Becoming a priest need not “inevitably requires change of address, change of work routines and change of income.” It need not but it does. Two entirely different things. Please think about that.
Thought about it. Sorry, I still don’t get it.
If you are referring to some model of priesthood where, after ordination, the individual remains in their pre-ordination domestic and financial situation, this sounds rather like the Episcopalian non-stipendiary ministry. Are you suggesting a part-time priesthood (I don’t entirely disagree, by the way, although it would be difficult to institute); or married priests who don’t change their domestic situation? You haven’t made that clear in your posts so far. If I’m mistaken, please correct me.
Otherwise I stand by the contention that the rearrangement of life that is required at priestly ordination means that a man either can or cannot make such rearrangements, and if he can, he can make them so as to attend a seminary.
Note that I am saying it must be possible to make this shift in personal circumstances for seminary if it is going to be made later for ministry. I think you’ve assumed that because I say it must be possible, it is therefore desirable. I agree that there are alternatives, but not that they are necessary. They may, however, be helpful.
You cannot see past the current priestly formation process of the Latin Rite of the Church in the USA.
I know relatively little about the seminary system in the US, because I am not American. Which is why I made the comment in my first post that that the thread was US-centric. Please don’t assume that other people on this thread suffer from myopia.
If you are truly interested, I suggest you look into how some of the Orthodox form some of their deacons and priests.
Sigh. As a seminarian, of course I’m truly interested, and I don’t know why you’re being so confrontational. Obviously I’m aware of how the Orthodox form their clergy, but what you describe isn’t the norm. It might help if you explained why the adoption of the self-study model is so necessary for priests, and what problems it would solve. For deacons, it’s a different matter, but that kind of an approach or something like it is available in many jurisdictions.
I also suggest you see how the Catholic Church forms some priests in say the Continent of Africa.
I rub shoulders with African students and ordinands continuously. I hear about how formation occurs in many African nations. You are not talking to an ignoramus here.
The defensive tenor to your comments underscore my belief that alternative ways of formation will likely not become more common anytime soon in the US (at least in the Latin Rite) due to part to the backlash of the seminary system.
Please elucidate regarding the ‘backlash’ in the US, which I’m sure would be informative. I haven’t visited the US in a long time.
And I’m really not the one who’s being defensive.
Most especially not regarding the seminary system, of which I have many criticisms to make.
You seem to think that anyone who does not express unqualified support for your stance - which is difficult in my case, since I actually don’t understand what you’re trying to say about priestly as opposed to diaconal formation - is vigorously opposed to changes in the seminary system. Not true for me, and I doubt it’s true for many people.
I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post:
‘Thus the pseudo-monastic milieu of seminary life is giving way to a broader model of formation in many parts of the world, and this approach is not a ‘threat’ to seminaries, but rather a paradigm shift in how they operate. Watch this space, because I think it is likely that this attitude will shape a great deal of clerical formation as it develops in the future.’
Does that sound like unqualified support for seminaries as they are now? I’m open to many changes, and would like to see seminarians spend far more time in parishes and chaplaincies than in the class room.
I’m not the enemy here. We might agree if you clarified your position.
It could take hundreds of years to see real reform in this area.
And there’s an example of common ground. Unfortunately I think you’re right, and that any positive change is likely to be slow in coming.
Please don’t talk down to me again. It just isn’t necessary to make your points in that way.
Sincere best wishes to you.
In Christ,
Withburga
