How NOT to have vocations

[chicago]

As for “home grown vocations”, these “orthodox” dioceses may still not have a huge number, but where heretodoxy is rife, there are NO vocations. I am originally from the Archdiocese of Regina in Saskatchewan, and the last I checked, there were two seminarians - and one of them was a 73-year old widower. I think he has since died.

Are there no vocations or do the vocations which, potentially, exist just get thwarted or search elsewhere?

 

[johnnydigit]

but where heretodoxy is rife, there are NO vocations.

oh by the grace of God, heterodox areas can still have many vocations and they do. the thing is, they may become heterodox priests and religious, spreading and teaching it to others.

btw, i find it funny how you misspelled heterodoxy, “heret(ical)doxy”.

 

[johnnydigit]

Find the vocations forum on www.phatmass.com. it’s called “Vocation Station”, and check out the now closed thread about ‘liberal’ orders. The thread was closed down this last week, and is still listed on the first page of recent threads. This is the most recent chapter in the ongoing, often very shrill condemnation of ‘updated’ or ‘heterodox’ orders on VS, as it’s known. A number of regular posters often hold forth on how terrible non-habited orders are,their ceremonies and practices which include things like gasp REIKI!!!–and other horrors.

Several women religious, such as csj ( a member of congregation of St. Joseph) and another poster about 1-2 years ago, and another who is a candidate and doing well, have all either left phatmass or have commented about the VS’ very narrow attitude.

In addition, the selfsame posters who hold forth, are themselves not actively discerning (at least not posting about it) or are not eligible to enter religious life. That closed thread includes reference to a number of discerners to updated, no habit orders who are afraid to post on phatmass for fear of criticism, and instead have formed a small message group among themselves. This information was posted by one of them, praying4carmel. who had visited traditional Carmels, found them not for her, and is now seriously discerning with updated Carmels .

When a new member posts that he or she, but especially she, is interested in religious life, they are advised to visit* only *the habited orders and to avoid the non-habited orders, because that way lies schism and heresy. The ‘habits’ threads are often very long and include these sorts of warnings.

I believe that this sort of attitude creates a sort of schism in religious life among the so-called ‘trads’, as phatmass likes to style itself, and the updated or heterodox orders. There made indeed be a schism, but the emphasis on the ‘trad’ orders stifles many vocations. The new discerner is instantly warned that only certain orders are legitimate.

If I were a discerner, this would put me off my feed immediately.

phatmass is great. the majority of people who post may have that attitude, but it doesn’t represent VS or phatmass as a whole. i personally am not a staunch traditionalist and i voice it that way, as should you, if you don’t already. if you want to help those newbies from being thwarted, i say voice yourself so they can see it, instead of running away from one of the most active vocation boards on the net.

 

[manualman]

Well, I was very familiar with “Goodbye, Good Men” when I was looking for a diocese and seminary to study at. I found an “orthodox” diocese as well as an “orthodox” seminary, and thought everything would be hunky-dorey. Well, over those two years, I saw both my diocese and the seminary treating many of us the same way Michael Rose said so-called “liberals” treated the “orthodox” seminarians - dismissing them for “canned” reasons while hiding up the “real” reasons, making life difficult for them in an attempt to pressure them out, etc. The thing is, the people who were “in charge” and were doing this to the seminarians were faithful to every single dogma in the Catholic Church. So Michael Rose is right about how seminaries (and vocations directors) operate - he’s just wrong about who the culprits are.

In your experience then WHY do you think the ‘culprits’ behave they way they do. I’ve not read the book, but I’ve heard the sentiment tossed about. At least Rose provides a logical motive for the behavior of the seminary gate-keepers. If you found his presumed motive invalid, what do YOU think the reason is?

 

[Bush]

I am originally from the Archdiocese of Regina in Saskatchewan, and the last I checked, there were two seminarians - and one of them was a 73-year old widower. I think he has since died.

To put this in perspective, Regina as a city is only a few hundred thousand people. Saskatchewan as a province is only about one million. The province of Saskatchewan probably couldn’t support a seminary even if they had the seminarians to do it. Usually they go to orders like the Companions of the Cross or other dioceses like Toronto (more Catholics than there are people in Regina).

Anyway, not to belittle the point, but some perspective is required there.

 

[Michael_Neal]

The way not to have vocations is to have a bishop that removes a succesful vocations director and replaces them with an ineffective one.

Here in the Arlington Diocese we were one of the best in the nation for recruiting new priests, unfortunately Bishop Loverde has put an end to that.

I am praying for the removal or early retirement of Bishop Loverde who is destroying our diocese.

 

[jdemnyan]

As a former seminarian myself, l urge everyone here to be extremely cautious in labeling seminaries and dioceses as conservative/ liberal or even orthodox/heterodox. As mentioned previously, some rectors and those who are responsible for “pre-ordination formation” faithfully adhere to the Magisterium and yet vocations and (sometimes more importantly vocation retention) are very low . I can only speak from my own experience from time at minor seminary- and that situation was that, while I cannot stand in judgement regarding the faculty’s orthodoxy, because of the small size of the seminarian population, “personality nuances” were often exaggerated and had an adverse influence in a man’s formation. I am not saying that some personal traits would be un-necessary in formation- like sexuality issues, etc. What I mean is certain small things were taken to mean things that they weren’t at all! My own example, I bought an Anglican Use DVD and a group of my brother seminarians sat around to watch it. (It’s important to note that one of the men so happened to be from this Anglican Use parish.) Sometime between the Collect and the Elevation, the Rector walks in, and without inquiring as to the situation, looks at me and says, “That’s not normal!” At the next Rector’s conference, more than one scathing remark was made in my direction about not finding the fullness of the Truth in the Anglican church. What he didn’t know and didn’t bother to inquire to know, that what we were watching was a valid Catholic liturgy, promulgated by none other than the Vicar of Christ to whom he claimed was obedient in every regard!!! (Let’s not mention the fact that he basically slandered one the seminarian’s parish!) It was little things like this example repeated over and over that caused many a good man to toss in the vocational towel and move on… Just my two cents-]-]/-]/-]

 

[manualman]

Fascinating! So basically would you say that a fair number of potential vocations are discouraged by the arrogance and/or power trip of seminary staff? Not so much doctrinal screening, but sheer poor personal skills?

That dovetails interestingly with an observation of a professional parish employee relative of mine. She thinks most priests’ characters suffer from too much authority coming to them too young and with not enough accountability to anyone. She has predictable modernist ideas for what to do about it… Although I disagree with her solutions, I wonder if she doesn’t have a point about the problem and maybe it is the same one afflicting our vocations?

I’ve often thought that in today’s urban and suburban dioceses there is no reason that all the priests of a deanery shouldn’t live together centrally and have a prior to whom they are accountable. Might be harder in rural areas, but you gotta start somewhere!

 

[jdemnyan]

Well, again, I cannot say that this would be the case carte blanche, but in my particular diocese, I would say so. Power trip is probably the most diplomatic way I could describe it- consider the following: Reverend Father Rector had his dalmatics, a pectoral cross, crozier, and a mitre tucked away in his personal sacristy- why would a priest need those items

Why some priests are like this- I have some suspicions, but none which I can really elaborate on without the fear of going way off topic-

 

[chicago]

Fascinating! So basically would you say that a fair number of potential vocations are discouraged by the arrogance and/or power trip of seminary staff? Not so much doctrinal screening, but sheer poor personal skills?

That dovetails interestingly with an observation of a professional parish employee relative of mine. She thinks most priests’ characters suffer from too much authority coming to them too young and with not enough accountability to anyone. She has predictable modernist ideas for what to do about it… Although I disagree with her solutions, I wonder if she doesn’t have a point about the problem and maybe it is the same one afflicting our vocations?

I think that there is some truth to this sort of assessment. I would extend it to dioceses and their bureacracies, also. Plainly, those who are “in charge” get to call the shots and we receive the vocations they want to give us. They aren’t always the wisest people in discerning this, and power trips (for all kinds of interests and reasons) are not at all unusual.

I’ve often thought that in today’s urban and suburban dioceses there is no reason that all the priests of a deanery shouldn’t live together centrally and have a prior to whom they are accountable. Might be harder in rural areas, but you gotta start somewhere!

I’m not sure that would solve anything. Indeed, it may just impose more of the same sort of social pressures to conform to the whims of whoever is in charge, along with a complementary frustration and desire to rebel in response. What is actually needed is maturity among and respect for individuals and their unique gifts as such, whether priest, seminarian, or lay faithful.

 

[chicago]

Well, again, I cannot say that this would be the case carte blanche, but in my particular diocese, I would say so. Power trip is probably the most diplomatic way I could describe it- consider the following: Reverend Father Rector had his dalmatics, a pectoral cross, crozier, and a mitre tucked away in his personal sacristy- why would a priest need those items

LOL. As the saying goes, “Born a monsignor.”

Why some priests are like this- I have some suspicions, but none which I can really elaborate on without the fear of going way off topic-

Oh go ahead!

 

[1234]

Fascinating! So basically would you say that a fair number of potential vocations are discouraged by the arrogance and/or power trip of seminary staff? Not so much doctrinal screening, but sheer poor personal skills?

Check out the posts by CruxOfTheMatter on www.phatmass.com in the Phorum in Vocation Station. I believe that you have to sign in to search posts, but am not sure. He wrote about searching for his vocation as a priest among several congregations and the types of personalities he met there. He is still looking.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Are there no vocations or do the vocations which, potentially, exist just get thwarted or search elsewhere?

For the most part, no vocations. I was one of them, another guy was thinking about it but didn’t spend time in sem. Another guy joined the Companions of the Cross and for some reason left them to join Regina. He was the other one I mentioned besides the 73 year old. He’s gone now too - started dating a girl a year before diaconate and I guess he figured marriage would be a nicer life. Time will tell.

 

[Michael_Saint]

In your experience then WHY do you think the ‘culprits’ behave they way they do. I’ve not read the book, but I’ve heard the sentiment tossed about. At least Rose provides a logical motive for the behavior of the seminary gate-keepers. If you found his presumed motive invalid, what do YOU think the reason is?

I don’t know exactly. Vatican II said the best of the best should be the ones teaching and forming people at sem. Instead, it almost seems like they put a lot of priests in there who have their own issues, insecure men who feel “threatened” by any student who dares to “challenge” the “status quo” and make any sort of waves. Since leaving seminary, I have been finding more and more that type of behaviour - isolating those who pose some sort of “threat” to those who are insecurely at the “top” - is much more common at diocesan curias, parish offices, etc., than I previously thought. The humanity of the Church, I suppose.

 

[Michael_Saint]

To put this in perspective, Regina as a city is only a few hundred thousand people. Saskatchewan as a province is only about one million. The province of Saskatchewan probably couldn’t support a seminary even if they had the seminarians to do it. Usually they go to orders like the Companions of the Cross or other dioceses like Toronto (more Catholics than there are people in Regina).

Anyway, not to belittle the point, but some perspective is required there.

North Dakota is a state that has about 400,000 people less than Saskatchewan, and when I entered the Diocese of Bismarck, we had 14 men in formation, while the Diocese of Fargo had, I believe, over 25. Thanks for the “perspective”, but I think my explanation for the sad state of affairs is a little more accurate than yours.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Fascinating! So basically would you say that a fair number of potential vocations are discouraged by the arrogance and/or power trip of seminary staff? Not so much doctrinal screening, but sheer poor personal skills?

I’ve often thought that in today’s urban and suburban dioceses there is no reason that all the priests of a deanery shouldn’t live together centrally and have a prior to whom they are accountable. Might be harder in rural areas, but you gotta start somewhere!

Regarding statement #1, yeah, I’d pretty much have to say you hit the nail on the head.

Regarding statement #2, I believe that the priests should not only live in community in the cities, but that priests in rural areas should live in community as well - at least for a portion of the month. It is really impractical for them to live other than where their parish is, but it should be arranged that various priests in the same area frequently meet, pray and eat together, fellowship and spend time in leisure.

 

[jdemnyan]

The idea of secular priests living together bound by no formal vows except Christian charity would not be a new idea- it has exsisted as the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri- I’ve contemplated joining them on several occasions, but for the time being I’m perfectly content in being a layman.

 

[johnnydigit]

I don’t know exactly. Vatican II said the best of the best should be the ones teaching and forming people at sem.

i believe Fr. Groeschel wrote in his great book, Spiritual Passages, that those who reach a certain point in their spiritual journey really only have two options: teach and/or lead others spiritually.

 

[chicago]

I don’t know exactly. Vatican II said the best of the best should be the ones teaching and forming people at sem. Instead, it almost seems like they put a lot of priests in there who have their own issues, insecure men who feel “threatened” by any student who dares to “challenge” the “status quo” and make any sort of waves. Since leaving seminary, I have been finding more and more that type of behaviour - isolating those who pose some sort of “threat” to those who are insecurely at the “top” - is much more common at diocesan curias, parish offices, etc., than I previously thought. The humanity of the Church, I suppose.

Sadly, I’d tend to agree that this is too often the case. Administrations and faculty tend to want to protect their own fiefdoms. And the “best” (both students and faculty) either don’t want to have to deal with that or move/get moved on to something “more important”/“better.”

It also would seem that seminaries are sometimes used a testing position for priests to see what they can handle and if they can prove themselves. Passing the test gets you moved “up the ladder” and out rather than established as someone who can offer something of worth in that environment. Consequently, the seminaries can get left with the leftovers alone.

 

[Harmony1988]

i do agree. all Catholics are called to consider vocations to religious life just as seriously as they do with marriage. instead, today most people just write off religious life without a second thought and just assume their call is marriage.

i’d be bold enough to say i think it’s more than 20%. how about if i said consecrated in general, which includes brothers and sisters, should be 80%. too bad most people scoff at my opinion. let’s just make it an even 90% then.

I doubt it, there is also logic in numbers, 20% of the Catholic population isn’t needed to serve the people, and that’s essentially what the priesthood is, serving others.