In the seminary

[batteddy]

If you are not honest, with any political view, can you really say you submitted yourself to the authority of the Church.

Well…again…what exactly are you talking about here? If you hold the true belief, and the seminary directors hold a manifestly heretical belief…but you want to just get through so you can run a parish orthodoxly, then suffering quietly is fine. It is what St. Thomas More did with Henry VIII, until he was already sentenced to death, he wouldn’t take the oath of supremacy, but at the same time wouldn’t say why, insisted that the Law could not make him, and that, if anything, they must presume silence meant consent. Of course, it didn’t for him…it meant the opposite of consent, and once he was sentenced he made that clear. But he had a family to think of and stuff.

You should not lie nor compromise your principles nor let your silence be an occasion for another’s sin or misunderstanding. But at the same time, there is no obligation to flaunt your beliefs if it could stir up trouble.

If the seminary is liberal and heretical, but you are orthodox, the best thing you could probably do for that diocese is to become a priest and just discreetly lead your flock orthodoxly, save the souls entrusted to you. If you want, maybe anonymously report abuses to higher authorities, but there is no obligation to take on bureaucrats and academics. The “authority of the Church” is the magisterium, not petty adminstrators and puffed-up professors.

 

[Joe_Stong]

Any divine calling to do something extraordinary - and a call to the priesthood is a highly unique calling that comes to less than 1 man per thousand - involves the vital need to be in tune with the Holy Spirit. And that means that the issue being ‘grace’ our FEELINGS and even our own understanding about ourselves, our past, our present qualities and future potentials simply IS NOT ENOUGH.

You can’t feel grace - it’s a thing that is beyond our 5 senses. And by definition something divine, grace is also beyond our mere logic and reason alone to grasp. This is why from time immemorial men who feel the “call” have submitted themselves to the guidance of other men, bishops, saints, mystics.

Which brings us back to honesty. Unless you are brutally honest with your spiritual director (and confessor) they won’t be able to help you discern properly. And the worst thing of all is NOT to leave the seminary; it’s to forge ahead hiding things that WILL explode out of their “little secret place” sooner or later, causing not just personal injury but most likely grave scandal to the faithful.

If you tend to drink a bit too much…get it out in the open and get help - seminarians have been successfully treated for alcoholism and led fantastic, sober lives as priests and later bishops.

If you fall in sins against chastity too often or regularly…talk about it. It MIGHT be a sign that you are not called to the priesthood, OR that you need some serious work or even therapy.

Hot tempers - a tendency to make hasty judgments about others’ intentions, motives, culpability, etc. (not necessary accompanied by steam coming out of your ears) might either be a sign of no vocation or a sign of further work, therapy, prayer, etc. into the causes…

On a whole, keeping little secrets from yourself or those who are helping form you or direct your vocation is a frightfully unwise thing to do.

 

[chicago]

On a whole, keeping little secrets from yourself or those who are helping form you or direct your vocation is a frightfully unwise thing to do.

I don’t disagree “on the whole”, and in ideal. However, we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people. And the flip side is that there can (and often are) people in positions of direction and seminary formation who could well be less than honest about their own biases/intentions et al, also. There is politics everywhere in such a system, usually, and the seminarian can be the victim of such if he isn’t conforming to the biases of those in charge. This makes things challenging as to what ought to be said when and to whom.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

Well…again…what exactly are you talking about here? If you hold the true belief, and the seminary directors hold a manifestly heretical belief…but you want to just get through so you can run a parish orthodoxly, then suffering quietly is fine. It is what St. Thomas More did with Henry VIII, until he was already sentenced to death, he wouldn’t take the oath of supremacy, but at the same time wouldn’t say why, insisted that the Law could not make him, and that, if anything, they must presume silence meant consent. Of course, it didn’t for him…it meant the opposite of consent, and once he was sentenced he made that clear. But he had a family to think of and stuff.

You should not lie nor compromise your principles nor let your silence be an occasion for another’s sin or misunderstanding. But at the same time, there is no obligation to flaunt your beliefs if it could stir up trouble.

If the seminary is liberal and heretical, but you are orthodox, the best thing you could probably do for that diocese is to become a priest and just discreetly lead your flock orthodoxly, save the souls entrusted to you. If you want, maybe anonymously report abuses to higher authorities, but there is no obligation to take on bureaucrats and academics. The “authority of the Church” is the magisterium, not petty adminstrators and puffed-up professors.

St. Thomas More did that with a Secular Authority. The pope has quite clearly stated that seminarians should be honest in every way through out their formation. If you you say this principle, what is to stop a liberal person who also views them views as “true” and “orthodox” from speaking honestly to a conservative seminary. I think in the end God will just ask us to have been honest and the rest is up to the Church. Because becoming a priest is only 1/2 our discernment the other half is the Church’s.

And I quite agree that beliefs shouldn’t be flaunted to stir up trouble. Some people are looking for a fight…I’m looking for Christ and Holiness.

 

[ChrisPietraszko]

I don’t disagree “on the whole”, and in ideal. However, we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people. And the flip side is that there can (and often are) people in positions of direction and seminary formation who could well be less than honest about their own biases/intentions et al, also. There is politics everywhere in such a system, usually, and the seminarian can be the victim of such if he isn’t conforming to the biases of those in charge. This makes things challenging as to what ought to be said when and to whom.

Yes you have expressed my frustration quite well.