Quigley (Chicago's High School Seminary) Closing

[Luchesio]

I did not graduate from Quigly, I graduated from St. Lawrence Seminary High School in Mt. Calvary, WI. I have a deep interest in Quigly however. When I attended St. Lawrence in the early '90s there were a number of upper classmen who had transferred to SLS when Quigley South closed. In recent years St. Lawrence and Quigly have been trying to cultivate a relationship and both schools feed into St. Joseph’s Seminary. In recent years, both schools have been increasing the number of young men who have decided to go on to college and major seminaries.

Everyone reading this forum should know that the demise of Quigly is a much more significant problem than it seems. It really signals the deathknell for minor seminaries in the US.

For those who do not realize, according the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (which keeps has kept the statistics of seminary formation for the last 40 years) there are presently on NINE high school seminaries in the United States and only four of them have enrollments over 100 - their total enrollment is 763 (down from a high of 20,139 young men in 171 high school level seminary programs in 1966). In 2005 Quigly has the highest enrollment at 270. The other seminaries are:

St. Lawrence Seminary High School - WI - 198
Immaculate Conception Apostolic School - NH - 102
Cathedral Preparatory Seminary - NY - 179
Immaculate Conception Camp Del Oro - CA - 25
Sacred Heart Apostolic School - IN - 17
Cathedral Prep Seminary House of Formation - NY - 30
Holy Cross Seminary House of Formation - WI - 4
Mt. St. Joseph Prep Seminary - CA - 1

As far back as 1967 and '68 the national Minor Seminary Conference was devoting much time to trying to figure out what a high school seminary meant in the United States because minor seminaries had already begun to close at a rapid clip even then.

There are MANY reasons why these schools closed, but the most frequent reason is because dioceses and religious orders did a sort-of cost/benefit analysis. Minor seminaries take huge amounts of resources to operate: money, human resources, interest, and space. Many dioceses and religious orders saw shrinking numbers of priests combined with the greater need for lay faculty (especially to meet accredidation standards) as too much of a cost for the benefit of just a few graduates going on to priesthood.

Should cost/benefit have been the answer. Probably NOT, but it was. Rather than evaluating whether is was the school, the modern world, or some combination of the two that was causing the decrese in the number of priests that the school produced. They shuttered their doors and shifted their resources to higher priorities.

A recent study by research Chris Smith at the University of North Carolina revealed that Catholic have the least success at developing our youth among all Christian denominations. Why? The answer is reflected in the closing of high school seminaries when things got tough. Somehow the youth with be formed elsewhere?

Final thoughts, what is success for a minor seminary given the overall lack of seminarians in general in the US?

When my class graduated from St. Lawrence in the mid-nineties there were 54 of us. Of that number about 10 of us (that I know of) formally explored vocations as Capuchins. 5 went on to college or major seminary and 2 were ordained priests. And, none of that counts the number of my brothers who seriously considered priesthood in their hearts, nor does it count all of those who discerened other equally holy vocations and went on to be devoted married men or even to work in the Church in various lay ministries (as I do).

Nearly 20% of my class seriously explored preistly and religious vocations AFTER graduation and nearly 4% became priests. I gurantee that that is much high than any average Catholic high school. Recently, four members of the class of 2004 became postulants of the Capuchin Province of St. Joseph. My understanding is that Quigley has been engaged in renewing its formation program under its current rector, Fr. Snieg, and has had a lot of success lately in sending young men to St. Joseph’s and Mundelein.

When Quigley closes its doors in will be giving up a tremendous patrimony, not only its building and other resources, but all of the effort that has gone to building and mainting it as institution … when they are lost does anyone actually think the archdiocese will EVER have the determination to try to build up another similar program from scratch … NEVER, the cost would be astronomical in this day and age.

For the sake of all of those who have benefitted from Quigley or any of the other “lost” minor seminaries I beg Cardinal George to not let this institution disappear.

St. Lawrence Seminary’s website can be viewed here: stlawrence.edu

 

[chicago]

Luchesio,

You really do get at the crux of things here. Thank you so much for your intervention and show of support. The minor seminary system in this country has become so seriously depleted that I don’t think many Catholics realize just what a great problem and signifigant downfall the closing of Quigley indicates. In fact, Cardinal George, himself, has publically stated to the press that it does not seem that God is calling young men to the priesthood any longer. I disagree with that opinion. Rather, I believe that Christ’s Church simply has not discovered how best to foster these vocations in our time.

I also agree with your assessment of Quigley’s recent past. Sadly, what the supposed “bad numbers” which the Archdiocese sites to justify the closing really indictae is merely the difficulties of restructuring during the early-mid 90s for both Quigley and Niles/St. Joe’s along with serious failures/missteps of the early administration of Quigley in those first few years (a problem with the seminarians there at the time - of which I was one - warned them about and were rebuked for; I think we’ve been sadly justified in our assessment now having proven accurate).

As you rightly note, the real problems can not be properly rectifierd by simplistically “closing Quigley” and taking an easy out. Rather, there is a much more signifigant examination which needs to be undertaken in order for the problems to be addressed. This is something which ought to be a commitment not only in Chicago but of the entire American Church.

Coupled with that must be some dynamic vision and willingness to collaborate/change/clearly identify the purpose and measures of “success” for such a school. The confusion and lack of common agreement on such identity is perhaps one of the greatest challenges to attracting support for and enrollment in this sort of an institution. And if that isn’t rightly valued, the institution is doomed. I’m convinced that this is not at all an easy task, but is something which can be done… if only the commitment and will to do so were present. (Sadly, I don’t believe such a commitment likely exists at the Archdiocesan level here - and I think that there is a certain political determination to just shutter the high school seminary which is overriding.) I would appeal to the Cardinal (the only man who can ultimately show the courage to deal with the crisis rather than simplistically copping out as well as his brother bishops (particularly in the U.S. Episcopacy), as well as his brothers in religious life, to take up the challenge and show us that they can be men of leadership - the kind of man which a priest should be!

 

[Luchesio]

It’s not necessarily relevant to this topic, but I collected a number of articles about St. Lawrence Seminary High School and its alumni that I think help show what kind of work school’s like Quigley and St. Lawrence do and how valuable it is to the Church and to the world.

Articles about St. Lawrence: Education Week, Superior Catholic Herald (1), Superior Catholic Herald (2), Milwaukee Catholic Herald (1), Milwaukee Catholic Herald (2), Be Attitude Online, Fond du Lac Reporter, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Snips Magazine, Hilltopics (on the recent graduates who became Capuchin postulants), and an article from the NCEA’s Seminary Journal written by me.

View a video about St. Lawrence.

Profiles from the Milwaukee Catholic Herald of the type of men who are “Sons of Calvary” can be viewed here: SLS alumnus 1, SLS alumnus 2, SLS alumnus 3, SLS alumnus 4, SLS alumnus 5

 

[HoppityRedux]

"only one Quigley graduate has gone on to be ordained a priest in the last 16 years "

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060920/ai_n16731925

 

[chicago]

"only one Quigley graduate has gone on to be ordained a priest in the last 16 years "

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060920/ai_n16731925

I believe that I addressed this “statistic” earlier in the thread. But since you posted the article, I’ll address it again.

This is a classic example of “figures lie and liars figure”. The Archdiocese cited a technically accurate stat absent signifigant context in order to justify their actions and provide a very effective soundbyte that would stick with people.

Allow me to break things down a bit further.

It takes 8 years (4 years college, four years theologate/major seminary) after one graduates from Quigley before a man in ordained. This effectively excludes ALL of the graduates during the past 8 years of Quigley’s existance from the statistic.

What has happenned in this latter timeframe is a certain growth in the high school seminary’s formation/discernment program, coupled with the increasing entry of what I believe are more serious students interested in at least giving the priesthood some consideration. Also, the fruit of the John Paul II papacy are finally being felt, what all with the particular renewal that seems to have been effected via the issuance of the catechism, increased apologetical/renewed devotional efforts, and World Youth Days - most notably since Denver - over the past decade. We’re moving into a new era beyond the overly rebelious one that marked the post Vatican II period.

Consequently, Quigley IS sending on some very good candidates to the college level seminary - most of which will probably make it all the way through. This differs from previous times where the hope was to send as many guys on as possible, figuring that the percentages would eventually play out, despite continued attrition. What is occuring, then, is an overall better use of resources. The serious candidates continue, those who really might not be best suited for continued discernment don’t. The Archdiocese doesn’t have to deal with spending more money on 15 guys at college seminary for 2 - 4 extra years, when maybe only 5 will continue to Mundelein and 2 - 3 get ordained as used to be typical. Given, a smaller pool of potential candidates (Quigley’s current enrollment is under 200 now) probably leads to a smaller number of priests from the days when North and South had many more students and each sent on at least 15 guys to Niles.

Enrollment is down at Quigley, given, but mostly because teenage boys and their parents (who probably never were dedicated to priestly discernment in the first place) now have other good options for subsidized education that they previously hadn’t with the opening of new schools in the last decade.

There is a larger question as to whether the relatively minimal numbers of men who are continuing on is “enough”. Further, what more can be done to attract and nurture a greater number of viable candidates? But it can’t be argued that Quigley isn’t essentially on the increase and a positive path.

What, then, of those first 8 years (1991-1999) following the reorganization?

Firstly, it must be noted that the Archdiocesan statistic of “one ordination” is measuring one thing and one thing only… priestly ordinations for the Archdiocese of Chicago. If a man joins a religious order, gets ordained for another diocese, leaves seminary and later returns, or anything of the like he is not included. There ARE men who fall into these categories from that period. But, due to the arcane way in which a high school seminary is seen merely as a “farm system” for the “big league home team”, such nurturing of vocations is neither valued nor accounted for.

Further, during that period of time there was major reorganization of both high school and college level seminary for the Archdiocese. Perhaps these regroupings were necessary, but they did cause a lot of pain and difficulty for the men who were in the system at the time. Consequently, vocations were likely lost.

Also, it is likely that the formational program and seminary environment from that period, itself, needed a good reworking. The better direction where things are now must be considered distinctly from the troublesome circumstances which existed then.

Finally, perhaps a problem is trying to adjudicate a high school seminary’s effectiveness upon standards which are not culturally up to date. We live in the first years of the 21st Century, not the 1950s. We must, therefore, accept the context in which teenagers live and foster vocations in response to these realities rather than expecting that things should be exactly like they were in a previous time. This calls into question the very nature and purpose and direction of a high school seminary in our day. It’s value is still very signifigant, but the path of discernment and expectable results might not be entirely equal to what was once the case.

 

[chicago]

In conclusion, if the Archdiocese desires to argue, more accurately, that in the first several years of Quigley’s reorganization, there existed some serious challenges and unexpected surprizes which led to a drastic decrease in vocations I would heartily agree. (Though I would also ask them to take proper responsibility for that as it isn’t like they shouldn’t have seen it coming and were not warned even by the seminarians enrolled at the time). If they want to argue that there are still signifigant concerns about investment versus return which must be taken up and addressed, I’d concur. If they wish to raise the question of whether a high school seminary is the most effective way of nurturing young vocations and whether the resourses could be better spent on alternative programs, I’m certainly willing to take up the discussion.

But this is not what we have been left with. Instead, we have a faulty accusation that Quigley is an utter failure and flushing of funds with the conclusion that it must be shuttered. This is complemented not with any sort of real plan to foster young men’s vocations. No, all we are left with is a promise to offer a bit of a buyout via a “Quigley Scholars” program for students who choose to go to another Catholic high school, and commit to some sort of meeting once a month - meetings which present Quigley students likely have weekly. (A similar program, I must note - albeit without the “scholarship dollars” - of reaching out to students at other Catholic high schools was attempted following the 1990 reorganization. “How many priestly ordinations did IT lead to in the past 16 years?” I am forced to ask. Are we merely repeating past mistakes of a failed previous plan?)

This gets us back to the crux of the matter. How do we best foster vocations among young people? Simplistically closing high school seminaries to save on spending isn’t a solution. It may be cost savings. But you can’t get much of a return on zero investment. The larger underlying issues at hand must be straightforwardly dealt with, or all we’re doing is shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[Norseman82]

That said, the school does still have a multimillion (in the teens) dollar endowment which could be temporarily tapped while a fundraising and recruiting campaign (perhaps coupled with any further desired restructuring plans) might be carried out.

Ever since you posted this, I have been bothered. What is going to happen to this endowment?

 

[chicago]

Ever since you posted this, I have been bothered. What is going to happen to this endowment?

Well, now, that is the $64,000 question, isn’t it?

You certainly aren’t the only one who’s bothered. In fact, while the Cardinal has suggested that it will be tapped for the “Quigley Scholars” program, that will still leave a lot of money laying around after the initial “buyout”. (And who REALLY believes that this proposed program is going to be all that effective, anyway? I mean they tried something similar, albeit absent the “dollars for scholars” in conjunction with the LAST restructuring in 1990. How many priests did THAT produce in 16 years? Does the program even still exist or was it long ago abandoned?)

Common concern is that the Archdiocese could take it for other uses once the school closes and there is no clear immediate “need” for the fund. In fact, while the Archdiocese will vehemently deny it, some have specualted that raiding the endowment is what the closing of Quigley is ultimately all about.

My strong belief is that the funds must remain dedicated to promotion of youth vocations and support of an alumni association.

Your concern should be expressed to fellow alumni and any powers that be in the Archdiocese. I’d be very leery of just “trusting” anyone’s assurances with regard to this matter. A watchful eye must be maintained along with serious oversight by alumni to make sure that there will never be any shell games.

Allowing the school to close without a clear commitment and dedicated plan as to the future of the endowment would be a real tragedy. People gave that money for the support of Quigley - not any other pet projects that the accountants could creatively redirect it towards. It ought, then, to be preserved for uses in line with Quigley’s mission, even if Quigley closes.

 

[chicago]

I found the Wikipedia entry on Quigley interesting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_Quigley_Preparatory_Seminary

 

[MikeG]

In retrospect, 1961, the year that Bishop Kane graduated, was a pivotal year. Quigley N and S became a high school. St. Mary’s Niles College injected a college into the seminary system. The seminary structure would mirror the American Model 4-4-4 rather than the European 5-7.

In fall of 1961, the seminary system for the 21st Century pulled out of the station. No one saw the train wreck that was coming. The problem was not and is not with the seminary. Nor is it a problem unique to the Roman Catholic Church.

Guess what it is?

 

[chicago]

In fall of 1961, the seminary system for the 21st Century pulled out of the station. No one saw the train wreck that was coming. The problem was not and is not with the seminary. Nor is it a problem unique to the Roman Catholic Church.

Guess what it is?

Well, I think the present rector at Quigley, Fr. Peter Sneig got at this in an article he wrote a couple of years ago on Quigley. If I may offer an extended excerpt (as it is publically unavailable online) from this several page essay which appeared in Seminary Journal during 2004:

Quigley of the Past

While I now believe that Quigley plays an integral role in the Archdiocese of Chicago, this belief took time to develop and involved gaining an understanding of Quigley’s history its contributions, and particularly the difficult times it has endured for the last 4O-plus years.

Prior to 1960, Quigley flourished. It was viewed as a necessary institution within the seminary system, whose mission was unquestioned and whose programs were praised. The results Quigley achieved matched its reputation. The vast majority of priests ordained for the archdiocese were Quigley alumni and 41 Quigley graduates have been ordained bishops. Quigley’s enrollment at one time reached 1,003 students. The classical education that Quigley students received was unparalleled in the archdiocese.

The social revolution of the 60s and early 70s and the outcomes from Vatican II created both internal and external pressures “to bring the Church into the modern world.” Many important and worthwhile changes in the church resulted from Vatican II. This climate, which extolled a new freedom and led many to question past church practices, also precipitated the search for renewal and reform within the seminary system itself. These circumstances effectively moved seminary administrators and teachers at all levels into a trial-and-error mode. Over time, their efforts to accommodate the modern world resulted in changes that moved seminaries away from some of the basic aspects of priestly formation. The final result was that the “reformed seminary system” proved to be less effective in producing vocations than the old system it replaced, and the mission of the high school seminary was thrown into question and a state of ambiguity.

Many teachers and priests of 30 to 40 years ago stood in direct opposition to the seminary reform effort, although others led the way for this so called “renewal.” Many who were ordained in the 70s left the priesthood because they expected that priests would be allowed to marry in a few years. Religion books were replaced with texts that focused more on personal feeling and less on catechesis. Some were simply left unread, because it was a new day of “openness.” At Quigley, prayer and Masses were limited and attendance at Sunday Mass was nor necessarily expected. When I arrived at Quigley eight years ago, some students laughed or even got defensive about being called seminarians. Our current seminarians speak of adults who discourage them from attending Quigley and from thinking about the possibility of priesthood.

Quigley suffered through these troubling times with decreasing enrollment and low numbers of graduates continuing their seminary training. In making comments about Quigley during this period, I mean no disrespect to former faculty members and administrators. They were doing their best when they led Quigley, and their work helped Quigley survive to this very day. Some had a different philosophy about the mission and role of a high school seminary that tended to emphasize service to the church and Christian leadership over priesthood with the goal of attracting a sufficient number of students to sustain the institution. They taught classes and shared faith and struggled with the issues of their day, and they are to be recognized for their hard work and dedication and love of God’s young people.

(continued)

 

[chicago]

Quigley of the Present

Quigley is a high school seminary inviting young men to consider becoming priests for the Archdiocese of Chicago. Our faculty and administration are committed to developing vocations to the priesthood in students who are called to the priesthood and to sending them on to continue formation toward priesthood and academic development. In this process, our aim is to see that every Quigley student matures physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. This modern-day approach incorporates all the characteristics of a minor seminary with those of a great Catholic high school.

Quigley is a place where a young man can spend his high school years studying, learning the arts, engaging in sports, and enjoying all that normal high school life has to offer. These activities are combined with a good, solid, age-appropriate spiritual formation program, including daily communal prayer. The Quigley formation program enables these young men to understand and love Catholicism, its faith, and the church; to be open to Gods call in their life; and to ponder if this call could be the priesthood of Jesus Christ, not just ministry in general. In essence, the Quigley experience allows young men to decide honestly and on their own what God is calling them to do. Most importantly, all students know that attending Quigley does not put them on an irreversible path to the priesthood and that it was never intended to do so.

The Future of Quigley

All Quigley needs to be successful in the future is to have its work accepted and supported by those who love God and the church and who recognize the importance of fostering vocations, be they to the priesthood, religious life, diaconate, or lay ministry. Our youth need God, our faith, and a high school like Quigley now more than ever. They are deeply spiritual and they deserve our support to help them understand their spirituality and enable it to grow. If Quigley does not survive these turbulent and trying days for our Catholic faith, it will not be because Quigley has failed in carrying out its mission. It will be because our Catholic community has lost faith in the fact that God’s call for vocations occurs at all ages and that a gracious God works through its members to nurture his call.

I’ll stop here. He goes on to flesh out much more. But I think that this offers enough of an overview of how we got to where things are today. That last paragrah is, perhaps, most indicting in light of Quigley’s closing. Perhaps it ought to be printed and reprinted and printed again in the coming months. For THAT is what we should all be reminded of and have imprinted on our minds and hearts in light of Quigley failing to survive!

 

[Andy_K]

Fr. Snieg wrote that?

 

[chicago]

Fr. Snieg wrote that?

Everything in the excepted quotation, yep.

From Seminary Journal, Vol. 10, #2, Fall 2004 (September Distribution Date). The full article was on pages 24 - 36. Look it up! (Or ask him for a copy).

 

[chicago]

Everything in the excepted quotation, yep.

Excerpted quotation… learn how to spell Chicago!

 

[MikeG]

In retrospect, 1961, the year that Bishop Kane graduated, was a pivotal year. Quigley N and S became a high school. St. Mary’s Niles College injected a college into the seminary system. The seminary structure would mirror the American Model 4-4-4 rather than the European 5-7.

In fall of 1961, the seminary system for the 21st Century pulled out of the station. No one saw the train wreck that was coming. The problem was not and is not with the seminary. Nor is it a problem unique to the Roman Catholic Church.

Guess what it is?

Nobody guessed. I guess I will have to say it,“Lack of guys who want to become priests.”

 

[Andy_K]

Nobody guessed. I guess I will have to say it,“Lack of guys who want to become priests.”

This, is turn, leads to another more important question: Just Exactly why is the priesthood so avoided by young men today? Why don’t more young men enter the seminaries today?

 

[chicago]

Nobody guessed. I guess I will have to say it,“Lack of guys who want to become priests.”

Well, yes and no. Of course, Andy asks the underlying question. For which there are many reasons. (In Fr. Snieg’s article one serious concern he notes as a problem is reticense on the part of some priests and religious, themselves, to foster vocations.) Smaller families, secularist/materialistic mentality, the sexual revolution’s obsession with mans “needs”, the priesthood not being an admired and respected way of life, Catholicism and parish life being less of a focal point in established American culture than it traditionally has been in immigrant culture; the problems are many. They need to be dealt with at a more fundamental and widespread level than the seminary, itself, can. Though a high school seminary, at least, has the potential of addressing some of these things in a way that other institutions won’t bother with.

But, that said, in the “old days” everyone who went to Quigley wasn’t necessarily going there because they “wanted to be a priest”, either. Frankly, Sister Mary So and So would frequently pick certain boys up by the collar and tell them “You’re going to Quigley!” Or Father Fernortner would make sure someone paid the tab. (Of course, nowadadys, it isn’t cheap to go to seminary, anyway, even with the subsidies). And plenty of guys left before ever making it to ordination, if they even graduated from high school seminary.

Now, to counter THAT, one does wonder whether an even smaller, but more focused program for teenager boys (which unambiguously was about discernment and formation towards priesthood) taking in only the clearly interested, dedicated types could actually attract a greater number and quality of potential candidates; seeing as such a thing would stand for SOMETHING definable and witness a becon call to greatness.

In this sense, I do believe that Quigley’s inability to connect with Catholics, communicating just what the seminary DOES stand for and tries to foster has been a serious shortcoming for some time. And maybe there has long been some confusion and lack of consensus concerning just what that should be, even within the institution, itself. There’s been a certain want for understanding and appreciation of Quigley’s mission within the Archdiocese, afterall, that tends to leave the institution on shaky ground. How can people commit to something if they don’t value what it is good for?

 

[chicago]

So today I received in the mail the first Quigley alumni newsletter since the announcement of Quigley’s closing.

Following are some of my observations:

• There is a real irony in that the newsletter now focuses little on alumni and almost exclusively on the signifigance of the Quigley experience today.
• This statement comes from Fr. Snieg’s column

At this point in history Quigley faces a steady decrease in enrollment and an astronomical cost of over $16,000.00 per student. This was a difficult, but necessary, decision. We must find new, modern, and cost effective ways to carry on the Quigley tradition of calling young men to ponder God’s call to the priesthood of Jesus Christ

Hmmmmm. fair enough. But in light of his commentary just two years ago in the aforementioned article on this thread, I see some certain contradictions. Now, I’ve been a signifigant supporter and defendor of Fr. Snieg over recent years. But, honestly, Father, you’re starting to sound like nothing more than a company man. That does signifigantly compromise your integrity along with the ability for anyone with eyes of their own to take you seriously. And that is sad.

More signifigantly, once we get through the fluffy talk, is the question as to what are the details. What is the PLAN to accomplish these “new, modern, and cost effective ways”? How will the plan be tested to see if it is more effective than a high school seminary or whether they ought to be used in complementary fashion rather than as a whole replacement. As my classmate reminded us in his valedictory speech at graduation, there is a real problem when something is taken away and not really replaced with anything of worth. I guess Quigley and the Archdiocese has failed misreably to learn from it’s previous mistakes. Ah, when history is forgotten…

• A report (again from Fr. Snieg’s column) concerning efforts which will be made to accomodate current students. Highlights, if you can call them that, include, informing parents about other high schools’ open houses, inviting recruiters from those schools into Quigley, a high school fair at Quigley, Quigley recruiters having their duties transferred to becoming advocates for current students.
• An assurance that current donations to Quigley will go to benefit present students. Followed immeditaely by the now obligatory reminder that “… this year will end with an operating deficit of over one million dollars…”
• A “transitional grant” (buyout) of $3000/student (current Freshman, Sophmores, Juniors) for next year’s high school tuition, should they go to a Catholic school.
• We are reminded of the new “dollars for scholars” program (well they like to call it “Quigley Scholars”). From what I read, it seems that it ultimately will be more of a recruitment thing for St. Joe’s than anything as the newest information provided explains that participants will attend monthly formation meetings with the seminarians there. I get a kick of the “Quigley Without Walls” concept as it rings a bell. That may well have been what they were dubbing the similar concept which complemented the 1990 restructuring.
• The “most distinguished alumni” awards are going to a mostly group of graduates from the 60s. Though there is a Norseman from 82 listed, also.
• There will be an “Honorary Alumnus Award” created, with three honorees this year, to recognize those who’ve had close affiliations with the school and supported it.
• A brand new Quigley Alumni Association will be created. (Why hasn’t it long existed BEFORE the school was set to close?)
• There will be farewell events, including an open house, Mass with former rectors (I think I’ll go to that - but how many are even still alive?) and Mass with Cardinal George (which I may skip).

Gee, with everything that’s going on, you’d think that the institution is pretty vibrant these days!

 

[chicago]

Mass with former rectors (I think I’ll go to that - but how many are even still alive?)

This reminded me of something sad.

My parish once had a very strong relationship with Quigley.

“Back in the day” one of the former rectors moved on to become my parish’s pastor. Another rector lived at the parish’s rectory while he was in charge of the high school seminary.

We usually sent a continuos stream of students along the way, even into the mid-late 90s. We were proud of that, whether the guys went on to become priests or not. Even today, the parish’s Quigley men from across generations talk of this and feel a certain special connection.

A couple of years ago, Quigley’s recruiter surprized me by noting that they haven’t had anyone from my parish attend Quigley in some years (I can probably name the last guy who did, actually, unless there’s someone there now who I don’t know about). I subsequently noticed that the grade school’s webiste doesn’t even contain a link to Quigley as a school (among the many others listed) to think about attending.

I’ve been meaning for awhile to ask my pastor and his associates what we’ve been doing or can do as a parish to promote and foster vocations. Yet I fear that in contemporary times, Quigley has perhaps been forgotten.