Quigley (Chicago's High School Seminary) Closing

[chicago]

I posted this in the Vocations forum, initially, but really it is so signifigant to the Catholic community at large as to deserve mention here also:

chicagotribune.com/news/c…ck=1&cset=true

For almost a century, the Gothic building on the corner of Rush and Chestnut Streets has been both an emblem of the promising future of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago and a relic of its rich history.

By educating young men who would later become priests and bishops, law enforcers and political leaders, Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary helped shape a city and a church.

But in the end, the same shrinking enrollment and escalating costs that have plagued other schools in the archdiocese brought down the historic high school seminary.

On Tuesday, the archdiocese announced Quigley would close its doors in June 2007, marking the end of an era and signaling a significant shift in how the American church is drawing young men to the priesthood.

Only five high school seminaries in the nation will remain, their futures also uncertain as fewer men pursue a priestly calling and those who do take a more circuitous path.

“This doesn’t mean vocations are dying,” said Auxiliary Bishop Francis Kane, a 1961 Quigley graduate. “What it means is that the Lord is asking us to call young men in a different way and at different time in their life.”

quigley.org

windows.org

 

[Andy_K]

What angers me (and my classmates) about this announcment is the lack of warning - if we knew that the school was in such financial shortfall, everyone would have done something to stop it…

that said, when the archdiocese is going to make a profit of millions of dollars from it…maybe they didn’t tell us on purpose

I had always assumed that four years from my graduation this May, I could return to Quigley as a teacher…or even spend an extra four years to become a priest, and return after that.

And yet I also realize how difficult this decision must have been. I’m willing to bet that half of the committee that ultimately made this decision graduated from the school years ago. I’m well aware of the fact that Cardinal George loves the place, too. Nonetheless, sacrificing the best possible means to foster vocations for money…it seems very, very wrong

 

[chicago]

And yet I also realize how difficult this decision must have been. I’m willing to bet that half of the committee that ultimately made this decision graduated from the school years ago. I’m well aware of the fact that Cardinal George loves the place, too. Nonetheless, sacrificing the best possible means to foster vocations for money…it seems very, very wrong

It seems to me that the Archdioese could sell off the chancery office (or do you prefer “Archdiocesan Pastoral Center”?) property and work out a long term lease where they would have office space as part of any new building. This would enable them to have the best of both worlds.

Really, I consider Quigley’s “financial and enrollment problems” to be nothing more than a justfying excuse to shut the place down… which people have been trying to do for many years now. It’s sad… and wrong.

Quigley is a signifigant part of the Archdiocese of Chicago and a sign of pride. Of late (and following the natural, expectable tailspin which followed the last restructuring of 1990), they most certainly HAVE been effecting vocations positively; even if the numbers are not yet at the sort of level which would be considered ideal.

Young vocations are there and need to be nurtured. Quigley does this… whether for the Archdiocesan priesthood, the religious life, or secular laymen of the world. It offers an experience like no other Catholic school can. Such should not be too easily thrown away. Doing so would prove Chicago to be a city which is nothing more than “Second Class”. Somehow, I don’t think that the institution’s great early founders, Archbishop Quigley and Cardinal Mundelein would think too highly of that.

 

[manualman]

I can sympathize with the distress of those feeling the loss.

But it IS a legitimate question. Is the money poured into this place year after year the best use of those financial resources towards to goal of fostering vocations?

I have a hard time believing the answer is yes, given the vocations count. I would suggest that the money might be MUCH better spent offering limited scholarships to FAITHFUL catholic colleges (Stuebenville, Ave Maria, Christendom, etc) or sponsoring young people when they volunteer in groups like NET Ministries or Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS). Organizations like these have been pumping out vocations like crazy because they provide formation and community in a genuine catholic environment. And for the same money, you could expose a LOT more people that way.

 

[DWPC]

Another short-sighted decision based on making money. Converting truly irreplaceable institutions into cash isn’t the answer.

 

[OriginalJS]

Another short-sighted decision based on making money. Converting truly irreplaceable institutions into cash isn’t the answer.

I have to agree with that. Established institutions and their buildings should not be treated like fungible goods. I realize we live in a commercial, consumer-oriented society, but I like to think that sacred places are beyond the pale and should only be sold under the most compelling circumstances.

 

[chicago]

I can sympathize with the distress of those feeling the loss.

I’m concerned not only with the emotional aspects (though I certainly am empathetic to these, being someone who went through the last reorganization), but also with a reasoned look at the realities in play. I would hope that no one will, therefore, dismiss the reaction of outrage and support for this signifigant institution as merely the upsetting reflections of those who are or have been associated with it in some sentimental manner.

But it IS a legitimate question. Is the money poured into this place year after year the best use of those financial resources towards to goal of fostering vocations?

No question, it is a legitimate question which ought to be asked.

But, there are other questions which must be asked along with it, not the least of which is, “Where will the money, therefore, go and will that be a more effective means of fostering vocations?”

Also, “Will the money go to fostering vocations AT ALL?”

Further, “Would there be ways of better emphasizing certain matters or restucturing Quigley in order to foster more vocations.”

And, then, “Are the problems deeper and more basic than at the level of the high school seminary system? Is Quigley, perhaps, just the unfortunate recipient of these problems, where they finally become clear?”

I have a hard time believing the answer is yes, given the vocations count.

What count would justify the amount?

I would suggest that the money might be MUCH better spent offering limited scholarships to FAITHFUL catholic colleges (Stuebenville, Ave Maria, Christendom, etc) or sponsoring young people when they volunteer in groups like NET Ministries or Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS).

OK, a couple of things here.

For one, while I would not at all disagree with your suggestions (and I’d endorse them in fact), these apostolates are for college students and young adults. What to do for fostering vocations at a younger age which is now the focus of Quigley? Just abandon them?

Secondly, you’re getting at one of my pet peeves. Now, let me make clear that I am with you here. But… you have to understand how things work in the area of vocational recruitment and development.

What dioceses and religious orders basically care about is their own numbers. Unless they happen to be able to take in some extra students from another group (getting paid fully for it) and thus supporting their own institution, they basically find any support of another organization to be a waste - particularly at the lower levels. Until you are commited in some way to be “one of theirs” and under their own purview and guidance, you’re not going to receive a penny of support. And once you do sign up, you do what they want you to do. You want to try something else out? Fine… you’re out on your rear end and on your own now. Best of luck to you!

The unfortuante way in which many a man is treated in situations like this is one of the dirty little secrets that former seminarians tend to know all too well from now a few experiences.

I dare to say that the complimentary problem is one of some dioceses/orders which expect young men to have their college loans paid off before they’ll take them in; and agree to do little in the way of helping them pay them off.

Further, if you decide to join a religious order, let’s say, rather than stick it out with a diocese, (or if you jump an order to go somewhere else) you also are a negative statistic. Why? They’ve poured resources into you and you didn’t “pay off” in return by becoming “one of their own”.

As such, how much do you think that the Archdiocese of Chicago is going to want to pay out in supporting people who don’t just attend their very own “St. Joseph’s Seminary” or get involved with the formal discernment process stuff which the diocese offers? Answer, not much, if any. Or more plainly… they aren’t!

So, for example, that “one priest in 16 years” thing that has been reported in the press… it doesn’t take into account guys in religious orders, men in formation who have not yet attained the age of ordination, and the like.

Now, could resources be better directed to recruit potential candidates from apostolates like you note without the cost of actually supporting them during their time of apostolate? I certainly think it would be a good idea. See if you can find someone who will listen and find it in the budget. But know that it’s going to take some humility as they aren’t “one of the ones which WE developed”.

 

[chicago]

(continued…)

That said, I’ll play a bit of devil’s advocate with myself.

Something that isn’t respected enough nowadays is the idea of developing a native priesthood from your own population. Will recruiting people from other universities and apostolates who aren’t native Chicagoans help address this concern? Shouldn’t some money be spent and resources dedicated to “developing our ‘own’”?

Organizations like these have been pumping out vocations like crazy because they provide formation and community in a genuine catholic environment.

I believe that this could also be done (and to some extent certainly IS being done) at Quigley.

And for the same money, you could expose a LOT more people that way.

My concern is that they aren’t going to spend the “same money”, they’re going to try to not spend much of anything at all. You want to call them on the carpet about this, ask how much from the sale of the Archdiocesan Pastoral Center is going to be dedicated to vocational development programs. That money is, afterall, the “cost of closing Quigley”.

 

[chicago]

I have to agree with that. Established institutions and their buildings should not be treated like fungible goods. I realize we live in a commercial, consumer-oriented society, but I like to think that sacred places are beyond the pale and should only be sold under the most compelling circumstances.

It probably costs more in the long run and the eventual moment of inflated economy, much beyond the initial liquidation proceeds “gained”, to try re-establishing the institution later than to keep them going and growing.

 

[batteddy]

It’s sad. But I’m glad that they’re not getting rid of the BUILDING.

 

[chicago]

PRESS RELEASE:

Cardinal chooses real estate over faith in closing Quigley

CHICAGO

It is with deep sadness, great faith and anger that we received the news from our children that His Eminence Francis Cardinal George has unilaterally decided to close Archbishop Quigley Preparatory High School Seminary, an institution which has served the Archdiocese of Chicago for more than a century. All of us, as Catholics and parents, firmly believe that the second largest diocese in America must continue to invest and develop young men to serve our church in our local communities. According to the school’s mission statement, the school is presently true to its mission. It is the Archdiocese that misinterprets its own goals.

“Our seminary is of vital importance to our local communities, central to our church teachings, and vital to perpetuating our faith,” said State Senator Martin A. Sandoval, a 1982 graduate of Quigley Seminary South.

We, as Catholics, are angered that Cardinal George has sold out vocations for Gold Coast profits as reported by the recent news articles this week.

The real reason Quigley Preparatory High School Seminary is closing is the price of prime real estate in Chicago’s Gold Coast.

Dwindling enrollment numbers and rising costs are presumably forcing the Chicago Archdiocese’s only seminary high school to permanently close its doors. “But these reasons are hypocritical. In reality, it appears that the seminarians are the real victims in this scenario,” said Brian Leonard, president of the Parents’ Association and a 1979 graduate of Quigley South.

Quigley Preparatory High School Seminary does not face financial crisis.

There is a $16 million dollar endowment fund that is earmarked strictly for the students. The source of this endowment fund consists of donations from parents, alumni and friends of the school. It is not a coincidence, if the seminary closes, the beneficiary of these earmarked funds will be the Archdiocese.

We are appalled that Cardinal George, the shepherd of our flock, made this unilateral decision in the darkness of the night without any consultation with the Parents’ Association and the Alumni Association. We firmly believe that the Cardinal failed in his responsibilities to alert, warn and engage us in helping to keep our vital institution alive. We call on His Eminence to meet with us to discuss alternative solutions.

Since Cardinal George did not consult with the Quigley community or the Parents’ Association * comprised of prominent civic, corporate, government leaders in the Chicagoland community * for alternatives to closing the seminary, we are proposing the Cardinal immediately consider the following actions:

Hire a professional director of recruitment to aggressively increase student enrollment by 15% annually. Over the past three years, we parents have observed a disinvestment in this area.

Double the 2006 tuition increase to 10%.

Hire a professional director of development and establish a development council that is comprised of the Parents’ Association, the Alumni Association and the Board, to raise $500,000 annually.

“We are calling upon Cardinal George to recommit to the mission of Quigley and the formation of vocations for our Church in Chicago. Vocations and our faith should not have a price tag!” said Eileen Marutzky, vice president of the Parents¹ Association.

The points of contact are Catholics for Quigley Co-chairs Brian Leonard, (312) 580-6786 and Senator Martin Sandoval (312)
617-8601.

 

[MikeG]

Since what I say here may be unpopular, I should first say that it was my High School. I went there at the time it was literally bulging at the seams in the 50s. In short order Quigley South was added to relieve the pressure on North. St. Mary’s Niles College was added to relieve a similar pressure on the “Big House” in Mundelein. I should add that these were all chartered as Seminaries though in the case of North and South this was not the philosophy in recent years.

South is gone; Niles is gone; now North… I was sorry and am sorry to see these buildings close their doors. But they are just buildings no matter how much symbolism they assumed in their life times of 50-100 years.

Though disturbing, it is easier to talk about the buildings. I would rather know what is really happening to the Church even though it may be more disturbing. For instance, how come the diocses of Chicago which once ordained 30-40 priests per year now considers it an accomplishment to ordain 3-4 a year? When we understand what happened, perhaps we will be be able to predict what will happen. Then we can build or rebuild accordingly, that is, if we need buildings at all.

Keeping Quigley open “as is” is not the answer.

 

[chicago]

Since what I say here may be unpopular…

Actually, Mike, I kind of agree with you. Which is precisely why I really would hope that the Cardinal will choose to sit down with some people who may be able to offer a more dynamic vision of where to go without having to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

South is gone; Niles is gone; now North…

This may be somewhat of a minor note considering what you’re trying to say here. (Or maybe not, it could actually be much more signifigant than some realize). But, it ought to be noted, anyway, particularly considering how it is commonly viewed by the public and, particularly, alumni of Quigley South.

The present school at the historic location of Rush and Chestnut, while being the building which housed what became Quigley North when South and Niles were opened, is NOT synonimous with Quigley North.

Having been a student at the time of the last reorganization, I can tell you that the guys at North went through the same sort of loss process that the Q-South guys did, even though the building remained. For the school and the traditions were gone. Everything changed with the new administration. Like with South, many men left the seminary entirely. (A process which was only repeated with those guys who actually stuck it out when Niles moved and reorganized as St. Joseph’s a few years later).

Frankly, I think that these circumstances were part of the problem in those first few years and no small reason why the Archdiocese can now say that there has only been one ordination in the last 16 years. Let’s keep in mind by this statistic that it only includes those men eligible for ordination (since it takes 8 more years to get there) which means those who graduated 1991-1998. It, further, fails to acknowledge anyone who joined a religious order and/or may still be studying for the priesthood.

In recent years, things really do seem to be turning upward and there are more than a few quite dedicated young men who are students at Quigley, alumni at Niles’ successor St. Joseph’s College Seminary, and beyond.

Further, there seems to be quite a bit of anger among those who graduated since the reorganization, considering that the Archdiocese’s disparaging comments are essentially a direct attack on us as a scapegoat, failing to take responsibility for their own mismanagement failures.

I was sorry and am sorry to see these buildings close their doors. But they are just buildings no matter how much symbolism they assumed in their life times of 50-100 years.

I beleive that there is general agreement about this. Certainly, the buildings are a signifigant witness and have a real value to the culture of Quigley. Ideally, they could be preserved (and I think that there may be ways to do that, even while selling off the chancery office property). But, ultimately, what is desired is to preserve something more than that… an institution which is not only historically, but still today quite signifigant in offering young men the opportunity to safely discern their vocation as possibly being to the priesthood in a culture that does not foster such a supportive environment. In fact, precisely BECAUSE of the hostile culture, Quigley may be more important today than it ever was in the times of great boom.

Though disturbing, it is easier to talk about the buildings.

Yet the building is not primarily what I hear everyone talking about, particularly considering that there is no plan to get rid of it (though it certainly will be gutted and rehabbed for other purposes).

I would rather know what is really happening to the Church even though it may be more disturbing. For instance, how come the diocses of Chicago which once ordained 30-40 priests per year now considers it an accomplishment to ordain 3-4 a year? When we understand what happened, perhaps we will be be able to predict what will happen. Then we can build or rebuild accordingly, that is, if we need buildings at all.

Agreed. But ought we to disband the seminary altogether in order to do that? Should we not first and foremost take on this serious task before making Quigley take the fall for problems which may not merely be it’s own; particularly considering that the school IS bearing real fruit (even if not to the dergee or preconceived result which some would desire)?

(continued…)

 

[chicago]

(continued…)

Keeping Quigley open “as is” is not the answer.

And I don’t know that many people would entirely disagree with that statement. Everyone I know wants to do whatever possible to make Quigley a better institution and see it grow as well as supplment the school with that which will work to foster vocations beyond the seminary school, itself.

As such, I’m not convinced that “closing Quigley” will help to provide any real solutions (or any solutions at all), either. This plan is an all too simplistic step, and certainly not anything of an answer.

 

[MikeG]

Hi Chicago,

That was a nice reply which helped me explore further my discomfort with where we are. Still the easiest question is Quigley though now I see we are comparing apples and oranges. Though we both went to a school called Quigley, we really are on oppisite sides of a divide. On one side, is Quigley Preparatory Seminary, 103 East Chestnut. It was a 5 year school with classes on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. Students were expected to have the intention to become priests. On the other side of the divide is Quigley College Prep High School with a dual Major in Seminary. It was a 4 year high school with classes on Monday through Friday. Students should be open to considering the priesthood.

The divide is somewhere around 1970 by my guess. Taking on the dual charters of Prep Seminary and College Prep may have been a sign that it was already over or the beginning of the end. Now we are definitely at the end. The last form of Quigley is not delivering on its seminary obligations. BTW I do think going back to the 5 year format would help. As for its performance as a college prep school, I will let others decide though it was not attracting big crowds.

The unilateral decision by the Cardinal to close the school is totally in tune with Roman Catholic tradition. If you want pulpit commitees and empowered school boards with a homey orthodox feel, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod comes to mind.

Back to the key question. Where did the future priests go? After the candidates are gone, closing the schools that used to train the candidates is an easy decision. Though it once had its own farm system, the Archdiocese of Chicago can do what the majority of dioceses always did-farm out their seminarians-since it does not have the critical mass to run its own seminary.

We have to face it. Quigley College Prep is a recent development.
Prep schools thrive on the son following the father mystic. But in a church that prescribes clerical celibacy, a son going to the same Seminary that dad went to is an awkward moment.

It would be nice if the diocese never had to close anything. But…

 

[chicago]

MikeG,

That’s an excellent analysis, actually.

Much of what you note is precisely what I have been thinking about as it gets at the crux of the present crisis.

(I do take issue with the “unilateral decision of the cardinal” line, however, all the more so because he claims that it is on the advice of some anonymous committee that he DID make this decision. Maybe just not the people with any positive future vision?

Conversely, you may well be right about a certain historical development in over emphasis on going “college prep”. Such a problem is also reflected, IMO, in our Catholic grade schools which really function for most more as “private schools” than “Catholic” schools. Yet what is the Archdiocese REALLY doing to address the heart of THAT problem, which may be the more essential root level from whereby Quigley is experiencing problems?)

I believe that there are two views of what Quigley is to be.

The one (upon which the decision is apparently being made) is the old way of thinking. Quigley was essentially a training ground for future priests, plain and simple.

The other (the present idea) is that it is a safe place of particular discernment upon one’s vocation; with an emphasis towards and serious invitation to the priesthood. (To the point that this is the overarching and primary focus).

While I believe that the old mindset is prevailing in justifying the closing, I would argue that the two ideas ought not be considered as being in opposition; and that it is precisely that lack of respect for the contemporary concept (even among the school, itself, at times) which has caused some trouble.

Both concepts of a minor (or preparatory) seminay have been fitting for their respective cultures.

In the past decades, attending Quigley was a sign of pride, an excellent thing in an era when Catholics and culture admired the idea of a young man becoming a priest. It was easy to be a student at such a reputable school.

And, yet, the seminary still tried to focus on it’s being distinct/separate from every other school. “We are a seminary, afterall.” Some students stayed at live in quarters, housed by Angel Guardian Orphanage. The schedule was such that you had a day off midweek and went to school Saturday. Students attened for five years rather than four.

Today, the decision to go to a seminary high school is a brave one. Other kids will tell you that this is stupid or even “gay”. You’ll be challenged as to why you want to do that or who would want to be a priest. Already in the 8th grade, you aren’t being admired, but called to stand up for the faith almost as a white martyr. Makes life awful difficult. The seminary stands still, then, as a witness to a unique and different way of life from everything which our culture screams at us as “normal” and to be desired.

Even among the younger alumni who did not go on, this persists; as there is a call to witness when fellow adults discover that “YOU DID WHAT???” in attending a seminary high school. (I’ve had a fair amount of this, personally, in the last week or so).

A boy growing into manhood is, therefore, asked to seek something inside himself and develop a relationship with God that he just won’t be challenged to do anywhere else. Some boys come in with a strong attraction and desire to be priests. Others have only a fleeting openness, but willingness to give it all a try. The environment enables all these young men to safely discern their personal call from the Lord… whatever that may be, both individually as well as part of a small but special group with whom they will spend the next four years together “growing up with God”.

This is a step which few others will even THINK about doing, let alone actually managing to process. Other schools just will not enable it like Quigley can. As such, whether a man finds at the end of his time there that the priesthood is truly something which he would like to continue pursuing or that it is really not for him, he has taken that signifigant opportunity in his life to ask God and give over his life to the Lord, allowing Jesus to direct his path…wherever that may lead.

I think that this is worthwhile. I think that this is important (as God still calls the young). I think every penny invested is well spent. (Though, given, things could always be better and improved, and sometimes are sadly seemingly misused or wasted). I also think that more could be done to attract kids to Quigley and offer them our encouragement/support.

The culture in which we have come to exist is not the same as it once was. Quigley is, therefore, not the same as it once was. But it still serves it’s purpose… providing a call to something greater and a witness to the value of the priesthood.

(continued…)

 

[chicago]

(continued…)

I don’t know that the problem is so much that young men aren’t saying yes to Christ and His Church. Perhaps it is more that we just aren’t giving them the real chance and challenging them to say yes. In fact, we may well be saying no. If we shut down Quigley, we certainly will be shutting them off and turning them away. We clearly will be devaluing our commitment and witness to the priesthood. And we will be a lesser people for it with, perhaps, less priests.

 

[chicago]

DOUBLETALK!!

Archdiocesan officials continue the company line, while Cardinal George admits to Quigley making positive progress in recent years:

from suntimes.com/news/metro/72245,CST-NWS-quigley26.article

The archdiocese says Quigley was simply not producing results. It offers an excellent high school education, but just one Quigley graduate has been ordained in the past 16 years, officials said. They also cited low enrollment – only 183 students, down from 1,350 in 1961 – and financial deficits.

“I’m sorry for it, but it’s the right decision,” George said Monday. “We have a commitment to them that we will try to respect. But it was clear that [Quigley] was not accomplishing its mission.”

Parents and alumni suggested that St. Joseph College Seminary, where some Quigley grads go as a next step toward becoming a priest, was the one falling down. But St. Joseph officials said only 10 Quigley grads have enrolled over the past four years. Four Quigley grads are at Mundelein Seminary now, which George noted as a positive trend.

What, then, is “Quigley’s Mission”, Your Eminence? Or ought I ask, “What must the numbers add up to?”

Is there not a way to further the mission with genuine vision and commitment? Could that not potentially lead to even better numbers than these positive trends which follow upon the sad era of great loss which accompanied the 1990 reorganization?

I certainly have spoken to numerous present students and young alumni who graduated in those “16 years” who think so - and are willing to commit themselves to trying. Are you willing to commit to us?

 

[chicago]

In summary, Mike, I believe that there is still a crucial need for a minor “seminary” which has this idea as it’s key focus. Though the manner in which it is pragmatically approached in the real context of contemporary culture and the degree to which students are “expected” to become priests may be different than in the past.

The overriding emphasis and community which a “seminary” environment can provide is something which exists no where else… not in a regular Catholic high school, certainly, and not even in a monthly meeting. (Wasn’t something like the latter effort tried after the last re-organization? How many priests did it produce?) I think that this needs to be strengthed through genuine vison and real commitment. Which is why I support the continuance of Quigley.

 

[chicago]

I can’t edit it any longer, but I’d like to add this sentence to (counting backward from the bottom) the third paragraph back on post #16 as a conclusion to and exposition of that idea:

Perhaps it was put best in the words of Cardinal Meyer at the opening luncheon of Quigley South, “Just give me good men, and I will have good priests!”