Before going any farther, if you haven't done so, check The Call series at Columbus Dispatch. Today concludes a weeklong series, which has been pretty good.
A reader asks:
Father, a number of us were discussing the time in the seminary. As I understand it the time in training is 6-7 years. Is that correct? Is it the same as it was time wise back in the 50's?
It seems like today we get so many who have college degrees and life experience when back in the 50's we had kids coming in from high school (ed's note: if not directly from 8th grade!). Is that not correct? If so, why can't we get this training done a lot faster? Seems like with the shortage, we could use some priests out here and a shorter training time might also encourage someone to become a priest who has interest. I can't imagine going through college and then taking on that many years of training to become a priest. However, I leave it to the church to decide as they certainly know far more than I do.
When asking questions of this type, I think the last line is certainly the most important: The Church does indeed know better than I do, even me as a priest, and we do not just submit to her authority, but seek to understand why she teaches or practices such a thing.
To answer the actual question, one must turn to The Program for Priestly Formation by the USCCB, 5th Edition. This is the document tha tguides seminary formation in this country, and implements the vision that was set out by Pope John Paul II in Pastores Dabo Vobis (I will give you shepherds). It was published in 2006, right as I was beginning in the office. This document sets out the requirements that all seminaries have to follow.
The actual time in 'Major Seminary' is the same today as it was in the 50's: four years. However, there is a new phenomenon that did not exist 'back in the day:' second career vocations to the priesthood. (They always did exist, just not in the numbers we see today.)
What the Church has found is that while these men do bring a treasure of experience from a working career (even some having been married and widowed), there is a great need to form them in the Christian environment. The fact is, we live in a post-Christian world, and whereas in the past, men being formed in seminary had eight to twelve years of formation, through high school and college to focus on Christian classics, a true Liberal Arts education, a strong foundation in philosophy and literature, these dimensions are missing when a man comes through with an engineering degree, or a finance/business degree; even with a teaching degree. Hence, seminaries have set up 'Pre-Theology' programs that address the needs to form these second career men in this Catholic world view before they begin their theological studies.
The PPF stipulates that in order to enter 1st Theology, one must have completed 2 years of formation to get a groundwork and set a basis to prepare that man to study theology, hence for a man that has a degree elsewhere, he must do 2 years 'remedial study' before completing the 4 years of theology. Some dioceses and/or seminaries also require a year of internship/pastoral year (we do), which adds another year to formation, hence the guys that enter Pre-Theology I for us this fall can expect a 7 year formation program. Yes, it is alot, yes it is daunting. But as I explain what is all involved in semianry formation (much more than just academics), the time seems to be not near enough for what a man has to do, personally, professional, spiritually, to take up the mantle of the priesthood.
The heart of your question, while I think well intentioned, also shows something deeper. Please do not take this the worng way, but it seems that you see the priesthood as a mere sacramental machine. (I know many others that, while good hearted, fall into this approach.) 'If the training were shorter, we would have more priests.'
To that I ask: 'Do you want more priests, or do you want holier priests, better priests, excellent priests?' To get the latter, even seven years is not enough, and bluntly, that's what we need. Not more, holier.
Showing posts with label Formation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Formation. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Seminarians Must be Connected to Parish Life
From Catholic News Agency:
The years spent in the seminary prepare future priests in the finer points of philosophy and theology and give them ample time and structure to form their prayer lives.
But when they begin their priestly ministry, they’ll have to take what they’ve learned and apply it to real parishioners in all sorts of real situations, while at the same time maintaining a strong personal commitment to prayer.
Spending time with pastors who can manage both the parish office and the Divine Office — or Liturgy of the Hours — is the best kind of classroom for seminarians, said Fr. Paul Sullivan, assistant director of vocations.
The years spent in the seminary prepare future priests in the finer points of philosophy and theology and give them ample time and structure to form their prayer lives.
But when they begin their priestly ministry, they’ll have to take what they’ve learned and apply it to real parishioners in all sorts of real situations, while at the same time maintaining a strong personal commitment to prayer.
Spending time with pastors who can manage both the parish office and the Divine Office — or Liturgy of the Hours — is the best kind of classroom for seminarians, said Fr. Paul Sullivan, assistant director of vocations.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Models of Priesthood
Rich Leonardi posted earlier today on an upcoming event in the Archdiocese, but also contains information regarding the developments in the formation of priests and cites the John Jay study. (That's a mouthful!)
I want to focus on the third of those links: the changes in the formation programs in seminaries and the results that have come from these changes.
In my experience (ordained 2004), the formation that is largely available at seminaries today is a very personal experience. By this, I do not mean subjective experience; but rather the seminary takes an individual look at each candidate and assesses both the strengths that he possesses and the weaknesses that he must overcome while in the context of a seminary community. Formation is not a 'one size fits all' program.
The result of this is that the men in formation come to a deeper awareness of their own gifts and limitations (hopefully!), and how they would respond in certain situations as well. As a result of this 'growth process,' (I know, cliche alert!) some guys do go through counseling, some guys receive extra training in dealing with individuals, homiletics, singing, whatever he may need.
The goal of the formation process is to produce a priest who understands his abilities, the implications of living a celibate life in the midst of a hostile world, and that he will truly represent Christ out in the world. That's a lot to take into account.
From my understanding, the formation programs in the 1950's (again, born in 1976, so this is by reputation) were more about fitting into an assigned role, completing academic programs, and, to an extent, looking the part. There was not a strong spiritual direction program. 'Formation' was nearly non-existant. You were expected to meet these criteria, and if you stepped out of line, see ya later!
The result of this, from a decidedly non-psychological perspective, was that a fair number of men ordained in that time frame repressed or hid their true selves, or did not deal with emotional or psychological problems at the time, or did not have the freedom to grow as a human person before taking on the role of 'priest;' that so much of the normal psycho-social development was repressed and came out later in very dramatic ways. So much so, that I feel quite comfortable saying that this contributed to the sexual abuse crisis of the last 7 years. But, for sure, it was not the only cause, and it may not even be the leading cause; but it certainly contributed, of that I am sure.
In my experience, again, we have learned from these lessons and, today, are much more selective in who we admit to the seminary, and there are greater criteria as far as continuing in the seminary as well.
However, my concern is that this is not universal. There is a certain order that is very prominent today that, again in my limited experience, has reverted to a 1950s formation program, where the men have to fit a very specific model of priesthood, and any expression of individualism is squashed. A diocesan priest, from another diocese, was telling me that he explored this particular religious community before entering wtih the diocese. Because he was having back problems at the time, he politely declined going on a canoe outing, or something similar. He stated that because he was unwilling to go on this little outing, he was shunned the rest of the weekend and eventually 'it was discerned that he didn't have a calling with this order.'
Certainly, one unique story is not enough to raise concerns, but I've had enough experience from a formation prespective with both candidates who have experience with this order and priests from the order that I hold the entire group at an arms length, even though I know that they do some very good things. Their secrecy causes me suspicion, and it does not prove to be fruitful in formation, as guys are formed to hide what's going on inside instead of addressing it with formation and spiritual directors.
Finally, a word on the 'two models of priesthood' that are so popular in church circles these days. There is a desire to create a tension between what is called the 'cultic' model of the priesthood versus the 'servant leader' model of the priesthood. The dichotomy sets up in the way that, usually, the priests that subscribe to the 'cultic' model of the priesthood want to be served by their parishioners, they represent Christ in the community and hence have a dignity that others should recognize. They are only interested in the liturgy, and music and transcendence. In contrast, the 'servant-leader' priest is one who leads a community by being collaborative, listens, is among the people, etc. These priests are all about the immanent aspects of the faith, the nitty-gritty stuff.
In the popular parlance of today, the servant leader is extolled as the perfect priest and these newer, younger 'cultic' priests are out of touch with the needs of the people.
In my experience, this is a false dichotomy. The priests that are actually more likely to hold concretely fast to a day off, less likely to get out of bed to make a midnight run to the hospital, are actually the 'servant leaders.'
The model that younger priests and seminarians of today subscribe to is more aptly described as 'Priest as a Living Icon of Christ.' In this idea, the priest wears clerics regularly so that he can be identified as Christ living among his people. He desire to celebrate the liturgy with the respect and dignity it deserves, so that it nourishes the faithful to be able to live out their calling in the world. He wants to give his life for his people as Christ gave His life for us. He will listen to his people, but understands that he is responsible for their souls and is therefore willing to make difficult decisions, unpopular decisions, because he knows it is ultimately better for their souls and will lead them to Eternal Life. These are the priests that also willingly give of their day off to go to the hospital, to have a funeral, to visit the grade school. Because they identify with Christ, but also recognize that they are human, they recognize that their redemption is based on helping others come to Eternal Life. They take the good aspects of this 'cultic' vs 'servant leader' models and combine them in a real and approachable package.
I am convinced that this is the model of priesthood that will help the Church to flourish into the future. This is the model that our seminarians and young priests have been formed and encouraged into, and such, it presents great hope for our future.
I want to focus on the third of those links: the changes in the formation programs in seminaries and the results that have come from these changes.
In my experience (ordained 2004), the formation that is largely available at seminaries today is a very personal experience. By this, I do not mean subjective experience; but rather the seminary takes an individual look at each candidate and assesses both the strengths that he possesses and the weaknesses that he must overcome while in the context of a seminary community. Formation is not a 'one size fits all' program.
The result of this is that the men in formation come to a deeper awareness of their own gifts and limitations (hopefully!), and how they would respond in certain situations as well. As a result of this 'growth process,' (I know, cliche alert!) some guys do go through counseling, some guys receive extra training in dealing with individuals, homiletics, singing, whatever he may need.
The goal of the formation process is to produce a priest who understands his abilities, the implications of living a celibate life in the midst of a hostile world, and that he will truly represent Christ out in the world. That's a lot to take into account.
From my understanding, the formation programs in the 1950's (again, born in 1976, so this is by reputation) were more about fitting into an assigned role, completing academic programs, and, to an extent, looking the part. There was not a strong spiritual direction program. 'Formation' was nearly non-existant. You were expected to meet these criteria, and if you stepped out of line, see ya later!
The result of this, from a decidedly non-psychological perspective, was that a fair number of men ordained in that time frame repressed or hid their true selves, or did not deal with emotional or psychological problems at the time, or did not have the freedom to grow as a human person before taking on the role of 'priest;' that so much of the normal psycho-social development was repressed and came out later in very dramatic ways. So much so, that I feel quite comfortable saying that this contributed to the sexual abuse crisis of the last 7 years. But, for sure, it was not the only cause, and it may not even be the leading cause; but it certainly contributed, of that I am sure.
In my experience, again, we have learned from these lessons and, today, are much more selective in who we admit to the seminary, and there are greater criteria as far as continuing in the seminary as well.
However, my concern is that this is not universal. There is a certain order that is very prominent today that, again in my limited experience, has reverted to a 1950s formation program, where the men have to fit a very specific model of priesthood, and any expression of individualism is squashed. A diocesan priest, from another diocese, was telling me that he explored this particular religious community before entering wtih the diocese. Because he was having back problems at the time, he politely declined going on a canoe outing, or something similar. He stated that because he was unwilling to go on this little outing, he was shunned the rest of the weekend and eventually 'it was discerned that he didn't have a calling with this order.'
Certainly, one unique story is not enough to raise concerns, but I've had enough experience from a formation prespective with both candidates who have experience with this order and priests from the order that I hold the entire group at an arms length, even though I know that they do some very good things. Their secrecy causes me suspicion, and it does not prove to be fruitful in formation, as guys are formed to hide what's going on inside instead of addressing it with formation and spiritual directors.
Finally, a word on the 'two models of priesthood' that are so popular in church circles these days. There is a desire to create a tension between what is called the 'cultic' model of the priesthood versus the 'servant leader' model of the priesthood. The dichotomy sets up in the way that, usually, the priests that subscribe to the 'cultic' model of the priesthood want to be served by their parishioners, they represent Christ in the community and hence have a dignity that others should recognize. They are only interested in the liturgy, and music and transcendence. In contrast, the 'servant-leader' priest is one who leads a community by being collaborative, listens, is among the people, etc. These priests are all about the immanent aspects of the faith, the nitty-gritty stuff.
In the popular parlance of today, the servant leader is extolled as the perfect priest and these newer, younger 'cultic' priests are out of touch with the needs of the people.
In my experience, this is a false dichotomy. The priests that are actually more likely to hold concretely fast to a day off, less likely to get out of bed to make a midnight run to the hospital, are actually the 'servant leaders.'
The model that younger priests and seminarians of today subscribe to is more aptly described as 'Priest as a Living Icon of Christ.' In this idea, the priest wears clerics regularly so that he can be identified as Christ living among his people. He desire to celebrate the liturgy with the respect and dignity it deserves, so that it nourishes the faithful to be able to live out their calling in the world. He wants to give his life for his people as Christ gave His life for us. He will listen to his people, but understands that he is responsible for their souls and is therefore willing to make difficult decisions, unpopular decisions, because he knows it is ultimately better for their souls and will lead them to Eternal Life. These are the priests that also willingly give of their day off to go to the hospital, to have a funeral, to visit the grade school. Because they identify with Christ, but also recognize that they are human, they recognize that their redemption is based on helping others come to Eternal Life. They take the good aspects of this 'cultic' vs 'servant leader' models and combine them in a real and approachable package.
I am convinced that this is the model of priesthood that will help the Church to flourish into the future. This is the model that our seminarians and young priests have been formed and encouraged into, and such, it presents great hope for our future.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Chicken or the Egg?
In the comments section of the previous post, the highlight seems to be that we have to help our faithful realize that there is a place marked 'X' for every person within the Church. We have to help our faithful realize that they are disciples in the Lord, as we see witnessed during the Easter Season's readings from the Acts of the Apostles.
But in order to be a disciple, we must first know the Lord, and this involves a deep and profound catechesis as to whom Jesus is, why is it important that He founded the Church, and why and how does the Church teach with authority.
But to fully accept these positions, one must be converted by Christ, which means one must be His disciple.
But to be His disciple, we must know about Him.
Hmmm..... I'm sensing a circle here that could get us bogged down.
To keep this from happening, all catechesis must be formational, and formation in discipleship must be solidly catechetical, rooted in and with the Church.
But in order to be a disciple, we must first know the Lord, and this involves a deep and profound catechesis as to whom Jesus is, why is it important that He founded the Church, and why and how does the Church teach with authority.
But to fully accept these positions, one must be converted by Christ, which means one must be His disciple.
But to be His disciple, we must know about Him.
Hmmm..... I'm sensing a circle here that could get us bogged down.
To keep this from happening, all catechesis must be formational, and formation in discipleship must be solidly catechetical, rooted in and with the Church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
