Update

[humbleheart]

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='07 November 2009 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1257613431' post='1997744']
I think this is a romanticized view, to a degree. I know lots of priests, and trust me, there is plenty of wheeling-and-dealing and "negotiating" about assignments, salaries, etc.

In my dioceses, apparently, a priest who has enough of his own money saved up is pretty much allowed to go on leave or retire whenever he wants as long as he doesnt expect the diocese to pay him during that time.

The romantic view of this all as some sacred thing with pure-motives and sheer selflessness is a great ideal...but in reality, the day to day running of the "business" of the Church is much more petty, trivial, and mundane.[/quote]

Christianity itself is a sacred thing about pure motives and sheer selflessness, and we all fall short of that ideal. This doesn't mean that we should stop striving for it, or that we should be content with anything less. Jesus' message to people who want to follow Him is stark: "Renounce yourself, take up your cross, and follow me." He wasn't being romantic. The renunciation and the cross are prerequisites for discipleship.

[quote]Again, I think this is romanticized. Plenty of men go through this process and DONT come out as good priests. If anything, I would say it has been a spectacular failure in the past 40 years, letting a lot of defective psyches through.[/quote]

It is true that not every sinner who enters a seminary will come out of it a saint. Judas Iscariot was with Christ throughout His three years of ministry, and he was the last of the disciples to touch Him before His death, but in spite of these privileges he turned away from the faith. This doesn't mean that Christ's way of teaching was wrong.

You seem very confident about judging who has a defective psyche and who hasn't. God calls all sorts of people to the priesthood and the religious life, some of whom you will get on well with and some of whom you will dislike. The fact is that God has put them there, and He sees qualities in them that you in your human frailty can't recognise. Being with people whose abilities we don't notice can be a good thing - it will hopefully make us less judgemental and teach us that everybody performs valuable work.

[quote]Compared to all those unhealthy motives, I think my desire to be treated as an independent American adult instead of treated like some adolescent at boot-camp or boarding-school...is just fine.[/quote]

"Compared to all those unhealthy motives..." sounds a little like, "Thank God I'm not like that tax-collector over there." How do you know why those men became priests? You're acting as though you can read their minds, based on your own interpretations of their behaviour. Only God knows their innermost thoughts, and He is capable of bringing good out of them no matter why they made the choices that they've made. There is no need for us to speculate on why they chose to enter the seminary. All we can do is pray for them.

[quote]I was able to find a University that met all my personal needs. If I went into a secular career, I'd be able to find one that met all my needs. Why should that be so unbelievable in a seminary?[/quote]

A career is not the same thing as a vocation. St Matthew is the perfect example of that. Tax-collecting was his career. His vocation came walking by his collection table one day, and in response he got up (leaving all his money and ambition behind) and went off to live an unknown life. The same with the fishermen. How could any of them have known what Jesus was expecting of them when He said, "Follow me"? Christ didn't hand out any job descriptions or discuss a pension plan. His first followers had no idea what they were letting themselves in for.

As for needs, do you even know what your needs are? I don't know mine. I trust that God does, though.

Edited November 7, 2009 by humbleheart

[HisChild]

I want to respond to your comments, some of which were pretty harsh. I could be sweetness and light, responding while mincing words hoping I don't offend. And truly I don't want you to be offended by what I write, but as my former spiritual director said we sometimes need a knock on the head to pull us from a thought process that might be doing some damage. These are only my opinions, but I would chance to say that these thoughts reflect others' on this board, to whom you came for advice.
[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='07 November 2009 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1257613431' post='1997744']
I think this is a romanticized view, to a degree. I know lots of priests, and trust me, there is plenty of wheeling-and-dealing and "negotiating" about assignments, salaries, etc. [/quote]
Wheeling and dealing? Wow, now THAT really sounds petty and full of self centeredness, doesn't it?
[quote]
In my dioceses, apparently, a priest who has enough of his own money saved up is pretty much allowed to go on leave or retire whenever he wants as long as he doesnt expect the diocese to pay him during that time.
The romantic view of this all as some sacred thing with pure-motives and sheer selflessness is a great ideal...but in reality, the day to day running of the "business" of the Church is much more petty, trivial, and mundane.
[/quote]
I had a pastor like that, jetting off to Ireland several times a year and had nicer things in his home and in his wardrobe than anyone I'd ever met. It got to the point where he lost the pulse point of his parish and was so caught up in himself and doing whatever he wanted that he could no longer connect with them. People don't want a pal as their pastor, they want a shepherd. Incidentally, after 30 years he's no longer a priest.

The day to day of anyone's life might be considered mundane, and when dealing with many different personalities in your parishioners, some things might be considered petty, but you're dealing with people's souls. It's far different than say, working in a secular job, where at the end of the work day, you can go home and leave it all behind. Being a priest is a serious responsibility. Those parishioners will not only look up to you, but people will be coming to you for temporal and spiritual advice. Not to mention the times you will be woken in the middle of the night to administer Last Rites. Take care that in your eschewing the 'romantic' views you think others have, you're not trivializing the spiritual burden you'll be carrying of all the lives you will shepherd, day in and day out. After all, Jesus didn't say, put in a few hours and then go do what you want, He said 'Deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me'.
[quote]
Again, I think this is romanticized. Plenty of men go through this process and DONT come out as good priests. If anything, I would say it has been a spectacular failure in the past 40 years, letting a lot of defective psyches through. [/quote]
And again, I think this is why the selection process and the seminary experience is more stringent, or in some cases, remains stringent and 'controlling' BECAUSE there were so many that 'got through' the process and shouldn't have become priests. You might think the seminaries who were more traditional were at fault for not turning out good priests. In all actuality, it might have been those less organized that turn out priests without a good formation. After Vatican II, misinterpretation of those wonderful documents made some religious communities and yes, even seminaries, irreverently toss the baby out with the bath water. So it might not be the more traditional that are at fault for this 'spectacular 40 year failure'.
[quote]
The number of priests who arent REALLY being celibate is apparently scandalously high, and many priests are in therapy for other things (alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, anxiety, etc).
[/quote]
That's truly neither here nor there. It's incredibly disobedient to your vow of celibacy and to your bishop to whom you make those vows (which I know are different than the vows a religious makes but you do make promises of celibacy and obedience to your Ordinary)... but a topic for another time. Only God can answer that one, and I feel certain that upon that person's death, He will. And as an aside, who's to say those men who are in therapy would have been so as laity? You don't know their histories, so it's rather unfair for you to make such sweeping generalizations. Just because one is a priest or religious doesn't mean that we're not in our own way fractured and need healing. Regardless of vocation.
[quote]
It seems to me that they still care more about whether a man can be an obedient conformist than about any other criteria. There are lots of good normal guys I know who have told me they couldnt stand being institutionalized like that, but who I know are more mature than a lot of the stunted adolescent psyches I've met in numerous seminaries.
[/quote]
I've known many a seminarian who became priests. They're pretty awesome men, and while on fire for our Lord, they're pretty normal. So, I don't know about these stunted psyches you speak of. I think you may be focusing too much on the exception rather than the rule.

Does it truly shock you that they're wanting to make sure a man can obey? Seriously? Look at your previous quote about sexual disobedience and the men who 'do whatever they want' because they don't want to conform, worrying about their own self will rather than serving God and His people? The American Church is more than any other country rampant with religious and ordained doing whatever the fig they'd like because by golly no one will tell them what to do! I've seen disobedient priests, not only to their bishops but to the Church, preaching on topics that we as a faith do not believe... again, does it shock you that they're cautious and want to make sure the priests they educate now are those who DO obey? I'm not saying seminaries should toss out automatons, but this isn't just a job. You'll be a priest 24/7, a representative of an institution that shepherds and guides the souls of more than a billion people.

I'm not saying that the seminary is a perfect institution. I'm sure there ARE serious flaws in the process, just like you'll see me on here talking about the flaws I've seen in religious life formation, but of the many different sins, the ego and the pride are at the base of them all... and one of the best ways to train/teach others that you are not just training for a secular career is to teach obedience, so that you will learn that for the most part, your time is not your own, that this isn't a job, this is who you will be intrinsically, another Christ.
[quote]
Are my motives entirely pure? I doubt anyone's are. But I really want to serve Christ and His Church, help people spiritually, as a priest. Many men are in seminaries running from sexuality. Many men are in seminaries because they crave discipline and obsessive rigidity or authoritarianism. Many are just looking for an easy job or to be taken care of (priests can make their work as hard, or easy, as they choose in most places...the maximum effort can be heroic, but the minimum requirements can be very little, frankly).
[/quote]
You don't need to be a priest to help people within Christ's Church. There are many laity who are of great help in the Church, some even employed within the parishes. Have you thought of perhaps becoming a counselor, since you mention sexuality and spirituality. Or even a trained spiritual director? You say you want to help people spiritually, but you don't mention the more sacred duties of the priest like administering the Sacraments which will be a major part of your life. So perhaps, you could be of service to the Church while not being ordained.
[quote]
Compared to all those unhealthy motives, I think my desire to be treated as an independent American adult instead of treated like some adolescent at boot-camp or boarding-school...is just fine.
[/quote]
Wow, now that's a prideful and arrogant statement if I ever heard one! And yet, it sounds like you want an easy job in which you can help people spiritually and then do whatever you want/be left alone, which is the opposite extreme of those who just want an easy job, to be taken care of. Neither seem like a balance has been achieved.

Forgive me if I sound harsh. Perhaps you have honorable motives for wanting to be a priest. But the perception, and I don't think I'm alone here, is that you're simply looking for a diocese and seminary that will give you what you want vs. what you need in a vocation. One that, while preparing you for priesthood, giving you the nuts and bolts of classroom learning to prepare you theologically for your ordination, will also allow you the greatest autonomy so at the end of the day your time is not your parishioners or even your diocese but completely yours. That saddens me. I hope that if you truly are ordained, your parishioners don't feel that they're only getting a part time priest, one who's more concerned with himself than them. I've suffered through that. It's rough. And in the end I found myself going to a parish where my priest was actually an active presence in the church.
[quote]
I was able to find a University that met all my personal needs. If I went into a secular career, I'd be able to find one that met all my needs. Why should that be so unbelievable in a seminary? Why must they all be so rigid, especially when that hasnt seemed to guarantee anything about the psychological quality of the men emerging (if anything, it is has created a clerical culture severely turned in on itself)?
[/quote]
Not to beat a dead cat, as the saying goes, but this isn't a secular career. I feel that's a little lost on you, that you're trying to secularize a religious vocation.

With your posts many moons ago, you were pretty negative about your experience with religious life. Now you're just as negative as what you see as the diocesan priesthood. A psychiatrist friend of mine once told me that many who violently condemn something or someone often discover that the basis of their condemnations are also qualities within that they abhor about themselves. With your vehement negativity about clerics 'severely turned in on themselves', could it be that you yourself are focusing too much on yourself instead of our Lord for whom you will be of service on Earth? Perhaps you should consider that the reason you cannot find what you're looking for is that you're trying to mould your vocation into your own image, instead of looking to become 'not I, but Christ who lives in me'.

In this thread and the one you started a year or two ago (I can't remember right now when you started that other thread) you focus so much on what's wrong with everyone else. A little self discovery might do a world of good here because the 'fault' may not totally be without, but perhaps also within.

Do you have a spiritual director that you could speak with? Have you spoken to your pastor or maybe to the Vocation Director for your diocese? At the very least (or at most, depending on how you look at it) I really pray that you take yourself to the Blessed Sacrament and spend some time in prayer, discerning if this is really something you're suited for and if it's a life that would suit you.

If I, or others for that matter, have misunderstood your words, please enlighten me, because I can't understand with all your condemnation of all those 'other priests' with all their issues and wrong motivations, etc. why you'd actually WANT to be a priest.

[organwerke]

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='07 November 2009 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1257613431' post='1997744']
Why should that be so unbelievable in a seminary?
[/quote]

I didn't say that you shouldn't find "your" seminary: I simply think that you won't find it!
And can I ask you why are you so interested in becoming a priest?
Anyway I can't say that what you say isn't in part true...or that I never heard things like your opinions...
A very friend of mine who studied in seminary often talks like you. And I am really fond of him, so it isn't at all a negative judgement!
But, in fact, he stopped studying and didn't become a priest. The same thing that I really think will happen to you.
Good luck.

[picchick]

Edit

Edited November 7, 2009 by picchick

[littlesister]

Thanks, Picchick, you have said exactly what I was thinking but was saving for when I could read the first post more slowly. No religious calling is about what WE want. It's about what HE wants. Starting out with a list of terms and conditions, once the right spot has supposedly been found, would be a great way to mis-read everything else. The Church is made up of human beings, so human frailty is inevitable, but that isn's where the focus is. Picchick's comments about nursing (I'm one too) and vocation are right on the mark.

[HisChild]

[quote name='littlesister' date='07 November 2009 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1257637736' post='1997898']
Thanks, Picchick, you have said exactly what I was thinking but was saving for when I could read the first post more slowly. No religious calling is about what WE want. It's about what HE wants. Starting out with a list of terms and conditions, once the right spot has supposedly been found, would be a great way to mis-read everything else. The Church is made up of human beings, so human frailty is inevitable, but that isn's where the focus is. Picchick's comments about nursing (I'm one too) and vocation are right on the mark.
[/quote]


Oh look, another nurse! I'm one too. And yes, Picchick is on the money about our job. Either that, or we're all crazy. Or a little of both.

[picchick]

lol I guess shouldn't have deleted it.... Now I can't remember the exact words I used. I guess I could try to paraphrase.

[picchick]

Thanks to HisChild I have my original post.

Just curious: why do you feel that you are called to the priesthood. They way you describe things you don't really seem to have the calling (this coming from an outside person reading your posts)

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='07 November 2009 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1257613431' post='1997744']
I think this is a romanticized view, to a degree. I know lots of priests, and trust me, there is plenty of wheeling-and-dealing and "negotiating" about assignments, salaries, etc.
[/quote]
When you picture a priest and from my seminarian friends that I know, this is not what you see. And quite frankly I DO NOT want a priest who wants to wheel and deal and negotiate assignments and what not. What kind of example is that? We are to be obdient to the Church. So should the priest.

If it happens, there is nothing I can do about it. YET, you are already assuming on this and feeding into it. I don't like it.

[quote]
The romantic view of this all as some sacred thing with pure-motives and sheer selflessness is a great ideal...but in reality, the day to day running of the "business" of the Church is much more petty, trivial, and mundane.
[/quote]

I am a nurse. There are soooo many romantic views of being a nurse. Pure motives, selflessness, the dare to care, whatever else. Oh so romantic. However, when you get down to it, nursing is dirty buisness. You get yelled at by docs. You clean up mushy mud pie. You get yelled at by your fellow nurses. You get vomit on you. I mean it is pretty hard work. However, I love it. There are times that things get rough but I could not imagine doing anything else. And it all started out with pure motives and sheer selflessness.

Being a priest is a sacred thing. If you do not have pure motives and the sheer will to be selfless, please, do not become a priest. Just as I would want a nurse and I strive to be a nurse who fights for her patients, give them the best care despite obstacles in my way, I would want a priest who will strive to help me become holy, be able to come to my house at whatever hour of the day or night to give my parents last rites, be able to hear my confession even if it is not confession time, and the list goes on.


[quote]
Again, I think this is romanticized. Plenty of men go through this process and DONT come out as good priests. If anything, I would say it has been a spectacular failure in the past 40 years, letting a lot of defective psyches through.

The number of priests who arent REALLY being celibate is apparently scandalously high, and many priests are in therapy for other things (alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, anxiety, etc).

It seems to me that they still care more about whether a man can be an obedient conformist than about any other criteria. There are lots of good normal guys I know who have told me they couldnt stand being institutionalized like that, but who I know are more mature than a lot of the stunted adolescent psyches I've met in numerous seminaries.
[/quote]
No, it is training to be obdient to the Church. We all have to do that.

[quote]
Compared to all those unhealthy motives, I think my desire to be treated as an independent American adult instead of treated like some adolescent at boot-camp or boarding-school...is just fine.
[/quote]
uh...you don't lose indepence in a seminary. I am a girl but I know. And it isn't like adolescent boot camp or boarding school. Sorry but it is not. Minor seminary maybe but that is like undergrad. Grad schools are different.



[quote]
I was able to find a University that met all my personal needs. If I went into a secular career, I'd be able to find one that met all my needs. Why should that be so unbelievable in a seminary? Why must they all be so rigid, especially when that hasnt seemed to guarantee anything about the psychological quality of the men emerging (if anything, it is has created a clerical culture severely turned in on itself)?
[/quote]
Because it is no longer about you. That is the point. It is about the Church. If you become a priest your service is to the Church as petty, trivial or mundane you might find the work. If that is something you cannot deal with then you should not become a priest. They are not rigid to guarantee the psychological quality of future priests, they are "rigid" because they are training you for the priesthood.

Sorry if this sounds harsh or whatever but I am not going to sugar coat it. I've never discerned the priesthood. I've had family and friends discern. I've discerned the religious life. But most of all, I am a potential congregation member of you and a member of the Church.

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

Maybe I'm not as good at describing it.

But take a look at this interview with a priest. He is describing a certain well-known congregation that is the subject of a visitation, but the things he describes are the kinds of things that I'm talking about in general, and which I think can apply to MANY if not most seminaries and religious orders these days, to more or less degrees:

[url="http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1339296?eng=y"]http://chiesa.espres...o/1339296?eng=y[/url]

"At the core of serious problems in the internal culture of the congregation is a mistaken understanding and living of the theological principle - in itself valid - that God's will is made manifest to the religious through his superior. The [...] seminarian is erroneously led to foster a hyper-focusing on internal "dependence" on the superior for virtually every one of his intentional acts (either explicitly or in virtue of some norm or permission received, or presumed or habitual permissions). This is not in harmony with the tradition of religious life in the Church, nor is it theologically or psychologically sound. It entails rather an unhealthy suppression of personal freedom (which is a far cry from the reasoned, discerned and freely exercised oblation of mind and will that the Holy Spirit genuinely inspires in the institution of religious obedience) and occasions unholy and unhealthy restrictions on personal conscience.

Furthermore, [...] norms regarding "reporting to," "informing," "communication with," and"dependence on" superiors constitute a system of control and conformity which now must be considered highly suspect [...]. They furthermore engender a simplistic, and humanly and theologically impoverished notion of God's will (its discernment and manifestation) that breeds personal immaturity.

More seriously,the lived manner in which [they] practice obedience is laced with the kind of unquestioning submission which allowed the cult of personality to emerge [...] in the first place and covered for [...] misdeeds. [S]eminarians are essentially trained to suspend reason in their obedience and to seek a total internal conformity with all the norms, and to withstand any internal impulse to examine or critique the norms or the indications of superiors.

Granted, the primary motivation behind such living of obedience is the ideal of total "immolation" of oneself for the love of Christ as embodied in the relentless living of all norms and indications of the superiors. This "immolation" of intellect and will is at the heart of the "holocaust" that [they are] invited to live for love of Christ and the Church. While the motivation is valid,and generations [...] have pursued this in good faith, in the long run it not only proves profoundly problematic, but also explains the negative personality change which many, if not most, [...]undergo over time: the shallowness of their emotional expression, the lack of empathy and inability to relate normally to others in so many contexts, the general sense of their being "out of touch," etc. Only exceptionally do [...] priests move beyond this, but only thanks to the multiple talents and human gifts they brought with them..."


Yet these same things are, essentially, what I've seen at most conservative and traditional seminaries and which many posters here seem to be romanticizing.

Yet who can I talk to about this? Luckily, at college I found some friends in the same position, who are orthodox Catholics but havent handed over free thought or critical thinking when it comes to the deep deep institutional problems in the clergy.

But it's hard to talk to conservative priests, who are susceptible to the same things, having been through the seminary re-socialization themselves, and it is apparently hard to talk to other conservative discerners who likewise seemingly romanticize this mindset. Many good Catholics wearing rose-colored glasses and perceive it as being willful or attacking the Church.

And yet we're not liberal, but in some ways my friends and I relate to them a lot better on a personal level, even if ideologically disagreeing. It's very disturbing that orthodox Catholicism cannot be separated from the neuroses for too long associated with it.

Edited November 8, 2009 by CruxOfTheMatterAgain

[HisChild]

Let me ask you something: What first hand experience have you had at any of these seminaries? Not hearsay, but first hand.

(And you still didn't answer my earlier question of if you have seen a vocation director for your diocese or a spiritual director or even your pastor.)

You are comparing a community whose founder has demanded cult-like practices of its members to regular seminaries. Perhaps the Regnum and the Legion have called it their practice to demand dependence on the superior for minutiae. But I don't think that's even in the same universe as issues like curfew, which if you think about it, is not that big of a thing. It's like what my parents used to say when I was living at home and going to college: You live in my house, you abide by my rules.

No one is in denial that we have serious issues with our clergy. At least I'm sure as heck not. I know there are issues. And until our current bishop showed up on scene most of the problems centered around priests who as you said were not celibate, drank like fish, and spoke in their homilies about the justification for married and female priests and other things that as a Church we do not believe. It wasn't the traditional priests who were wreaking havoc on the people, but the liberals. And while I had some pretty poor experiences about liberal priests I'm not going to generalize. Neither am I going to say that ALL traditional priests are good and holy either. But I don't think that blanketly accusing traditional seminaries is the answer.

You claim that we are romanticizing but truly, you've never even given it a thought that our own experiences are so far removed from your own. You call religious life 'weird' and those within so completely removed from normal. Even when religious have posted on here that their own community is not how you describe and you should give them a try. Then a couple years later you come back and say that now that you've discerned you're not called to religious life, you're discerning a call to the priesthood and that too is filled with issues completely unsat to your rigid expectations.

Blind obedience? I have heard in some religious communities that if you are told to do something completely absurd it is better to obey as the person of the superior acts as a little Christ, but from what I've seen that's only in formation. In every community I've ever discerned with I've been told that if you're asked to do something completely against the law or your conscience then of course they'd want you to discuss this with your superior or maybe even not obey! And since you've made it clear you're not called to religious life, this isn't even an issue with you. I've NEVER heard of a bishop who demanded blind obedience of his diocesan priests, so again comparing this unfortunate religious order has NOTHING to do with diocesan vocations.

No one said you were 'attacking the Church'. But you ARE comparing a secular career with the life of a priest. If the priesthood and its formation were similar or the same, anyone would be able to apply for the job, so to speak. The priests I've known, many of whom have been ordained within the last ten years. None have gone on about the issue of obedience. None. All their correspondence with me while they were in the seminary was about how much they loved it there. I know you'll be quick to claim they must be those people who love obedience and being controlled and don't have a mind of their own as you mentioned in your previous posts, but let me assure you this is NOT the case with any of the rowdy guys I know. And not one appears to have any of the neuroses, rose-colored idealism, or alcoholism that you've mentioned as being at the root of being in a traditional seminary.

Lastly, let me only say that you're so quick to point out that it MUST be the traditional religious life or traditional seminaries at fault for all these issues we currently have in our church (issues that I am VERY aware of, so no, I do not believe our Church is doing peachy), and while they may have their issues, you fail to accept that more 'progressive' seminaries have problems of their own, perhaps even contributing to the greater vocation problem we have today.

Look, no matter which side of the fence you're on, traditional, liberal, diocesan, religious, male, female, you're going to find places that are great and places that are abhorrent. And even in those great places you will discover SOMETHING that you are annoyed with or even loathe. Nothing is utopian while here on earth. But at its roots, if you choose to be a priest you will have to accept that you will be required to be obedient to the bishop and you will have boundaries while in seminary. Being in seminary and all its rubrics is a way to show you're man enough for the challenge and that you won't be a problem child later on. No one is talking blind obedience, no one is talking about micro management. But, it's the first step in proving you're mature enough to recognize your life for the most part is no longer fully your own. While you may have vacations or days off here and there, you are there for Christ, who has asked you to be there for His people. It isn't a laissez faire vocation. And if you cannot accept that, then I don't see how any vocational director would recommend you for their diocese. I could be wrong. Completely.

My only recommendation for you if you are insistent on pursuing what you feel is your religious vocation and that you are not even a tiny bit wrong in your thinking is to search out a more progressive diocese like Orange County CA or some place similar who would be more receptive to your requirements and ask them for advice. But if you want to be in an orthodox diocese, you're going to have to play by their rules, meaning that of the Ordinary of the area. There really isn't more to say after that.

Peace to you and good luck.

[zunshynn]

Crux...

The priesthood is a vocation, not a job. Is it appropriate for a parent to say, "OK, I fed my kids, they have clothes on and a shelter over their heads, so don't make any more demands on my time... I'll be back at such and such a time." No way! There's more to parenting than the basics. They have to be willing at any time to drop what maybe they would "like" to do to bandage skinned knees, change poopy diapers, console a child whose feelings have been hurt, etc. etc. And those things may not fall into a 9-5 time frame.

If you're looking for something to do with your life that allows you to help people, but only so long as it corresponds to your stipulations of what should be required, the priesthood is not for you. The priesthood fatherhood. Please don't pursue the priesthood with the attitude you seem to have now... not only for the sake of the people who would be entrusted to you, but for your own sake as well. It won't make you happy, if you are not willing to sacrifice yourself, and your own will. It is a life of sacrifice... that is what it is meant to be.

Religious life demands everything of a person... and I'm sure diocesan clerical life would be the same... The type of sacrifices demanded are different, true, but they are, nonetheless, both lives of sacrifice. It will never satisfy you if you do not give yourself completely to it. Never. A priest is called to be another Christ, who gave himself You cannot hold back. You cannot agree to do all of your basic duties, even to near perfection, but all the while insist that your "freedoms" to spend your time however you like be respected. That's not freedom, that's slavery to your own desires. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with priests taking vacations, or needing time away. But they absolutely must be willing to let go of that time when its necessary, even if its a demand placed upon them beyond the "minimum required".

Look at Padre Pio... extremely obedient, even when that meant incredible suffering, some of which was arguably from unjust demands. But he is a saint of the church, a man who brought countless men and women to conversion and deeper relationships with God. I can assure you he was not negotiating and looking for assignments that satisfied what he felt like he wanted. Same with St. John Vianney, a parish priest.

Think about the story of the good shepherd and the hireling (John 10). Which one, honestly, are you more describing?

Also... you're contradicting yourself ALOT. You say you don't like the so-called "Traditional" seminaries because they are too rigid, and strict. Then you complain about all the priests that have been ordained the last 40 years... These aren't the same men, most likely. I know seminarians from a lot of the so-called "Traditional" seminaries... the Josephinum... Our Lady of Guadalupe... they are rigid, yes, they demand obedience, but they are not producing robotic priests incapable of thinking for themselves. The last 40 years have not been known for their rigid seminary life... exactly the opposite, which is why the Vatican is working on fixing things in them.

And anyway, blind obedience is not being demanded... but even if it was, so long as you were not being asked to violate the moral law, obedience to it would still be more meritorious than disobedience, because God loves humility. He can work with humility. He cannot work with pride. Even if you were insisting on spending your spare time reading great spiritual treatises before the Blessed Sacrament, and you were told instead to do something "silly" by your rector, or bishop, doing what you were told would merit more for your own soul, and save many more than if you had done what you thought seemed holier.

I will be praying for you...

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

[quote]The priesthood is a vocation, not a job. Is it appropriate for a parent to say, "OK, I fed my kids, they have clothes on and a shelter over their heads, so don't make any more demands on my time... I'll be back at such and such a time." No way! There's more to parenting than the basics. They have to be willing at any time to drop what maybe they would "like" to do to bandage skinned knees, change poopy diapers, console a child whose feelings have been hurt, etc. etc. And those things may not fall into a 9-5 time frame.[/quote]

But that's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, the comparison to married life is very ironic, because it seems to me that married men (either those studying to be permanent deacons or former protestant ministers) are treated a lot more like adults by the seminaries.

If I felt at all called to marriage and family life, it would be fine. Parents, yes, have responsibilities. But they also set the rules. I just find it very patronizing that as an adult, in seminary, I'd have the threat of having my room searched or getting "in trouble" like I'm sort of middle school student.

I'm not talking about anything major, and that's just it. But at a certain point it raises eyebrows that a seminarian has to ask the rector for toothpaste instead of just being able to drive down to the drugstore and pick some up on his free time.

[quote]That's not to say that there's anything wrong with priests taking vacations, or needing time away. But they absolutely must be willing to let go of that time when its necessary, even if its a demand placed upon them beyond the "minimum required". [/quote]

Again, I dont think you're understanding my complaint. This isnt about the real responsibilities being to heavy. Once I was ordained, I think I'd be fine as a parish priest, and would definitely take on quite a lot of responsibilities beyond the "bare minimum" I see a lot of priests doing because that is just my personality. Given the resources, I am very effective in terms of starting projects, rallying people to participate, etc. But that takes a lot of independence and freedom to not stifle it.

In contrast to that, however, seminary life seems the exact opposite. There are, frankly, very few responsibilities for the men as students beyond their school work (which all priests I know have told me was easier than undergrad, especially if you already know the Faith), instead there is a control of all their time, their movements, a pressure to conform, and a culture of secrecy and authoritarianism.

The latter does not adequately prepare men for the former. In the real world, they will be expected to take on a lot of responsibility independently (instead of relying on constant direction and discipline from superiors), will have to be spontaneous and think on their feet, will have to learn how to handle all this unstructured time they suddenly get in a healthy way.

The life of a diocesan priest definitely appeals to me, that's not the question. The question is seminary life. I know it would only have to last 5 years, but 5 years is a long time. Why is there such a disconnect between the atmosphere of priestly life, and the atmosphere of the training, which seems a sort of "hazing" as it were, and seems to be the exact opposite of the life they will be expected to lead on their own. When you go from living in a virtual Panopticon with constant supervision, to living alone in some rectory expected to do everything yourself...well, we've seen there can be a real break-down. The "theoretical" hope is that the men will internalize the dynamics so they continue them on their own, but we've seen that doesnt happen. The "honor system" has been a huge failure for priests out in the world. Not because, methinks, there is anything inherently dangerous in independence (I obviously think it is healthy), but when you train men to live in such an utterly dependent controlled way...and then throw them out to some country parish alone...they cant handle that.

"The last 40 years have not been known for their rigid seminary life... exactly the opposite, which is why the Vatican is working on fixing things in them."

My question is why they have to go hand-in-hand. People seem to be under the impression that we either have to sacrifice orthodox OR psychological health. That it's either conservative theology in a rigid atmosphere, or liberal theology in an open atmosphere. Couldnt we have conservative theology in an open atmosphere?

"You are comparing a community whose founder has demanded cult-likepractices of its members to regular seminaries. Perhaps the Regnum andthe Legion have called it their practice to demand dependence on thesuperior for minutiae. But I don't think that's even in the sameuniverse as issues like curfew, which if you think about it, is notthat big of a thing. It's like what my parents used to say when I wasliving at home and going to college: You live in my house, you abide bymy rules."

But I think the difference between the Legion and other seminaries is merely one of Degree, not nature. I have witnessed the same dynamics many places. Much muted, thank God, much toned down...but still, different only in degree, not nature. The authoritarianism, the rigidity, the control, the Big Brother-like supervision. The paranoid fear that terrible things are going to happen if a group of seminarians go out to a restaurant for dinner (when much worse things are happening IN some of the seminarians' rooms). The control, to varying degrees, of access to outside communication or information. The absolute militaristic exaltation of obedience above all other virtues. The pressure to conform even in affect and mannerism.

[zunshynn]

[quote]I'm not talking about anything major, and that's just it. But at a certain point it raises eyebrows that a seminarian has to ask the rector for toothpaste instead of just being able to drive down to the drugstore and pick some up on his free time.
[/quote]

The reason for that is that asking and getting one's superior's permission and blessing bestows the blessing of God on that person, even for something as silly as asking for toothpaste. I was an extern with a monastery where, for a time, we had gotten away from asking for permissions for things like that. The idea was that the externs were such a small group, there was no reason really to have to ask, we could just go into the economy and get whatever we needed. After awhile, my superior decided that it would be good for us to ask again. Why? Because she couldn't trust us, or because we weren't mature enough to know what we needed? Not at all! But by just getting it ourselves, we missed out on the blessing of God for that action. It supernaturalizes and sanctifies the mundane act of getting the toothpaste, to have the blessing of obedience for it. There is a certain beauty in the practice of humility in the small things. That didn't mean it was any less an open environment.

[quote]Again, I dont think you're understanding my complaint. This isnt about the real responsibilities being to heavy. Once I was ordained, I think I'd be fine as a parish priest, and would definitely take on quite a lot of responsibilities beyond the "bare minimum" I see a lot of priests doing because that is just my personality. Given the resources, I am very effective in terms of starting projects, rallying people to participate, etc. But that takes a lot of independence and freedom to not stifle it. [/quote]

I do understand your complaint. But what you don't seem to understand is that religious life and the priesthood is not about getting the people that do the best work, can accomplish the most. It is not about doing what you think is the best, most productive thing. Oftentimes, it entails sacrificing what you believe would be the best use of your time, even what [i]objectively[/i] may be the most productive thing to be obedient. Obedience is not an obligation set in place because the members of a religious community to make them childish and immature, but to conform them to Christ who was obedient unto death. Christ is not extolled for his power, for his grandeur, for his abilities, but for his obedience. The obediences that religious exercise in even the small things, conform them to Christ. It's not about being the mover and the shaker... it's about being like Christ.

I don't really see basis for these sweeping generalizations that you are making about seminary life, or that they produce priests who can't handle parish life.The point I was making was that the men at these so-called rigid seminaries [i]are[/i] psychologically healthy. I mean look at the FSSP... they have a very structured seminary life, and then right after they are ordained they're thrown into parish life, and they handle it very well.

Just because it seems unreasonable TO YOU for priestly formation to work the way it does, does not mean that it IS unreasonable. That doesn't mean that there aren't men who are ordained, in any age, who really were not psychologically up to it... But to insist that institutions of the Church should bend to what you believe is better, after centuries of timehonored tradition which has produced great saints and a majority of priests who were healthy, and holy, is a little egotistical, if you ask me...

[Thomist-in-Training]

Crux, I'm PMing you the name & email of one of my friends in seminary.

[cmaD2006]

There's a seminary in Boston for delayed vocations -- Blessed John XXIII. I don't know how old you are but it sounds like you've been out on your own long enough that you may qualify. Age boundaries is 30-60.

http://www.blessedjohnxxiii.edu/

I can't say for sure if that seminary has different restrictions -- but it may be work looking into. Also regardless, you would have to obtain sponsorship from a Diocese in order to enter that seminary (per their website).

Edited November 9, 2009 by cmariadiaz