NYT article: priest shortage/foreign recruitment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elizabeth502
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church has always looked upon celibacy and virginity as worthy of praise. This takes nothing away from marriage.
It does seem to detract, since the widowed are counseled not to remarrry. If a deacon has been able to serve the church when married the first time, he could serve as well when married the second time. The clear implication is that matrimony is not quite as holy as celibacy. In the final analysis it’s really about sex, isn’t it?
 
It does seem to detract, since the widowed are counseled not to remarrry. If a deacon has been able to serve the church when married the first time, he could serve as well when married the second time. The clear implication is that matrimony is not quite as holy as celibacy. **In the final analysis it’s really about sex, isn’t it?/**QUOTE]

The bold is mine.

In the fnal analysis it is not about sex, but about intimacy with God. It is about a life that is lived exclusively for God, with God and in God, without any other distracton.

Those of us who are celibate have nothing against sex. We see it as a means to participate in the Creative act of God. However, we feel that the Church is guiding us to leave everything that good for something that is better, solitude with Christ.

JR 🙂
 
The bold is mine.

In the fnal analysis it is not about sex, but about intimacy with God. It is about a life that is lived exclusively for God, with God and in God, without any other distracton.

Those of us who are celibate have nothing against sex. We see it as a means to participate in the Creative act of God. However, we feel that the Church is guiding us to leave everything that good for something that is better, solitude with Christ.

JR 🙂
Well stated, JR. The problem with the secular world is that it is “all about sex.” That is why so many people reject Church teaching with regards to sexual matters. They have no tolerance with anything that would “limit” their freedom to fulfill their sexual desires.
 
In the fnal analysis it is not about sex, but about intimacy with God. It is about a life that is lived exclusively for God, with God and in God, without any other distracton…Those of us who are celibate have nothing against sex. We see it as a means to participate in the Creative act of God. However, we feel that the Church is guiding us to leave everything that good for something that is better, solitude with Christ.JR 🙂
I understand the call of the monastic to solitude with Christ. What I don’t understand is why a deacon with young children whose wife is killed in an auto accident should have to forego a second marriage to a woman he loves, who is willing to take on helping raise his children. If anything, he would probably be more productive as a deacon by having a helpmate than he would be struggling on as a single working father, with scarcely any time to serve in the diaconate.

I realize this is not a typical case, but if the mandatory celibacy rule is applied woodenly – even in this sort of case – one can’t help but draw the conclusion that somehow it is the sex that taints the deacon for service to God’s people.
 
I understand the call of the monastic to solitude with Christ. What I don’t understand is why a deacon with young children whose wife is killed in an auto accident should have to forego a second marriage to a woman he loves, who is willing to take on helping raise his children. If anything, he would probably be more productive as a deacon by having a helpmate than he would be struggling on as a single working father, with scarcely any time to serve in the diaconate.

I realize this is not a typical case, but if the mandatory celibacy rule is applied woodenly – even in this sort of case – one can’t help but draw the conclusion that somehow it is the sex that taints the deacon for service to God’s people.
Hi StAnastasia,

I’m sorry to quote from the Deacon Directory, but that seems to be the source for the best answer of the Church’s position on these matters.
The Widowed Deacon
73. The death of a married deacon’s wife is a “particular moment
in life which calls for faith and Christian hope.”71 The death of the wife
of a married deacon introduces a new reality into the daily routine of
his family and ministry. Charity should be extended to the widowed
deacon as he assesses and accepts his new personal circumstances, so
he will not neglect his primary duty as father to his children or any new
needs his family might have
.72 As required, a widowed deacon should be assisted to seek professional counsel and spiritual direction as he
encounters and integrates the bereavement process. Further, the fraternal
closeness of his bishop, the priests with whom he ministers,
and the diaconal community should offer comfort and reassurance
in this special moment in his life.73 This adjustment to a new state of
life can be achieved only in time through prayer, counsel, and an
“intensification of one’s dedication to others for the love of God in
the ministry.”74
IOW…his priest and bishop will work with him to make sure that his primary obligations to his kids. You seem to assume that every widower should remarry. Not all do. Many raise their kids on their own and/or rely on family and friends to help them. It is no different with a Deacon.

I know one of the diocesan sites I looked at mentions a 12-hour per week time commitment for a Deacon. I’m assuming that people would help him during his readjustment after his spouse dies. Everyone’s situation is different. Some Deacons may have enough Life Insurance that they can cut back on their regular job. Some Deacons may have it tougher. There is no reason to expect a “woodenly” response to their situation.

Pax Christi,
Robert
 
Interesting read. There has been a clear drop in the number of priests; there has likewise been a clear drop in weekly attendance in mass. In my opinion, a lot of this happened after Vatican II. I know my uncle had taken his final vows and then left the seminary prior to ordination, due to the changes, like lay eucharistic ministers for instance. Can’t speak for him but I think he was confused and upset by all the changes. Personally, I think there are sometimes when change is necessary, but when you change substantive aspects of the religion, you will lose the flock. Look at the problems in the Anglican Church over ordaining openly gay ministers, for instance. People are leaving that church in droves. I feel if the Catholic Church had stood firmer in holding onto aspects of the mass such as latin, priests only allowed to handle the eucharist, kneeling at communion rails, not allowing the host to touch one’s hands, the feeling of the sacred would have continued to be ingrained in the minds of the faithful and we would have a stronger flock today; when all that was changed, the collective feeling was well what can’t you change? What’s important anyways? If the mass can be changed, it can’t be that important to even go to mass. So people stopped going to church. 90% weekly attendance has become 33%. The number of priests has dropped proportionately. To get the numbers up, you shouldn’t water down the faith further, you should teach the basics and get back to tradition. It is clear where change has taken us.
 
Interesting read. There has been a clear drop in the number of priests; there has likewise been a clear drop in weekly attendance in mass. In my opinion, a lot of this happened after Vatican II. I know my uncle had taken his final vows and then left the seminary prior to ordination, due to the changes, like lay eucharistic ministers for instance. Can’t speak for him but I think he was confused and upset by all the changes. Personally, I think there are sometimes when change is necessary, but when you change substantive aspects of the religion, you will lose the flock. Look at the problems in the Anglican Church over ordaining openly gay ministers, for instance. People are leaving that church in droves. I feel if the Catholic Church had stood firmer in holding onto aspects of the mass such as latin, priests only allowed to handle the eucharist, kneeling at communion rails, not allowing the host to touch one’s hands, the feeling of the sacred would have continued to be ingrained in the minds of the faithful and we would have a stronger flock today; when all that was changed, the collective feeling was well what can’t you change? What’s important anyways? If the mass can be changed, it can’t be that important to even go to mass. So people stopped going to church. 90% weekly attendance has become 33%. The number of priests has dropped proportionately. To get the numbers up, you shouldn’t water down the faith further, you should teach the basics and get back to tradition. It is clear where change has taken us.
I’m with you buckeye. 👍

We lucked out when we moved to Camas because the priest who had been there 4 years before we arrived had transformed the parish. He is a young, very orthodox priest. His more orthodox approach helped the parish grow in many, many ways. From a pure numbers standpoint, I believe he doubled or tripled the number of families. The number of lay groups increased tremendously. We have perpetual adoration; long Confession lines (for the good and the bad of it 😉 ); and all the smells and bells that go along with it. It was shocking to me as a convert, since I converted in a very liberal parish in California. The first thing that struck me was the reverent silence when we entered the Church.

I pray for more young priests with that sort of energy and orthodoxy. I think as the “spirit of Vatican II priests” retire, we will see more of this - especially under a Pope like Benedict XVI.
 
I understand the call of the monastic to solitude with Christ. What I don’t understand is why a deacon with young children whose wife is killed in an auto accident should have to forego a second marriage to a woman he loves, who is willing to take on helping raise his children. If anything, he would probably be more productive as a deacon by having a helpmate than he would be struggling on as a single working father, with scarcely any time to serve in the diaconate.

I realize this is not a typical case, but if the mandatory celibacy rule is applied woodenly – even in this sort of case – one can’t help but draw the conclusion that somehow it is the sex that taints the deacon for service to God’s people.
I’m not a monk. I’m a Brother and I’m a widower. My wife and oldest son were killed in an auto accident. I was left a widower with two other children, one was nine and the other four. Today they are 24 and 19. I have a friend who is an Eastern Catholic priest and a widower. He too raised his children alone.

I have been celibate, lived by the rule of St. Francis, served in the foreign missions, taught Mystical Theology at the seminary, and I currently run a school for children with neuropsychological disorders and a parish ministry that offers spiritual formation to families of people with disabilties, and lecture around the diocese on Spirituality.

My day includes the Liturgy of the Hours, mass, silence, lectio divina, and ministry. There was no problem taking my kids with me to the missions in the Amazon for three years. Then to Europe for another several years. Then we moved to the Caribbean and later back to the USA.

My children are happy and healthy. They have a very strong commitment to the poor and to those who suffer. My 24-year old daughter is studying to be a psychiatrist and wants to devote her life to children brain disorders. My 19-year old son, who is also autistic, is studying art in college. They both protect the disadvantaged and the poor. They struggle to stay in communion with the Church and they appreciate the Franciscan spirit. In fact, my son will argue with anyone that Francis of Assis is the most awesome man in Christian history. That’s his opinion, but the point is that you can be celibate, raise a family and live a consecrated life.

It has been done many times: Elizabeth Ann Seton, Louise de Marrillac, Joaquina de Vedruna, Rita of Cassia, Elizabeth of Hungary and others have done it.

Elizabeth Ann Seton took her five children into the worse living conditions that you can imagine. She had to accept the death of her oldest and youngest daughter. She lived in extreme poverty with five children.

No, it’s not about sex. It’s about achieving union with the Divine through whatever circumstances you’re in. Marrying and giving your children another parent will not make you holier. There is no guarantee that it won’t either. As St. Vincent de Paul said, “It is about being children of the Church.” If we are children, we should also be obedient.

That is the point. Those of us who give our lives to God through Holy Orders or through vows do not aspire for marriage. We aspire for solitude with Christ. We find Christ in the circumstances that we’re in. As long as we find Christ, we do not need anything else.

Life can be hard as a widowed father with young children. It can be more demanding if you’re a deacon, priest or in vows. But it is not impossible and it certainly is not sad. I feel very happy with my life as it has been for 15-years, almost 16.

JR 🙂
 
That’s his opinion, but the point is that you can be celibate, raise a family and live a consecrated life.)
Thanks, JR, and prayers for you and you family. I never suggested or even implied that it is impossible to be celibate, raise a family and live a consecrated life. That was not my point.

StAnastasia
 
Thanks, JR, and prayers for you and you family. I never suggested or even implied that it is impossible to be celibate, raise a family and live a consecrated life. That was not my point.

StAnastasia
I understand that you were trying to understand. There is holiness in trying to understand. The person who seeks to understand will arrive at truth, if he keeps searching.

The reason behind these rules are not always self-evident.

JR 🙂
 
The increase in vocations among the Franciscans and others is due to the fact that they are slowly returning to their roots. Young men looking for religious life in the manner of St. Francis, St. Benedict or some other founder, are finding it.
How are they finding it, in practical reality, if they have not encountered it, however?
There will always be secular priests. Christ’s Church is built up upon the priesthood of Jesus Christ. But there won’t be the numbers that we had during the early part of the 20th century. Those numbers were not usual. They were extraordinary. The usual number of secular priests has always been small.
Some believe that the two World Wars may have had something to do with the large numbers of priests from 1925 to 1960. I don’t know.
This is both insightful and noteworthy. Too often, I think, much of todays successes or failures has to, unfortunately, compete in judgement against a perceived golden era which may have actually been what was extraordinary. Thus the comparisons are not always fair or being made on the best basis.
 
Never never will I marry,
Never never will I wed.
Born to wander solitary,
Wide my world, narrow my bed

Never never never will I marry
Born to wander till I’m dead.

No burdens to bear,
No conscience nor care,
No memories to mourn,
No turning, for I was
Born to wander solitary,
Wide my world, narrow my bed

Never never never will I marry
Born to wander till I’m dead.
 
How are they finding it, in practical reality, if they have not encountered it, however?
This is a fair question. I’ll speak from my Franciscan experience. But I’m sure it applies to other religious families too.

The men and women who come to the four orders that St. Francis founded come looking for something more than what they have. They do not come because they lack something, but because they discovered something.

In the case of our religious family they have looked into their souls and have discovered a call to a simple way of life. They have discovered that they no longer need or want the material things that the world has to offer them. They want to be part of a bigger family, a real brotherhood or sisterhood where people care about each other and take care of each other, not just live together and do things together. They want to live closer to Christ than they already do. They are hungry for Jesus. They want to be like him in every possible way, humanly speaking.

When they look into their hearts they see a desire for poverty as a way of lfie, not as a social imposition. They experience the desire to be with Christ in prayer, silence and in community.

Also, in their heart they feel a strong desire to serve the Church in extraordinary circumstances, not just the ordinary circumstances of parish life, but in the missions, the homeless shelter, the streets of the city, the hospital, the foreign missions, among those people that no one envies.

They want to be one of those whom everyone despises or fears: illegal immigrants, criminals, drug addicts, prostitutes, AIDS victims, handicapped, mentally ill, even senior citizens.

The desire to own nothing, not even the clothes they wear and to be subject to the authority of another is strong within them. They want to submit their will to a higher power who speaks to them every day in every situation. They want to obey. There is a great comfort in asking for permission to use the car or money to buy a new suit of clothes or permission to travel outiside the city.

They want to give up what they have, such as their families and be joined to a spiritual family that is bound to each other by a covenant. They are willing to make the great sacrifice of not seeing father, mother and relatives no more than once a year for a few days, of spending holidays and birthdays with their spiritual family.

They discover the value of chastity. Most Franciscans are married, but friars and nuns are celibate as are some of the Secular Franciscans. There is a deep sense of freedom in this way of life. You belong to no one else except Christ and your religious family. No one has claims on you. You are totally poor. You belong to no one. No one will claim you as their own if you’re in a hospital. This is true freedom and joy. To be as alone as Christ was on the cross.

The joys of penance, fasts, abstinance, sharing everything, even your clothing become such driving forces in your life.

When all of this is perceived within the soul, the person begins to look. The Holy Spirit guides the person until they discover the Franciscan family. These are the attributes of our family.

Now, remember, some of these attributes are also present in other religious families, the order of priorities may differ and so may the emphasis, but essentially all of these are part of every religious family. The difference is in emphasis and what each family considers its highest priority. I like to call it its signature statement to the world.

In one religious family it may be poverty, another obedience, another service to the poor, another contemplation and so forth. But all religious families have many of these attributes.

In any case, one does not need to experience it. One discovers it within one’s own soul. You discover your hunger for this and you begin to look, just as you begin to look for food when you’re hungry. And if you’re truly called, you will run into the right religious family for you.

When you find it you feel that you have finally arrived home.
This is both insightful and noteworthy. Too often, I think, much of todays successes or failures has to, unfortunately, compete in judgement against a perceived golden era which may have actually been what was extraordinary. Thus the comparisons are not always fair or being made on the best basis.
This is very true. We tend to see the golden years as typical. Often they are the extraordinary. But we are very nearsighted creatures.

Just look at people like St. John Neuman of Philadelphia. He died on the streets. What was the bishop doing out on the streets when he collapsed? He was out performing priestly duties, because there were not enough priests to send out.

St. Vincent de Paul founded his own institute, the Congregation of the Mission (Vincentians) because there were not enough priests in Paris to care for the poor.

St. John de La Salle founded the Christian Brothers because there were not enough monasteries in France to educate young boys. The days of monks and monasteries where boys went for education had come to an end.

Elizabeth Ann Seton founded the Sisters of Charity because there were no Catholic sisters to educate poor children and there were no public schools.

We forget these times. We tend to remember back in 1960 when we had 40 religious brothers teaching at the local high school, 20 sisters at the local elementary school and five priests in every parish. Just 60 years before that, this was not the case. Mother Cabrini came here in the early 1900s, because we had no sisters to care for the Italian immigrants, just like priests and religious come today to care for the immigrants.

Between Mother Cabrini’s arrival and today, we had an explosion of vocations and we think that it was always that way. HELLOOOOOOOOO, read the history of the Church.

JR 🙂
 
I’m with you buckeye. 👍

We lucked out when we moved to Camas because the priest who had been there 4 years before we arrived had transformed the parish. He is a young, very orthodox priest. His more orthodox approach helped the parish grow in many, many ways. From a pure numbers standpoint, I believe he doubled or tripled the number of families. The number of lay groups increased tremendously. We have perpetual adoration; long Confession lines (for the good and the bad of it 😉 ); and all the smells and bells that go along with it. It was shocking to me as a convert, since I converted in a very liberal parish in California. The first thing that struck me was the reverent silence when we entered the Church.

I pray for more young priests with that sort of energy and orthodoxy. I think as the “spirit of Vatican II priests” retire, we will see more of this - especially under a Pope like Benedict XVI.
Robert, welcome to the Church and that is great to hear about the church you belong to! Long confession lines are a good thing really - we aren;t perfect after all and if there are long communion lines the confession lines should be close to the same! Perpetual adoration is a great thing as well. I know from my own experience, spending a half an hour or an hour with the Lord in prayer in that manner does wonders for the soul. With all the distractions and hyper-information overload we get from the media, you get peace and all the “info” you need spending an hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament! God Bless
 
Robert, welcome to the Church and that is great to hear about the church you belong to! Long confession lines are a good thing really - we aren;t perfect after all and if there are long communion lines the confession lines should be close to the same! Perpetual adoration is a great thing as well. I know from my own experience, spending a half an hour or an hour with the Lord in prayer in that manner does wonders for the soul. With all the distractions and hyper-information overload we get from the media, you get peace and all the “info” you need spending an hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament! God Bless
The bold is mine.

What is most interesting about this is that you don’t always get it immediately, but when you need it.

I had such an experience today. I had to run some errands, go to confession and get ready for a lecture that I have to give tomorrow to our novices.

My body was saying, “Just lay down and don’t do anything. I’m tired.” I was struggling with getting up and going or vegging. Suddenly, I had this rushing thought through my mind, “You can let your body take over your life. You have responsibilities and things to do. You also have to get out and enjoy the day before it’s gone.”

I know that is the fruit of prayer, especially prayer before the Blessed Sacrament.

JR 🙂
 
We forget these times. We tend to remember back in 1960 when we had 40 religious brothers teaching at the local high school, 20 sisters at the local elementary school and five priests in every parish. Just 60 years before that, this was not the case. Mother Cabrini came here in the early 1900s, because we had no sisters to care for the Italian immigrants, just like priests and religious come today to care for the immigrants.

Between Mother Cabrini’s arrival and today, we had an explosion of vocations and we think that it was always that way. HELLOOOOOOOOO, read the history of the Church.

JR 🙂
I find it sadly ironic that today a hospital which she founded on the West Side of Chicago has been converted to a condominium complex for yuppies.
 
I’d like to see more permanent deacons. I was an RCIA sponsor last year and during one of our sessions, someone asked my pastor why we didn’t have more permanent deacons in our diocese, which is suffering from a severe priest shortage. His explanation was that the diocese was actually reluctant to ordain permanent deacons because once a man was ordained to the diaconate, he was an official member of the clergy and the diocese was 100% responsible for him for the rest of his life. For example, if the deacon was in a horrible car accident and was paralyzed from the neck down the diocese would be responsible for his support. Has anyone else heard this?

I don’t understand that attitude towards deacons at all. There are tons of parishes in need of real clergy and real leadership and it seems the local bishop wants to totally close off this option. Instead we have “lay pastoral ministers”…who are mostly women. I don’t want to sound disparaging of the ladies who have stepped up, but where are the men in our church? I fear this will serve as a stepping stone for some elements who favor priestesses in our church. I don’t live in that diocese anymore, and I don’t think the problem is not as acute here, but the situation worries me.
 
I’d like to see more permanent deacons. I was an RCIA sponsor last year and during one of our sessions, someone asked my pastor why we didn’t have more permanent deacons in our diocese, which is suffering from a severe priest shortage. His explanation was that the diocese was actually reluctant to ordain permanent deacons because once a man was ordained to the diaconate, he was an official member of the clergy and the diocese was 100% responsible for him for the rest of his life. For example, if the deacon was in a horrible car accident and was paralyzed from the neck down the diocese would be responsible for his support. Has anyone else heard this?
A deacon is a cleric. He is not a lay person, regardless of his marital state. I don’t understand that person’s response. That is not the case with secular clergy, whether they are deacons, priests or bishops. Usually, they are not the financial responsibility of the diocese.

Secular clergy are legally self-employed professionals. They are not employed by the diocese nor does the diocese have any moral or financial obligation toward them other than to pay them for their services.

Most dioceses do have retirement plans, health insurance, disability insurance and other types of insurance plans for their clergy and even their lay employees. If a deacon had such a situation, his expenses are covered by insurance, social security and whatever financial resources he and his family have.

It works the same way for the diocesan priest. He is not a financial dependent of the Church. He is a self-employed professional. He pays taxes, pays 100% of his FICA, the Church does not pay for his FICA or any other securities other than those that are in the benefits package of the diocese. It works the same for retired bishops too, unless they belong to a religious community. In that case they return to their order.

I don’t understand that person’s response, unless that diocese does not have a benefit package for their clergy or they don’t work under contract as the rest of the Church does. It’s the only thing that I can think of. In that case the cleric is the obligation of the diocese.

In many diocese, deacons do not get paid for their services. It’s up to the pastor. There are no hard and fast rules for paying secular deacons.
I don’t understand that attitude towards deacons at all. There are tons of parishes in need of real clergy and real leadership and it seems the local bishop wants to totally close off this option. Instead we have “lay pastoral ministers”…who are mostly women. I don’t want to sound disparaging of the ladies who have stepped up, but where are the men in our church? I fear this will serve as a stepping stone for some elements who favor priestesses in our church. I don’t live in that diocese anymore, and I don’t think the problem is not as acute here, but the situation worries me.
You have to be careful. In many diocese around the world, lay pastoral ministers have seminary training and have degrees in such areas as: Theology, Ministry, Spirituality, Religious Education, Non Profit Administration, Liturgy, Canon Law and other ecclesial disciplines. Aside from sacraments, they are very qualified to administer a parish and to run its ministries. Seminaries are no longer limited to educating men who are going to be priests and brothers. They educate sisters, cloistered nuns, and secular women too.

In our order, many Lay Brothers are superiors of our houses. They are not priests, but are theologians, canonists, spiritual directors, or specialists in ministry. In our parish, the pastor and associate pastors are priests, obviously. But their superior is not. He is a Lay Brother. The pastor answers to him. Brother has the same training as any bishop does. Our Brother has a Sacred Theology Doctorate from the Gregorian University in Rome and a Master’s of Liturgy from Catholic University of America. Our pastor, on the other hand, has a Master of Divinity from a local college. He is not a theologian, canonist or a liturgist.

Talents are often available through many resources. This does not deny the need for priests. But we should not shun the talents of others.

We do need lay men who want to study theology and become Lay Associates in parishes. I think that most men don’t go for it, because the salaries are very low and the years of study to get a theology degree are long and expensive. You can’t get a theology degree at a State University. You have to attend a private school and those are very expensive. Theology degrees only come in Master or higher.

Within our own Secular Franciscan Order, we have many brothers who have such degrees and work in parishes, but they are celibate. The married Secular Franciscans say they can’t afford to work for the Church. They engage in ministry outside of their regular work hours.

I do it full-time, but I’m celibate and my children are adults. I don’t have the financial responsibilities that many fathers have.

JR 🙂
 
You have to be careful. In many diocese around the world, lay pastoral ministers have seminary training and have degrees in such areas as: Theology, Ministry, Spirituality, Religious Education, Non Profit Administration, Liturgy, Canon Law and other ecclesial disciplines. Aside from sacraments, they are very qualified to administer a parish and to run its ministries. Seminaries are no longer limited to educating men who are going to be priests and brothers. They educate sisters, cloistered nuns, and secular women too.
I’m just thinking out loud here. I know well that the seminaries have been educating people for lay and religious ministry alongside those who are studying for the priesthood (and diaconate) for some time. This has become an effective dual purpose for seminaries in our contemporary time.

The minor (high school) seminary of which I am an alumnus was shuttered recently. One argument made to justify the necessity of such a move by our Archdiocese was that not every boy there was really interested much in the priesthood and the institution, in fact, was not producing all that many priests. However, if one considers how significantly such an experience does influence a great number of its students, even inspiring and (at least remotely) training them for service to the Church in other ways (and often in assisting positions of formal service), could one not reasonably ask how it should have been any different in evaluation on similar terms as the practical usage of major seminaries in our day?
 
I’m just thinking out loud here. I know well that the seminaries have been educating people for lay and religious ministry alongside those who are studying for the priesthood (and diaconate) for some time. This has become an effective dual purpose for seminaries in our contemporary time.

The minor (high school) seminary of which I am an alumnus was shuttered recently. One argument made to justify the necessity of such a move by our Archdiocese was that not every boy there was really interested much in the priesthood and the institution, in fact, was not producing all that many priests. However, if one considers how significantly such an experience does influence a great number of its students, even inspiring and (at least remotely) training them for service to the Church in other ways (and often in assisting positions of formal service), could one not reasonably ask how it should have been any different in evaluation on similar terms as the practical usage of major seminaries in our day?
I think there were two problems with high school seminary. I know that we closed our own for two reasons.
  1. The new requirements for theology degrees cannot be met at the high school level. They can only be met at the graduate school level. After high school there is still undergraduate. We’re looking at four years of high school, four years of undergraduate studies, and four years of graduate school to get a basic degree in theology. Most diocese and religious communities cannot fiancially sustain this. Nor are there enough professors to cover a range of 12 years of study.
  2. The other reason that they were closed was because the education that is provided in high school seminaries can be provided by private Catholic schools. Since high school seminaries can no longer prepare men for ministry. The education that they were providing was a college preparatory diploma and religious education. Private Catholic schools can provide this at no cost to the diocese, because they are owned by religious communities or by lay non-profits.
In some dioceses, such as Arlington, VA their high school seminary was opened up to young women and the school re-chartered as a Diocesan High School. The diocese continues to run it, but it serves a larger student population. This reduces the cost to the diocese, because you can fill the school with students who can pay for the cost of operating it.

There are some very good colleges and universities that offer very good education geared toward ministry. The problem again is cost.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top