Papal visit triggers “tsunami” of New York seminary applications

[chicago]

The Brooklyn diocese (and the diocese of Rockville Centre) share a seminary on Long Island.

Thank you for the insight. Much appreciated!

What you call the minor seminary is actually now called a Residence. Men who are lacking the theology or philosophy credits to begin the major seminary live at the Residence while taking theology and philosophy at St. John’s University nearby. It used to be a regualr minor seminary where the guys would get their BA but not anymore.

Again, thanks for the information. I thought that was how they went about it. Does the Archdiocese of New York also have such a residence? The house you speak of may have been the one with which I was already familiar. Any insight as to how many men are part of the group at present?

That said, what I actually meant by “minor seminary” was more in the traditional sense of something which is even preceeding that level.

Today, pretheologate seminary programs come in many shapes and sizes, which confuses the term. For instance, there are houses here in Chicago for Hispanic and Polish immigrant students who need to get up on their language skills and cultural awareness before moving on in more formal seminary studies. We also have a “college seminary” for the Archdiocese (and students from other dioceses and religious orders who now employ it - which I believe is something of a recent innovation for this institution.) Some would now call this sort of school a “minor seminary”, also. But it isn’t, properly speaking, as it is more akin to what was traditionally just philosophical level studies at the major seminary.

What I intended to imply directly, then, was a high school seminary. As I recall (please inform me if I am wrong) the Brooklyn Diocese still has one, which may actually now have the largest remaining U.S. enrollment (of the few which remain) since Quigley’s closure.

BTW the Diocese of Rockville Centre is ordaining 9 men this year. I am going to ordination tomorrow morning at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY. A classmate of mine is being ordained by Cardinal Egan for the congregation of the Idente Missionaries.

Great to hear. (Cardinal Egan, of course, is an alumnus of Quigley.)

 

[chicago]

There is another factor that has to be considered in that diocese. They have a lot of competition from religious. There are many religious communities. Right now the numbers are showing that more men want to be religious.

Excellent point (which I should have thought to ask about, myself.)

Some of our young men want to do both. They want to be religious and priests, but they do not want to serve iin parishes and be attached to a bishop or a diocese. They like the idea of the freedom comes with religious orders, especially international orders.

Hmmmm. I’m not sure what that says and if its for the better or worse. Though I think it is both intriguing and understandable, anyway.

As we become more and more of a mission country, we will be seeing more religious than priests. It seems that every time a country or region is in need of spiritual renewal, new religious congregations, societies and orders are born. This seems to be true for men and women.

Perhaps it says something, also, that more and more episcopal appointments these days come from among religious priests.

If we look, the number of new religious communities of women in the USA is rising very quickly.

Look at communities such as the Franciscans of the Reform, the Brothers of the Poor, the Brothers of Charity, the Franciscans of the Eternal Word, the Capuchins, the Dominicans and the monastic communities of men and women. They are growing in numbers. It’s the number of secular priests that is moving slowly.

An important question is, then, “What does this tell us about that which the dioceses must yet learn in order to adapt and better foster/attract men to priestly discernment towards diocesan service?” Or, more bluntly, “What is it that they have which we don’t?”

However, by the time of John Paul’s death, secular vocations had double since he first became pope. His visits to the youth around the world did stir up vocations to the secular priesthood, just not as many as those to the religious life.

And now there are also societies that are neither religious nor diocesan. They are secular priests who follow a particular mission and spirit, such Opus Dei and the Society of St. Peter.

Let’s thank God that we have vocations, whether they be priests or brothers.

JR

Indeed!

 

[Joannm]

What I intended to imply directly, then, was a high school seminary. As I recall (please inform me if I am wrong) the Brooklyn Diocese still has one, which may actually now have the largest remaining U.S. enrollment (of the few which remain) since Quigley’s closure.

.)

Cathedral Prep in Queens I think is one of or the only remaining HS seminary in the country.

 

[chicago]

Cathedral Prep in Queens I think is one of or the only remaining HS seminary in the country.

There are a handful of others, mostly run by religious orders. Actually, in relatively recent years a couple of new ones have opened.

Coming from the “old skool”, and speaking as a Quigley alumnus, I’m a firm believer in the value and necessity of high school level discernment programs. It’s my opinion that a minor seminary well run is a crucial way in which to develop vocations to the priesthood and religious life. I’d be curious as to how Cathedral Prep’s program is or isn’t effectively fostering vocational discernment and priestly vocations.

 

[Lepanto]

There are a handful of others, mostly run by religious orders. Actually, in relatively recent years a couple of new ones have opened.

Coming from the “old skool”, and speaking as a Quigley alumnus, I’m a firm believer in the value and necessity of high school level discernment programs. It’s my opinion that a minor seminary well run is a crucial way in which to develop vocations to the priesthood and religious life. I’d be curious as to how Cathedral Prep’s program is or isn’t effectively fostering vocational discernment and priestly vocations.

There was an article in the National Catholic Register last year (August, September, October?) that discussed the closing of Quigley.

As I recall, it was written by a Quigley alum, and he basically said that in terms of preparing men for vocational awareness, Quigley was essentially a failure during its last 40 years. He gave some numbers of Quigley alums who went on to be priests during that time, and it was negligible.

I also recall that he argued that since Quigley, (which only closed in 2007) was a failure at fostering vocations, it was an unneeded drain on archdiocesan resources and should’ve either been totally overhauled or closed long ago.

I’m sure that my facts/memory of the article are failing me, so you might want to look it up (and please post it here if you do).

 

[JReducation]

Hmmmm. I’m not sure what that says and if its for the better or worse. Though I think it is both intriguing and understandable, anyway.

It’s neither better nor worse. It is what it is. If you become a secular priest you are bound to your diocese and to the bishop of that diocese. This usually means that you are bound to the ministries of that diocese.

If you become a religious you go wherever the community goes and you work in whatever ministries the community engages. To many young men, these ministries are much more attractive as is the charism of the community.

Perhaps it says something, also, that more and more episcopal appointments these days come from among religious priests.

That’s because you have more priests who are also religious than you have secular priests.

An important question is, then, “What does this tell us about that which the dioceses must yet learn in order to adapt and better foster/attract men to priestly discernment towards diocesan service?” Or, more bluntly, “What is it that they have which we don’t?”

It doesn’t say anything negative about the priesthood. What it says is that young men are looking for a consecrated life, which the priesthood cannot provide, because the priesthood is a sacrament, not a way of life. There is nothing that the Church can do to change that.

Priesthood and religious life are two different things. In some communities men can have both. They can be priests and consecrated religious. In other communities they are consecrated religious, but not priests.

In any case, the consecrated life is attracting many more vocations among younger men. The vows: chastity, poverty and obedience, require a certain ascetisim. Our young are looking for a ascetic life. Then there is community life. The priesthood does not offer community life. Community living is not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Even though secular priests often share the same rectory, each priest is pretty independent. Many young men are looking for that community life where they pray, eat, sleep, recreate, study and work together. Secular priesthood cannot offer this, because it’s not part of the priesthood. This is part of the consecrated life.

Also, many young men are looking for a life where they share an ideal with their bothers, such as touching Christ in the poor, living a secluded life of prayer, caring for each other, caring for the sick or working in foreign missions. None of this is part of priesthood.

Holy Orders has three states: deacon, priest and bishop. All three states are ordained to preach, administer the sacraments and govern the Church. The other details that are part of the religious life are not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We can’t attach that to the sacrament, because it would be contrary to the mind of Christ. Christ chose secular men to be priests. Let’s not forget that the Apostles did not live in community, many were married had not religious rule other than Christ’s teaching. This is the way the priesthood must remain. If someone feels called to live the life of the Apostles, he becomes a secular priest. If someone feels called to the Perfection of Charity, he becomes a religious. Those who feel called to both, become priests and religious, usually incorrectly called religious priests. They are not religious priests. They are religious and priests.

Wha the laity is going to have to accept, when it comes to relgious who are priests, is that they do things differently. They bring to the parishes their spirituality and their customs. Most importantly, they do not have to serve us.

Religious orders have no commitment to the diocese. All arrangements are contractual between the diocese and the order. Both sides can terminate the contract at any time.

The laity has to learn to chill out. Lately, we are seeing more men who are joining religious orders that do not do parish work, because they do not want to deal with the demands of parishioners. They feel that parishioners intrude on their religious life.

In my parish the religious threatened the laity with closing shop if they continued to intrude on their religious life. That put an end to that, because most of the parishioners love the friars. It’s always a small amount of people who make the loudest noise.

It was a silly thing too. We have a pastor and two assistant pastors. Last year the order decided to assign four friars to the house who are lay brothers and appoint one of them as superior. The pastor had been the superior, but no longer is. Often the pastor has to ask permissiion for things that do not fall within the ordinary responsibilities of running a parish, such as missing community recreation to attend an evening meeting. Normally, the superior is ok with this, because it’s part of the pastor’s duty. But when it becomes habitual, then the superior has a right to know why.

People thought that a lay brother over a pastor was an outrage. It was the silliest thing I have ever heard. The Superior never intervenes in parish matters. He simply cares for the souls of his friars. Also, the Superior of this house has an STD (Sacred Theology Doctorate) in ministry. He knows ministry and theology like any bishop would.

As new religious congregations are born, we are going to see more of this interaction and more lay people taking on roles that priests did in the past. Those roles are not sacramental. The secular priests did them becaue they had no other commitments. That is not the case with religious.

JR

 

[JReducation]

There was an article in the National Catholic Register last year (August, September, October?) that discussed the closing of Quigley.

As I recall, it was written by a Quigley alum, and he basically said that in terms of preparing men for vocational awareness, Quigley was essentially a failure during its last 40 years. He gave some numbers of Quigley alums who went on to be priests during that time, and it was negligible.

I also recall that he argued that since Quigley, (which only closed in 2007) was a failure at fostering vocations, it was an unneeded drain on archdiocesan resources and should’ve either been totally overhauled or closed long ago.

I’m sure that my facts/memory of the article are failing me, so you might want to look it up (and please post it here if you do).

Many dioceses and religious communities have closed their minor seminaries because of the drain on resources.

I’m more familiar with the Orders. I’m not that familiar with the congregations and the secular priesthood. Canon law raised the age for making solemn vows in religious orders. If you took a kid in at 14 and he couldn’t make solemn vows until he’s 25, then you have 11 years of resources to pour into him. This is a big drain on the order.

In the case of religious orders, a man cannot even think about the priesthood until he had made solemn vows. You cannot be ordained a deacon until you have made solemn vows. AND that all depends on the Major Superior and his council. You can make solemn vows and they can deny you permission to be ordained. It rarely happens, but they reserve that right.

Keeping up high school seminaries did not prove to be very effective in terms of cost and human resources.

JR

 

[chicago]

It’s neither better nor worse. It is what it is. If you become a secular priest you are bound to your diocese and to the bishop of that diocese. This usually means that you are bound to the ministries of that diocese.

If you become a religious you go wherever the community goes and you work in whatever ministries the community engages. To many young men, these ministries are much more attractive as is the charism of the community.

It used to be said that the priesthood was something of a brotherhood. I would argue that it is, intrinsically, still so even if not as intensely expressed in a real fashion due to the lessened numbers of priests in the U.S. Perhaps it says something, though, about the need to reinforce that brotherhood.

While I can certainly understand how the diocesan ministry might seem limiting to some in certain smaller dioceses (indeed I know men who have expressed such to me), it is challenging to recognize how this could be the case in a major Archdiocese like Chicago or New York. There is so much culture and varied opportunities for particular types of ministry that a priest under a bishop of such a region can largely do whatever he wants, with the consent and agreement of the bishop, of course. Should he have good reason to explore a particular area of service or way of life, the bishop is likely enough to enable it, eventually. If he wants to go to another diocese for some special ministry, the bishop might also authorize it. Sure the bishop could say no, but this could also be the case from a religious superior. Ultimately, you go where you’re told. Further, for religious priests who minister by staffing a diocesan parish, they are still under that ordinary’s thumb as to their particular ministry there. So I don’t see how the argument holds water, ultimately, except for the legitimacy of an attraction to a particular community, their unique charism and ministry, as well as the intensity of the evangelical counsels. Still, could it not be argued that the diocesan priesthood also contains certain similar aspects to some extent which could also be seen as attractive?

That’s because you have more priests who are also religious than you have secular priests.

Is that truly the case? I almost fail to see how it could be so. Perhaps, it could be said, that there are an increasing number of religious priests but if there were more religious priests, overall, than secular diocesans it would seem that the “vocational crisis” would be much greater even than it is.

It doesn’t say anything negative about the priesthood. What it says is that young men are looking for a consecrated life, which the priesthood cannot provide, because the priesthood is a sacrament, not a way of life. There is nothing that the Church can do to change that.

I would disagree and argue that the secular, diocesan priesthood is also, in some ways, a “way of life”, a sort of charism of its own. GIven, not in the exact same way that religious life offers more focused and intensely; but it does not negate the particular inherent nature of a diocesan state as a unique call and manner of service.

In any case, the consecrated life is attracting many more vocations among younger men. The vows: chastity, poverty and obedience, require a certain ascetisim. Our young are looking for a ascetic life.

I would readily acknowledge this reality (as well as to a certain extent your point about community life, though - as I said above - I don’t believe that the exclusion of a strong sense and practice of brotherhood in the secular priesthood is - or should be - as de-emphasized as you suppose.) Indeed, I admit that such sensibilities were very much both the draw towards religious life and concurrent reticense of continued diocesan discernment which I experienced when I was a minor seminarian trying to decide what my “next step” would be upon graduating from Quigley. However, I tend to believe that there must be things which can be done on the part of the diocesan parts to better strengthen the things which may be lacking therein which are being found strong in the religious life by men who pursue that path.

Also, many young men are looking for a life where they share an ideal with their bothers, such as touching Christ in the poor, living a secluded life of prayer, caring for each other, caring for the sick or working in foreign missions. None of this is part of priesthood.

Again, I would argue, “Not so.” Obviously, it is the proper nature of religious life (though, of course, we know well how many of the older communities have sacrificed that sensibility of shared particular ministry - often to their detriment and decay of the order.) Still, the nature of diocesan ministry tends towards a sincere and dedicated service for the people of a particular place, especially through service in parishes. Indeed, this is why it is preferred and ideal that the majority of a diocese’s priestly vocations come from natives. This desire IS a charism of its own! The question, then, becomes one of how a diocese can emphasize and strengthen these realities in attracting men towards it and enflaming that desire in their hearts.

 

[chicago]

Holy Orders has three states: deacon, priest and bishop. All three states are ordained to preach, administer the sacraments and govern the Church. The other details that are part of the religious life are not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We can’t attach that to the sacrament, because it would be contrary to the mind of Christ. Christ chose secular men to be priests. Let’s not forget that the Apostles did not live in community, many were married had not religious rule other than Christ’s teaching. This is the way the priesthood must remain. If someone feels called to live the life of the Apostles, he becomes a secular priest. If someone feels called to the Perfection of Charity, he becomes a religious. Those who feel called to both, become priests and religious, usually incorrectly called religious priests. They are not religious priests. They are religious and priests.

It is good to make this distinction between the particularities of each way of life.

What the laity is going to have to accept, when it comes to religious who are priests, is that they do things differently. They bring to the parishes their spirituality and their customs. Most importantly, they do not have to serve us.

Religious orders have no commitment to the diocese. All arrangements are contractual between the diocese and the order. Both sides can terminate the contract at any time.

The laity has to learn to chill out. Lately, we are seeing more men who are joining religious orders that do not do parish work, because they do not want to deal with the demands of parishioners. They feel that parishioners intrude on their religious life.

In my parish the religious threatened the laity with closing shop if they continued to intrude on their religious life. That put an end to that, because most of the parishioners love the friars. It’s always a small amount of people who make the loudest noise.

It was a silly thing too. We have a pastor and two assistant pastors. Last year the order decided to assign four friars to the house who are lay brothers and appoint one of them as superior. The pastor had been the superior, but no longer is. Often the pastor has to ask permissiion for things that do not fall within the ordinary responsibilities of running a parish, such as missing community recreation to attend an evening meeting. Normally, the superior is ok with this, because it’s part of the pastor’s duty. But when it becomes habitual, then the superior has a right to know why.

People thought that a lay brother over a pastor was an outrage. It was the silliest thing I have ever heard. The Superior never intervenes in parish matters. He simply cares for the souls of his friars. Also, the Superior of this house has an STD (Sacred Theology Doctorate) in ministry. He knows ministry and theology like any bishop would.

As new religious congregations are born, we are going to see more of this interaction and more lay people taking on roles that priests did in the past. Those roles are not sacramental. The secular priests did them becaue they had no other commitments. That is not the case with religious.

JR

Quite true.

 

[chicago]

There was an article in the National Catholic Register last year (August, September, October?) that discussed the closing of Quigley.

As I recall, it was written by a Quigley alum, and he basically said that in terms of preparing men for vocational awareness, Quigley was essentially a failure during its last 40 years. He gave some numbers of Quigley alums who went on to be priests during that time, and it was negligible.

I also recall that he argued that since Quigley, (which only closed in 2007) was a failure at fostering vocations, it was an unneeded drain on archdiocesan resources and should’ve either been totally overhauled or closed long ago.

I’m sure that my facts/memory of the article are failing me, so you might want to look it up (and please post it here if you do).

I may or may not have seen that article. (And, yes, if anyone has a link to it, please offer it up.) There were a few writeups on the topic which floated around. This may have been a new one, or simply a reprint of the AP article which got a lot of press upon the school’s closure in June and in subsequent months. Though it is possible, I don’t recall its author being an alumnus. However, I dare say (as an alumnus who stayed close to the real situation for numerous years) that I likely could have offered better insight and perspective, along with honest critique. It often seemed to me that commentary on Quigley was typically all too simplistic in analysis of what really occurred over the years and opinion upon the end results which this history led to.

I hope to offer more commentary on minor seminaries, in general, and a bit on the Quigley situation, particularly, in a subsequent post once I have an opportunity. I do believe that their general disappearance (and inability to effectively adapt to contemporary circumstances) has led to a failure for fostering vocations which leaves a grave want in the Catholic community. For now, I will note that there was an extensive thread on the topic in which I participated last year (as the situation of Quigley’s closing unfolded) under the Catholic News section of this message board.

 

[JReducation]

CHICAGO

I like your responses. I’m not going to dissect it, because it would make this very long.

I really don’t think that there is a crisis among secular priests. I think there are two other phenomenon happening. One is sociological and the other is religious. Maybe the former triggers the latter.

Society wants to live as if it were Godless. Young men who feel called to serve the Lord are looking to step out of this society. This is something that religous life can offer.

While it’s true that there is a brotherhood, with a lower case B among priests, there is a difference between being a Brother (whether the Brother is a Monk, Friar or Common Table) and being part of the brotherhood of priests.

There is a mystique that is shared by the members of a religious community that is not necessarily shared by secular priests. You can have secular priests who are very holy and if you want to think of it as a mystique, they share the mystique of Holy Orders, which has a awe of its own.

However, we must keep in mind that the Church has made a deliberate attempt to descularize religious communities through Perfectae Caritatis and other documents. The call is for religious to be different from secular men and women.

Even Canon law has changed the language when referring to the priesthood. It refers to the priesthood as “the clerical state” and to religious life as “the consecrated life”. The Church does not want people to confuse the priesthood and consecrated life. It wants to protect both vocations as being separate and each having a distinct mission in the Church.

As to religious serving in diocesan parishes, they certain owe obedience to the bishop in all matters that pertain to the parish. However, they have one freedom. The individual religious need not be assigned to parish work if that is not his vocation.

Also, what younger men are finding attractive is the asceticism of religious life, especially those communities that have a strong tradition of ascetisim.

The common life of prayer, work and identity is very attractive to young men today. I think it has something to do with this world where people don’t have an identity. Everyone is so busy expressing themselves, that they’re all doing the same thing. Now, there is irony for you.

We had the Brothers of the Poor visit our parish. I was amazed at the large numbers that they have and how many of them are under 30. They are not interested in being priests. In fact their constitution says that they can only have one ordained brother in each house.

The Capuchins, who have been around for almost 800 years now have turned the tide back to their roots. They’re attracting many young men. They are slowly droppiing the title Father, except for St. Francis, who will always remain Father Francis, even though he was a lay brother. They are dropping all distinctions between priests and lay brothers. The Province of St Augustine in Pittsburgh has changed all of their titles to Brother as was originally expresed in the Rule of St. Francis. This kind of life of community, common ideals, sharing of responsibilities and duties, common life and penance is very attractive to young men.

As to the number of vocations among religious. The reason why religious have more vocations in the USA than secular priests, except Society of St. Peter and Opus Dei, is because there are many religious communities to choose from and many charisms, and because of the mystique of stepping outside of the world.

All that being said, I believe that we must not try to fix the priesthood. The Sacrament of Orders is not broken. I don’t believe that dioceses should try to make their priests look like or live more like religious. It takes something away from the secular state. The secular state is very important in the Church. Secular priests are the best models for secular lay men and women.

JR

 

[chicago]

CHICAGO

I like your responses.

Thank you. For my part allow me to express my appreciation for your ability to actually shed light and inject genuine insight into a dialogue on this topic which all too often denigrates to an overly simplistic battle of ideologies without any real discussion of value taking place.

I really don’t think that there is a crisis among secular priests.

You would admit, however, that there is a significant and progressive decline in the numbers of secular priests in our country which is a serious concern, however, no? Does this reality not need to be somehow addressed?

Even Canon law has changed the language when referring to the priesthood. It refers to the priesthood as “the clerical state” and to religious life as “the consecrated life”. The Church does not want people to confuse the priesthood and consecrated life. It wants to protect both vocations as being separate and each having a distinct mission in the Church.

While I am not particularly an advocate for a married clergy (I’m a fairly significant supporter of clerical celibacy, actually), I do think it is notable that what you have been pointing out on these matters of distinction and the nature of orders - especially in regard to secular priests - in some ways reinforces the reality of why there would be no inherent problem with opening up some segments of the secular priesthood more widely to such.

The common life of prayer, work and identity is very attractive to young men today. I think it has something to do with this world where people don’t have an identity. Everyone is so busy expressing themselves, that they’re all doing the same thing. Now, there is irony for you.

Perhaps this gets at the larger questions which have particularly been a challenge both for the more historic religious communities as well as the priesthood in recent decades of, “Who are we?” and “What is it that we are to do?”, along with these questions’ interrelatedness in defining and expressing identity.

They are slowly droppiing the title Father, except for St. Francis, who will always remain Father Francis, even though he was a lay brother. They are dropping all distinctions between priests and lay brothers. The Province of St Augustine in Pittsburgh has changed all of their titles to Brother as was originally expresed in the Rule of St. Francis.

VERY interesting!

I don’t believe that dioceses should try to make their priests look like or live more like religious.

Looking and living more like religious? No. But should they not try to understand, look, and live more like what it is that they are and attempt to communicate that reality with more vibrant clarity?

The secular state is very important in the Church. Secular priests are the best models for secular lay men and women.

Would you elucidate a bit further on this, please? After all, I think it is what we are both trying to get at here.

 

[chicago]

As to minor seminaries… what happened to them? Just 50 years ago, they were everywhere and even expanding. Now, they are practically nonexistent.

Like so many matters in this period of time, I find them to have been the victim of the growing pains which our Church and society have found challenging.

The typical path towards priesthood in the U.S. during the first 50 years of the 20th century minor seminary was that of the “lifer.” He attended a Catholic elementary school, minor seminary, and major seminary (where he first studied philosophy then theology and practicum.) The idea was, partly, to isolate him from the culture which surrounded, removing him in some ways from “this corrupt world” and training him for something “higher.”

Established ideas of what a seminary should be, what a priest should be, what a religious ought to be, and what they all ought to do in relation to the world were challenged and forced to grow. But the developments hit hard in every area of Ecclesiastical life. “Should (and can) a boy even be discerning priesthood at such a young age?” was something that now had to be asked and answered. Besides, this took a lot of investment and, it was being discovered, the Church could just as well attract “late vocations” from among men who had not gone the traditional route? So why not just take advantage of this opportunity? Besides, we seemed to have a lot of priests and religious, as it was. Who would think we might ever be running “short”? And, in a culture where maybe it wasn’t such a hot idea or necessary concept as previously for a boy to go to seminary high school either as a “step up” in society or in order to, “Do WHAT? Become a PRIEST?” in a sexually “liberated”, “climb the ladder” world then vocations did decline.

It was easiest to just “give up” and look for easier outlets to attract vocations.

But did that succeed? Or did vocations, generally, continue to decline for some time? How many potential vocations from the young were, thus, thwarted or just plain undeveloped?

A few institutions held on longer than others. Sometimes until way past “the handwriting was on the wall.” Some tried to adapt. In these efforts, only mixed results were effected. A significant part of the problem they faced was one of their very identity and mission. Inevitably, they were compared to the “glory days” of the past. But was this fair? After all, the culture in which these institutions existed changed. Could minor seminaries, therefore, not be expected to experience similar fallout? Truly. Which is why most folded. (Ultimately, it is probably the reasoning offered for why ALL of the many closed.) Some seem to have adapted adequately, however, in changing focus from what is sometimes derisively referred to as a “priest factory” into discernment schools which offer more of an invitation to the priesthood by way of challenging their students to particular personal and spiritual growth. As such, they are able to provide a more intense experience of human formation than even the average (or excellent) Catholic school. An example of one successful endeavor in this regard would seem to be St. Lawrence.

One Quigley alumnus aptly summarized this concept by stating something along the line of “Quigley isn’t so much about the priesthood as it is about vocation.” Well, I’m not sure that I entirely agree with that statement. For it is the focus upon the priesthood which focuses the vocational discernment. And, ultimately, if a seminary isn’t there to foster vocations to the priesthood, then what is it there for? Still, I do agree (and I think that this is where he was really heading with the comment) to the extent that the focus should not be simplistically on numbers of eventual ordinations or some sense that a minor seminary exists solely to push through as many men as possible towards ordination. Rather, the real value of such an institution in our time is to offer a place for students who are serious (enough) about opening themselves up to the possibility and starting on a road which can effectively prepare them for further discernment and study in a supportive environment where they truly start to discover themselves, understand whatever it is that the Lord is calling them to in life, and begin to respond. In this sense, yes, a minor seminary can perhaps best serve valuably by focusing on assisting its students to discern their individual vocations, even more so than worrying about how many priests it makes and adjudicating its worth solely on ordinations. In the prophetic words from Cardinal Meyer of Chicago to his faculty upon the opening of Quigley South, “Just give me good men and I will have good priests!” This sort of approach can ultimately lead to nothing but success as it will create well grounded men who are set out in tune with God’s will for them, whatever that may be. And, certainly, among them will be no shortage of future priests.

 

[chicago]

Still, a minor seminary needs to invite (I believe) sincere and serious students to be part of its school. And it must have a solid formational program of educational, spiritual, and personal development. It is incumbent that the right type of environment exist for there to be support and nurturing of hearing one’s call as well as the kind of boys/young men in attendance who can value such a thing.

It is also notable that there ARE many boys who continue to sense a call towards the priesthood from an early age who are in need of fostering for this vocation lest it be lost. Surely, boys with an interest exist. But the seeds must be planted, the ground must be tilled, and the germinating vocation must be both challenged and cared for tenderly. That requires commitment and hard work. It is dismissive to suggest that the cost/benefit ratio is overly risky and not worth it. Conversely, what have the real results been of abandoning the minor seminaries?

The history of Quigley certainly tells the tale of an institution which was, nobly, continued even throughout a time of trial in the Church when most others folded. Perhaps it was poised for that, even in some ways from its earliest inception, as a seminary unlike many of the others, being an urban day school rather than primarily focused on boarding students (though it did have some, most notably through its long standing commitment to orphans.) But in continuing on, it was subject to all kinds of influences and experimentation of the era. Some of this may have been necessary and for good. Other parts, surely, backfired. In retrospect, one can make an argument that it would have been better for this school to, also, shut down long ago. But in the real time of its existence, I would suggest that the right calls were surely made in marching forward (though, obviously, not every step of that march was well placed on the best of footing.) Many challenges surfaced, not the least of which was a general decline in both percentage and number of men who went on to ordination. (Though it has been - perhaps wisely - suggested that Quigley did its job of sending on what was expected while the higher levels of Chicago’s seminary system didn’t always reap and produce the best of what was sent their way.) Still, I think that there were quite a few issues at play in this journey which were long allowed to exist (sometimes “known by all” and at other times unacknowledged and unaddressed either below the surface) without getting adequate attention towards improving the situation to make the most of the institution’s potential. Indeed, while I am heartened that the Archdiocese of Chicago is continuing a (much smaller) program for discernment among teenage boys, I sincerely believe that much more could have been done with maintaining and improving that which was already in place. Truly, the moment at which the white flag was waved appears to be untimely, considering that the school was just beginning to come beyond the frustrating period of pain which surrounded the last reorganizational effort of the early 90s. (One that is responsible for the now infamous statistic of “Only 1 ordination in 15 years” which was repeatedly tramped out to justify the school’s closing) True fruit was being produced in recent years (when general optimism is also evident in other areas of the Church’s life that can not but help matters.) Of particular note is the reality of a somewhat small but certainly growing number of excellent alumni candidates who are now in the higher levels of seminary. Most of these have a very good chance of “making it” to eventual ordination - and all maintain a certain clear commitment towards serious discernment with a desire for responding to God’s call which they tend to believe is, for them, to be priests.

But what is done is done. And now we can only focus on the future. Which must, somehow, include for the good of the Church a strong effort to nurture vocations among our youth in whatever way possible.

To tie this back into the original topic and how I wandered in such a direction, one must wonder how many more men might make it to the altars of New York if that Archdiocese once again had a minor seminary or at least some similar such program. Perhaps the current Cardinal Archbishop of that great city (who once inscribed his name in the attic of a certain minor seminary he attended and who just last year returned before its closure to concelebrate a farewell Mass there) would do well to consider what he might instigate in this regard.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Father Benedict Groeschel has no problem finding men to become priests. He generates huge numbers. And his order, Fransiscans of the Renewal is very small. I’m thinking that of the nine new priests in the NY Archdiocese, he is responsible for a large number of them.

On his television program recently, Fr. Benedict had as a guest a pastor from a tiny parish in Pennsylvania … 1000 people; they generate one ordination every three or four years. Plus about the same number of sisters.

A friend of mine, after his wife died, became a priest. He encountered tremendous resistance and had difficulty even finding a bishop to sponsor him, even though money was not an issue … he was able to pay his own way. He was already an ordained deacon and on her deathbed, his wife told him to become a priest … highly oriented and motivated. [In his case, sponsoring merely meant signing a paper. No money. The bishop in that case happened to be right near Cromwell, Ct. where the seminary is located and basically got a priest for his diocese for free.]

So, there seems to be a bias against late ordinations.

And, I’m beginning to wonder if they are still screening out orthodox, traditional Catholic men.

A couple of priests I know were sent to Rome for seminary training … presumably to avoid the American seminary system.

So, we’re not getting the whole story here.

 

[JReducation]

We have to understand our terms here.

RELIGIOUS LIFE

Is an extension of the Baptism. Has nothing to do with Holy Orders. One does not need to be a deacon, priest or bishoop to be a religious.

Most religious communities were founded to be communities of consecrated life.

Their members consecrate their lives to live the Gospel according to the rule of the founder.

They make a vow of obedience to the rule, the founder, his successors and to the community when the community votes in a chapter. The only person who can overrule a religious superior, rule, founder or a community chapter is the Pope. Most popes stay clear of the inner life of religious communiteis.

They make of vow of chastity that goes above and beyond celibacy. Not only do they give up the right to marriage, but they also give up their natural families. The become members of their religious families. In some religious communities members may only see their families once a year. Some religious communities do not allow members to attend a parent’s funeral, because the religious is now a member of a new family. They are very compassionate and supportive of the parents of religious, usually offering financial support when needed and even spiritual support, but a distance is maintained between the religious and his natural family. The religious family takes priority over the natural family. It is a life against nature.

They make a vow of poverty. Everything they have belongs to the community and the superior can take it away at any time. They have no control over their future or any fiancial security except what the religious community can and chooses to provide. They have not right to accept any financial or other material help from outside of the community. Anything they receive from outside of the community they must surrender to the community or ask for permission to keep.

In the order of priorities, observance of the rule takes priority over ministry to the laity, unless that is written into the rule. There ae communities that are communities of priests where service to the laity is part of their way of life, but not all.

Some religious communities lost their identity and are trying to recover it. Over the years they gave in to the needs of the bishops and allowed many of their members to become priests. When they turned around, they were committed to parishes, schools and other diocesan ministries. They had little time to pray, play, reflect, eat and spend time as a community. As a result, some communities have pulled back on the number of men that they allow to be ordained. They are also pulling back on the number of parishes that they take on. They are trying to keep the religious life as their top priority.

They will no longer commit to ordaining men and much less to providing for parishes unless they can secure that their religious will be free to pray with the community at least five times a day, eat with the community, have periods of silence with the community, recreate with the community and that the laity in a parish will accept all their religious (clerical brothers and lay brothers) as equals. This is a big thing among some communities. The Capuchin Franciscans have left parishes where the laity showed less regard for the lay brothers and they did for the priest brothers. Their identity is with St. Francis who was a lay brother and who only accepted diocesan priests who wanted to give up the secular priesthood to become religious.

A secular priest lives independently. Creates his own spiritual rule for him. Promises obedience to a bishop, but it is not as binding as a solemn vow made by a religious. For example, a diocesan priest who moves to another diocese does not need a dispensation of his vow of obedience from the Pope as does a religious who moves from one religious order to another. A diocesan priest also makes a vow of celibacy, but it is not a solemn vow. It is a renunciation of the right to marriage and it is only made by those men who are not married before they become deacons. If a married man applies for ordination, he does not make such a vow. This is why we have married deacons. The discipline of unmarried priests is only in the Western church. Catholic married men living in the Eastern Church can be ordained and are ordained. Also a married priest from a Protestant church who converts to the Catholic faith, can be ordained and remain married in the West and East.

The secular priest is the best link between the secular lay man and woman and the spiritual life. Many men and women want to live a holy life, but do not have the desire, the call or the discipline to live according to one of the rules of the religious communities. The secular priest is a perfect role model of how one attaines holiness in the secular world, without having to leave it. They are essential to the sacramental life and spiritual life of secular men and women.

They are less in number, because more men feel the call to live the rigours and the mission of the religious life. But religious life and the priesthood are not in competition. The Church welcomes both and hopes that the laity will learn from both how to be good Christians.

JR