Can 249: The Programme of priestly formation is to provide that the students are not only taufht their native language accuratelu but are also well versed in latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to the necessary or useful for their formation or for the excercise of their pastoral ministry.
Well…there ya go! But also, in fairness to Byz, don’t you think they need extra time or less course work? Don’t you think some of the psychobable stuff could go by the wayside? We’re trying to educate priests, not social workers.
No, I feel very strongly that seminarians should take both more classes and should have a longer stay at the seminary. One of the critiques that I have is that there is not enough Latin or Greek, there is not enough Canon Law of Marriage, there is not enough Christology and not enough philosophy in general. But as pertains this particular issue of the teaching of Latin in the seminaries I feel very strongly that a proficiency of Latin is necessary. Without Latin how can one properly understand canon law or St. Thomas or the church documents. Without that understanding the priest is not equipped to answer some of the more complex questions that people are going to ask.
The problem seems to be that it did not perpetuate as it should have.
Latin was always taught in catholic schools in the pre-conciliar period. latin was the language of science and JPII wrote his disertation in latin. John XXIII wrote this constitution because he saw that latin was losing its place in the church. what he said in this document was for the future church too and not just for 1960. but it has been completely ignored by the post-conciliar church as if it didn’t count or was nullified by VII. this is what B16 has termed the *hermeneutics of discontinuity. *