Decline in Vocations: A different perspective.

[Erik1978]

Yes today we have a big problem in getting new vocations into the Church. Most of us would agree that a lot of the problem has to do with the pull of secular society, maybe celebacy, or other controversial issues. I don’t want to talk about those. I studied for six years for the priesthood before getting the boot. Why is irrelevant at this time and looking back it was a good decision. But I do have that experience and know firsthand what goes on in the inside of seminaries. Most seminaries fall into two camps, liberal or very conservative. Now seminarians don’t always have a choice to go to the seminary of their choice. But if you land in one in which you do not share the current thinking, you will not make it. I have seen this happen to a lot of my friends. Seminaries can sometimes be their own worst enemy. A lot of people get washed out because of ideological differences rather than poor character or unsuitability. We loose many a good vocation because of the narrow mindedness of a rector or instructor. There doesn’t seem to be a uniform program for all seminaries. Even if the NCCB has guidlines they are often implemented at the interpretation of the authorities at the seminary.

Religious orders. Women’s religious are nothing more than femenist sorority houses. What’s the attraction in that? Men’s communities? Social Workers Extrodinare. You can do the same work for the government for a higher salary and better benefits.
Before everyone jumps to conclusions let me just say there are some really good religious orders out there. Missionaries of Charity, Franciscan Friars of the Renwal, etc…

So at this time I want to hear your comments and/or experiences with this issue. If you want examples of the above mentioned seminary commnets I will post them at a later time. This one is getting kind of long. In short: The problem of vocations can be a problem from within rather than without. Your thoughts please.

 

[Joy2day]

Hi, your comment is interesting - sorry you got ‘the boot’. In my experience ‘they’ ie. the religious community gets a bit nervous when someone becomes ‘religious’ or wants to take their faith further, especially if you aren’t the typical stereotype teenage boy from a well known catholic family signing up for the priesthood. Anything or anyone who is not exactly what they expect, can be pushed away and put in the ‘too hard’ basket. This is just my impression. I guess they’re worried about their reputation. Its funny, but they want people to join parishes and take up vocations - but only if you’re ‘the right sort’. Unfortunately the lack of acceptance could be the reason a lot of younger people join other religious denominations. I do think though, that the life of a religious person does require a significant commitment and v. serious consideration. In my experience, what you are describing does not only occur at the religious order level but also at the parish level.

 

[Petergee]

Yes today we have a big problem in getting new vocations into the Church. Most of us would agree that a lot of the problem has to do with the pull of secular society, maybe celebacy, or other controversial issues. I don’t want to talk about those. I studied for six years for the priesthood before getting the boot. Why is irrelevant at this time and looking back it was a good decision.

But you think in the case of others it was a bad decision?

Those who “get the boot” from seminaries seem to be greatly outnumbered by those who quit of their own accord.

seminarians don’t always have a choice to go to the seminary of their choice.

No Catholic is ever forced to go to a seminary, or to go to any particular seminary.

But if you land in one in which you do not share the current thinking, you will not make it. I have seen this happen to a lot of my friends. Seminaries can sometimes be their own worst enemy. A lot of people get washed out because of ideological differences rather than poor character or unsuitability. We loose many a good vocation because of the narrow mindedness of a rector or instructor. There doesn’t seem to be a uniform program for all seminaries. Even if the NCCB has guidlines they are often implemented at the interpretation of the authorities at the seminary.

Rather than trying to make all seminaries identical, why not encourage men who didn’t fit in at one seminary to try another? Not fitting in with one seminary doesn’t mean that you’re not fit to be a priest.

Religious orders. Women’s religious are nothing more than femenist sorority houses. What’s the attraction in that? Men’s communities? Social Workers Extrodinare. You can do the same work for the government for a higher salary and better benefits.

Unfortunately true of most in the western world. But by no means all.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

There is a huge variation, as you pointed out, in the way various seminaries are organized and thought out.

One of my priest-friends complained about the number of “guitar players” who seek ordination.

On the other hand, some priests belong to a religious order, but never live in community. There are Jesuits and Franciscans who work alone or who are assigned to a parish. Or they teach full-time. Or write full-time.

One of my priest-friends is a Salesian … and works as a port chaplain … loves the sea.

There are secular priests who spend their entire careers as military chaplains or who serve in the missions … overseas … or in Alaska … or serving the Native American population.

One of my priest-friends “cut a deal” … he continued his secular career as a professional musician, while helping out on weekends in a parish and conducted religious music concerts … all at the same time, served as a military chaplain [seriously, he is a very high energy guy].

Several of my priest-friends glory in celibacy … and they focus that energy to write a book a year and do huge amounts of scientific research.

 

[Erik1978]

There is a huge variation, as you pointed out, in the way various seminaries are organized and thought out.

One of my priest-friends complained about the number of “guitar players” who seek ordination.

On the other hand, some priests belong to a religious order, but never live in community. There are Jesuits and Franciscans who work alone or who are assigned to a parish. Or they teach full-time. Or write full-time.

One of my priest-friends is a Salesian … and works as a port chaplain … loves the sea.

There are secular priests who spend their entire careers as military chaplains or who serve in the missions … overseas … or in Alaska … or serving the Native American population.

One of my priest-friends “cut a deal” … he continued his secular career as a professional musician, while helping out on weekends in a parish and conducted religious music concerts … all at the same time, served as a military chaplain [seriously, he is a very high energy guy].

Several of my priest-friends glory in celibacy … and they focus that energy to write a book a year and do huge amounts of scientific research.

Thanks for your thoughts. It’s cool to hear that there are those who can find their niche in the priesthood. I just pray that more people can find their vocation.

 

[Erik1978]

But you think in the case of others it was a bad decision?

Those who “get the boot” from seminaries seem to be greatly outnumbered by those who quit of their own accord.

No Catholic is ever forced to go to a seminary, or to go to any particular seminary.

Rather than trying to make all seminaries identical, why not encourage men who didn’t fit in at one seminary to try another? Not fitting in with one seminary doesn’t mean that you’re not fit to be a priest.

Unfortunately true of most in the western world. But by no means all.

I can tell by your response that you have never applied to a diocese to become a priest. Let me give you some real life events so that you can understand what is really going on. A friend of mine was from the Pembroke diocese in Canada. He wanted to go to St. Augustine seminary in Toronto. His bishop said no. You will go to St. Paul’s in Ottawa. Why? Because that was the seminary the bishop went to. My friend applied to the diocese in London ON. and he had to go to St. Peter’s seminary in London ON. Those in the Archdiocese of Chicago go to the seminary in Mundelien IL. Are you getting the picture yet. If you apply to a diocese they decide what seminary you go to. Some may, and I repeat, MAY give you an option. Your right about no catholic is ever forced to go to a seminary. Just those who are applying for the priesthood. Don’t you think? Also did you read where I said not all religious orders are bad and did you not read the examples I gave? Yes, probably most men who enter seminary will get the boot. That is part of the problem I want to discuss on this thread.

 

[Erik1978]

Hi, your comment is interesting - sorry you got ‘the boot’. In my experience ‘they’ ie. the religious community gets a bit nervous when someone becomes ‘religious’ or wants to take their faith further, especially if you aren’t the typical stereotype teenage boy from a well known catholic family signing up for the priesthood. Anything or anyone who is not exactly what they expect, can be pushed away and put in the ‘too hard’ basket. This is just my impression. I guess they’re worried about their reputation. Its funny, but they want people to join parishes and take up vocations - but only if you’re ‘the right sort’. Unfortunately the lack of acceptance could be the reason a lot of younger people join other religious denominations. I do think though, that the life of a religious person does require a significant commitment and v. serious consideration. In my experience, what you are describing does not only occur at the religious order level but also at the parish level.

That is my experience as well as a lot of people I know who have been through the system. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Gorgias]

Women’s religious are nothing more than femenist sorority houses. Men’s communities? Social Workers Extrodinare.

Before everyone jumps to conclusions

Why should we? You seem to have already done a great job of it…

 

[Gorgias]

I studied for six years for the priesthood before getting the boot. Why is irrelevant at this time and looking back it was a good decision. But I do have that experience and know firsthand what goes on in the inside of seminaries. Most seminaries fall into two camps, liberal or very conservative.

OK… so you were the liberal in a conservative seminary, or the conservative in a liberal seminary. So what?

Now seminarians don’t always have a choice to go to the seminary of their choice. But if you land in one in which you do not share the current thinking, you will not make it.

Not true. It means that, for the good of the Church and in obedience to your bishop, you set aside your own personal biases, and in humility, embrace the formation program in which you find yourself. If what you are saying is true, then it would be the case that all priests are people who loved their seminary formation programs – and that isn’t the case at all!

A lot of people get washed out because of ideological differences rather than poor character or unsuitability. We loose many a good vocation because of the narrow mindedness of a rector or instructor.

No… I would put it a different way: a lot of people wash out because they can’t let go of their ideological stances, and decide to that this shall be the hill upon which they wish to die. How is that good for the Church? Think about it: as a diocesan priest, you’ll be placed in a parish that was chosen for you – not based on your own personal likes or dislikes, but on the needs of the diocese. What happens if you’ve been coddled all through formation to only deal with things along the lines of your own personal spirituality and theological outlook? How will you be able to be a shepherd for your parish – that is, for all of those in your parish?

No… I think that there’s more to the story than “they’re X and I’m Y”…

 

[tom2f]

Gorgias,
As a simple layman, now becoming much more active in my faith, I don’t really see how a truly conservative Catholic man or a truly liberal Catholic man could, with good faith conform to a philosophy of faith that conflicts with their true belifs. I am a conservative and could never accept as a matter of belief that, for instance, abortion is excusable under this or that social circumstance. Yet I have met priests that would openly dance around this idea. The same situation could drive a liberal (Holy Spirit, save his soul) to have conflicts of belief in the other direction.
Tom2f

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

OK… so you were the liberal in a conservative seminary, or the conservative in a liberal seminary. So what?

Not true. It means that, for the good of the Church and in obedience to your bishop, you set aside your own personal biases, and in humility, embrace the formation program in which you find yourself. If what you are saying is true, then it would be the case that all priests are people who loved their seminary formation programs – and that isn’t the case at all!

No… I would put it a different way: a lot of people wash out because they can’t let go of their ideological stances, and decide to that this shall be the hill upon which they wish to die. How is that good for the Church? Think about it: as a diocesan priest, you’ll be placed in a parish that was chosen for you – not based on your own personal likes or dislikes, but on the needs of the diocese. What happens if you’ve been coddled all through formation to only deal with things along the lines of your own personal spirituality and theological outlook? How will you be able to be a shepherd for your parish – that is, for all of those in your parish?

No… I think that there’s more to the story than “they’re X and I’m Y”…

In all fairness, there have been seminaries, especially in the US, that have been liberal/modernist nightmares that had gone so far as to teach that transubstantiation doesn’t actually occur during the consecration. There has been a lot of clean up involved in seminaries. I don’t doubt that there are good meaning orthodox seminarians who wind up in their worst nightmare for a seminary. It is possible, if one doesn’t burn any bridges, to discuss with diocesan bishop about their experiences and articulate in a non-whining/complaining/blaming way how the seminary wasn’t a good fit for the seminarian, and respectfully request a second chance at another seminary. This has worked for some seminarians.

BTW: The issue with celibacy isn’t with celibacy, but society’s understanding it as giving up marriage and not being allowed to date or have sex. They don’t understand that when one chooses celibacy (people choose to live the celibate life all the time without it “being a requirement” as it is with the priesthood, which people view as a career rather than a vocation.) they’re choosing to love God fully with their entire heart and to commit their life to him. Their heart is completely free from the attachment of marriage and being concerned with the needs of an earthly spouse.

 

[Gorgias]

As a simple layman, now becoming much more active in my faith, I don’t really see how a truly conservative Catholic man or a truly liberal Catholic man could, with good faith conform to a philosophy of faith that conflicts with their true belifs.

I think we’re talking about different things, based on what you say next:

I am a conservative and could never accept as a matter of belief that, for instance, abortion is excusable under this or that social circumstance.

If a seminary made this claim, I would expect any reasonable seminarian to get in touch with his diocese and ask to be transferred! That wouldn’t be a matter of ‘perspective’; it would be a matter of authentic adherence to Church teaching!

Yet I have met priests that would openly dance around this idea.

That individual priests might have this idea is a completely different issue than if a seminary formation program advocates for it!

 

[Gorgias]

In all fairness, there have been seminaries, especially in the US, that have been liberal/modernist nightmares that had gone so far as to teach that transubstantiation doesn’t actually occur during the consecration.

Agreed. That’s not what I was suggesting. As I mention, above, that would seem to be cause for a discussion with one’s bishop…

I don’t doubt that there are good meaning orthodox seminarians who wind up in their worst nightmare for a seminary.

I can see this. However, if the seminary isn’t teaching heresy, then there’s a certain need to be able to set aside one’s personal preferences (publicly, not privately). After all, as I said earlier, he’ll likely have to do this whenever he is assigned to parishes that have dominant spiritualities (again, not errors of theology or liturgy, but spiritualities) different from his!

It is possible, if one doesn’t burn any bridges, to discuss with diocesan bishop about their experiences and articulate in a non-whining/complaining/blaming way how the seminary wasn’t a good fit for the seminarian, and respectfully request a second chance at another seminary. This has worked for some seminarians.

Right: and if the problem is “they’re teaching X,Y,Z that aren’t in line with Catholic teaching. How would you like me to deal with this?”, then it’s reasonable. On the other hand, if it’s “they’re not letting me participate in the EF!”, or “they’re not letting me play Praise and Worship music in the chapel!”, then there’s room for personal development.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Read up on a priest named Solanus Casey

He entered a German-speaking seminary … but he didn’t speak a word of German!

 

[mayxanh]

BTW: The issue with celibacy isn’t with celibacy, but society’s understanding it as giving up marriage and not being allowed to date or have sex. They don’t understand that when one chooses celibacy (people choose to live the celibate life all the time without it “being a requirement” as it is with the priesthood, which people view as a career rather than a vocation.) they’re choosing to love God fully with their entire heart and to commit their life to him. Their heart is completely free from the attachment of marriage and being concerned with the needs of an earthly spouse.

Thank you! You point out the essential meaning of celibacy in priesthood.

Just look at Jesus. He was God and became man as any other man.

But did He has sex drives as all of us? Did he feel the need to look for the other half to fulfill his life?

The answer is NO. Just because, for Jesus, Father is the center of the his life. His heart, his soul was fullly occupied by the presence of His Father so that He does not feel the urge to look for an earthly partner!!!

This is the path that everyone who is called to serve God and the Church should follow.