|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 23, 2010 12:44:58 GMT
The presence of deviant subcultures in seminaries is not just a post-Vatican II phenomenon. Leon Podles' book SACRILEGE cites a memo written in the 1950s by a member of the Servants of the Paraclete - an order founded to care for troubled priests, mainly alcoholics (it went off the rails in the 1960s after the founder was pushed out). This memo noted that there appeared to be a significant homosexual subculture among a minority of All Hallows graduates.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 23, 2010 13:57:34 GMT
Hibernicus comment is correct - it seems homosexuality is a recurrent problem in seminaries in general.
I should add that when we discuss seminaries, we generally discuss diocesan seminaries and the religious houses are forgotten. In terms of the above the discussion, I have heard from several sources about the problems specifically current in Maynooth in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The information abou the other places comes from a single reliable source. I can quote another example from the same period where I have heard several sources attest this nasty subculture, and that was in relation to the Irish Dominican Province, where homosexual students appear to have been in the majority and the superiors made no great effort to get rid of them. I have also heard about this happening in the Irish Franciscan Province, but not from a reliable source.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 23, 2010 14:39:56 GMT
We should in this context distinguish between three levels: (a) presence of significant number of homosexually-oriented students: this may create problems but does not necessarily involve breach of church law if they are faithful and observe the Church's teaching (b) Furtive subculture which the authorities try to stamp out if they become aware of it (but which they may choose to ignore). (c) open subculture which is deliberately ignored or tolerated by the authorities. The second one seems to have been a recurring phenomenon both before and after Vatican II, the third seems linked to the widespread disciplinary collapse from the late 1960s but I suspect it existed in certain parts of the US pre-Vatican II - and the "blind eye" response to the second might easily allow development of the third. Podles has some horrendous descriptions of abuse rings in certain US dioceses which appear to have formed when their members were at seminaries pre-Vatican II.
BTW Colm Toibin has written a certain amount about the number of homosexual seminarians/staff he encountered at St Peter's seminary in Wexford as a lay student in the late 60s or thereabouts, some of whom were later convicted of sexual abuse. (I should mention that he does not state any of them abused him, simply that those of them - including Toibin himself - who were that way inclined knew what they had in common without ever saying so openly, at least in his presence.) Toibin has written on this in the LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS but I don't know where else he may have published on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Aug 23, 2010 15:05:16 GMT
Hibernicus' clarification is valuable and can be applied in relation to Maynooth. My understanding is that what is being refered was an incident of the second category on Hibernicus' list. No one believes this was accepted by the staff, though questions were asked about some staff members in Maynooth in the period around 1990.
It is alleged that a group of homosexual students made a habit of inviting junior seminarians to their rooms and drugged them and then took advantage of them (I am trying to be delicate) and the victim was not in a position to do anything about it. It is further alleged that this came to the attention of the college authorities and that it was acted upon, in spite of the fact that some of these students were ordained deacons. It is no joke to expell a deacon from seminary as a deacon must be laicised and the process takes two years - no bishop is going to thank a seminary dean for presenting him with such a task.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 24, 2010 11:16:34 GMT
When I mentioned Colm Toibin I didn't realise that he has an article in the current LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS touching on this subject. (Those interested are warned that it is a review of a book by an Italian homosexual about homosexuality in the Church, entitled IS THE POPE GAY? and full of predictable innuendo.) Toibin also expects his readers to take it for granted that the Church's teaching on sexuality is all about social control and has no autonomous moral standing - this is of course a standard "liberal" assumption, in Toibin's case probably compounded by the process of "accepting" his own homosexuality. Toibin mentions being told by another writer who gave a lecture at a seminary in the mid-1980s that the place had a noticeably camp culture, with many of the students copying the mannerisms of Oscar Wilde. (This does not of course mean they were all practising homosexuals, but it's certainly not a good sign.) Toibin also implies that 'twas ever thus, and suggests that the gruff masculinity associated with former generations of Irish priests was simply another form of mimicry by men covering up their forbidden urges. I must say I am inclined to doubt this because of the different nature of the intake. A society in which the priesthood is held in high social esteem and where bright boys from poor backgrounds are encouraged to consider the priesthood (often at a fairly early age) is subject to certain problems (such as the role of worldly ambition etc) but it would surely tend to produce a smaller proportion of homosexually-oriented men in the priesthood than a society in which the priesthood is marginalised and unpopular and has only a small number of recruits who will be regarded by society (and often regard themselves) as deviants and misfits. BTW the official position now appears to be that late vocations are to be encouraged and early ones discouraged (in the sense of "go away and get your qualifications before you make up your mind" or "go away and date a few girls as a way of testing your vocation"). In the first half of the twentieth century, at least in Ireland, it seems to have been the other way round - late vocations were actively discouraged (presumably on the grounds that such peope were likely to be misfits or otherwise deviant, or at the least compensating for temporal failure) while boys were encouraged to commit to minor seminary life at what would now be considered scandalously early ages. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Aug 25, 2010 11:56:04 GMT
I wonder how different Ireland was to elsewhere. I am thinking of the Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal McIntyre, who was a promising stockbroker on Wall St before going to seminary.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 26, 2010 15:32:25 GMT
Ireland was different because there was an oversupply of vocations and we were exporting priests to other countries - so the seminary authorities thought they could pick and choose. The US church, on the other hand, never produced enough priests to meet all its own requirements, even during the postwar vocations boom. Cardinal MacIntyre isn't the only example of a businessman turned priest in the US. One of the 1970s auxiliary bishops of New York, William McCormack, spent some years running the family shipping business before developing a late vocation. (His father, who founded the business, was supposed to be the original for the "Mr Big" who does deals with the corrupt union organiser in ON THE WATERFRONT.)
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 31, 2010 9:56:55 GMT
To take a good sample, the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter, at least in the US, prefer to take men who have already third level education and some experience of work. The Institute of Christ the King, by contrast, prefer younger men including those just from school. Which is the better policy?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 31, 2010 10:21:17 GMT
I can think of good arguments for and against both. The first ensures a degree of maturity, with candidates who have a clearer idea of what they are giving up, and minimises the possibility of a "mother's vocation" and also renders it less likely that superiors will be able to abuse vulnerable candidates - though it may also run the risk of attracting a certain number of homosexuals and misfits in the way that Anglican Ritualism does unless it is carefully policed. (I have seen descriptions of some Anglo-Catholic theological colleges developing a "camp" atmosphere very like the one in Toibin's description of an unnamed 1980s Irish seminary.) The second allows earlier and more effective acquisition of specialist skills (e.g. the sacred languages for those wishing to pursue advanced theology) and easier acculturation to clerical life, and it may pick up some genuine vocations which might be lost through the "go away and think about it and come back when you're older" model whose big disadvantage is that it downgrades and puts off what is always going to be a momentous choice and will always involve some degree of regret (any sacrifice must). The disadvantages are that it runs a greater risk of recruiting immature candidates, who are more dependent on their superiors and vulnerable to bad ones, and makes it harder for unsuccessful candidates (they are always going to be some) to adjust afterwards because they will never have known adult life in the outside world. One point that might be made is that the adult recruitment model is assisted by the presence of Catholic third-level education (which of course we don't have in Ireland) which allows more mature religious reflection (the Catholic second-level colleges tried to do this to some extent when the religious orders running them had more than a nominal presence - I wonder how many parents of Clongowes or Blackrock students today would react positively if their expensively-educated sons decided to become Jesuits or Spiritans?) The early recruitment model was probably more acceptable when more people ended their schooling early and there was consequently a stronger sense that you became an adult in your teens.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 20, 2010 13:06:31 GMT
Here is an old blog post by Fr Michael Clifton of Southwark Archdiocese (who has since had to close his blog because he was threatened with a libel suit for criticising a CATHOLIC TIMES columnist who appeared to him to be suggesting in a column that Our Lord's resurrected body was purely spiritual and not physical). He picks up on some complaints about Maynooth which appear straight out of GOODBYE GOOD MEN. Does anyone know how accurate they are? I have played Devil's advocate with a few comments in capitals. michaelclifton.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-on-irish-seminaries-and-humour.htmlIrish Seminaries.A few weeks ago I wrote about reports in the Irish Daily Mail concerning the seminary at Maynooth. My friend in Ireland has just sent me more material. Dr Mark Dooley, visiting professor of Philosophy has recently received the Irish Order of the Boot from his post on the specious ground that cuts in spending mean his job is over. The real reason is that he blew the whistle on what has been going on (as reported earlier in the Irish Mail). Now another correspondent Philip Nolan has visited the Sem. and interviewed students. He confirms our worst fears. Two students separately reported that just before term began in the first year they were interviewed by so called phsycologists, two women in short skirts it seems, who grilled them on their sexuality and then told them not to worry about sexual passion, it was a kind of ultimate end and there really were no mortal sins contra 6th commandment(child abuse ??). [THIS COULD IN FAIRNESS HAVE A SLIGHTLY MORE INNOCENT MEANING - A WARNING AGAINST SCRUPULOSITY]They also reported that groups of seminarians would visit the town in the evenings and get very drunk, there were no religious symbols anywhere [REALLY?], devotion to the blessed sacrament was discouraged [THIS UNHAPPILY SOUNDS PLAUSIBLE - I HAVE HEARD OF THIS VIEW BEING PUT FORWARD IN THE US ON THE GROUNDS THAT EXTRA-LITURGICAL DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED SACRAMENT DETRACTS FROM THE MASS]. It was unwise to appear in any way pious, and in lectures the Holy Mass was presented [EXCLUSIVELY? - AGAIN MUCH COULD DEPEND ON THE EMPHASIS]as a communal act of the people. One can only hope that the official visitation will turn things round (as ordered by the Vatican). In addition to all that in SCripture classes, the spiritual dimension of the Gospels was ignored [WHAT EXACTLY DOES TIS MEAN?] and [ALL? SOME?] miracles of Our Lord were not miracles at all.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 27, 2010 14:07:58 GMT
Here is an interesting post by an English Catholic blogger arguing that the England and wales bishops would be bteer advised to keep several regional seminaries opening rather than concentrating students in a single central seminary. One of his arguments is that this would mean the bishops would lose the personal link with their own diocesan seminarians. Any thoughts on this? Does the Maynooth experience bear this out? Personally I think the bishops would have done better to close Maynooth and keep the regional seminaries open, rather than the opposite policy - but then I think the nineteenth-century bishops should have closed University College and developed collegiate departments at Blackrock, Clongowes etc rather than putting all their eggs in one basket. valleadurni.blogspot.com/2010/12/central-seminary-scheme.html
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Dec 16, 2011 14:00:56 GMT
Just thought this thread, a very important one, was in need of resurrection. I read through all the posts - and I have noticed that sexuality (and I am not denying its seriousness) takes up a lot of attention.
I want to throw in another factor, not sex or alcohol or drugs. I mean the occult. One of the most disturbing accounts I heard of Maynooth (late 1980s) was the practice of a minority of clerical students in playing with ouija boards.
I'd like to hear the forum's reaction to this.
|
|
uriah
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by uriah on Dec 16, 2011 19:16:05 GMT
I was a seminarian in Maynooth from '93 to '98 and I can confirm much of what has been said on this thread. Apart from the initial spiritual month, the discipline in the place was quite lax. It became even less disciplined in my second year with the arrival of new deans and their 're-branding' as 'Directors of Formation'.
Quite a number of seminarians were in relationships with female students, including theology students, and many others were in relationships with men, including other seminarians. There was a real sub-culture of homosexuality within the place. A group of them began adding the letters 'CSS' (Confraternity of Saint Sebastian) after their names as a sign that they were homosexual. Apart from in my first year, when one of my fellow 'Cherubs' was kicked out over a relationship with a 2nd Divine, the college authorities seemed to tolerate it and turn a blind eye.
With many there, the drinking culture was quite strong, both within and outside the college. One group from my class even got into a pub brawl in the 'Leinster Arms' one night with a group of English lads.
A seminarian in the year behind me in '95 left after a former girlfriend of his turned up and they went for a few drinks and later disappeared into his room and stayed there for two days, after which he left.
Obvious piety was looked on with some suspicion by both staff and students alike. The Saturday night Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament was well attended while I was there, although some did not attend or during the two hours between the beginning and Benediction would disappear elsewhere. Not as many attended the recital of the Rosary, nor was it encouraged. The main form of prayer was the Divine Office, but again, in the higher years, when attendance in the Oratories was not obligatory, many could be hot and miss in reciting it and be quite happy to boast of that.
Having said all that, there were others there that were quite committed, prayerful, and disciplined men.
|
|
|
Post by sanlorenzo on Dec 16, 2011 21:09:40 GMT
I was a briefly seminarian in the 90s myself. I never saw anything resembling homosexuality myself but there was a serious drinking "culture" with younger students being "taken under the wing of older students. I was never considered part of that circle. Piety was not just eschewed, it was mocked as was anything like orthodoxy in dress, prayer, spirituality, philosophy and theology. All encouraged and even promoted by the gurus in formation. And the word "guru" is not accidental, New Ageism was welcomed. The homosexual subculture in the Church is its greatest weakness. Clergy would be more at home in a gay marriage march than a pro-life one. This is a serious issue and will not be solved in our generation.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 16, 2011 22:33:54 GMT
To return to Benedict's point - I think occultism is a real and underestimated danger, and one of which traditionalists should be particularly aware. Here are some reasons for this: (1) Adolescents often develop curiosity about the occult (partly as a sort of "objective correlative" to their physical and mental growth; partly as a form of adolescent despair, as the realisation that the world is more complex and painful than it appears in a protected childhood can lead to fascination with darkness, partly as a quest for power out of fear and weakness). This can take harmless forms (e.g. some forms of literary fantasy) but it can lead some into real dabblings with the occult. (2) There has long been a tendency for occult subcultures to form within churches with a "high" view of priesthood - e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, High Anglican. This reflects a fascination with the permeation of everyday life by the supernatural, combined with curiosity after signs and wonders and a distorted view of priesthood as something which gives the priest special powers rather than as becoming a sacramental instrument and minister of Jesus. THis is particularly likely within a religious subculture which is seen by outsiders or sees itself as marginalised, deviant, persecuted possessors of hidden wisdom. For example, there was a significant overlap between aspects of the C19 Catholic revival in France and occultism (some prominent C19 French occultists presented themselves as faithful Catholics trying to reconcile the Church and the occult - some may even have been sincere). Anglo-Catholic ritualists have also a tendency to produce occultists - the overlap is visible in several of the minor figures studied in Peter Anson's WANDERING BISHOPS, for example. Given the marginalisation of Catholicism in an increasingly secularised Ireland/Europe, and the marginalisation of traditionalists within Catholicism, we should expect similar tendencies. (3) Young people who actively reject materialism/secularism may take the view that all manifestations of the supernatural are good by definition. WB Yeats provides a striking example of this and its painful results, and note that many of the dodgy psychic phenomena he took an interest in derived from the apparition-hunting wing of contemporary French Catholicism. For at least part of his career he seemed to hope that Irish Catholicism could be converted into a form of gnosticism, with the populace observing the outwardly Christian forms while the initiates understood their true occult significance. Both New Agers and trads can go down this path and the results can be very unpleasant (cf the neo-gnostic Nazism of the International THird Position, much of which seems to have been deliberately devised with the intention of ensnaring traditionalist Catholics). (4) The influence of Jung (a neo-gnostic) on certain modern spiritual writers probably doesn't help either. Nor does the "washy" spirituality of NEw Age Pantheism.. (Speaking of which, did you see the late John O'Donoghue's will was recently invalidated because he drafted it so vaguely - he was equally precise as a spiritual guide). Sorry if thsi rambles a bit. I'd be interested in your responses.
|
|