Reform seminary structure and leadership

[goout]

Would do the Church good to reform the seminaries responsible for turning out diocesan priests. A couple of suggestions.

(disclaimer:I;m a layperson, so these things might already go on, or not be possible. I just think they are worth considering)

1. Put some strong and competent lay women in positions of leadership and counsel in seminaries.
2. Go back to allow married priests
3. reform the diocesan priesthood to the religious model, where the benefits of secular culture are renounced (money, mansions,e tc…)
   It seems to me, the current model has too much accommodation with the corruptions of the world: fame, fortune, pleasure. Maybe I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem that the Franciscans and others are having this problems.)

 

[edward_george1]

Put some strong and competent lay women in positions of leadership and counsel in seminaries.

What would this accomplish? It just seems like one of those things that people suggest for the sake of suggesting it when something goes wrong. Strong and competent ordained men provide good leadership and counsel in seminaries. The present crisis has nothing to do with whether it was ordained men or lay women in leadership.

Go back to allow married priests

Again, what would this accomplish? I’m assuming that you’re making these suggestions prompted by the abuse crisis. Married men abuse children too, it’s not just a problem of celibacy.

reform the diocesan priesthood to the religious model, where the benefits of secular culture are renounced (money, mansions,e tc…)
It seems to me, the current model has too much accommodation with the corruptions of the world: fame, fortune, pleasure. Maybe I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem that the Franciscans and others are having this problems.)

You are wrong, in that religious orders have problems too. Most of the cases of abuse in my own diocese, as far as I’m aware, were religious priests assigned here from outside of the diocese. And I’m not sure where you get your impression of the priesthood, but we don’t have “money, mansions, etc.” I’m not sure what you mean about “too much accommodation with the corruptions of the world: fame, fortune, pleasure.” I’m not famous, nor fortunate, and my life is one of work and sacrifice, and for the most part this is true of my brother priests across the board. I live a relatively undistinguished middle class existence. I’m paid far less than my level of education is worth, and less than what others in working-class jobs make per hour if we were to reckon it that way.

And again I ask, what would this accomplish? Why should you burden the diocesan priesthood with a charism that isn’t what diocesan priests are called to? I was not called to be a religious, I was called to be a diocesan priest. So it would be inappropriate for me to live the religious charism. I should live modestly and simply, within my means, but it’s not my vocation to be a religious and to live the poverty you propose. Neither does the Church expect me to.

So my big question in all of this is–what do you think any of this would accomplish? And have you ever been to seminary or worked in one?

-Fr ACEGC

 

[redbetta]

The priests at my parish all share an average house in the suburbs. I guess that’s what passes for a mansion these days.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

I have heard some anecdotes where the priests have fancy cars or something like that. I think it is mot likely an outlier.

 

[redbetta]

They have likely saved a long time to get that nice car.

 

[SacredHeartBassist]

St Francis barely had rags.

 

[redbetta]

He founded a mendicant order. Not everyone is called to take a vow of poverty.

 

[SacredHeartBassist]

But priests definitely ought to not have expensive cars. Whatever happened to vanity? From the pulpit some priests will talk about women wearing too much make up when they themselves are vain in different ways

 

[Tis_Bearself]

They have likely saved a long time to get that nice car.

Or in some cases the priest’s nice items are donated to them by a parishioner. Our pastor mentioned in a homily how he has a nice set of dishes for Thanksgiving dinner because an elderly man who he used to visit from time to time left them to him.

I was on a pilgrimage trip with a priest who enjoyed taking photos of the churches and such that we saw. He had a decent camera to do this, like a 100 dollar camera. It broke and he couldn’t afford a new one. We all took up a collection so he could replace it and not have to miss taking pictures of all the nice stuff on the trip.

 

[edward_george1]

Okay, what’s the standard? Where do you draw the line? How much is too much for a priest’s car to be valued at? What if I want to pay for a brand new car that I can drive for over a decade? I need something reliable and comfortable, since I’m going to be spending a lot of time in there driving to visit the sick. If I’m in a mountain parish where the winters are rough, I might need an additional vehicle that’s less fuel efficient but has four wheel drive. So where’s the line?

 

[SacredHeartBassist]

Well the church wants lay people to marry and have many kids. So I judge it on the standard of what most lay people with many kids drive. Which is usually a piece of junk

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Again, I’ve never heard a priest talk about women and makeup from the pulpit. But setting that aside, define “expensive car”. I agree he shouldn’t have a Porsche or maybe even a Lexus, but he shouldn’t have to drive around in a beater either, he needs something that runs reliably to get to places like the hospital when somebody needs last rites, to get between his multiple parishes if he works at more than one, to get to the nursing home to minister to the persons there, to get to the grocery store etc

 

[edward_george1]

To tell you how much driving is involved in the life of a priest, I bought a used car three years ago while still a deacon. It had 67,000 miles on it, after 11 years with the previous owner. I will have owned it 3 and a half years this Christmas, at which point I’ll have doubled the mileage on my car.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I frankly think a lot of people who have never been priests or watched closely what a priest does all day have a completely unrealistic idea of what is involved.

Maybe priests need a show like “Cops” called “Priests” where the cameraman follows a priest in a particular diocese around as he ministers to people and deals with everyday crises.

 

[PeterT]

But priests definitely ought to not have expensive cars. Whatever happened to vanity? From the pulpit some priests will talk about women wearing too much make up when they themselves are vain in different ways

I agree, not because there’s nothing technically wrong with that but the optics of that doesn’t look good, especially if the parish itself is short on money.

We have a recently retired priest who occasionally celebrates the Mass at our parish who still drives to church in the one and only car he ever bought: a 1964 VW Beetle. Now that’s a good example of what other priests ought to try to emulate.

 

[PeterT]

To combat sexual abuse in the seminary, I think one needed reform is that there must be non-priests in position of authority in every seminary that can investigate allegations of sexual abuse. They can be religious sisters, permanent deacons, or even well catechized and instructed (with advance degrees) laity.

Why non-priests? Because they’re not allowed to hear confessions so their duty to report and investigate allegations of sexual abuse (or any other alleged misconduct) will never be compromised by the Seal of Confession that some of these sexual predators have used to their cynical advantage by confessing their sexual misconduct to priests who might have otherwise reported the sexual misconduct to others.

 

[fide]

Hello Fr. edward_george1,

Concerning leadership positions in seminary,

After working some years as a lay man in the Church, and with many priests, and at times in a seminary, I have seen a very important need for women in the formation of celibate men. For one thing, they can present to the (often young - both chronologically and spiritually) men the perspective of women in the many pastoral circumstances where it will be crucial for them to understand “the woman’s perspective”. I have seen too many priests (and this is a married man talking here) totally inept and unaware of the female sensitivities they can run roughshod over - veritable bulls in a china shop.

Yes I know there are many not this way at all! One or two competent (and feminine) women professors can make the right addition to the pastoral formation of the seminarians.

And of the religious - vows, poverty, chastity, obedience -

Even religious order men, in this excessively materialistic culture, ought (in my humble opinion) to show a clearer witness of disdain for “all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life,” the treasures of this world, for what “is not of the Father but is of the world.” I once worked with a parish priest, for example, who drove a parishioner-donated leased Lexus as plush as they come, who was “famous” (?) for his fine culinary tastes and knowledge of the “best” places to eat in the city. He told me he began as an order priest, but could not tolerate the way he was fed when with them. I though he was joking. He was not.

There needs to be a witness of the Cross in every priest especially, because there ought to be a witness of the Cross in every Catholic, every Christian. We are not to be of this world, loving the things of this world - we are to point in holy supernatural hope to the values and treasures of the life to come in Him, Who is [or ought to be] our ALL. And when we point to the treasures of HIs Kingdom, we have to be able to do so without immediate second looks of parishioners with a “Huh?” look in their eyes and a “are you being serious” question behind their eyes.

The witness from a priest of knowing all the latest “in” words and phrases, that establish that he knows what’s what in the latest popular movies, TV shows, rock singers, movie stars, sports heroes, and other symbols of the “important” things and people of this age - all this proof of being “just like us” among the lukewarm in the pews, with little witness to the need for those comfortable laity to seek and to grow in true holiness in a life of prayer and of charity - well, my sentence is so long I cannot remember where I was heading! But you probably get my point. A witness of holiness calls for true interior freedom from the sedatives and noise and busyness and shallow living, that enslave so many. A priest ought to be “other.” We all ought to be “other”. Pastoral leaders ought to lead away from this world, to His Kingdom.

 

[edward_george1]

After working some years as a lay man in the Church, and with many priests, and at times in a seminary, I have seen a very important need for women in the formation of celibate men. For one thing, they can present to the (often young - both chronologically and spiritually) men the perspective of women in the many pastoral circumstances where it will be crucial for them to understand “the woman’s perspective”. I have seen too many priests (and this is a married man talking here) totally inept and unaware of the female sensitivities they can run roughshod over - veritable bulls in a china shop.

Yes I know there are many not this way at all! One or two competent ( and feminine ) women professors can make the right addition to the pastoral formation of the seminarians.

I’m definitely in agreement that seminarians and priests can benefit from good interactions with women. I have friends who are men, some ordained and some not, and friends who are women, some vowed religious and some not. And my priesthood has only benefited from having friends who are women. I owe my vocation to several of them. My question had more to do with the assertion that by putting women in charge of seminaries it will be some kind of magic bullet for our problems, simply because they are women.

 

[edward_george1]

The witness from a priest of knowing all the latest “in” words and phrases, that establish that he knows what’s what in the latest popular movies, TV shows, rock singers, movie stars, sports heroes, and other symbols of the “important” things and people of this age - all this proof of being “just like us” among the lukewarm in the pews, with little witness to the need for those comfortable laity to seek and to grow in true holiness in a life of prayer and of charity - well, my sentence is so long I cannot remember where I was heading! But you probably get my point. A witness of holiness calls for true interior freedom from the sedatives and noise and busyness and shallow living, that enslave so many. A priest ought to be “other.” We all ought to be “other”. Pastoral leaders ought to lead away from this world, to His Kingdom.

I see where you were going with that, and I can’t say I agree with this part. I watch TV and movies and sports and am aware of the culture. There are aspects of the culture I can’t say that I find morally acceptable, and aspects which are “getting there,” so to speak, with regards to the truth. God speaks to us in many ways, including in the culture–else St. Paul would not have said “test everything, hold on to what is good.” I follow soccer quite intensely, and it’s a point of contact with my Hispanic parishioners, who comprise a huge majority of my parish, especially the youth. Those teenagers might never speak to a priest except very distantly and deferentially because they regard the priest as an authority figure. I’m better able to have an influence on people by just being a person myself. I watch TV and movies and read novels, because this makes me a better thinker and better able to connect with people. There’s nothing wrong with being up on the culture if it helps us in our work of saving souls–and I don’t just mean having something to talk about with people, but rather that it helps me to see how God might be working in even the most unexpected ways. It helps me to better tell the story of our salvation if I am better acquainted with the ways our culture tells stories. We can be in the world but not of the world. The interior life is essential in this regard, for sure. If we build a good interior foundation, though, it helps us better discern truth, even when it’s coming through piecemeal from our broken culture. Christ entered a broken world 2000 years ago at his birth, does it not stand to reason he’d still be in ours?

The flip side of this criticism is that if a priest isn’t up on the latest things, then he’s thought of as hopelessly out of touch and unable to connect with his people. It doesn’t have to be either/or, it doesn’t have to be black or white, and it doesn’t have to be the world is absolutely, positively, and in every way possible, evil evil evil. Even a broken mirror still reflects light. We can pray and be holy and still go to the theater. These ends can enhance one another.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[edward_george1]

Let me be clear, I’m not opposed to making changes, not at all. Obviously something needs to be done. And I don’t think some of what our OP was suggesting is quite to the level that you make it out to be, i.e. “damaging, unimaginable innovations.” I’m just inviting the OP to think critically about the assertions he makes by asking the question of “what good will that really do?” There might be some good to some of it, sure. But as I read those suggestions (especially since they were just asserted, and not furnished with some kind of reasonable backing), I didn’t see anything that wasn’t just change for change’s sake.

I do appreciate your zeal, but let’s try to be calm and appropriately critical here.

-Fr ACEGC