control their

investment activity. Two specific areas of policy development
come to mind: one relates to the fiscal soundness of investments,
and the second to the ethical soundness of investments. Some
Church funds in the past have been vulnerable to irresponsible

and speculative fiscal advice. While no investment enterprise

can ever be guaranteed success, there are canons of orthodoxy,

even in the world of finance, that represent reasonable advice.

The responsibility of being sensitive to the ethical and social

justice dimensions of investment policy is even more pressing.
There are a growing number of Catholic and ecumenical groups
which offer advice, not only on the morality of certain types of

investment, but which encourage the use of investments to bring

about more equitable or just responses from corporations.

The Church is a relative newcomer in the field of private pen-
sions. The recent experience of some of the older pensions may
be helpful in planning future growth. Private pension systems

of industry, unions and local governments are finding it increas-

ingly difficult to meet their obligations. Two factors have been
especially detrimental to the funds—a constant rate of inflation
and extended life expectancy of retirees. Many industrial and
local government pensions are linking their systems with that of

the social security system because they could not invest the in-

creasingly large premium amounts needed to keep their pensions
sound. The same type of phenomenon could develop with the
clergy pension systems, especially if the median age of priests

keeps rising and fewer young men enter the priesthood.

Clergy pension benefit systems that combine a diocesan fund

with social security payments need to be established with care

and equity. The clear advantage to inclusion in the federal social

security system is that the benefits increase in proportion to the

cost of living. Caution is required, however, since inclusion in

the system is still a matter of personal choice by each priest.

12



Benefits are paid out on the basis of the amount contributed to

the system during working years. Those who pay a higher level

of contribution will receive a higher level of benefit. Diocesan

systems, which reduce a priest's benefit from the diocese be-

cause he receives a larger payment from social security, may be

penalizing the priest unfairly. He had to pay more into the social

security system than his fellows, and he receives a smaller bene-

fit from the diocese. He is doubly penalized.

2. Housing

It has been reported above that the most popular choice of

housing by retiring priests is their own home or apartment.
Allowing an option for this type of living arrangement is affirmed

as one of the true benefits of the retirement program. The fact

that so many priests wish to live in their own home or apartment
is somewhat surprising given the historical fact that priests have

been provided full domestic service in rectories throughout most

of their ministry. Perhaps the need for independence and pri-

vacy are strong motivating factors in this instance.

In addition to the option or choice of private residence, the

need for different forms of residential care, whether provided in

group homes or rectories, is growing. In the past nine years, 34
dioceses have constructed or established retirement residencies

for clergy. While the Jenne study did not determine the level of

care being provided by these residencies or the cost, it can be

safely assumed that most residential care must be subsidized

financially by dioceses. This subsidy is above and beyond any

direct retirement benefit paid to priests. The cost of domestic

service is rising. More critically, the cost of residential care is
extremely high if it provides nursing or geriatric services. Some
cost conscious dioceses and communities are attempting to sep-

arate residential care facilities from geriatric and nursing care

units. Several dioceses and religious communities are testing

out the advantages of cooperation in this area by combining

diocesan clergy and religious in the same geriatric care unit, or
by having both groups affiliate with a larger nursing care facility

or hospital.

The need of diocesan financial subsidy for some retired priests
presents a policy and equity problem. Even where priests in

diocesan residencies make some payment for care, it is seldom

13



enough to cover all of the actual costs of care. In effect, the

priests in the diocesan residence are receiving more benefits

than those who choose to reside in their own home or apart-
ment. Based on its own unique experience, each diocese needs

to develop concise, well-publicized and equitable conditions for

acceptance into residential care facilities. In all cases, fairness

would demand that acceptance into subsidized facilities be
based on an objective assessment of personal, physical and

financial needs of each priest.

3. Continued Ministry

It was noted in the introduction to this paper that the term

“retirement" has taken on a distinctive character among Catho-
lic clergy. What is especially distinctive is the high level of con-

tinued ministerial service among retired priests. The location of
the ministry may change, the administrative responsibilities ac-
companying the pastorate are laid aside, and the actual number

of work hours may diminish somewhat, but the fundamental
priestly ministry continues. In contrast to the retirement experi-

ence in other fields, priests generally do not leave the work

force. Many function at a diminished pace and exercise more
freedom of choice about the form of ministry they pursue. What

seems to be developing is a unique expression for the final

phase of ministry, and not retirement in the classic sense of that

term.

The shortage of ordained clergy has become a fact of con-

temporary Catholic life. On occasion, it is suggested that one of

the means of alleviating this shortage is the elimination of the

retirement privilege for priests. Given the already high level of

ministerial involvement of retired priests, the gain from the

elimination of retirement would probably not be that great. In

the long run, this suggestion would be detrimental to the health

and morale of the clergy and thus hardly be worth the additional

ministerial service it would provide.

C. The Growth and Development of Retirement Programs

As noted above, when the fundamental elements of a retire-

ment program are in place, operating and being refined, a sec-

ond level of concerns emerges. They are concerns that are less

well-defined but they do cluster around a more pastoral and per-

14



sonal perspective. They relate to the opportunity for and assist-

ance in planning for retirement, to the pastoral care of those

retired, and to the distinctive spirituality of the senior priest.

The clergy retirement movement seems to be at this second

level or stage of growth at this time.

1. Pre-Retirement Planning

Many dioceses and religious communities are simultaneously

searching for methods of preparing their priests for retirement.

While many dioceses and communities prepare their priests

through individual counseling advice and support, few have de-

veloped an adequate approach to this need. Information and

experience with various models are being eagerly sought. What

is being discovered is the fact that pre-retirement planning, in

order to be successful, is not just an end-of-life process but a

life-long process. Planning and development throughout one’s

ministry are necessary. Three distinct and complementary ap-

proaches to life-long planning can be identified.

The approach pioneered and developed by religious commu-
nities is the “life-work” planning approach. Life-work planning

is a process that can be entered into at any phase of one's min-

istry and can be profitably repeated or refined over the course

of one’s ministry. It is essentially a process of identifying, in a

very systematic fashion, one’s ministerial strengths and limita-

tions. This functional self-analysis, which can easily be linked

to a spiritual discernment process, enables a priest to make
choices about continuing education or alternative ministries. If

sensitively administered, it can diminish the trauma or difficulty

of a priest as he chooses a particular ministry he wishes to pur-

sue after retirement.

Another approach to the retirement planning question can be

made by the implementation of certain personnel policies. For
example, a clergy personnel policy which encouraged voluntary

participation or required mandatory participation in the diocesan

pension fund would begin long-range financial planning for each

priest. Or again, a diocesan policy which required priests to

undergo medical and dental checkups on a regular basis would

be long-range health planning. Even policies such as term of

office for pastors can indirectly support a planning approach.

A third approach to retirement planning and the one most

15



commonly referred to is the retirement preparation program.
Usually this is a program offered to priests who are within sev-
eral years of retirement age. It can be conducted individually or

on a group basis. It can be highly structured or very informal.

In most cases, it attempts to assist a priest in making some of
the practical decisions about his retirement far enough in ad-

vance so that he can plan intelligently for his transition from

active to retired status. Where will he live? Can he support him-
self? How will he remain active? In its best expression, such a
program will also confront some personal issues such as the
emotional-psychological trauma of transition, the fear of growing

old, or problems of self-esteem.

The question arises—who is responsible for organizing or
structuring a pre-retirement program? The assignment of the

responsibility could fall to one of several different agencies within

a diocese—the Clergy Personnel Board, Continuing Education,
the Chancery, the Senate of Priests, a Consultation Center.

Ideally, a pre-retirement program would be the result of a col-

laborative effort of some or all of these agencies. Each of the
agencies has a particular competence to bring to bear and none

can work in isolation from the others in this area. The Clergy

Personnel Board might well recommend a policy which promotes

retirement planning, but Clergy Education or a Consultation Cen-

ter may have to provide the technical or professional competence
necessary to carry out an adequate preparation program.

2. Pastoral Care for Retired Clergy

As the number of retired priests grows, so, too, does the need

to provide pastoral care for them. Several dioceses have estab-

lished the position of vicar for retired clergy to render this care.

It is the vicar’s responsibility to maintain communication with

the retired priests through personal visits, by phone, and through

newsletters. He is to insure that they are included in all diocesan

activities and programs, and even that they are afforded some

privileges. He assists in finding ministerial opportunities. Several

vicars are charged with the responsibility of developing and im-

plementing the pre-retirement program.

One factor determining the need for a formal pastoral care

program is the size of the individual diocese. Smaller dioceses

tend to have a much stronger personal support system and less

16



need for a formalized care system. But whether or not there is a

formally organized pastoral care system, every diocese can ex-

press its genuine pastoral concern by encouraging active partici-

pation by the retired priests in the full life of the diocese. They

can participate in the collegial structures of a diocese, can be

explicitly invited to attend all clergy education activities (often

free of charge) and can be given positions of prominence and

honor in diocesan liturgical celebrations.

3. Spirituality

It is a truism to say that the ultimate goal of the dedicated

priest is his spiritual development. Spiritual maturity, more per-

fectly reflecting the life of Christ, is the motivation underlying

ministerial activity throughout life. It is only in recent years that

there has been some attempt to link spiritual development with

personal and psychological development. Is there a spirituality or

level of spiritual development which is unique to the retired or

senior priest? Further reflection and thought may clarify some
distinctive dimension of spirituality that is based on aging. But

whether spirituality is age-based or not, it is becoming apparent

that retirement can provide a set of conditions, can create a set-

ting, that is particularly conducive to significant spiritual devel-

opment.

A more leisurely pace of life creates an ideal atmosphere for
prayer. Meditation and reflection have an enormously rich source

to draw upon in all of the ministerial and pastoral experiences of

the retired priest. Feelings of gratitude for the gifts of life can

find a unique expression in the Eucharist, the great prayer of

thanksgiving. Even the current liturgical practice of concelebra-

tion could provide an experience of unity in priesthood and close-

ness to one's brother priests that could serve as the most effective

deterrent of isolation and loneliness. The aging process brings
with it its own distinctive asceticism. The inevitability of hav-
ing to live within certain physically or socially imposed limits

is well-known. Its value may be more apparent to the priest who
has reflected often on Christ’s words to Peter after the resurrec-
tion predicting the limits which Peter would experience in his old

age and which indicated “the kind of death by which Peter would

give glory to God.” (Jn. 21:18-19)

Scriptural models and parallels could be multiplied, but for

17



the purposes of this discussion, it should be noted that there

is a rich spirituality that is already developing among the com-
munity of retired clergy and religious. The benefit of this develop-
ing heritage will be felt far beyond the clergy and religious

themselves and may eventually prove to be a rare gift from them
to us.

SECTION III—THE FUTURE OF CLERGY RETIREMENT

Up to this point, this report has focused its attention on
the history of the clergy retirement movement and has provided
some analysis of current programs as they now exist or are
being organized. This accumulated experience does, however,

suggest that there are some areas that need reconsideration. Two
of these areas will be discussed here—one is the policy question
related to the mandatory nature of retirement, and the second

is an effort to ground the retirement question in scriptural,

pastoral notions rather than in purely administrative or mana-

gerial ones.

A. Mandatory Versus Optional Retirement

A recurrent theme which surfaced in the course of this study
was the debate surrounding the mandatory versus the optional

nature of clergy retirement. It has already been observed that

one of the constantly affirmed positive aspects of the retirement

experience is the opportunity afforded to priests to choose where

they wish to live and to what extent they wish to minister. In

contrast, the overwhelming majority of dioceses have a mandatory

retirement age. The policy that a pastor must retire at a desig-

nated age is a significant development from the “voluntary resig-

nation” because of inability to serve suggested in the Vatican

documents.

The widespread practice of a mandatory retirement age policy

may indicate that the American Church was adapting, consciously
or unconsciously, the industrial and government model of retire-

ment. Until recently, it had been the almost universal practice

in industry and government to stipulate a mandatory retirement

age. The rationale for any retirement policy was threefold:

1. it was a reward for service rendered; 2. retirement assured

the system that the older, less productive (and probably higher

18



paid) employees would leave the system; and 3. retirement

assured that there would be room in the system for younger,

more energetic workers. The mandatory nature of retirement

assured that the last two goals would be achieved.

When retirement was introduced into many dioceses, especially
mandatory retirement, it often had a punitive connotation. For

many years, no matter how loudly or sincerely diocesan authori-
ties professed that retirement was a reward for faithful service,

it was perceived as a punishment and experienced as a rejection.

This prejorative connotation is fading but the negative overtones

of mandatory retirement still remain strong.

There is some basis for the perception that clergy retirement

is punitive. When some retirement programs were introduced,
retirement was used as a method of solving all types of difficult

personnel problems. Especially where a diocese had no form

of objective evaluation or accountability system, there was a

strong temptation to use retirement as the method of responding

to older priests who were unprepared for and resistant to Church
renewal efforts.

Perhaps the time has come to question the wisdom of main-
taining a mandatory retirement policy. Society, in general, is

turning away from the mandatory concept. It is close to being

legislated out of government service and it may not be long
before the private sector follows suit.

There already exist several optional elements in the current

retirement plans of many dioceses. Choice of housing and choice
of ministry are optional more often than not. Choice in the
question of retirement age would complete the optional nature

of the program. If it is true to say that retirement for priests will

never be perceived as a reward as long as it is forced, then it

might be well to determine that the distinctive feature of a clergy

retirement program will be its complete optional nature.

There are risks involved in moving toward a completely optional
retirement program. The most obvious risk is the possibility that

priests might construe an optional policy as an encouragement

to retire early. A spate of early priest retirements would adversely
affect the actuarial soundness of many pension funds, but, more
importantly, it would worsen the already critical shortage of

ordained priests. A second risk would be just the opposite case.

19



A priest may wish to stay in a pastorate or key administrative
position even after his physical energy and mental alertness

would require that he seek a less demanding and more pastoral
position.

Each of these risks raise valid cautions about proceeding

with a completely optional program without at the same time
re-examining the very nature of clergy retirement as it is presently

experienced. There can be implicit assumptions in the current

experience that see retirement as the end of something vital

(and thus unattractive to older priests), or that see retirement

as a refuge from the increasing demands of contemporary minis-
try (and thus too attractive to the disgruntled or overworked

middle-aged priest). There is a need to reassess the foundations

upon which clergy retirement is built. As One Who Serves has
already asked some of the pertinent probing questions about
retirement ® and has suggested a posture of constant re-examina-

tion of retirement programs. This paper continues in that vein by

suggesting consideration of a new model for clergy retirement.

B. The New Model

At the outset, this paper alluded to the problem with the use

of the word “retirement.” In the light of the review and analysis

of the developing clergy retirement experience, it may be timely
to suggest the adoption of a different model for aging within the

ministry and a different vocabulary or term to identify the

experience.

In place of the classification of “retired priest,” each diocese

and community could establish the position or office of “senior

priest.” A senior priest would be one who had begun a process
of gradual relinquishment of major administrative responsibilities

along with a concurrent assumption of a more distinctively pas-

toral role within the diocese or community. The responsibility

for developing and implementing this new approach or classifi-

cation would fall not only to the administrative leaders of dioceses

or communities, but to each individual priest as well. The diocese

would need to develop the role. The individual priest would

need to develop himself. This division of responsibility between

diocese/community and each priest provides a basis for the

further discussion of this new model.

20



1. Diocesan/Community Responsibility: Establishing the Role of
Senior Priest

There are numerous recent instances of the creative introduc-

tion of new roles and functions within the ministry. The perma-

nent deacon, the ministerial associate, the team ministry—all
are offices or administrative constructs which were developed

to respond more effectively to current pastoral needs. The

creation of the role of senior priest can be viewed as mutually

advantageous to priests and people alike.

a. Scriptural Background

It is clearly not within the competence of this report to provide

a scholarly presentation of the scriptural basis of ministry. The

use of scripture here is more an effort to use scriptural notions

or ideas in an accommodated or applied sense.

Among his many pastoral admonitions to Timothy, St. Paul
uses a phrase that might serve as a starting point or a thematic

statement for the consideration of the special unique position

of senior priests:

The elders who do their work well while in charge are to
be given double consideration, especially those who are
assiduous in teaching and preaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)

There is no exact parallel between the notion of elder and

senior priest. The elder in the Pauline Churches was to serve
as God's representative; he was to be teacher, presider and one
who through his acknowledged good character would draw the
people together. However, the double consideration that Paul is

suggesting as the due of the active minister certainly applies to

the man who has completed his active ministry. The senior priest
in the applied sense here suggested, would be a man who has
served his people well and selflessly, who has matured in his
own spirituality, and who is, at the same time, beginning to
experience some of the limitations on his physical capacity due
to advancing years. Such a priest should be given “double

consideration."

b. The Position or Role of Senior Priest

This position would be distinguished by the presence of the

elements summarized in the first sections of this paper. The

21



senior priest would enjoy financial security and needed medical

care, and a full range of options for living and continued ministry.

He would be free of administrative responsibilities to the extent
he found desirable. He not only would be afforded a place of
honor at liturgical and social functions, but he would at the

same time be the object of special pastoral concern for the
local bishop.

Establishing the senior clergy in a position of privilege or

“double consideration" while, at the same time, avoiding a
paternalistic or demeaning attitude, requires a fine sense of

balance. It is difficult to respond in a balanced fashion to a

man's need for security and his need for dignity. It may be
possible to care for a senior priest’s physical and residential

needs without embarrassment to him when it is clear that what

he is receiving he has a right to receive. If the position of senior

priest were established, if its prerogatives were defined, if entry

into it were optional, priests might look forward to it with a

hightened expectation.

c. A Call to Continued Service

The continued ministerial involvement of the senior priest in

the life of the community would be a particularly critical element

of this position. A senior priest should not be given “busy work"
or used to perform work other priests find unattractive. His

desire to perform a certain ministry should be equally weighed

with his ability to perform and the opportunity or availability

of the ministry.

The weighing of desire, ability and opportunity should result

in the issuing of a “call" to the members of the senior clergy
to serve in particular ministries. The notion of “call" is important

not just because it makes a priest feel needed or offers a sense

of direction to his continued ministry. It does both of these,

but, more basically, the “call" of the priest by the Church

community has a profound spiritual value for him. His initial

enthusiasm and service was a response to a call; his continued

ministry can be the same. To minister in order to keep busy

has some survival value. To minister in response to a call has

immense personal and spiritual value. As One Who Serves
makes this point explicitly when it states: “The realization by

a retired priest that he and his ministry are stil needed by the

22



Church often means much more to him than any program which
simply guarantees material security.” ’

2. Individual Responsibility: Growing into the Position of Senior

Priest

No restructuring of the ministerial experience is possible with-

out the active and enthusiastic cooperation of priests themselves.

Establishing a position such as that of senior priest would be a

futile gesture unless priests themselves were committed to a

pattern of growth and development which unfolded throughout

their ministry and reached its fullness in old age.

a. Scriptural Basis

In his call to unity in Chapter Four of the Letter to the

Ephesians, St. Paul writes:

Each one of us has been given his own share of grace,
given as Christ allotted it . . . and to some, his gift was
that they would be apostles; to some, prophets, to some,
evangelists; to some, pastors and teachers; so that the
saints together make a unity in the work of service, building
up the body of Christ. In this way, we are all to come to
unity in our faith and in our knowledge of the Son of God,
until we become the perfect man, fully mature with the
fullness of Christ himself. (Eph. 4:7-13)

What is particularly pertinent about this passage is the
developmental sense of ministry that it offers. Ministry begins

with the individual giftedness of each person; it is worked out

by building up the body of Christ, the Church; it is terminated

by coming to fullness in Christ. In contemporary terminology,

the passage describes a “flow” that can be illustrated in this

manner:

Individual

Giftedness

Building up of

the Church

Fullness in

Christ

If there is any validity to the developmental sense of this

passage, it provides a scriptural schema for looking at ministry
as a growth experience. The particular emphasis of this schema
is not the function which the minister performs but the person
of the minister. It is the person who is gifted, the person who

23



grows, and ultimately, it is the person of Christ that becomes
the goal of individual growth.

b. Ministry as Growth

Translating this scriptural schema into practical terms, with
particular reference to clergy retirement, a priest’s entire ministry

ought to be a passage or process building up to the final and

most fulfilling phase of ministry. Early years of ministry should

emphasize the identification and development of unique gifts and

talents. The productive and energetic years of ministry should

be a conscious effort at building and unifying the Church through

service. But the final phase of ministry is the time that sees the

person of the minister transformed into Christ.

Any pre-retirement plan ought to prepare a priest for the

final and most fulfilling phase of his ministry. Preservation of

health, a wide variety of ministerial experiences and sustained

spiritual growth will make the final phase even richer. Laying
aside administrative responsibilities should be perceived not as

a loss of prerogative but a necessary step in taking on a more

important identity. The minister who has developed, who has
grown in Christ, becomes a unique treasure and resource for

the whole Church. He becomes one who more perfectly reflects
Christ. He is esteemed because he embodies the aspiration of

the whole community, oneness in Christ. It is not his memory
which makes him precious, but his vision; not what he remembers

but what he sees.

CONCLUSION

This paper has attempted to summarize the past accurately and

to suggest a direction for the future. Its central conviction bears

repeating. Clergy retirement can never be a satisfying experience

if it is viewed as an end of life process. Growing and aging in

ministry takes on meaning and significance when it is viewed

as a passage that culminates in a period of deepened and

reflective service.

Any change in the future will require a shift in attitude.

Modifying the current Church structures of clergy retirement

cannot be done without a new sensitivity to senior priests as

a rich ministerial resource. Senior priests need to deepen their

24



sense of call to a unique pastoral ministry to the entire Church

community. That community would be enriched if all priests,

unafraid to pass gracefully to newer, more demanding roles of

dedicated service, would experience the passage through ministry

as one of growth to the fullness of the Lord.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry submits the

following recommendations based on its research and discussions.

They are addressed to local Churches to assist them in improving

the quality of their own clergy retirement programs.

To local Churches, it is recommended that each diocesan

clergy retirement program be as comprehensive in nature as

possible. While local conditions and customs will determine the

final structure and form of the program, the following elements

merit consideration:

1. Spirituality—When planning clergy retreats and prayer
days, special programs uniquely designed by and for senior

priests could be considered. These programs might include

prayer and reflection experiences for senior priests focusing on

their “growth in fullness” in the Lord. They might also include

prayer and worship experiences conducted by senior priests,

allowing them the opportunity to share the fruit of their spiritual

ministry.

2. Pastoral Care—Depending upon the number and special
needs of their senior priests, local Ordinaries should consider

assigning diocesan personnel to serve as vicar for senior priests.

This position might be an especially attractive one for a priest

who is himself interested in diminishing his parish administra-
tive role and seeking a new pastoral role. It would be the vicar’s
responsibility to express the genuine care and concern of the

local Church to the retired priests, to maintain communication,

to assure active participation in priestly and diocesan activities
and to respond to any unique or pressing pastoral needs of the

senior clergy. These services can be rendered on a part-time

basis or through a directive from the Ordinary to his administra-
tive services to be particularly sensitive to their contacts with

and inclusion of senior clergy.

3. Continued Ministry—One of the privileged features of
25



senior priest status should be greater freedom of choice of

ministry. The Ordinary and the local Church can assist a priest

in making his choice and discovering his new call by keeping
him informed of the pastoral needs of the diocese, by offering

career counseling services at various points throughout his

ministry, and by providing re-training for a new ministry where
required. The Clergy Personnel Board might be given a special

charge by the Ordinary to assist in placing senior priests in

ministries that correspond to genuine pastoral needs.

4. Health Care—Retired clergy should enjoy sufficient medical
insurance coverage to provide both normal health maintenance

and major medical needs. Since it is inevitable that some aging
priests will need geriatric or extended institutional health care,

each diocese should make provision for this type of medical care.
Because this type of care is extremely costly when rendered to

a small population, dioceses should actively pursue cooperative

efforts with larger health care institutions such as hospitals or

nursing homes and with religious communities of men and
women wishing to provide similar care to their aging and disabled
members.

Maintenance of “well health” among the aging clergy is
impossible without active concern for the health of younger

priests. Each diocese and community might consider some form

of preventive health maintenance program for its clergy such

as a required annual physical examination.

5. Housing and Living Arrangements—A comprehensive pro-
gram would allow each priest a series of options for different

forms of housing and living arrangements. The choice of living

in one’s own home or apartment, within or outside of the
diocese, combined with options relating to rectory or institutional

living, would constitute a well-balanced set of alternatives.

Many dioceses and communities have found it necessary to
develop group retirement homes or residencies for their clergy.

Should a diocese choose to provide residential care for some of

its clergy, it should be organized in such a way that those priests

not eligible for or interested in residential care will receive

equitable treatment from the diocese. A clear and fair policy on

eligibility for residential care may need to be developed.

6. Pension Benefits—Each diocese and community should
26



develop an actuarially sound plan for providing future retirement

benefits to their retired clergy. Any realistic benefit will include

some escalation provision to compensate for the adverse effects

of inflation. Given the increased mobility of priests among dio-
ceses and between religious communities and dioceses, some

consideration should be given to the inter-relationships among
different pension systems. Interchangeable portable vesting rights

for each priest could be a feature of a diocesan pension system.

7. Pre-Retirement Planning—Each diocese and community
should assist its clergy in planning for a fruitful retirement

experience. Such planning can begin with the young priest,

assisting him in making decisions about participation in the

diocesan pension plan and social security, and about a health

maintenance program that would include regular physical and

dental checkups.

Individualized or group retirement planning assistance could

be offered to older priests concerning such practical issues as

choice of housing, continued ministry, legal concerns and income

and investment advice. More complex issues such as psychologi-

cal adjustment and spiritual growth might be treated with equal

benefit.

8. Cooperation between Dioceses and Religious Communities

—Local Churches are urged to' begin discussions with major
superiors of religious communities on common problems and
potential areas of cooperation. The issues that immediately

suggest themselves for consideration are shared geriatric care

facilities, common policies, and the development of the spirituality
of the aging.

9. Investment Policy—Local Churches having pension or trust
funds may need to develop investment guidelines to control the
type of investments made by their funds. Policy guidance is
needed, not only on the nature of fiscally sound investments, but

more importantly on the social justice implications of investments.

10. Assistance Available—Local Churches, wishing to expand
or improve their own retirement programs, might call upon the
following organizations who have already demonstrated some
interest and competence in this area:

• the National Organization for the Continuing Education
of the Roman Catholic Clergy (NOCERCC)

27



• the National Association of Church Personnel Adminis-
trators (NACPA)

• the Center for Aging at the School of Social Work,
Catholic University of America

• the American Association of Retired Persons

The members of the Committee recognize that the above rec-
ommendations are not equally applicable in all dioceses or com-

munities. They are submitted with the hope that they will evoke

even more creative and particularized responses from those who
are charged with the care of the senior clergy.

REFERENCES

1. Walter M. Abbott, S.J., Gen. Ed., The Documents of Vatican II, (New
York: Guild Press, 1966), p. 420.

2. Motu Proprio, Ecclesiae Sanctae I, II, 1966.

3. Idem, 1, 20, 3 (The Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, in a review of
a case involving the canonical removal of a pastor based solely on age,
has argued that the norm given in this document has the character of an
exhortation and that a diocesan statute cannot interpret it as preceptive.
In effect, the Congregation stated that a decree of removal may cite the
attainment of age 75 but other reasons should be given which indicate
that the man’s parochial ministry has become ineffective.—cf. L'Attivita
Della Santa Sede, 1976).

4. Reverend Walter H. Jenne, “Pre-Retirement and Retirement Programs
for Diocesan Priests,’’ (USCC, 1977).

5. Institute on Planning for Pre-Retirement and Retirement of Priests,
National Conference of Catholic Charities, Proceedings (New Orleans,
Louisiana, January 19, 1969).

6. John D. Olsen, C.F.X., “Retirement Program for Religious in the United
States,’’ Secondary School Department of the National Catholic Educational
Association, (NCEA, 1976).

7. “Completing a Vocation: Retirement and Religious Life,” Proceedings
of a Workshop, Conference of Major Superiors of Men (Washington, D.C.).

8. “As One Who Serves,” p. 63, (USCC, Washington, D.C., 1977).
9. Idem.

28



Part II

A STUDY OF

PRE-RETIREMENT AND
RETIREMENT PROGRAMS
FOR DIOCESAN PRIESTS



List of Tables

Page

Table 1 48

Table 2 50

Table 3 50

Table 4 52

Table 5 ' 54

Table 6 55

Table 7 57

Table 8 57

Table 9 58

Table 10 59

Table 11 60

Table 12 61

Table 13 62

Table 14 65

Table 15 67

Table 16 68

Table 17 69

Table 18 69

Table 19 73



Chapter I

RESEARCH PROBLEM

A. Statement of the General Problem Area.

The general problem area considered in this research paper is

that of pre-retirement and retirement programs for diocesan

priests.

B. Purpose and Relevance of the Study.

Background Information

The selection of this topical area came about as the result of

a conversation between this writer and Fr. Vincent Mainelli, Asso-

ciate Director for Convening of the National Conference of Cath-

olic Charities (NCCC). Fr. Mainelli stated that in January of 1969

the NCCC sponsored an Institute on Planning for the Pre-Retire-
ment and Retirement of Priests. The planning and programming

for the Institute was based in large part upon the response to a

questionnaire sent to some 3,500 Diocesan and Religious Priests
in various sectors of the country. The Institute was the first of

its kind for priests to be held in the United States. To date, there

has not been a follow-up study or any research conducted to

determine whether the recommendations that were presented

during the Institute were actually implemented in the Dioceses

or Religious Communities. Therefore, Fr. Mainelli suggested that

it would be very valuable for the purposes of future planning of

the NCCC to research this area and to determine just what has
taken place by way of implementation during the last eight years.’

Fr. Mainelli also suggested that this writer contact Msgr. Colin

MacDonald, Executive Director of the Bishops’ Committee on

Priestly Life and Ministry of the National Conference of Catholic

Bishops (NCCB), to determine whether the Committee would be

interested in cooperating in this research project. Msgr. Mac-

31



Donald stated that his office receives many requests for informa-

tion regarding pre-retirement and retirement programs. Often the

information is not available and inquirers are referred directly

to the dioceses. The information obtained in this study will, there-

fore, be of much value to the Committee in responding to re-
quests and in the formulation of recommendations to the NCCB.

Msgr. MacDonald and Bishop Raymond Gallagher, the Com-

mittee Chairman, both gave full support and invaluable assistance

to the execution of this project.

Relevance for Priests

Priests have dedicated their lives to the service of others. It

is of considerable importance that, as these men approach re-
tirement age, adequate programs be implemented to assist

them both in planning for retirement and in actually living out

that period of their lives to the fullest. It seems that a healthy,

positive attitude on the part of priests toward retirement cannot

but touch the lives of the people they serve.

Hopefully, the information collected in this project will con-

tribute to the well-being of those priests who are already retired,

those men contemplating retirement in the near future, and

that it will serve as a valuable resource for those who are in

positions of planning pre-retirement and retirement programs in

the various dioceses.

For the purposes of this study, the research question has been

limited to a consideration of pre-retirement and retirement of

diocesan priests. Thus it does not include a consideration of

what has taken place in regard to priests who are members of

religious communities, i.e., Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.

C. Research Question Posed in the Study.

The primary research question is: To what extent have the

recommendations of the Institute on Planning for Pre-Retirement

and Retirement of Priests, sponsored by the National Conference

of Catholic Charities in 1969, been implemented in the Catholic

dioceses of the United States?

32



D. Additional Objectives.

The additional objectives of this study are:

1. To determine to what extent the recommendations are

known.

2. To determine if there is any plan and projection in the

dioceses for the implementation of the recommendations.

3. To determine what plans and programs have been imple-

mented in addition to those suggested at the Institute.

4. To determine if any research has been conducted on the

diocesan level regarding the activities, needs, and attitudes of

retired priests.

5. To consider any additional suggestions from the dioceses

in regard to pre-retirement and retirement policies and programs.

6. To determine some of the independent variables that have
impacted the extent of implementation of the recommendations

in the various dioceses.

E. Limitations of This Study.

Prior to the Institute in 1969 some dioceses had already im-
plemented pre-retirement and retirement policies and programs.

However, we do not know which dioceses these were or what
types of plans had been implemented. Some of the recommenda-
tions presented at the Institute may have already been in effect.
Thus, it is difficult to assess the impact of the Institute as re-

lated to the extent of implementation.

Another limitation is that this study does not address the

rationale behind the implementation or non-implementation of

the recommendations. There may be many extraneous variables
impacting the extent of implementation that have not been iden-

tified in this study.

33



r t\- h- jffJCj
" .'f ;•> 4.

,**’'
. -

>}
->r I*; «r fuj'

'••• ' ‘^
:

•'
•

’^?-5
. .••. W yo IQ; ?•/ ..••’• 'Vi r;' ?3W-^

;

i'-

' ' '' 7*^-

^
.9W;-«a hiff-i if.) - i.-.i,'. V. '{!. , 1| . ., .is •:-, |§j

• is-
)'.. ' .n'iHiH

;;|ipl^^ ^ < I

r:v,d /p

7'\,.

i
' li

ii/f \kAi‘^ •' •vii! ! ' ;:> f; I Vi
1

'

)' 0 ;v7 ^ ' !• srti :;.;«'?. ul «t»ail||^



Chapter II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The Institute on Planning for Pre-Retirement and Retirement

of Priests was the “response of the NCCC to requests that it had
received for help in developing services for older priests. The

National Conference, realizing that little had been done in this

area, accepted the challenge to sponsor the Institute.” ^ its pur-

pose was twofold: namely, “to make those who were responsible
for planning for older priests aware of the comprehensive aspects

that should be considered in a program . . . and to stimulate

interest so that local or regional groups would carry on similar

institutes.” 2

As is mentioned in the preface to the proceedings of the Insti-

tute, “The Institute called for consideration of priests as per-

sons with individual needs, their participation in the planning, a

new orientation regarding leisure time, second careers and status-
ship of pastors.”^

The speakers at the Institute were experts in their respective

fields. Many of them made specific recommendations to the
diocesan representatives who were in attendance.

Therefore, this descriptive study will focus on the following

variables:

1. The recommendations.

2. Extent of implementations.

3. Knowledge of recommendations.

4. Implementation plan.

5. Other additional plans.

6. Diocesan research studies.

7. Additional suggestions.

8. Impacting independent variables, i.e., region of the coun-

try, number of priests.

35



Hopefully upon the completion of this study, we will be able
to return to the priests themselves and determine their response

to these programs of pre-retirement and retirement as imple-

mented.

The literature review began with a thorough researching of

the proceedings of the Institute. The recommendations have been

extracted from the various presentations during the Institute and

will be identified below. For the purposes of this study, the term

“recommendations" will be defined as suggested courses of

action. The recommendations were intended to be possible adap-

tations to fit the local situation and were not presented as offi-

cial policy. Some of the recommendations are repeated by sev-
eral of the presenters and for the sake of economy, they will be

listed only once.

A. The Institute: Speakers and Recommendations.

1. Bishop Gallagher^ recommended: That provision for the fi-

nancial security of the priest be made through social security
and pension plan with some sort of subsidized benefit that would
also be available if needed. Adequate physical arrangements

should be made so that the aging priest will have a place of his
own, geared to his particular needs and respectful of the privacy

to which he is entitled. The aging priest's continued involvement

in the ministry should be a planned program of retirement with

graded steps and gradually diminishing activities as one increases

in age. The diocese should provide the retired priest, if he so

desires, a challenging and interesting though less-demanding

program in the ministry.

2. Fr. Zuercher^ recommended: That a positive change of atti-

tude on the part of the clergy toward retirement will only come
about as the result of an educational process reaching all Catho-

lics. There should be a definite retirement policy, clearly stated,

and followed. This policy would include financial programs as

well as retirement from positions of authority—which should be
demanded and accepted, with rare exceptions. He suggests that

several options should be open to the retired priest concerning

the place of retirement. A diocesan register and/or National
Clearing House, listing opportunities for reduced involvement in

the ministry, should be established. Every large diocese should

designate someone (full-time, if possible) as the coordinator for

36



retired priests. The coordinator would interview each priest an-

nually, at least five years before he reaches the retirement age.

3. Brother McDonough ^ recommended: That the development

of workshops and retreats be utilized as an immediate prepara-

tion for retirement.

4. Dr. Smith® recommended: That the first principle in retire-

ment planning be flexibility. There should be no absolutely man-

datory retirement age. There should be an age set at which a

priest can retire, somewhere in the late 60’s. Also there should

be an age where a priest should retire (even if he is not entirely

willing to do so), somewhere in the 70's, unless there are miti-

gating circumstances. Those who are totally incapable of caring

for themselves, totally disoriented, should be segregated to save

them unnecessary embarrassment and indignity. Guidelines and

provisions should be established to help the elderly plan how

they want to spend their lives after retirement.

5. Fr. Kearns ^ recommended: As a man reaches pre-retirement
age, around 50, there should be a gradual shifting of roles in

the parish ministry. He could give up some administrative duties
and develop his potential along the lines of working more closely

with the people. There should be time for developing new inter-
ests, time for reading and writing. Time off for a sabbatical break

periodically should be considered. A time to develop other inter-
ests should also be considered. He recommends some sort of
career consultation or guidance program in the diocese to help

a priest appraise his assets, reflect upon his career and plan for

continuing development of his talents and to explore other roles.

Upon retirement a priest should have a number of options as to
new roles he might assume, i.e., part-time parish work as a sen-
ior assistant or chaplain. He should have opportunities for inter-
personal relations with peers, other retired priests, and laity as

well as with younger priests.

6. Fr. D’Arcy recommended: A National Inventory of retired
priests coming from Washington, D.C., listing both available

openings and available priests. Research would be conducted in

regard to what older priests would like to do and what kind of

activities they have engaged in after retirement and found satis-

fying and rewarding.’®

7. Dr. Homza” recommended: That pre-retirement program-

37



ming stress the importance of each priest having a private physi-

cian and annual physical examination.

8. Fr. Fahey recommended: That every retired priest be as-

sured economic security and the right to make as many mean-
ingful decisions about his life as possible. There should be sev-

eral options available upon retirement in regard to housing. One
of those options should include housing provided by the diocese.

Retired priests should exercise ministries proportionate to their

strength and talent. Their participation should be sought in cleri-

cal gatherings, formal and informal.

9. Msgr. Michelin’^ recommended: That various styles or

modes of retirement living be developed, i.e., custodial, semi-
custodial, and independent living. The possibility of retired

priests living in apartment facilities for the elderly and available

to the residents for Mass and consultation should be explored.

Possible seasonal living arrangements should be developed.

10. Msgr. Healy recommended: That seminary training in

preparation for orders provide definite concepts concerning re-

tirement. Seminarians should make and keep an acquaintance
with a retired person, a priest if possible, for visiting and for

acquiring the feel for retirement and its special attitudes. After

ordination and periodically through the years, the priest would

benefit in readying for retirement by seminars on the aging proc-

ess. There should be a retirement plan with the priest con-

tributing annually to the fund as a personal investment. The man
should be included in planning, directing, and making policies in

the retirement program. Seminars to keep current through ex-

perts on social security, medicare, annuities, insurance, income

tax, etc., as well as a newsletter for retirees should be offered.

Arrangements for a wide variety of possible apostolates after

retirement, full or part-time, live-in or out, to convents, institu-

tutions, nursing homes, etc., should be effected.’^

B. Pre-retirement Programming.

1. What is it all about:

Pre-retirement education “is concerned with giving older peo-

ple an understanding of the internal and external changes which

take place as one grows older and retires from work, and recog-

nition that they face these changes in common with many other

38



people." The programs are concerned with helping people

"assess the aging process and to face up to the fact that there

are both positive and negative aspects of living the later years

as at all stages of life."’^

The development of pre-retirement programs is a recent one

which "parallels closely the growth of pension programs follow-

ing World War II." Larger industries tend to offer services

more than smaller ones.

2. Types of Pre-retirement Programs.

There are basically two types of programs offered. "The indi-

vidual approach by which the employee is invited to talk over

with the employer such things as terminal pay and pension bene-

fits,"’® and, "the group approach by which a number of em-

ployees are brought together at one time to participate in retire-

ment planning sessions."” Very little is known about the origins

of the individual type of program, although they can be traced

back in many companies prior to 1950. An extensive survey of
pre-retirement programs by Franke (1962)2® found the individual

approach to be most common. The origins of the group approach
can be traced back also to the early 50’s to the "pioneering

efforts of the University of Chicago, and to the University of

Michigan." 2’ These first attempts were based, for the most part,

on the premise that "people, as they grow older face certain

crises or problems and that a fuller understanding of the prob-

lem situation should result in better adjustment during the later

years." 22

Pre-retirement programs can also be categorized in another

manner. Some authors speak of "limited programs" which do
little more than explain the pension plan, the retirement timing

options, and the level of benefits under various options and

"comprehensive programs" which go beyond financial planning

and deal with such topics as physical and mental health, hous-

ing, leisure activities, and legal aspects of retirement.23

The individual approach is usually associated with the limited
program and the group approach as offering the greater poten-

tial for comprehensive pre-retirement planning.

The University of Michigan Preparation for Retirement Pro-
gram is designed to help older people in a discussion group to:

39



1. Understand aging and the aging process.

2. Become aware of the situations which are likely to arise.

3. Make decisions about the best way to handle retirement
situations.

4. Take steps ahead of time to prevent retirement problems

from arising in the first place.^^

Woodrow Hunter of the University of Michigan is considered
to be the pre-eminent person in this developing field.

3. Research on Effectiveness of Programs.

William L. Mitchell, writing on this subject in 1973, observes

that “surprisingly little research has been done on the effective-

ness of training programs in preparation for retirement." Stud-

ies by Burgess (1960) compared changes in attitudes towards

retirement among 200 subjects who had participated in a pre-
retirement program as against changes in attitudes among a
matched group with no exposure to a program. The highest gains

resulting from the study were in retirement planning, financial

planning, retirement anticipation and retirement living. Only mod-

erate gains, however, appeared in such categories as retirement

attitudes, social adjustments and mental outlook.^^

4. Pre-retirement Programs in Religious Communities and

Dioceses.

This author's review of the literature turned up many pre-
retirement programs currently being utilized in communities of

Sisters. An interview with Sr. Mary Bush of the Sacred Heart

Sisters here in D.C. proved most informative. The existent pro-

grams are for the most part, according to Sr. Bush, based upon

the model developed at the University of Michigan by Hunter.^^

The Literature Review did not turn up any research studies on

the effectiveness of these programs.

In regard to pre-retirement programs for diocesan priests,

there is no mention in the literature. An interview with Msgr.

Ritty2® of the Cleveland Diocese was most helpful and verified

the Literature Review. He, to the best of his knowledge, is the

only full-time priest working exclusively with retired priests. He

has attempted one pre-retirement group program in Cleveland

for the men retiring in the next five years. Nineteen priests out

40



of a possible fifty were in attendance. He had been asked to pre-

sent workshops in other dioceses in the Midwest. He is not aware

of any organized pre-retirement programs for priests.

C. Retirement of Priests.

1. Major Church Documents.

While the retirement of priests is a recent phenomenon that

can be traced back to the documents of the Second Vatican

Council (1963-1965), it is important to note that the Church has

always made provisions for infirm and disabled priests who were

unable to function ministerially.

The Code of Canon Law (Canon 1429 § prescribed that the

Ordinary could establish suitable provisions for retiring pastor

or assistants from the income of the benefice from which they

retire. However, this method could not be applied in the United

States because there was no benefice system. Thus, the III Ple-

nary Council of Baltimore (1884) stated that the bishop should

obtain funds from the parishes the priests were serving as a

means of providing them with sufficient support.^® Moreover, the

bishops of the United States were urged to “adopt as soon as

possible a stable plan of social security for infirm and disabled

priests.” At that point in time, retirement was a concept appli-

cable only to those priests who were disabled and/or infirm.

On October 28, 1965, the Vatican Council Decree on the
Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church (Christas Dominus) was

issued. This document states in part:

Pastors who are unable to fulfiill their office properly and
fruitfully because of the increasing burden of age or some
other serious reasons are urgently requested to tender their
resignation voluntarily or upon invitation from the Bishop.^^

On August 6, 1966, Pope Paul issued his Motu Proprio Ec-
clesiae Sanctae which implemented the Decree Christas Domi-
nas. This document is more specific about the age of retirement:

All diocesan bishops and others who hold equivalent juridi-
cal offices, when they complete their 75th year of age at the
latest, are strongly requested voluntarily to offer their resig-
nation from office to the competent authority who will make
the final decision according to the circumstances of each
individual case.^^

41



Thus, a new concept was introduced in the Church, retirement
for priests, a concept quite foreign to bishops and priests alike.

2. The Priest's Adjustment to Retirement:

Bishop Gallagher commented at the Institute in 1969 that,
“we are dealing with the retirement of individuals who never
really conceived that it was going to be absolutely necessary for

them to retire." This observation was made in 1969 and yet,
even today, many priests still believe that they should be allowed
to “die with their boots on.” Msgr. Ritty, in our conversation,

mentioned that many of the men he has talked to who are ap-
proaching retirement age, refuse to face the fact and to begin

to prepare for it.

It is important to remember that from the earliest days of a
man's entering the seminary, the words “You are a priest for-

ever" are presented to make him totally emersed in being a
priest as well as functioning as one. . . . His work is his life.^^

The priesthood is a lifetime commitment. He is to be a priest at
all times for all people. “It is the identification of work and being

which makes it almost a contradiction in terms to speak of the

retirement of a priest." Bishop Gallagher comments that retire-
ment for the priest “may seem to be premature death to those
who are now being asked to consider it as a step in the total
pattern of their life."^^

Many of the adjustments to retirement the priest shares with
other persons who are retiring. The more unique adjustments of
the priest include the “possibility of moving his residence, sepa-

rating himself from many of his most recent and long-time
friends."^® The priest does not have an immediate family (wife

and children) to help him in this difficult adjustment. He must

rely on friends and brothers and sisters who themselves may be
incapacitated. Finally, the pastor who is about to retire is leaving
a society, the parish, where he has been “King." “With all the

other aspects of retirement facing him, he suddenly realizes that

he is suddenly no longer in control either of his life, his house-

hold, or the parish community that he has served for so long.”^’

On the other hand, the priest does have some advantages

which should ease his adjustment to retirement. He does not

have the financial worry of supporting a spouse. His spiritual out-

42



look on life and belief in the Resurrection should carry over to

a more positive attitude toward death.

3. Research on Retirement of Priests.

In reviewing the literature only one study was found that

focused on the retirement of priests. No doubt, other research

studies have been conducted in the dioceses, and one of our

objectives is to discover what research has been done and to

summarize the findings.

Nugent (1975) studied the disengagement theory of aging and

retirement as applied to clergyman (ministers, diocesan priests

and priests belonging to religious communities). He found that:

1. Clergymen did remain engaged in their work beyond re-

tirement to a significantly higher degree than men of other
callings.

2. Married clergymen generally were found to enjoy greater

life satisfaction after retirement than unmarried clergy.

3. Personality type influenced the degree of disengagement

after retirement.

4. Those clergymen who had a higher engagement index
showed a higher degree of life satisfaction in retirement.

Hopefully in the years ahead with the continued development

of pre-retirement and retirement programs for priests, we will
witness an increase in research studies considering the effective-

ness of these programs. This will be of tremendous assistance to

all concerned.

D. Definitions.

Several variables used in this study still require definition:

1. Diocese: a diocese is defined as “that portion of God’s peo-

ple which is entrusted to a bishop to be shepherded by him with
the cooperation of the presbytery.’’ In general, the term “dio-

cese’’ refers to the territorial jurisdiction of a bishop.

There are 169 dioceses included in this study. This number
encompasses:

a. 159 Latin Rite Dioceses.'*^

43



b. 8 Eastern Rite Dioceses.

c. 2 United States Territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands.

However, at the time of the Institute (1969) there were only

149 Latin Rite Dioceses. Ten new dioceses have been established
since 1969.

Dioceses are grouped into provinces centered around an arch-

diocese (usually the largest diocese of the area) presided over

by an archbishop.

2. Extent of implementation: refers to the extent to which the

recommendations of the Institute have been put into practical

operation in terms of diocesan policy and programming.

3. Knowledge of recommendations: (refers to the person(s) re-

sponsible for pre-retirement and retirement of priests in each

diocese): the awareness of and scope of information about the

recommendations of the Institute.

4. Implementation plan(s): refers to an action, plan, or sched-

ule in each diocese regarding future implementation of the rec-

ommendations of the Institute.

5. Other (additional) plans: refers to various pre-retirement

and retirement guidelines and policies that have been imple-

mented but were not specifically recommended at the Institute.

44



Chapter III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Study Type.

This is a descriptive study; the sub-type is that of population

description. Therefore, this study does not involve the testing of

a hypothesis. However, it is quite possible that, as a result of

this study, further research projects testing causal hypothesis

could be generated.

The purpose of this study is to obtain clear and accurate in-

formation regarding the subject matter in question: the pre-retire-

ment and retirement programs for diocesan priests.

B. Research Design.

This is a non-experimental, descriptive study design. The rec-

ommendations presented at the Institute have been incorporated

into a questionnaire. This instrument has been constructed so as

to enable the writer to determine the extent of implementation.

Also, all of the additional objectives, identified previously, have

been introduced by means of the questionnaire.

C. Selection of Subjects.

The universe under study encompasses all of the Roman Cath-
olic Dioceses in the United States, 169 in all. This includes all

Latin Rite (159) and Eastern Rite Dioceses, as well as the United

States Territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands (2).

Due to the nature of this study and the information desired, it
was decided not to use a sample but to contact every diocese.

Currently there is no available comprehensive listing of per-

sons in the dioceses involved with pre-retirement and retirement

planning and programming for priests. Thus, the only feasible

approach was to mail the questionnaire to all the Ordinaries with

45



the request that it be forwarded to the appropriate person(s).

Bishop Gallagher wrote the cover letter stating the purpose, na-

ture, and potential value of the study. He encouraged a prompt
response. (See Appendix I.) Msgr. MacDonald facilitated the mail-
ing. There was a one-month deadline set for the return of the
completed questionnaire. At the end of the month, a follow-up

letter was sent to those who had not yet responded. (See Appen-
dix II.) There was a two-week deadline set for return. There were

no further attempts, however, to elicit a return.

D. Data Collection.

As was mentioned previously, the data collection was carried

out by means of a questionnaire. (See Appendix III.) The recom-
mendations were extracted from the proceedings of the Institute

and restated in fixed alternative or closed question type. It was

also necessary to use open-ended questions. This was especially

true for introducing the variables stated in the additional objec-

tives of this study, as well as to obtain further information re-

garding retirement policies and programs.

There were three major sections to the questionnaire: 1) Iden-

tifying information; 2) Pre-retirement Program; 3) Retirement

Program. All of the recommendations were grouped together un-

der substantive headings as they related to the major sections.

The questionnaire was pretested by eight diocesan priests in

Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland. The questionnaire

was then revised and pretested once again using two diocesan

priests as subjects. Unfortunately, time limitations did not per-

mit pretesting of the questionnaire in a sample of the dioceses.

E. Data Processing and Analysis.

Initially, each diocese was assigned a code number, beginning

with 001 and ending with 169. Each item of information was

assigned a column number for computer card/coding. As a

questionnaire was received, the information it contained was

coded. The information was then transferred onto computer cards

with the use of a keypunch machine. Punched cards were then

checked against the questionnaires to ensure that the informa-

tion had been accurately transcribed and punched.

Using the SPSS program frequencies were tabulated and ap-

propriate statistical tests were applied to the data.

46



Chapter IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The following descriptive data analysis corresponds to the

three major sections of the questionnaire. (See Appendix III.)

A. Identifying Information.

Of the 169 questionnaires mailed to the dioceses, 139 or

82.2% were completed and returned. The respondents were all
bishops or priests holding various positions in the dioceses.

Chancellors accounted for 31.1% of the respondents; bishops
accounted for 25.2%; members of Priests’ Retirement or Pension
Boards accounted for 15.8%; members of Priests' Personnel
Boards accounted for 7.9%. Some of the other respondents
included: Pastors (2.2%), Vicars for retired priests (1.4%), and

Bishops' Secretaries (1.4%).

Table 1 describes the number of dioceses responding to the
study according to their respective regions of the country.^^

The two highest percentage responses were from the U.S. Terri-

tories (of which there were only two) 100%, and the West South
Central Region, 94.4%. The two lowest percentage responses

were from the Eastern Rite Dioceses, 25%, and the South
Atlantic Region, 76.4%. The overall high rate of response is

largely attributable to the cooperation of the Bishops’ Committee

on Priestly Life and Ministry.

Table 2 describes the total number of priests in the dioceses
responding. The great majority of dioceses. 111 or 79.8%, have

less than 300 priests. Only two dioceses reported 1200-f- priests.

Table 3 describes the total number of retired priests in the
dioceses responding.^^ The great majority of dioceses, 106 or

77.4%, have less than 30 retired priests. Only two dioceses
reported 110+ retired priests.

47



TABLE

1

FREQUENCY

TABLE

DESCRIBING

TOTAL

NUMBER

OF

DIOCESES

RESPONDING

TO

SURVEY

ACCORDING

TO

REGION

liJ

_1C/)
mi-

^ mog|

^<co
KLU
Oq;

<zz
9h5

ljOO
w I III

O) q
d Lf) d
CJ5 00

q:
Ijj C/) rn
muj^
^LUQ

^9o
< CO
KLi-LJ
OOQ^

CO

or
IJJCO
QQ UJ z
|[S2
iocs2 O LiJ
-jq“^

oo

CO
UJ

i
Q

zo
O LlJ

of

x: 9
Q. =5 C O
^ -C c

^ h o oLJ (U CU C >
< > s

+sl7i
LJ-I qT c —

^ o o
^ .E E -o> 03 b o
^ CD -e2 S> q;

>^
CD
CO

x: CD
“3

CD

TO

o
>- ^
^ C
CD C

b ~ 55
. O CuO
D ^ ^

. V ^ (U O

<1 i 2
t- - o
< £ .<5 is
X g -Q oc ^E ^ T3

<D —O Q p o ^
C/5 wO CO UL

48

Michigan,

Wisconsin)

29

24

82.8

17.3

EAST

SOUTH

CENTRAL

(Kentucky,

Tennessee,

Alabama,

Mississippi)

8

7

87.5

5.0



CvJ

c\j

a> in ^ o
d
o

q h> q o
d 1-H in d
00 CT> CD 00 CSJ o

rH

o
C\J

in
C\J

< o
q: (/)
I- .5£!

O (o
X o

00

0-

5^ (/)
<D

1- c
CO c

5O CO
cn (/)

^ c
(0 ro

o ^
m-

(O 5
Q-S
:£ -X jD
O CD

<
cr.

CO
c

— CO
n X
O <D

C\J

XX ^

</) CO
CO c

CO -c:

js: _co

<0
c
o

do.g

ti
^ X> CD

^ CO
™ d 5

o o-^
|o42
e-o =>

ID CsJ CsJ

CTi 00 C\J

CO

o
tJfl -

CD OO

o S

Sb.iS
c c

LJ- -C o
O S =
< ^ (O
Q. OO

O

if)

LlJ

LiJ Cr
I- o
£S1 t

0^
X (X
q; lu

CO
< if) O

49



TABLE 2

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING TOTAL NUMBER
OF PRIESTS IN DIOCESE RESPONDING TO QUESTIONNAIRE

TOTAL NUMBER OF PRIESTS NUMBER OF DIOCESES PERCENTAGE

000 - 299 111 79.8
300 - 599 18 13.0
600 - 899 5 3.6
900+ 5 3.6

TOTAL 139 100.0

TABLE 3

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING TOTAL NUMBER
OF RETIRED PRIESTS IN THE DIOCESES

RESPONDING TO QUESTIONNAIRE

TOTAL NUMBER OF
RETIRED PRIESTS NUMBER OF DIOCESES PERCENTAGE

0-29 106 77.4
30-59 24 17.5
60-89 2 1.5
90+ 5 3.6

TOTAL 137 - 100.0

Two dioceses did not respond to this question.

The 139 dioceses report 2988 retired priests, of these 708
or 23.7% reside in retirement outside of their home dioceses
and 2280 or 76.3% reside in retirement in their home dioceses.

2. Knowledge of the Institute.

Of those who responded, 48.1% indicated that they were
aware of the Institute on Planning for Pre-Retirement and Retire-

ment of Priests. Only 5.1% reported attending the Institute
and 5.8% reported that although they did not personally attend
the Institute, another representative of their diocese was in

attendance. Therefore, 11% of the dioceses responding had a
representative at the Institute. However, it must be pointed out

that the Institute took place nine years ago and the respondents

might very well not be aware of the fact that the diocese was

represented at the Institute.

50



In response to the question of whether they had a copy of the

proceedings of the Institute, 16.2% reported affirmatively. Sev-

eral also commented that they did not know and that “it could

be buried somewhere in the files.”

A percentage of 49.6 responded that they “do not” know
if the recommendations presented at the Institute had been

incorporated into their present diocesan policy; 14.7% responded

that the recommendations had been “somewhat” incorporated,

and 5.2% said that they had been incorporated in “large part.”
A percentage of 30.5 did not respond to the question.

In response to our first additional objective, “to determine

to what extent the recommendations are known,” it would appear

from the data that the recommendations are not very well known.

However, almost 50% express awareness of the Institute and,
at the same time, almost 50% state that they do not really
know if the recommendations were incorporated. One of the
key factors here is the time element as well as the possible turn-

over in administrative personnel during the nine years. It is also

quite possible that the recommendations were passed along by

word of mouth from diocese to diocese without ever being asso-

ciated with the Institute.

B. Pre-Retirement Program for Diocesan Priests.

Regarding pre-retirement programs, 21.9% (30) of the dio-
ceses report such a program. Of these, 10.2% conduct the
program on an individual basis; 2.2% conduct the program on
a group basis, and 9.5% conduct the program on both an indi-
vidual and a group basis. 5.8% of the dioceses report that their
pre-retirement program is comprehensive in nature, i.e., covering

all aspects of aging, and 16.1% say that their program is limited
in scope, i.e., just explaining the pension program, benefits,

timing, and living arrangements, etc. One hundred seven or
78.1% of the dioceses do not have a pre-retirement program.

Twenty-eight of the dioceses gave a brief description of their

pre-retirement programs. Several of the more “comprehensive”
programs involved contacting the priests one-to-ten years before

retirement and giving an explanation of the diocesan pension
plan, living arrangements, opportunities for continued ministry,

etc. At a time closer to retirement, there are group sessions

(optional) explaining the psychological, physiological, and spirit-

51



ual dimensions of pre-retirement and retirement. The majority

of the programs described were individual and limited in nature.

In response to questioning (of those 30 who do have a pre-
retirement program) as to whether there is any coordination of

efforts between diocesan departments or offices in regard to

pre-retirement planning and programming, 76.7% (23) report
that such coordination exists, and 23.3% (7) indicate that it
does not exist.

There were several recommendations made at the Institute
concerning possible components and/or methods of conducting

a pre-retirement program. Table 4 describes these recommenda-

tions and percentages of the dioceses that do include some in
their program. Each was presented in a separate question and

therefore, each percentage in the table is based on 100%.

TABLE 4

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING PRE-RETIREMENT PROGRAM
COMPONENTS/METHODS AND PERCENTAGES OF DIOCESES

RESPONDING AFFIRMATIVELY

COMPONENT/METHOD

PERCENTAGE OF
AFFIRMATIVE

REPLY

1. Our program includes a gradual shifting
of roles in the parish ministry as a man
approaches retirement. 10.2%

2. We make use of retreats and workshops as
part of our program. 8.0%

3. Our program allows for a sabbatical leave
to give the priest an opportunity for develop-
ing new interests . . . 3.6%

4. As part of our program, we make use of
consultation or guidance services to help the
priest asess his assets and explore other
priestly roles. 4.4%

5. Our program includes seminars for priests
periodically throughout the years of priestly
service on the aging process. 5.1%

6. Other . . . 5.8%

52



Among the “other” components (#6 above) were included
comments regarding a combination of individual consultation

and a later workshop and clergy conferences concerning the

aging process, to which all the priests were invited.

Of those 109 dioceses that do not presently have a pre-retire-

ment program for priests, 18.3% (20) indicated that they have

a plan for initiating such a program and 39.4 (43) indicated no

such plan. Fifty-one or 46.8% did not respond to the question.

Those dioceses which are planning to initiate a pre-retirement

program were asked to give a brief description. Comments in-

cluded: “We now offer the option for a priest to retire from the
role of pastor at age 65, but still remain active as a priest. There

is a financial incentive to do this. . . . Also working on a com-

prehensive pre-retirement program in conjunction with Consulta-

tion Services Center and Priests' Senate.”

“The Diocese of and Priests' Retirement Board

are actively discussing a pre-retirement program.”

Another respondent commented, “. . . retirement affects a very

small number of our clergy. In the years ahead as the numbers
increase, a more formal program will be implemented. At the

present time each case is being handled individually.”

Still another said, “. . . looking for information on such a pre-

retirement program.”

Finally, one respondent mentioned, “We have recently formed
a small committee, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor with two reli-

gious superiors who operate institutional facilities caring for re-
tired priests, to advise the Archdiocese on not only pre-retirement

but also on long-range programs and facilities.”

These comments and others like them are related to our sec-
ond objective, “To determine if there is any plan and projection

for the implementation of the recommendations.” It seems that
there is considerable interest and activity in the dioceses regard-

ing pre-retirement programming and many of the dioceses seem
to be quite conscious of the importance of planning for future

needs. All of this certainly falls within the recommendations pre-

sented at the Institute.

It was also recommended at the Institute that the seminary
education should include concepts concerning the aging process

and retirement and also present the diocesan retirement policy

53



for the priests. Only 29 dioceses responded to this question and
of those 24.1% were in the affirmative. Here it must be borne
in mind that many of the smaller dioceses do not have their own
seminaries and thus, the respondents would not be aware of
whether or not such concepts were discussed as part of the

seminary education program.

C. Retirement Program for Diocesan Priests.

1. Vicar or Delegate for Retired Priests.

One of the recommendations made at the Institute was that
every large diocese should designate someone (full-time if pos-
sible) as coordinator for retired priests. Thus, we asked the re-
spondents:

"Does your' diocese have a priest serving as delegate or vicar

for retired priests?" Yes No

"If yes: Are you that person?"

"Is this appointment full-time or part-time?
"

Table 5 describes the number of dioceses and their responses
regarding a delegate for retired priests. 17.2% (24) dioceses
report that they do have a delegate or vicar for retired priests.

TABLE 5

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING TOTAL NUMBER OF DIOCESES
AND RESPONSES REGARDING DELEGATE FOR RETIRED PRIESTS

RESPONSE FROM DIOCESES
NUMBER OF
DIOCESES PERCENTAGE

No (we do not have a delegate) 114 82.0

Yes-Yes (Yes we do have a delegate
and 1 am that person 12 8.6

Yes-No (Yes, we do have a delegate.
No, 1 am not that person) 12 8.6

TOTAL 138 99.2

* One diocese did not report.

Although 24 dioceses reported having a vicar, only 23 re-

sponded to the question regarding the nature of the appointment.

Of those 23 dioceses reporting a vicar, 13% (3) stated that the
appointment is full-time and 87% (20) part-time.

54



Many other dioceses stated that while they do not have a vicar

or delegate for retired priests, there is a priest assigned to main-

tain contact and to be of assistance to the retired priests. This

may be a representative of the personnel board or pension board

or some other diocesan department.

One hundred twenty-three or 90.4% of the dioceses respond-

ing report that they do have a definite retirement policy that is

clearly stated and followed. One hundred twenty or 97.6% of

those dioceses who do have a policy report that the priests of the

diocese or their representatives participated in the formulation

of that policy. This is very much in accord with one of the recom-

mendations of the Institute.

3. Financial.

One hundred thirty-seven of the 139 dioceses responded to the

question regarding whether or not they had a pension plan. One

hundred thirty-three or 97% of the dioceses responding have a
pension plan for retired priests.

Table 6 describes the current amount of the pension in the

dioceses responding. The mean or average pension is $402,
the modal pension is $400. Two dioceses report a $200 monthly

pension and one diocese reports a $700 monthly pension. There-

fore, the range of pension incomes is from $200 to $700. (One

diocese reports a $800 maximum pension allowance that would
apply only In exceptional circumstances, e.g., a retired priest

living in a public institution. Thus it was not included in the

computations.)

TABLE 6
FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING MONTHLY AMOUNT OF

PENSION IN THE DIOCESES RESPONDING.

Dollar Amount of
Monthly Pension

Number of Dioceses
Responding Percentage

$200 - 299 7 5.2%
$300 - 399 47 35.0%
$400 - 499 44 32.8%
$500 - 599 31 23.1%
$600 + 5 3.7%

Total 134* 99.8% **

* While 137 dioceses stated that they do have a pension plan, only 134
stated the monthly pension amount.

*=* Error due to rounding of numbers.

55



The respondents were then asked, “If the monthly pension
allowance varies according to living arrangements or for other

reasons and circumstances, please explain.” The greatest num-
ber of written responses came in reply to this request. The writer
can only hope to summarize what appear to be the general trends:

A. In most dioceses, if a priest resides in a rectory or diocesan

institution (clergy retirement home or other diocesan home), a
percentage of the pension goes to place of residence. If a priest

is living in his own home or apartment, he receives the maximum
pension.

B. In some dioceses, the monthly pension is determined ac-
cording to years of service, e.g., 40 years service x $6.75 per
month. There is usually a stated maximum amount.

C. In some dioceses, the monthly pension is dependent upon
the age of retirement, e.g., at age 70 maximum amount and de-
clining scale at an earlier age.

D. In some dioceses there is no variation in the monthly pen-
sion.

It is important to remember that many of the retired priests
are also receiving Social Security income. Also, additional income

may be derived from part-time parish work, etc.

The respondents were also asked, “What other benefits are

provided for retired priests?” Here again, the responses can only

be summarized:

A. Most of the dioceses provide some type of medical insur-

ance, i.e.. Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Major Medical, reimburse-

ments for Medicare.

B. A few dioceses, in addition to the above, provide one or
more of the following: car insurance, life insurance, oral surgery,

retreat and workshop costs, nursing home care, all doctor bills,
therapy.

C. In a few dioceses the priest is responsible for his own

medical coverage.

The dioceses were also questioned regarding the sources of

revenue for the pension fund. Table 7 describes the sources of

revenue for the pension fund. One of the recommendations of

the Institute was that the priest should contribute annually to

the pension fund as a “personal investment.”

56



TABLE 7

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR
PENSION FUND IN THE DIOCESES RESPONDING. (EACH

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE IS BASED ON N OF 139 OR 100%.)

SOURCE OF REVENUE

NO. OF DIOCESES
RESPONDING

AFFIRMATIVELY

% OF DIOCESES
RESPONDING

AFFIRMATIVELY

Each priest contributes . . . 37 26.6%

Parish or institution to which

priest is assigned contributes . 107 77.0%

Annual diocesan collection . . . 32 23.0%

Non-contributory, funded
by diocese . . . 23 16.5%

Other* 36 25.9%

* Under the category “other,” the respondents mentioned the following:
endowments, bequests, assessment of parishes, trust funds, and special
gifts.

4. Retirement Age.

Ninety-one dioceses (65.5%) report having a mandatory retire-

ment age for priests. Table 8 describes the mandatory age and

number of dioceses responding. The modal age is 75. The age of

mandatory retirement ranges from 70 to 80.

TABLE 8

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING MANDATORY RETIREMENT
AGE AND DIOCESES RESPONDING

AGE NUMBER OF DIOCESES PERCENTAGE

70 38 27.3
71 1 0.7
75 51 36.7
80 1 0.7
No mandatory age 48 34.5

TOTAL 139 99.9*

* Error due to rounding of numbers.

The recommendations at the Institute appear to conflict as to

whether or not there should be a mandatory retirement age. One
recommendation was that there should be . . . “retirement from

57



positions of authority demanded and accepted with rare excep-
tions.” Another recommendation stated, ‘There should be flexi-

bility in retirement planning ... no absolutely mandatory retire-

ment age.”

Several of the respondents stated that while there was a

diocesan policy of mandatory retirement at a given age, some
exceptions were allowed. One priest commented that while there
was a mandatory retirement age, it was not followed due to a

“shortage” of priests.

Still another respondent stated:

There seems to be a very definite fear among the major-
ity of our older priests (60+) concerning their retirement.
There is The attitude that “when we were ordained, we ex-
pected to die with our boots on.” This and lack of real men-
tal preparation has forced us as the Senate of Priests to re-
evaluate our mandatory retirement at 75. Our new regula-
tion is that a priest might resign at 75 and could either
retire or ask the personnel board to reassess his abilities
and reassign him accordingly. This seems to have taken a
lot of the grief away from the older priest. . . .

In response to another question as to whether there is a policy

regarding optional retirement from full-time work, 109 dioceses

(78.4%) responded affirmatively. Table 9 describes the possible

retirement age in the dioceses responding. The range is from age

60 to 75. The modal possible retirement age is 65.

TABLE 9

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING OPTIONAL AGE OF
RETIREMENT IN THE DIOCESES RESPONDING

Optional Age
of Retirement Number of Dioceses Percentage

60 1 0.7%
65 68 48.9%
68 2 1.4%
70 36 25.9%
72 1 0.7%
75 1 0.7%
No response 30 21.6%

TOTAL 139 99.9%*

* Error is due to rounding of numbers.

58



In 35 dioceses (25.2%) retirement from full-time work is deter-

mined individually (subject to the Bishop’s approval) for each

priest.

Many of the respondents stated that the word retirement as

applicable to priests, whether mandatory or otherwise, refers only

to the turning over or giving up administrative responsibilities

and not retirement from the priesthood or from priestly work.

One respondent commented that it would perhaps be better to

use some word other than retirement.

5. Living Arrangements.

It was recommended at the Institute that there be flexibility

in regard to living arrangements available to retired priests. Table

10 describes the various types of living arrangements for priests

available in the dioceses responding. It is interesting to note

that 34 dioceses (24.5% ) report that they have a diocesan resi-

dence available for retired priests if they desire to reside there.

Some of the comments under the category “other” were; chap-
lain's residence of an institution, mobile homes, out of the coun-

try, and homes for the elderly operated by religious communities

in the diocese. Several dioceses commented that the retired
priest could reside in a “rectory of choice,” but NOT in the
parish of his last assignment.

TABLE 10

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING VARIOUS OPTIONAL TYPES OF
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS AVAILABLE FOR RETIRED PRIESTS IN

THE DIOCESES RESPONDING. (EACH NUMBER AND
PERCENTAGE IS BASED ON N OF 139 OR 100%).

LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
NO. OF

DIOCESES PERCENTAGE

Diocesan residence for retired priests 34 24.5
Diocesan homes for the elderly 62 44.6
Residing in last parish assigned 74 53.2
Residing in rectory of choice 97 69.8
Residing with family or friends 102 73.4
Residing in another state 108 77.7
Residing in own home or apartment 129 92.8
Other 24 17.3

59



Table 11 describes the most common preference by retired
priests regarding living arrangements. The great favorite, as in-

dicated by 60 dioceses (43.2%), is residing in one’s own home
or apartment.

TABLE 11

MOST COMMON (PREFERRED) TYPES OF LIVING
ARRANGEMENTS SELECTED BY RETIRED PRIESTS

IN THE DIOCESES.

NO. OF PERCENTAGE
LIVING ARRANGMENTS DIOCESES OF DIOCESES

Diocesan residence for retired priests 13 9.4
Diocesan homes for the elderly 5 3.6
Residing in last parish assigned 16 11.5
Residing in rectory of choice 13 9.4
Residing with family or friends 8 5.8
Residing in another state 8 5.8
Residing in own home or apartment 60 43.2
Other 4 2.9

Missing 12 8.6

TOTAL 139 100

6. Ministerial Roles in Retirement.

It was recommended at the Institute that retired priests be
offered a variety of options as to new roles they might assume

in the ministry. Table 12 describes various options for continued

involvement in the ministry after retirement and the number of

dioceses stating that these options are available. The two greatest

responses were “part-time parish work,’’ (118 dioceses) and

“offering Mass and hearing confessions.’’ (116 dioceses).

Some of the comments under the category “other’’ were: “a
priest may do any of the above if he wishes and if he is quali-
field’’; part-time assignments, vacation replacement, tribunal

work, full-time associate, emergency replacement (sudden illness

or death of pastor), serving as co-pastor, diocesan archivist, sup-

ply help on weekends, anything non-administrative, diocesan con-

suitor, and assist in administration of parish.

It was also recommended at the Institute that each diocese

maintain a current list of available opportunities for continued

60



but reduced involvement in the ministry. This would enable re-

tired priests to know what is available and make their selections

accordingly.

TABLE 12

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING OPTIONS FOR CONTINUED
INVOLVEMENT IN THE MINISTRY AFTER RETIREMENT AND
NUMBER OF DIOCESES RESPONDING AFFIRMATIVELY. (EACH
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE IS BASED ON N OF 139 OR 100%).

MINISTERIAL ROLES
NO. OF

DIOCESES PERCENTAGE

Pastor emeritus 71 51.1
Part-time parish work 118 84.9
Chaplaincy positions 77 55.4
Retreat work 21 15.1
Counseling 39 28.1
Giving conferences 23 16.5
Offering Mass and hearing confessions 116 83.5
CCD work 21 15.1
Visiting hospitals and the elderly 83 59.7
Writing and reviewing 30 21.6
Consultant to other priests 46 33.1
Spiritual direction 57 41.0
Convert instructions 18 12.9

7. Miscellaneous.

It was further recommended at the Institute that the dioceses
develop means of maintaining regular contact with retired priests.
In addition to those “means” suggested at the Institute, other
possible vehicles for “keeping in touch” have been included by

the writer. Table 13 describes vehicles for maintaining continued

contact with the retired priests and the number of dioceses using
the same. Those recommended at the Institute are so designated
within an asterisk. The highest number of responses are under
the categories of “official chancery communications,” (124 or

89.2%) and invitations to special diocesan and parish functions
(124 or 89.2%).

Even though there was no category listed as “other,” quite a
few of the smaller dioceses wrote in that they did not have an

elaborate plan for maintaining contact with retired priests be-

cause it was not necessary. All the priests are in regular contact
with each other and with the bishop.

61



TABLE 13

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING OPTIONS FOR MAINTAINING
CONTINUED CONTACT WITH RETIRED PRIESTS AND THE
NUMBER OF DIOCESES USING SAME. (Each number and

percentage is based on N of 139 or 100%).

OPTIONS FOR MAINTAINING CONTACT
WITH RETIRED PRIESTS

NO. OF
DIOCESES PERCENTAGE

* Vicar or Delegate for retired priests 19 13.7

Official diocesan chancery
communications 124 89.2

Special newsletter for retired priests 4 2.9
* Invitations to special diocesan and
parish functions 124 89.2
* Invitations to clergy conferences and
continuing education workshops 121 87.1
* Periodic individual conferences with
Bishop or his delegate 54 38.8
* Special periodic workshops or seminars
for retired priests 5 3.6

Representation of retired priests on
Senate 40 28.8

* Asterisk indicates a recommendation of the Institute.

It was also recommended at the Institute that each diocese
have an official, annually undated register or listing of names and
addresses of retired priests that is mailed to all the priests of the

dioceses. One hundred thirty-four dioceses responded to this
question and 105 (78.4%) reported having such a register. Some
mentioned here that the annual diocesan directory lists all the

priests and their location.

Along these same lines it was recommended that there be
established a “National Clearing House" where a priest could

leave his name and indicate the type of pastoral activity in which
he would be interested. This recommendation has not been fol-

lowed up, but it is worthy, in this writer's opinion, of further

thought.

Another of the recommendations was that research be con-

ducted in the dioceses on what older priests themselves would

like to do and what kinds of activities they have engaged in after

retirement and found satisfying and rewarding. One hundred

62



thirty-four dioceses responded to this question and 37 (27.6%)

responded that they have conducted research of some type

(mostly survey) related to retired priests. They were asked to

briefly describe the nature of the studies and findings. To sum-

marize:

1. Some dioceses (6) reported research regarding attitudes of
retired priests towards a diocesan retirement home for priests.
One diocese stated that the majority opinion supported the resi-

dence. Three stated that the majority of priests in their dioceses

rejected the idea. Two dioceses stated that the reaction was

“mixed.”

2. Eleven dioceses report that they annually or periodically

survey the retired priests concerning their opinions and feelings

on the retirement policy, needs, life style, financial concerns, and

ministerial possibilities. One diocese stated that the “findings”
were very positive. Another diocese reported that the retired

priests were lonely, finding it difficult to live outside the rectory,

and finding the retirement adjustment difficult.

3. One diocese reports that the research work is just begin-
ning through lay resources director for retired priests. This is

the only diocese reporting a lay person employed to work with

the retirement program.

4. Two dioceses report having conducted major research proj-
ects and both included a copy of their study.

A. One project dealt with a survey of all priests in the
diocese regarding a group retirement home. Some of the con-
clusions were:

1. There is no clear-cut attitude towards retirement.

2. Many priests who see inadequacies in present retirement
arrangements favor the proposal.

3. There is a need for more physical options for retired
priests.

4. Today's active priests expect to retire at an earlier age
than that at which priests have actually retired in the past.

63



5. Most active priests in the diocese have not made definite
retirement arrangements.

6. No concensus regarding proposed home.

B. The second major research project was a study of the

life of priests in retirement in that diocese. Some of the con-
clusions were:

1. For the most part, diocesan priest retirees are still inter-

ested in some form of priestly service.

2. Some are happy living alone; but a good number would
like companionship of fellow priests.

3. Many would prefer to live in residences with fellow
priests.

The two recommendations of this project were:

1. That a priest be appointed as director for retired priests.

2. That a residence for retired priests be established out-

side of the city.

All of the above-mentioned research studies indicate a great

deal of concern on the part of bishops and priests regarding the

well-being of retired priests. Overall there seems to be regular

contact between diocesan departments and the retired priests.

The retired priests have been consulted and their suggestions

have been, or are being, acted upon.

One of our additional objectives was to find out what research

has been conducted on the diocesan level regarding the needs

and attitudes of retired priests. While there still remains a lot of

work to be done in this regard, it is the opinion of the writer that

there have already been some very good “beginnings."

The final question on the questionnaire did not directly relate

to the recommendations. It was an attempt to look at the re-

sponse of the priests in the dioceses to the concept of retirement.

One hundred thirty-three dioceses responded to this question.

Table 14 describes the priests’ response to retirement (as viewed

by the respondents) in the dioceses’ reporting.

64



TABLE 14

FREQUENCY TABLE DESCRIBING PRIESTS' RESPONSE
TO RETIREMENT IN THE DIOCESES REPORTING.

PRIESTS' RESPONSE TO
CONCEPT OF RETIREMENT

NO. OF DIOCESES
RESPONDING PERCENTAGE

Positive 65 48.9
Mixed 66 49.6
Negative 2 1.5

TOTAL 133 100.

At the end of the questionnaire, the respondents were given

the opportunity to present any additional comments or sugges-
tions they might have. Some of the comments were as follows:

A. In general:

1. Several respondents requested a copy of the research

study as well as resumes of programs in other dioceses.

2. Smaller dioceses almost universally agreed that retire-

ment was not a great problem. There seems to be a closeness
and support between priests, and bishop and priests, that ob-

viously is much more difficult to attain in a large diocese.

3. Several expressed a desire for assistance, especially in

regard to pre-retirement programming.

B. In particular:

1. “. . . options for priests in retirement are necessary. A
retired priest must feel needed. He has much to give . . .
priests must be encouraged to continue in priestly ministry,
even on a limited basis, after retirement.’'

2.

“.
. . complete retirement at age 70 leaves much to be

desired for most priests. The ideal position for most elderly
priests seems to be an active position in spiritual priestly min-
istry without administrative responsibility."

3. “I would be interested in knowing if a National Retire-
ment Plan for Priests is being thought of."

4. "I would be remiss if I did not mention that the extraor-

65



dinary fraternal concern of our Bishop and retirees has been

the strongest factor in the success of our retirement plan as

well as the positive attitude of our priests."

5. "The idea of retirement is gaining in acceptance now but
in the beginning was shock to most priests."

One of our additional objectives was to consider any additional
suggestions from the dioceses in regard to pre-retirement policies

and programs. The above comments indicate a need for sharing
information between dioceses regarding pre-retirement policies

and programs. It is very difficult to devise such programming in

isolation. Interestingly, none of the respondents suggested the

possibility of dioceses coming together on a national or regional

basis for discussion of sharing information. However, the com-

ments would appear to indicate the need for such a gathering.

Another of our objectives was to determine what plans and
programs have been implemented in addition to those suggested

at the Institute. Overall there were very few and they could be

best classified as program components. One concerns the hiring
of a Lay Resources Advisor for Retired Clergy. This diocese

has also developed a job description for this position. Another

would be the concept of "senior associate."^® Here a retired

priest serves in a parish as an associate pastor and his respon-

sibilities are adapted to his abilities and wishes.

D. Statistical Analysis.

Another one of the additional objectives was to determine

some of the independent variables that have impacted the extent
of implementation of the recommendations in the dioceses.

Several independent variables were selected for correlation

with dependent variables. The independent variables that were

selected are stated below:

A. Awareness of Institute. An awareness scale was developed

based upon the response to items 9-11 on the questionnaire.

(See Appendix III).

Then Chi square cross tabulations were used to determine the

degree of correlation between the respondents' awareness and

the other variables on the questionnaire. The data revealed the

following significant correlations:

66



TABLE 15

f SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR RESPONDENTS’ DEGREE OF
AWARENESS CORRELATED WITH SELECTED VARIABLES.

No other dependent variable was found to be significantly re-
lated to awareness. There does not appear to be very much cor-
relation between awareness of the Institute and the implementa-

tion of the recommendations. The only correlation that was found

involved three isolated variables (Table 15). Additionally, in look-

ing at the outcome of this cross tabulation, for most of the

dependent variables, there were not enough cases per category to

make a conclusive correlation.

B. Next, the total number of priests in the dioceses (Item 13)
and then total number of retired priests in the dioceses (Item 14)
were categorized. Chi square cross tabulations were used to see

if there was a correlation between the total number of priests/
total number of retired priests and the other dependent variables.
The data revealed the following significant correlations:

VARIABLE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL

Our program includes seminars for priests
(Item 29)
Other, please specify (Item 52)
Periodic individual conferences (Item 75)

.000

.02

.0007

67



TABLE

16

X’

SIGNIFICANCE

LEVELS

FOR

TOTAL

NUMBER

OF

PRIESTS/TOTAL

NUMBER

OF

RETIRED

PRIESTS

CORRELATED

WITH

SELECTED

VARIABLES.

LlJQ:

St
UJ, C/5

20(/)

oOE
iZ^CL

2<
OH
Op

•ic *
•Jc

-l£T

UjQ-

ife

5d
ul2
2:<
OK
c/)P

f* * * M
y-i LD

^ ^ e\i ^ O lf)i-HOO
o o ^ o o o o ^ VO COO O H p o O O O O O O o o o

O o

K
CO
o
o
o

CO o
'—

I o O O O »”• O »~ioooooooooooooooo
^ o
^ o oo o o

c
CD

Q) LD
^ C\J

CO ^
CO in

to

o>

0)

Q.'^ E

> (O —
(U CD

0) a; o
to '.p

(1) (UO O -t-*
.2 CD 3n o to
. 3 C

^ E ^ Ê^
2 ^ P o

tr -a ^-T>a>
.2 Q-

X3

>'.7 .2 Q) N-

in

E
(V o

C E
<D CD

4-»

'
TO

Q-to
(U 01

L_ 'i_

O Q.
0) -n

3 CD
o

(̂CJ

to E
CD
O <D

®.!2 o I -
S ° 5 >>= ® Oi;

D-W I J2 S £ ro opS^JZCZC'^CC-^
c c CuO tuo tbO tuo tuoyCvjCCr:£“^{— (“ir
to to .= .3 .E .E .E o
01 01-D-aX3T3T3

CU
O

O o -— - —
o o <o (O to to to

.E CD 01 01 01 01— •— UJtUtUCUCDzi
Q^oq_q::qqccq:q:q:q:>

, , rv
^ rv

E

01 ^ W
f- 01

‘'5 ^ m
01 to 01 2
O 01 +:; C
C o O 01
S CI^CO^ 01 2 -
CD i- 9- to
M— CD O -t-’
C Hi ^ to
o C ^5 .01
o ^

O iS .2 5
"to c ^ 4S
go5S
'll-el
•:^ 01 Q.
> 01 Q. 01^ CL cn 0^

68

There

were

not

enough

cases

in

each

category

to

evaluate

statistically.

**

There

were

not

enough

cases

in

each

category

to

evaluate

statistically.

The

above

were

the

only

dependent

variables

found

to

be

significantly

related

to

the

total

number

of

priests/total

number

of

retired

priests.

But

it

does

indicate

some

relationship

between

the

two

independent

variables

and

the

implementation

of

the

above

recommendations.



C. Then the variable of vicar (delegate) for retired priests was

categorized. Chi square cross tabulations were used to see if

there was a correlation between vicar for retired priests and other

selected dependent variables. The data revealed the following

significant correlations:

TABLE 17

SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR VICAR FOR RETIRED PRIESTS
CORRELATED WITH SELECTED VARIABLES.

VARIABLE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL

Seminars for priests (Item 29) .000
Diocesan residence for retired priests (Item 45) .07

Residing with family or friends (Item 49) .05
Vicar or delegate for retired priests (Item 70) .00

Special Newsletter for retired priests (Item 72) .00

Periodic individual conferences (Item 75) .01

Representation on Senate of Priests (Item 77) .002

No other dependent variable was found to be significantly re-
lated to vicar for retired priests. There does not appear to be

very much correlation between having a vicar for retired priests
and the implementation of the recommendations. The only cor-

relation that was found involved the scattered variables above

(Table 17). Once again, in looking at the outcome of this ^ cross
tabulation, for most of the dependent variables, there were not

enough cases per category to make a conclusive statistical cor-
relation.

D. The variable region of the country (Item 5) was divided
into four categories (North, East, South, West). Once again, Chi
square cross tabulations were used to see if there was any cor-
relation between the region of the country and other selected

dependent variables. The following significant correlations were

discovered:

TABLE 18

t SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR REGION OF THE COUNTRY
CORRELATED WITH SELECTED VARIABLES.

VARIABLES SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL

Diocesan homes for the elderly (Item 46) .001
Residing in last parish assigned (Item 47) .05

69



No other dependent variable was found to be significantly re-
lated to the region of the country. However, for most of the de-

pendent variables there were again not enough cases per cell to
make a conclusive statistical correlation.

E. Finally, the variable of priests' response to the concept of

retirement was divided into two categories (positive or mixed).
Chi square cross tabulations were used to check out any correla-

tion with other selected dependent variables. Only one significant

correlation was found and that was, “Does your diocese have an
official register of retired priests . . .“ (Item 78) which was sig-
nificant at the .002 level. For most of the dependent variables

there were enough cases per cell to make conclusive statistical
correlations.

On one hand, there does not appear to be much correlation
between the selected independent variables (A-E above) and the

extent of implementation of the recommendations. However, on

the other hand, there is no doubt but that all of the recom-

mendations presented at the Institute have been implemented to

a greater or lesser extent in the dioceses. Again, the writer can

only refer to some comments made previously in this paper. The
Institute took place nine years ago. This time lapse Is, in my
opinion, a crucial point. In 1969 pre-retirement and retirement

were new concepts as related to priests. It may well have taken
several years before many dioceses established policies and pro-
grams. Those who were developing the policies and programs in
the dioceses may or may not have relied on the recommendations
of the Institute, but our respondents today, only seven (5.1%)

of whom attended the Institute, may not be aware of whether
another representative from their diocese attended the Institute,

and whether the recommendations were implemented. 49.6%
said they do not know if the recommendations were incorporated

in their present policies. The knowledge level leaves much to be
desired in terms of a true assessment as to what extent the rec-

ommendations were implemented.

It is reasonable to assume that there has been a turnover in

some of the diocesan personnel and this factor also impacts the

knowledge of the recommendations as implemented or not im-

plemented. Many of the recommendations may have been ex-

changed between dioceses by word of mouth with no association

with the Institute.

70



Also, many of the recommendations, are, to an extent, general
in nature and may have been implemented on the basis of what
appeared most reasonable in a given situation allowing for all

the variables that were present.

Finally there are, no doubt, many other factors not identified
in this study which affected the extent to which the recommenda-

tions were implemented.

71



m
- id T- R,.

- /fi^ij^TO’pj^W/rtkSCSfc' ''I’pt'rt.tJwii^'jC vWtl 'V 'i!i(. *||/.Tt«f--
,'

' km!> *»'*t*fe-';3«,yov'.;4iot;^ 4.,’. «f

!.;
<MT'; <o

* of th»

'..cl; - ,i

•

'f'®r^
‘,^%-f!^;r^ieiif';

O/t,/^>^'^•.>^^'i, l||Pjjp||^ vm iiTi.h*- mM^h c3S8*

>
‘ r^*f .f^omrr

r^.Jt^. (rll ‘M
d4:A'd#A«h

r 'r;.' '.

1

iS

y 5v^»..bf.r^Tf^ 0oitefer

r*c«rmi^w->

'*1 'A-un^ >{j«i)i»^ti%,:iya jii:f:f,vt)l# "W

*-
‘-*nWr-^

A^
!

--
•>»fr%y'*. ‘jtyp

j!i;r' \H\p^

n
«t' iM)

i/ 5f;J<I» STviww.'wtt

iny i?t .;'r-:‘ i.o- .-

:ru.M.^va^?riJjg;i
;i' ____



Chapter V

CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Comparative Analysis.

The writer recently discovered a summary of a survey research

study conducted in 1968/’ This was a survey of priests’ retire-

ment programs. It is valuable for comparative purposes to con-

sider the findings of that study. It purports to be inclusive of all

the dioceses in 1968 (153). Table 19 offers a comparison of the

two studies.

TABLE 19

COMPARING 1968 SURVEY FINDINGS WITH 1977 FINDINGS.

ITEMS

FINDINGS '68
153 Dioceses

Reporting (100%]

FINDINGS '77
139 Dioceses

» Reporting (82.2%)

No. of retired priests 1,685 2,988

No. of dioceses with
retirement plan 78 123

No. of dioceses with man-
datory retirement age 41 92

Dioceses with optional
retirement age at 65
or under 1 69

Maximum pension range
for a priest living on
his own $60.-$600. $200.-$700

Dioceses with retire-
ment homes for
priests

Two homes under
consideration (No
report on existing
homes)

34+ several dio-
ceses have homes
under considera-
tion

Three dioceses with
highest number of
retired priests

Chicago—110
Boston—77
Detroit—70

Chicago—no re-
port

Boston—118
Detroit—110

73



The figures speak for themselves. Important to note is that the
present study and 1977 figures are based on 139 dioceses or
82.2% of the total number. There have been some tremendous
developments since 1968.

B. Implications for further research.

In the literature review the writer only found one research

project (cited previously) that studied retirement theory as re-

lated to clergymen. In the present study many research studies
were reported, but almost all were survey in nature.

The present study presents a fairly comprehensive picture of
pre-retirement and retirement policies and programs that exist

today in the dioceses.

However, as the literature reviewed revealed, we do not have
much by way of hard empirical data regarding the effectiveness
of these programs. We do not know to what extent the programs,
as described above, are responding to the feelings and needs of

retired priests. We do not know what programs are most effective
and why. There is much room for development in the area of
pre-retirement programming for priests and further research

could be most helpful in this regard. It would be valuable to

evaluate some of the existing programs regarding effectiveness.

The issue of mandatory retirement age as opposed to other

possible alternative retirement guidelines or directives should be

researched further as well.

C. Conclusions.

In response to the original research question, “To what extent

have the recommendations of the Institute on Planning for Pre-

retirement and Retirement of Priests been implemented in the

Catholic dioceses?", the data indicate that all of the recommen-

dations applicable to the dioceses have been implemented in

varying degrees. It can be said further that the process of imple-

mentation is still very much in progress.

Another conclusion is that the vast majority of the dioceses

have revealed a very real concern about the welfare of their re-

tired priests.

A final conclusion is that many dioceses could use some type

74



of assistance in developing and implementing their pre-retire-

ment and retirement programs. There is no established vehicle

for one diocese or many dioceses to know what the others are
doing, what has proven effective or ineffective, etc. Some type of
coordination of efforts would be most valuable in this regard.

D. Recommendations.

1. One recommendation is that further research studies be

undertaken as indicated above. (Chapter V-B).

2. Another recommendation is that a survey type study, simi-

lar to this one, be conducted at regular intervals in order to keep

abreast of developments.

3. A final recommendation is that it would be valuable to look
into the possibility of developing a national office that could:

initiate and execute research projects, serve as a consultant to

dioceses, maintain continuous records on existing pre-retirement

and retirement programs, plug into existing national organiza-

tions for the elderly (e.g.. Administration on Aging (AOA), Na-

tional Council on Aging (NCOA), and the American Association

of Retired Persons (AARP), etc., keep track of Social Security

and Medicare, etc. This could well be a joint undertaking of the

Religious communities and the dioceses. There is always the

possibility that certain Catholic Foundations might be willing to

cooperate in such a venture.

75



FOOTNOTES

1 Interview with Fr. Vincent Mainelli, NCCC, Jan. 30, 1976.
2 Institute on Planning for Pre-Retirement and Retirement of Priests. Na-

tional Conference of Catholic Charities, Proceedings. (New Orleans, Louisi-
ana, Jan. 19, 1969), p. i.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Most Rev. Raymond Gallagher, D.D., "Concern and response to Priests’
Retirement.” Proceedings of the Institute on Planning for Pre-retirement
and Retirement of Priests. (New Orleans, Louisiana, Jan., 1969), p. 5-7.

6 Rev. Joseph Zuercher, S.J., "What 1600 Priests Think about Pre-retire-
ment and Retirement.” Proceedings of the Institute, p. 25.

7 Brother John M. McDonough, "What the Social Scientist Thinks of Pre-
retirement and Retirement.” Proceedings of the Institute, p. 34.

8 Dermott Smith, M.D., "Psychological Aspects of Pre-retirement and Re-
tirement.” Proteedings of the Institute, pp. 37-38.

9 Rev. Robert Kearns, S.S.J., "Sociological Aspects of Pre-retirement of
Clergy.” Proceedings of the Institute, pp. 44-45.

13

Rev. Paul F. D’Arcy, M.M., "Pre-retirement Planning for Priests.” Pro-
ceedings of the Institute, p. 50.

n L. Ronald Homza, M.D., "The Relation of Health to Pre-retirement and
Retirement Adjustment.” Proceedings of the Institute, p. 54.

12 Rev. Charles J. Fahey, "How to Make Retirement Purposeful Living.”
Proceedings of the Institute, p. 63.

13 Rt. Rev. Msgr. Edward E. Michelin, "Types of Residence.” Proceedings
of the Institute, pp. 64-65.

14 Rt. Rev. Msgr. Austin Healy, "Programming for Retirement.” Proceed-
ings of the Institute, pp. 66-68.

15 Woodrow W. Hunter, "Pre-retirement Education Planning.” Learning
for Aging, ed., Stanley Grabowski and W. Dean Mason, Adult Education
Assoc, of U.S.A., p. 179.

15 Ibid.

17 Woodrow W. Hunter, "Trends in Pre-retirement Education.” Pre-retire-
ment Counseling Conference. (California State Polytechnic College, San
Dimas, California, 1962), p. 2.

18 Ibid., separate edition, p. 2.

19 Ibid., p. 2.

20 Ibid., p. 8.

21 Ibid., p. 3.

22 Ibid., p. 4.

23 Robert C. Atchley, The Social Forces in Later Life. (Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1972), pp. 160-161.

24 Woodrow Hunter, "Trends in Pre-retirement Education,” p. 4.
25 William L. Mitchell, "Lay Observations on Retirement,” in Retirement,

ed., Frances Carp (New York: Behavioral Publications, Inc., 1972), pp. 212-
213.

25 Woodrow Hunter, "Trends in Pre-retirement Education,” p. 2.

76



27 Interview with Sr. Mary Bush, Sacred Heart Sisters, (Washington,

D.C.) Feb. 24, 1976.

28 Interview with Msgr. Charles Ritty, Delegate for Retired Priests, Dio-

cese of Cleveland, Ohio, Jan., 1977.

29 Rev. Philip Hannan, “The Canonical Concept of Congrua Sustentatio

for the Secular Clergy,” (Ph.D. dissertation. Catholic University of America,

1950), pp. 181-182.

30 John Abbo and Jerome Hannan, The Sacred Canons, Vol. II, revised

edition (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), p. 693.

31 Ibid., pp. 693-694.

32 Walter M. Abbott, S.J., Gen. Ed., The Documents of Vatican II, (New
York: Guild Press, 1966), p. 420.

33 Desmond J. Vella, “The Dilemna of Clerical Retirement,” Homiletic
and Pastoral Review, 68 (Aug. 1968), p. 941.

34 Most Rev. Raymond Gallagher, op. cit.. Proceedings of the Institute,

P- 3.

35 Rev. Charles J. Fahey, “How to Make Retirement Purposeful Living,”
op. cit., p. 60.

36 Ibid.

37 Most Rev. Raymond Gallagher, op. cit., p. 3.
38 Rev. Joseph Zuercher, S.J., op. cit., p. 24.

39 Ibid.

40 Frank McG. Nugent, S.J., “The Disengagement Theory of Aging and
Retirement Applied to Clergymen,” (Ph.D. dissertation. Catholic University

of America, 1975).

41 Walter M. Abbott, op. cit, p. 403.

42 Included in the 169 Latin Rite Dioceses is the Abbacy of Belmont,
North Carolina. Here the abbot has some of the prerogatives of a bishop,
but only within a very limited territory. This is the only one of its kind
in the United States.

43 p. J. Kenedy, The Official Catholic Directory, (New York: P. J. Ken-
edy and Sons, Pub., 1976, ed.), pp. 1-3.

44 Two responding dioceses (one large and one small) did not report
the number of retired priests.

45 Research Study conducted by the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Office for
Research and Planning. Survey of priests regarding a group retirement
home (1972).

46 Ruth Bennett, Ph.D., “Retirement, A New Phase in the Lives of
Diocesan Priests in New York (City)” (1976).

47 Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island.
48 Diocese of Cleveland, Ohio. The Delegate for Retired Priests, Msgr.

Charles Ritty, has also devised a contractual agreement whereby the
Senior Associates’ parish duties and responsibilities are delineated. The
Diocesan Delegate has also devised a job description for the position of
Vicar or Delegate for Retired Priests.

49 Crux of the News, “A Report on Priests’ Retirement, U.S.A.” Septem-
ber 27, 1968.

77



. 1 'Xj
,r>aJel2 r’-wr^M w<»tv“=;Tvw u

.
.dg?* ,^?.a

*'5^ ?»!'<•/? ToV
0.1

1

.;^ s*
<

i -»'*

o.l,/.^.:•l^^a,6l^if^^:;:) to .itr^iinQH’ffSlIioncO ;'d^;r* ,n6rin»H iiiliW
'

v»s’lg
'

.f/oi’”i.nA To,'Yfii<5i»WlflU jjIarltuD ,l>ot.t|^;v7<^.K^0 O.fi^} ' artif^t

,..
' '

~ ^*81 t8/
tHNm^ ,11 vlQV,*2nofitiO ftftT nornisH on.OTil bni^ odoA

^
'. JjQd .q ,(\i?t:^i .-oD flooB i^^bioH A' c uoJ .id) nop

• JV>.. a» •
';^

'

wot't)' 'U.‘nRr>kt6V A-. c''v^rr!>j»0‘ srtt ..b^ .n^a B .rioafiA ,M
• '

,

'

,0U: '.q ,06^1
i'fiDf n>.*'D io anmvi'O spl’"' ,:ut$V „l bhornagG'-^

'

.,33$I .g.rV; 83 ,W3W

PS i srtj .^0 . 23n'»b&»;iQi^ ..tb Mo Lnom<s5t v^
'

i... ’'.^nivij hi'tsiiCA'rti.*'-! «.ricM w6H " i eohf>'-.) :j5t W' . .Oo.q.^bj

.4.

.?•;
••« •*‘3, ,qo, jOfigslicD hnornyfe?! .v«S J^oM

.

. jp.
..>S .q ,.1b .qo ,?1.8 .lOfloiooK nq^s^yl .v©fl

biiti' k; \noorlT tfiOmagegnfii&^Q- s»ftT^* -,.ia2'

yfi;^f^>v!fiU a;lofi)B0 .Q.<i<t)?-’‘ jisriysroP oi bo!iq<i.ai jqqrno->*1^
.i c\<!?I ,EDrJ9mA to

,. . : V . .60^ . ;' ..Vo .i;q -. j-toddA

,}!iomi.9iS ti; yoeddA ©rii fcj f»Vi?t nbBJ ^di r?i b'»bu!:wil ^
.ooAiid E. lo o'rt^- tv* loildei. orft aioH
bo<?» .''>• ta OHO yH>P Siif ; a? srtriT vTCdhiM be>iifru( y^ov $ nifUi.v y{r»o tdd

, ,. ?9lcJd qk,

no/i J- .q ;Hy.>Y W!3Hk.o<iV0osnG tsbtf^O ort.'T ,vbor*rr/' .L
-'

,
.t-l .qq ,(,be .du^ ,aao3 brm yb9

noq®i ,|0"; b?b (WiiCVt^ sr^o bng 9310} 3nc> ^’ssaeoolb goitnoqes^ owT ^
.^J)£9nq baiife; to

lot o^ittO .dS'Midsiii'l to . ibe#^»a om 'yd • tM^foubdoo, .yt^ii'ta..rtoiig«K8j|H ^‘:;w:
q!rf.'7§ , s «;fn»bT630t ataenq to y$viu8 .gnioosl^^ bn« riD^essaji

.(SXGi) omod
to ^i>vU,,«d:t pi V/oH a .)n£>rn97lt®f^" ,.Q rlS ,rt 9nns& riduR

'
'

.<8\'<Sn di afeaiiR n6^©^o^d

.t>i>6iaf 9boHR ,,9on®bivoiR tc a^aoo»Q ^

.iS^M .atewiiR boTiioR lot sdT .oiriO .bnslava’O to aa^rpoiQ
t)r!.-j yd^:»>iadw tmftiaaigir, lt»utDG?tno;> .i b^ervab ,yttlR esflmdO

»{1T .b‘7j#9CM>ob qift. ^adilidianqqao) bn© ^.aitub f!aii«q 'cr'ats^op-^A iq>0^>3
to •y>xA<.'.pq sri^'^.^ot nc'dqh.qs.aij. db| a sA-ri aJqgstsQ nESoooi'O

.at^onR baiboR tot atE^jeiaO to isolV

'majqa^ ".A.8.U .tosjrnbtitaR no ^,oqaR A ’ ,ew&v> adt 1o xuaD ^‘
• -- '

.B6QI ,Kr^iO^
^

1 % ': . > 'ii. - - - 'A'*'.



Appendix I

BISHOPS’ COMMITTEE ON PRIESTLY LIFE AND MINISTRY
1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.—Washington, D.C. 20005

28 January 1977

National Conference

of Catholic Bishops

Your Eminence/Your Excellency:

In 1969 the National Conference of Catholic Charities spon-

sored an Institute on Planning for the Pre-Retirement and Retire-

ment of Priests. During the course of that Institute numerous

recommendations regarding pre-retirement education and retire-

ment programming for priests were offered. In the eight years

since the Institute there has been much progress with the
formation of sophisticated programs for pre-retirement and

retirement in most dioceses.

The Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry receives many
requests for information regarding such programs. Often the

information is not available to us and we have to refer the
inquirers directly to dioceses. As Chairman of the Bishops’

Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry, I feel that the informa-

tion sought here will be of great value to the Committee in the

formulation of recommendations to the NCCB. It will also indicate
the progress of retirement programs since the Institute in 1969.

Father Walter Jenne of the Diocese of Cleveland, a student

at the National Catholic School of Social Services at Catholic

University, has prepared this Questionnaire. Father Jenne is

working toward a Masters Degree in Social Work.

The enclosed Questionnaire is an attempt to ascertain:

1. to what extent the recommendations produced by that

Institute are known and have been implemented;

79



2. what are the present pre-retirement and retirement pro-

grams and policies in our dioceses; and

3. those suggestions you might have with regard to the

question of retirement for diocesan priests.

Would you be so kind as to forward this Questionnaire to

that person or persons in your diocese responsible for Priests’

Retirement Programming. We ask that it be returned to this
Office by February 28th, 1977.

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter as the results
will be beneficial to the Most Reverend Ordinaries in any future

planning or updating of their retirement policies.

With every good wish, I remain

Very sincerely yours,

/s/ + R. J. Gallagher
Chairman

80



Appendix II

BISHOPS' COMMITTEE ON PRIESTLY LIFE AND MINISTRY
1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.—Washington, D.C. 20005

3 March 1977

National Conference

of Catholic Bishops

Your Eminence/Your Excellency:

On January 28 we mailed you a Questionnaire concerning

Pre-Retirement and Retirement Programs for Diocesan Priests

(copy enclosed). The requested date of return was February 28;

presently, 50 percent of the dioceses have responded.

As of this date, however, we have not received a return from
your diocese. If you wish to participate in this survey may we
ask you to forward the enclosed explanatory letter and Ques-

tionnaire to the person(s) responsible for this information.

As there are many statistical computations to be done, it is
necessary that we receive the Questionnaire by March 15th.

I wish to thank you for your cooperation in this project. We
believe the findings will be helpful to the most Reverend Ordi-

naries for future planning in an area which intimately effects the

lives of our priests.

Very sincerely yours,

/s/ + R. J. Gallagher
Chairman

81



J

I* Of . f-f-t p
A ;?0^K5 want' d:

*••' '
' mg' . .ȣT

'

"teWir^ ;rf^^

,4.*.^,.’ -.M/ •»10 ig- . •|7 . ',w -A :• r

..,11 xibnsqqA,

I thrt
• V\. !-:• .

»r'* • O: f
‘‘‘»

.

'

...••
. :

-v^AprV

— TprefH-f^ C\A,\ 3M.I m 33rii^^hnO'j
^OOS 'l' ', \''?-- -•, A H ,f!:un 3vA

aV^I rl^sM C,,

-*+j ilii'iu

•(."r.nr

S'
'

•;'j i!i •'/

Qonsio^ncO IsrrtiteVi

3qort5 ia oilbrftgOte

•iuoY\avn 9 nirn3 luoY
X.

' ''
-

^ifs-^nci^aouO & uoi( ^.-ixVy 3S yisunf^t nO
nh'i^yjoiQ lot amer^JAsS bne tn^rnGiitea-ei*!

;8S: Y^Guici93 niuloi To i^fsb b^Tae-Mp^'i oriT .(b^aolone Yqoo)

'

'j

.bebnoqa-''« 8v6tf eateeooib 9dT to 05 ,\I)no^9iq
''

moit mutst B bsvi 900*1 Jon 3vc>ri ow .leyoworl /jJgd airit to ^
9VV yem yavioa ^idt nl oJ6qi9jt*’Gq ot naiw uoy tl .oaoooib
aoup bne letlsf yioJsofilqxy orij b-ievviot ot ucy Aee

noftisrmotni ^int tOt (a)fK)Xfoq orll ot tjTtennoit

ei ti ,9nub od ot anobniixj.' ino !feoitarJj&la vn^rn e^s etoiU aA
'•.dl5i djieM yd O'liBnncjJaoup orjl qv'sdo'! ow rertt

qW Jooio*>q airiJ rti noii-fiAoqooo Tuoy ^ot uoy jlnsrii oJ Haiw I V .'•?
-ib*iO bnoiovoR t^.om odi ot tutglori od Kiw a^^nibnd orlt ovsilod ’'4

orti etootto ylolBmilni floidw eose ne nl gninncilq oiutu' lot 2©lw
.aJa^nq iuo to a-9V«l



Appendix III

BISHOPS’ COMMITTEE ON
PRIESTLY LIFE AND MINISTRY

SURVEY ON PRE-RETIREMENT AND RETIREMENT
PROGRAMS FOR DIOCESAN PRIESTS

Instructions: The purpose of this questionnaire is to elicit infor-

mation about current pre-retirement and retirement

programs for Diocesan Priests in the Roman Catho-
lic Dioceses of the United States.

SECTION I: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

1. Respondent’s name

2. Name of Diocese 3. State

4.

Respondent’s position(s) (e.g., Bishop, Chancellor, Vicar or

Delegate for Retired Priests, Personnel Board Member)

5.

Address

Street

City State Zip

6. Telephone # /
area code

7. Does your diocese have a priest serving as delegate or vicar

for retired priests?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )
If YES: Are you that person?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

8. Is this appointment full time: 1. ( ) or part time: 2. ( )

83



9.

Are you aware of the Institute on Planning for Pre-retirement

and Retirement of Priests sponsored by the National Con-
ference of Catholic Charities in 1969?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

10. Did you attend the Institute?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

IF NO: Did another representative of your diocese

attend this Institute?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

11. Do you have a copy of the proceedings of the Institute?
YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

12. Were the recommendations offered at the Institute incorpo-
rated into your present Diocesan Retirement Policy for

Priests?

Very Little 1. ( )
Somewhat 2. ( )
In Large Part 3. ( )

Do Not Know 4. ( )

13. Total number of diocesan priests in your diocese is:

14. Total number of retired diocesan priests from your diocese
is:

15. Total number of diocesan priests living in retirement outside
your diocese is:

16. Total number of diocesan priests living in retirement in the
diocese is:

SECTION II: PRE-RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR DIOCESAN
PRIESTS

17. Does your diocese have a pre-retirement program for priests?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )
[If the answer to # 17 is YES, then answer the remaining
questions in this section, if the answer to # 17 is NO,
then move on to question # 3.]

18. Is this pre-retirement program conducted on:

individual basis 1- ( )

group basis 2. ( )
both individual and group basis 3. ( )

84



19. If you were to describe the pre-retirement program in your

diocese, would you say it is:

Limited 1. ( ) [explains the pension program and

other benefits, the retirement tim-

ing options, and living arrange-

ments.]

Comprehensive 2. ( ) [attempts to go into depth, and

treats such topics as physical and

mental health, optional ministerial

roles in retirement, leisure activi-

ties and the legal aspects of

retirement.]

20-23. Briefly describe your diocesan pre-retirement program,

(e.g., whether it is conducted individually with each priest or

in group sessions, age at which it is available to priests,

subject matter presented, etc.)

24.

As part of your diocesan pre-retirement program is there

any co-ordination of efforts between diocesan departments

or offices? (e.g.. Joint program planning between Personnel

Board, Senate of Priests, Office of Continuing Education, and

Priests’ Retirement Board.)

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

IF YES: Then briefly describe

Please check off as many of the following as apply to your
diocese.

25. ( ) Our program includes a gradual shifting of roles

in the parish ministry as a man approaches retire-
ment (e.g., less administration and more involve-

ment with individuals and groups).

26. ( ) We make use of retreats and workshops as part
of our program.

27. ( ) Our program allows for a sabbatical leave giving
the priest an opportunity for developing new in-

85



terests and allowing more time for reading and

writing.

28. ( ) As part of our program we make use of career
consultation or guidance services to help the priest

assess his assets and explore other priestly roles.

29. ( ) Our program includes seminars for priests peri-

odically throughout his years of priestly service

on the aging process.

30. ( ) Other, please describe31.

If you do not currently have a pre-retirement program for

priests, do you have a plan and projection to implement

such a program?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

IF YES: Then briefly describe the program and when you

plan to implement it

32. If your diocese has its own seminary (College and/or Theol-

ogy)> does the seminary education include concepts con-

cerning the aging process and retirement as well as an ex-

planation of the diocesan retirement policy?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

SECTION III: RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR DIOCESAN PRIESTS

A. Policy

33. Does your diocese have a definite retirement policy that is

clearly stated and followed?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

If YES: Did the priests of the diocese or their representa-

tives participate in the formulation of this policy?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

86



B. Financial

34. Does your diocese have a pension plan for retired priests?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )
If YES: Please specify the monthly pension allowance for a

retired priest. $

35. If the monthly pension allowance varies according to living

arrangements or for other reasons and circumstances,

please explain

35A. What other benefits are provided for retired priests (i.e.,
Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Major Medical, etc.) Please List.

The priest retirement pension fund receives funds from the

following sources: (CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY)

36. ( ) each priest contributes to the fund.

37. ( ) the parish or institution to which the priest

is assigned contributes to the pension fund.

38. ( ) there is an annual diocesan collection in all

the parishes for the pension fund.

39. ( ) non-contributory, funded by the diocese.

40. ( ) other, please explain

C. Retirement Age

Priest's retirement from full-time work in your diocese is:

41.

( ) mandatory at a certain age; please specify

age

42-43. ( ) possible at a given age (e.g., 65), please

specify age
,
and mandatory at

age

44. ( ) determined individually for each priest.

87



D. Living Arrangements

Of the following living arrangements for retired priests,

check as many as apply in your diocese:

45. ( ) diocesan residence for retired priests.

46. ( ) diocesan homes for the elderly.

47. ( ) residing in last parish assigned.

48. ( ) residing in rectory of choice, if room is

available.

49. ( ) residing with family or friends.

50. ( ) residing in another state.

51., ( ) residing in one’s own home or apartment.

52. ( ) other, please specify

Which of the above (#44-51) are the three (3) most
common practices in your diocese?

53

54

55

E. Ministerial Roles in Retirement

In your diocese, which of the following options for continued

involvement in the ministry are available to the retired

priest? (CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY)

56. ( ) pastor emeritus.

57. ( ) part-time parish work.

58. ( ) chaplaincy positions.

59. ( ) retreat work.

60. ( ) counselling.

61. ( ) giving conferences.

62. ( ) offering Mass and hearing Confession.

63. ( ) CCD work.

88



64. ( ) visiting hospitals and the elderly.

65. ( ) writing and reviewing.

66. ( ) consultant to other priests.

67. ( ) spiritual direction.

68. ( ) convert instructions.

69. ( ) other, please specify

F. Miscellaneous

Does your diocese maintain regular contact with retired

priests by: (CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY)

70. ( ) Vicar or Delegate for retired priests.

71. ( ) official diocesan chancery communications.

72. ( ) special newsletter for retired priests.

73. ( ) invitations to special diocesan and/or parish

functions (e.g., Ordinations, Confirmations,

Eucharistic Devotions, Ordination anniversa-

ries).

74. ( ) invitations to clergy conferences and con-

tinuing education workshops.

75. ( ) periodic individual conferences with retired

priests by the Bishop’s delegate, or the

Bishop himself.

76. ( ) special periodic workshops or seminars for

retired priests.

77. ( ) representation of retired priests on the

Senate of Priests.

78. Does your diocese have an official, annually updated register

or listing of the names and addresses of retired priests that
is mailed to all priests of the diocese?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

79. Have there been any research studies conducted in your

diocese regarding the activities and needs and attitudes of

retired priests?

YES 1. ( ) NO 2. ( )

89



IF YES: Briefly describe the nature of the studies and find-

ings

80. Which of the following categories best describes the overall

response of the priests in your diocese to the concept of

retirement?

positive 1. ( )

mixed 2. ( )
negative 3. ( )

81. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions

If you have a brochure describing your pre-retirement and/or

retirement policy, we would appreciate a copy of it.

Please return by Monday February 28 to:

Bishops’ Committee on Priestly Life and Ministry

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

90



LIST OF REFERENCES

Abbo, John & Hannan, Jerome, The Sacred Canons, Vol. II, St. Louis: B.
Herder Book Co., 1957.

Abbott, Walter M., S.J. Gen. Ed., The Documents of Vatican II. New York:
Guild Press, 1966.

Adamczyk, Madeleine, Sr., Becoming—Guidelines for Ongoing Human Devel-
opment. Sisters of St. Joseph, Third Order of St. Francis, 1972.

Atchley, Robert C., The Social Forces in Later Life. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1972.

Bartlett, Willis, Ed., Evolving Religious Careers. Wash., D.C.: Center for Ap-
plied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), 1970.

Carp, Frances M., Ph.D., Ed., Retirement. New York: Behavioral Publica-
tions, 1972.

Greene, Mark, Pre-retirement Counseling, Retirement Adjustment and Older
People. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1969.

Grabowski, Stanley & Mason, Dean, Eds., Learning for Aging. Adult Educa-
tion Association of U.S.A., Wash. D.C., 1974.

Hannon, Philip, Rev., The Canonical Concept of Congrua Sustentatio for the
Secular Clergy, Ph.D. Dissertation, Catholic University, Wash., D.C., 1960.

Harold, Duchesne, Sr., New Life-Preparation for Religious Retirement. St.
Louis: Catholic Hospital Assoc., 1973.

Hunter, Woodrow, Preparation for Retirement. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, 1973.

Hunter, Woodrow, “Trends in Pre-Retirement Education,” Pre-retirement
Counseling Conference. California State Polytechnic College, San Dimas,
California, 1962. Also, another copy of this same paper with different
pagination.

Kenedy, P. J., The Official Catholic Directory. New York: P. J. Kenedy and
Sons, 1973.

National Conference of Catholic Charities, Institute on Planning for Pre-
retirement and Retirement of Priests, proceedings. New Orleans, Louisi-
ana, 1969.

Newgarten, Bernice, Middle Age and Aging. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1968.

Nugent, Frank, S.J., The Disengagement Theory of Aging and Retirement
Applied to Clergymen, Ph.D. Dissertation, Catholic University, Wash.,
D.C., 1975.

Periodicals

Brinker, Maureen, Sr., “Preparation for Retirement.” Sisters Today 45
(March 1974): 394-401.

Crux of the News. “A Report on Priests Retirement, U.S.A.” Sept. 27, 1968.

Davis, Thurston, “Current Comment,” America 3 (Dec. 1963): 373-380.

Heenan, Edward, “Aging in Religious Life,” Review for Religious TJ (1968):
1120-1127.

Marshall, Patricia, “Planning for the Later Years.” Manpower 3 (Aug. 1971):
15-22.

Openaker, Theodore, “Retire? Yes, but not from the Priesthood.” American
Ecclesiastical Review 157 (Dec. 1967): 373-380.

91



Vella, Desmond, “The Dilemma of Clerical Retirement." Homiletic and
Pastoral Review. 63 (Aug. 1968): 940-948.

Ward, Mary Cecilia, Sr., “Planning for a Short Future.” Sisters Today 45
(March 1974): 389-93.

Unpublished Papers

Research Study conducted by Diocese of Pittsburgh, Office for Research and
Planning. Survey of priests regarding a group retirement home, (1972).

Bennett, Ruth, Ph.D., “Retirement, A New Phase in the Lives of Diocesan
Priests in New York (City),” (1976).

92