I am indebted to Anne Malins who e-mailed me the article from the Church Times by Bishop Christopher Morgan on Kelham – which closed as a Theological College of the Church of England fifty years ago. I have sometimes claimed to be the last student! This I must qualify before there are protests: I was in the last class (68C) to complete its training in the Monastery and College buildings, and since I was the class junior, the last student to be carried out of the Great Chapel after our Missionary Benediction.
The irony, I feel sure, is not lost on Bishop Christopher, the author of the reminiscence in the Church Times, that he was one of the very few bishops Kelham ever produced. There were a number of overseas bishops, but English diocesans: Richard Rutt (Leicester) and a Bishop of Exeter whose name escapes me. My readers will correct me if I err. In the early days of the 20th century there was a marvellous cartoon of the founder Fr Kelly, sitting astride a greasy pole and battering a bishop with a pillow! The cause was Fr Kelly’s opposition to the Bishops’ proposal to restrict ordination to university graduates. Kelly was certain that good priests were to be found among men of all classes and levels of academic achievement. But he rejected the notion that ‘mugging up’ a few basic texts and ready-made answers was sufficient training for non-graduates. Teaching future priests to think and argue was not something to be feared; orthodox belief did not need protecting. No truth could lead away from God – Truth Himself – and the Christian and Catholic Faith was quite capable of holding its own against the attacks of a hostile world.
The rigorous formation developed by Fr Kelly was in contrast to the rather comfortable training offered elsewhere. Spiritual formation included the Daily Office, nightly silence, the Mass, regular confession and direction – seven days a week. Manual work every day involved cleaning the house and chapel, maintaining the grounds, preparing meals and washing up – and shovelling coal for the furnaces! (I was told years later that the delivery company had been quite prepared to put the coal directly into the cellars, but were turned down, presumably on the grounds that coal shovelling was good for us students.) Sport was obligatory: I had hated sport at school (except sailing) but just about came to enjoy tennis, and even winter football.
The relationship with the establishment of the C of E was always a tense one, rather like the relationship of Anglo-Catholicism in general. Kelham men were ready to go into some of the most difficult parishes in the land, and could do since they were single – and many remained so. It’s worth pausing for a moment to consider the remarkable change which has come about in the C of E with regard to single and celibate priesthood over the last 50 years. When I was accepted for training in 1968 I received a letter from the two Archbishops reminding us of the important and advantageous ministry of the single/celibate priest. This was a particular feature of the Catholic Revival in the C of E which made Evangelicals and Liberals nervous. For some the presence of the Vicar’s wife seemed to make for a more comfortable relationship with their pastor. (And anyway, she was an extra pair of unpaid hands in the parish.) I remember once in the 1980’s being present at an Induction Service where the Bishop sought to emphasise this dual ministry by inviting the wife to join her husband in the clergy stall. He had miscalculated its width – or the size of vicar and wife – which was clearly highly uncomfortable for the pair of them.) For some, let’s be honest, it was also a deep but unacknowledged fear that ‘homosexuality’ might be lurking. Certainly, this uneasy relationship with the Establishment lasted while Kelham maintained its independence – and this included accepting for training some rejected by the official selectors when the diocesan bishops ceded to them their responsibility for discernment of vocations. In the end central bodies (initials changed, I remember ABBM becoming ACCM) asserted control. This became easier as several crises hit the Community, (the Society of the Sacred Mission) leading to a loss of assurance which much of the Religious Life experienced in the 60’s and 70’s.
Bishop Christopher in his article states that such a formation would not be possible today; and that ‘towers and temples do inevitably fall to dust, even as God’s creative purposes continue.’ Hm. I’m not so sure. Before leaving the C of E I was increasingly troubled by the quality of theological education and in particular the ever-increasing reliance on courses, rather than on residential formation. Today, there are even Bishops who have no experience of community life in theological college. The increasing age of seminarians and the fact that they are married with children all adds to the difficulties of formation. I observed too, the recent conversion to Christianity, or entry in to the Church, of many theological students and young clergy. Enthusiasm is no substitute for the years of experience. St Paul wisely observed that the presiding elder ought not to be a recent convert. One of my most disturbing experiences was to meet a young priest of the Diocese of Southwark. At our first meeting he had been a fundamentalist Pentecostal evangelist. At our second meeting, only a few years later, there was a liberal Anglican cleric, critical of me for my hesitations about the ordination of women. We fell out!
But what right have I who left the C of E to criticise? Have I nothing to say of the education and formation of priests in the Catholic Church? If I have doubted the seriousness of a short non-residential training for the clergy of the C of E, I must ask if seven years of formation which is felt appropriate for Catholic clergy, is not too long in these days of priest-shortage. Maybe it is these long years which, in my experience, seems to make Catholic clergy ‘distant’ in their relationships. Is it the obligation of celibacy which causes this? Or a greater dependency on the diocese for everything that pertains to daily living? A preference for the company of fellow-priests, lack of ease with lay people? The Catholic laity do more in terms of administration in our days, but are they truly at the heart of parish life and witness? Maybe the priest is still seen as the only serious (i.e. professional Christian) Last but not least: can we have some serious attention paid to clergy preaching. The importance of the homily as a means of teaching is emphasised in the Catholic Church by the restriction of this ministry to priests and deacons. Yet too often, in my experience, the homily lacks both substance and simplicity: it does not touch the lives of its hearers. Weekday homilies become a long ramble because nothing has been prepared; Sunday homilies contain too many lengthy passages from the Holy Father (splendid and wise, for reflection though these may be) and too little insight into the Scriptures.
Ordinariate Pilgrim 