The Value of Minor Seminaries?

[ASimpleSinner]

Thought I would start a new thread with this one…

Just over a year ago today, the announcement came that Quigley was closing

An article in the National Catholic Register from about 4-5 weeks ago had an eve-opening article on Quigley. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but something like only a handful of students there actually went on to the priesthood over the past 30 years. Despite its name as a “seminary”, in effect, it was not a seminary because it did not lead to the priesthood. It may have been a great Catholic school, but it was not doing anything for vocations any more.

Perhaps…the money could be better spent elsewhere?

Not looking to “dish” but I am familiar with some episodes and incidents of seminarian dating by the “Quigkly Kids”… For a number of guys, it was a good place to get a good education…

I am not sure its closing is a harbinger of further problems in drumming up vocations in the ArchD, so much as the ArchD came to recognize that, as a program, it was probably not the best use of resources at this time…

I am fairly skeptical about the value of minor sem in America.

If this closing opened the eyes to the value of really developing good youth programs and ministry to young adults, it could be a very good thing.

I am a bit of a traditionalists in many respects… But at this point, I am about as enthusastic about returning to minor sems as I am returning to public penance in sack clothe and ashes…

The one major religious order in the Western Hem that seems to be pushing minor sem, hasn’t seemed to have had a lot of success with it when it comes to getting this population to be ordained to the priesthood.

Certainly it makes their numbers look good - they can boast of having more seminarians (at times) than the top 10 largest religious orders combined… But a bunch of fourteen year olds in cassocks that never make it to the altar… Well I guess the the biggest question to ask is did the formation they receieved there also prepare them for the eventuality that most will face: Life as a layman or possibly a married deacon??

Frankly, I am pleased to hear - in a certain sense - about seminaries where young men do leave. It means the discernment process is working. If the formation was strong, this can be a good thing - seminary educated laymen can become excellent fathers, husbands, perm deacons and church leaders. If they do not have a calling to the diocesan priesthood, determining this in seminary BEFORE ordination, is a very good thing.

I would much rather see only 100 men out of 1000 seminarians be ordained than 900 priests out of 1000 ordained join the ranks of ex-priests - we certainly have enough of them already.

Speaking as an ex-seminarian who discearned it was not my call - not in that place, at that time… I do have to say that one of the difficulties ex-sem’s like myself face is that after leaving (even with the surest knowledge that is what you should do) it can be pretty tough. To live, eat, and breathe formation for a year or more and then leave isn’t easy. For the 18 year old who has spent 4 years in minor sem, I think it would be all the harder… And possibly all the more alienating.

 

[chicago]

Not looking to “dish” but I am familiar with some episodes and incidents of seminarian dating by the “Quigkly Kids”…

HEY, Quigley guys are a good catch! (Well, some of them, at least.)

For a number of guys, it was a good place to get a good education…

Well, yes. In fact, throughout its history it was a place where priests could sometimes pick a boy who seemed in need of something good for his life, a little support. So offering him this sort of opportunity was a nice way that pastors could look after boys and help them out in a positive way, while getting them to at least look at the possibility of a priestly vocation. Indeed, this was seemingly part of Cardinal Mundelein’s original plan when building the present facility 90 years ago. His letter to pastors notes how they can charge the tuition cost to the parish if more than a couple of boys attend. And he establishes a scholarship with his own money for orphans. Orphan boys were also a longstanding integral part of the student body, again giving them a chance at something better in life.

I am not sure its closing is a harbinger of further problems in drumming up vocations in the ArchD, so much as the ArchD came to recognize that, as a program, it was probably not the best use of resources at this time…

Well, what “resources” were that? A couple of priests remaining on as staff, a budget which balanced annually after tuition, fundraising, and endowment interest or principle was accounted for? A building which will cost a fortune to gut (yes, destroying its grace and beauty intended for the ages of educating young men and honoring the priesthood) then not really meeting the needs of the Archdiocese for their office uses?

Given, they have raided the multimillion dollar endowment fund and put it to other purposes which will be quickly spent through and perhaps have little long term effect (as was the idea of an endowment to support the minor seminary). They didn’t like anyone calling attention to the reality that in order to get at it, they needed to close the school and dissolve the board. It seems that they may have been shamed into at least placing parts of that fund towards other vocational development projects in the Archdiocese because of attention which was brought to light and criticism received.

Anyway, I have always said that I could understand an argument being made for alternative ways to develop vocations which may have been more prudent at this moment in time. But, really, the argument hasn’t been made or even realistically attempted other than to offer hype and new recruitment efforts which would have made Quigley, itself, stronger were they done in conjunction with rather than as an alternative to a seminay high school.

I am fairly skeptical about the value of minor sem in America.

Alright, fair enough. Why?

If this closing opened the eyes to the value of really developing good youth programs and ministry to young adults, it could be a very good thing.

I’m not sure it has or will, ultimately. Most people are simply ambivilent about it all, actually. Some of the widers problems which vocations awareness and recruitment which did exist that may now get ironically addressed have been known about with concern expressed for a long time.

And, again, the question remains as to whether it must be “either or” rather than “both and”. When Quigley was seemingly more successful “back in the day”, there were certainly youth programs which supported the system at the parish level. Perhaps not in the exact same manner as today’s “youth ministry”, but it was appropriate for the times.

 

[chicago]

The one major religious order in the Western Hem that seems to be pushing minor sem, hasn’t seemed to have had a lot of success with it when it comes to getting this population to be ordained to the priesthood.

I believe that this is more a matter of the struggle to find what is appropriate for the times. Minor seminaries keep reinventing themselves, as is necessary, to respond to the present culture. If we get stuck in comparison thinking to “the way things were” in some other era, and trying to emulate it we will, undoubtedly, be unsucessful. Their value today may not be so much in serving as what some call “priest factories” as in simply being “schools of discernment”. As one Quigley alumnus suggested this past year in public statements, “Quigley isn’t about the priesthood so much as it is about vocation.” And, yet, seminary focuses this discernment of vocation by offering the invitation to the priesthood.

Certainly it makes their numbers look good - they can boast of having more seminarians (at times) than the top 10 largest religious orders combined… But a bunch of fourteen year olds in cassocks that never make it to the altar…

Agreed. While minor seminarians should certainly be given the respect of being considered truly seminarians, they ought to be counted distinctly from men in, say, the theologate. Such an overriding system in, indeed, part of a whole but it must also be understood that the minor seminary is something certainly distinct (especially these days) as far as level goes. Really, I think that part of the problem is with false expectations. A 14 year old boy should not necessarily have the burden placed upon him of everyone thinking he is on an irreversible path to priesthood. Really, such has never been the case. Even in the days when minor seminaries ultimately produced many more vocations, most left far before being ordained. Even at the height, no more than maybe 30% of the graduates of a high school class would be ordained, eventually. Not to mention the many more who left before graduating. More typical over the years was probably something in the neighborhood of anywhere between 5 and 15% ordination rate when all was said and done. So, it is sort of like baseball where we can expect to “fail” much more than succeed. But the real question is whether it is important and even essential to have that methord of nurturing vocations in order to get the 10%.

Well I guess the the biggest question to ask is did the formation they receieved there also prepare them for the eventuality that most will face: Life as a layman or possibly a married deacon??

I suppose that question surprizes me most. Afterall, schools like Quigley (and other minor seminaries) have so many alumni of note who are successful fathers, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, employees, politicians, Church leaders in secular and deaconal roles that I would think this seems very obvious to be true. A common statement among alumni of such institutions is, “We may not have been ordained, but we became good men because of our high school seminary experience.” Indeed, such was precisely the exhortation of Chicago’s Cardinal Meyer at the opening luncheon of Quigley South, “Just give me good men and I will have good priests!”

 

[chicago]

Frankly, I am pleased to hear - in a certain sense - about seminaries where young men do leave. It means the discernment process is working. If the formation was strong, this can be a good thing - seminary educated laymen can become excellent fathers, husbands, perm deacons and church leaders. If they do not have a calling to the diocesan priesthood, determining this in seminary BEFORE ordination, is a very good thing.

EXACTLY! (It’s nice to see somebody who “gets” this reality. Seminary is about discernment, not just job training which leads to some automatic, magically predetermined end.)

I would much rather see only 100 men out of 1000 seminarians be ordained than 900 priests out of 1000 ordained join the ranks of ex-priests - we certainly have enough of them already.

Which is, I think more of what we are seeing these days than was the case in the past where, perhaps, candidates were often pushed through too fast without proper discernment. But, then, in previous times there was often a stigma attached to considering doubts seriously while remaining in seminary. If you weren’t seemingly as “gung ho” (or at least pretending to be) as you ought, then “Get out, we can find somebody else!” was something of the attitude. Or, worse yet, “Stick with it, things are going to change in the Church soon.”

Speaking as an ex-seminarian who discearned it was not my call - not in that place, at that time…

AH, no wonder you understand so well!

I do have to say that one of the difficulties ex-sem’s like myself face is that after leaving (even with the surest knowledge that is what you should do) it can be pretty tough. To live, eat, and breathe formation for a year or more and then leave isn’t easy.

Yes, you have hit upon something which few understand (unless you are “one of us”.) I think that anyone who has taken vocational discernment seriously, experienced a sincere desire to potentially be a priest, and gave himself over to the seminary experience carries with him a certain something for the rest of his life. I don’t know how to describe it. It just is part of you, always will be. Perhaps another poster on this message board best described it once when he commented that there are some in this world who, while not called to the priesthood, but did have a special call of its own right to be seminarians. And this is what we will always be, in a certain brotherhood, even though priesthood was not for us. I don’t like to think of it as “former seminarians”, then, so much as “once upon a times”.

 

[chicago]

For the 18 year old who has spent 4 years in minor sem, I think it would be all the harder… And possibly all the more alienating.

There is some truth to this. Think all the harder of how it was for those who lost their institution entirely.

For one who takes discernment seriously, it can certainly be a challenge to leave and move on. As someone who was in a similar situation to your own, though having left (or, rather, choosing not to continue) after my high school seminary experience, I can attest to the fact that there were those who were (and remain to this day, 15 years later) disappointed in me not advancing. Indeed, there was at the time some frustration, anger, and personal disappointment. But ultimately peace in knowing that I had given it a shot and found another path to be mine. As a single man, today, I must occasionally face the incessant questioning about, “When are you going to become a priest?” and try patiently to explain that, “It is not my call. I’ve already been down that route and found that God’s Will for me is elsewhere.” And, yet, I must say that I don’t know where I would be without having had that experience. For the discernment was something that had to take place in my life. It is what I was ready for at that age.

Certainly, the pressures shouldn’t be placed so heavily on teenagers to commit to something which they are not mature enough to decide definitively just yet. And I do think that this stigma is something which kept many away from considering the possibility at all. As anyone who attended Quigley (in any era, really, but all the more so in recent decades) knows, it is tough to face the critique and questioing from outside about why you would want to do something so silly like not having sex and becoming a priest. As a student there, you had to learn to cope with these things and find creative ways to respond to where you really were in your discernment to help others understand that you weren’t such a freak as they thought; just a normal person giving serious thought to finding your way in life. Or, perhaps you had to deal with people who said things like, “He’s going to become a priest,” when you really weren’t very sure that you likely would.

But there are young men who need to discern these things and those boys who should discern these things. God does, afterall, call not a few from a tender age. They must have a supportive environment where this discernment is possible.

There can always be separation pains in moving on in life. Though high school graduation is a natural step where this will occur, anyway, so perhaps in some sense it is less so then than at another time. And, at Quigley, afterall, you were not really removed from the world so much as amidst it; though certainly in a special, distinct place of note which did single you out in some seperate way from all others. So perhaps it is a little less difficult due to all this.

If anything, then, upon leaving minor seminary you hopefully have been strengthened in the brotherhood which was formed over those four years (in a closer way than any other school possibly could accomplish) and thankful for what a special thing you had like no one else in the world outside of this community.

That is why minor seminaries retain importance even in our day.

I’d like to hear the insights of more people who attended (or perhaps have children or relatives who attended) a minor seminary.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Chicago,

Very indepth and impressive response. I am not sure where to begin, so I was tempted not to! lol

In short order I would like to state that I am not familiar with all of the intricacies of Q in particular - it served as a jumping board for just a general observation about minor seminary in general. Your thoughts on the endowment and subsequent use of the sem bldg is interesting to hear.

But as to the simple idea about why I think minor sem in the Western hemisphere is no longer a great idea…

Well we are probably going to disagree about this, but plainly put (first and foremost) I am of the thinking that church resources in general are badly needed for the formation of men with greater likelihood of ordination - adult men ready to take on the rebuilding process of the Church in the west after decimation through scandal and dissent.

I also wonder about the wisdom of a minor child - with dual allegiance and obligation to obey his parents, being in a situational type where they also have formation superiors. IT seems to create a bit of a divided house.

Seminary is very much for men capable of making their own decisions. Minors just can’t do that.

The idea of minor seminary nowadays seems neither fish now fowl. Not just a boarding school, not a priestly formation school, not an all boy academy…

This isn’t a post specific to QMS - thought in leading with the comments I did in the OP I can understand why it might be taken that way. Just some random thoughts about minor seminary in general.

PLEASE, no 3-page responses? Maybe just a one-pager?

 

[chicago]

I surprized even myself with that one when it told me I couldn’t post it as it was over 12,200 characters long!

Thanks for your further thoughts and articulations of concern.

Again, I think that the essential key (and greatest challenge for minor seminaries) is understanding their distinction from major seminaries in being cognizant of what they can and can not offer by nature in order to be properly related to the age and maturity of students. In this sense, while some of your concerns are certainly valid, others just ought not apply.

I will say that, while there is certainly a need for the development of what was once considered “late” vocations, that we should not risk losing those who may be called from a young age. It seems that the emphasis in recent years has been almost entirely on adult vocations. That’s fair and good. But youth vocations, likewise, need nurturing and their neglection has hurt the Church, I believe. They ought not be sacrificed. Even the Archdiocese seems to recognize this in their offering of new programs. So, again, it isn’t “either-or” but “both-and”.

Finally, recognize (as you certainly know, having been in seminary) that even the older seminarians need the chance to discern and grow in a way which takes time, resources, and nurturing that don’t always “pay off” with an ordination. I’ll conclude with the observation of one major seminarian I know who attended a minor seminary. He noted that some who are ahead of him in age and seminary year seem to look down somewhat at those behind them in the process (citing the example of Chicago’s extensive seminary program with high school and college - among other preparatory programs, in particular.) Still, he suggested, they have often only been discerning for a fairly brief period of time compared to those among them who have had the chance and opportunity to mature their vocations via several years of growth.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

As anyone who attended Quigley (in any era, really, but all the more so in recent decades) knows, it is tough to face the critique and questioing from outside about why you would want to do something so silly like not having sex and becoming a priest. As a student there, you had to learn to cope with these things and find creative ways to respond to where you really were in your discernment to help others understand that you weren’t such a freak as they thought; just a normal person giving serious thought to finding your way in life. Or, perhaps you had to deal with people who said things like, “He’s going to become a priest,” when you really weren’t very sure that you likely would.

If anything, then, upon leaving minor seminary you hopefully have been strengthened in the brotherhood which was formed over those four years (in a closer way than any other school possibly could accomplish) and thankful for what a special thing you had like no one else in the world outside of this community.

That is why minor seminaries retain importance even in our day.

I’d like to hear the insights of more people who attended (or perhaps have children or relatives who attended) a minor seminary.

You, of course, friend Chicago, know my thoughts about Quigley

But yeah, your posts are long. But It’s hard to find parts that aren’t necessary, just picking out what is most applicable…

And I’ve had to deal with “He’s going to become a priest” several times so far this year. I get annoyed at this, though it could very well be true, because of the extraordinary gall it requires on the declarer’s part:shrug: .

That’s part of the reason young men are reluctant to consider a possible vocation. Of course, the greater reason is a problem with society as a whole and even certain priests who refuse to encourage vocations among young men.

 

[chicago]

There was another thread on Quigley, specifically, which touched upon and discussed extensively the issue of minor seminaries, more generally. It can be found here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=110605&page=2

Also one of the posters who is a product of a minor seminary offered this article, written by him:

cidadeharkleroad.net/journal.pdf