|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 3, 2019 10:39:31 GMT
I don't know if you have been following the commentary in The Irish Catholic and elsewhere regarding the future of the institution of the seminary in Ireland and internationally.
The coverage looks to me more like advance cheerleading of a decision already made.
The case against the seminary is that it is an institution of Council of Trent, which is not absolutely true, that it is unsuitable for present day candidates for the priesthood, most of whom are older with college degrees and work experience behind them.
The proposed model is based on the practice in the Archdiocese of Paris, where candidates are placed in parishes and have their intellectual, spiritual and pastoral formation there.
Obviously, I see many problems there. First, no where in Ireland is Paris. Nor is anywhere else outside Paris. Second, I can't get over how obsessed the commentators are on pastoral formation and how blasé they are about intellectual formation. They recognise the weakness in the spiritual side alright, but it seems they believe the monastic nature of a place like Maynooth is no preparation for diocesan priesthood (I could equally say the barracks atmosphere of Templemore is no preparation for a civilian police force and there are changes in the pattern of Garda recruitment, but no one wants to shut Templemore down).
To return to the intellectual angle of priestly formation, it has been seriously undermined since the 1970s and some candidates have been ordained on a scandalously low academic record, compounded by the shambolics of catechesis which anyone under 50 is a victim. Ireland is not Paris with third level institutions treating philosophy and theology seriously and to address Fr Oliver Plunkett Raftery SJ, no, Trinity College is not an acceptable alternative, even with the Catholic fig leaf called the Loyola Institute.
The diaconate programme, hailed as a success for reasons unknown, is a suggested model, as if part-time training for part-time ministry which serves neither the diaconate nor the new deacons is a model for anything. And for the record, I support the restored diaconate in principle, but not as it has emerged here or elsewhere.
It is plain that there is a history of mismanagement of seminaries in the past several decades. It is this and not the institution of the seminary that needs to be addressed. As I see it, if academic formation of the clergy continues to be neglected, we will be following another precedent. The ignorant diocesan clergy, many of them barely literate, who populated Europe between the Black Death and the Reformation.
|
|
|
Post by lanigaca on May 12, 2019 12:01:47 GMT
The Parisian model is a practice I know from personal experience to be in use already by certain orders in Ireland (largely but not entirely true to the form of the original), so I imagine a diocesan take up to be inevitable. My thoughts on reading IC's coverage last month were seemingly very much in line with your own, something about the relevance of the discussion all of a sudden makes me think that there is more on this going on behind closed doors. Unfortunately it seems that many are still caught up with and concerned about numbers. The comments of Bishop Fintan Monahan that this new model "would be more practical" than the current model confirms this (IMO). There needs to be a move away from this train of thought, but that is another topic of discussion entirely in its own rite. It doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of the opinion of the diocese of their current seminarians, does it? Are they burdensome? Certainly if I was one of the current few I would not feel exactly flattered.
It is indeed the mismanagement of seminaries that is the issue at the core of Irish priestly training, but what is anyone who can do something, doing about it? On Loyola, I gather that it is reflective of the Milltown of the recent past, but with more lay involvement. I believe that its establishment was a step in the right direction for the Irish Church of this century, because there is a desire for theological teaching from both lay and ordained/vowed/consecrated, but there were many issues that needed (and need) to be ironed out from the very beginning, and they were not. The Archdiocese could not get on board with it because they weren't granted a piece of the cake, but what have they done to counter it? Loyola is at least an attempt at something. What have the Bishops and diocese' en masse done to counter it?
(And no, I am not saying that Loyola is or could be suitable for priestly formation!)
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 14, 2019 7:33:11 GMT
I think there are a few things going on.
One is a failure to admit problems in the recent past. Another is concern about the type of candidates that seem to have been attracted to an all male environment in recent years. Yet another is the fact our religious find it difficult to either work together or with the Bishops. Nor do I think there is great haste among diocesan clergy to work with religious.
The Paris model has been wished upon religious and for years, they have been sending candidates to Milltown. But the Dominicans re-established a student house in recent years. Loyola is a Jesuit project and seems quirky. Separately, the Dominicans have the Priory Institute in Tallaght, which assumes students know the basics and deal with contemporary issues. The problem is students don't. Meanwhile, the bishops are reluctant to invest in the Pontifical University in Maynooth.
What I think will happen is that students will be sent to Rome rather than Maynooth, especially as the Pope said a bad seminary is better than none at all.
|
|
|
Post by lanigaca on May 15, 2019 19:40:36 GMT
Mismanagement is entirely the crux of the issue though, in my opinion. You're right in saying that its not just a diocesan issue, but proper reform and subsequent management of Maynooth would be a good place to start. Whats needed is a revival that would - in an ideal world - accept and attempt to better past wrongdoings while looking forward with visions of a new model of one single seminary for Ireland's diocese' and religious. There is simply no need for various individual institutes for diocese and religious in this day and age, because the numbers just aren't there anymore - and they aren't coming back. As that old chestnut goes, we're smaller now, but stronger in faith (...apparently). We can't model ourselves on Paris or Rome, or anywhere else - because we can't compare to anywhere else at all. Obviously training specific to certain orders would need to be accommodated, but I see no reason why that couldn't all happen under one roof. There really needs to be an appeal by the Bishops to religious, because without them the Church would well and truly be on its knees. I'm not forgetting the work of the Jesuits with JRS, or the Capuchin Day Centre with Br. Crowley et al., but the more mundane missions of the Oblates in Darndale and Bluebell, MSC' in Tallaght etc are seriously under appreciated.
Obviously religious need to be willing to come on board, and obviously I only have a tiny piece of a much bigger picture - but truly I can guarantee you that a bit of genuine appreciation from Bishops and their respective diocese' would be a very good place to start.
Sending students to Rome is only going to achieve exactly what I have outlined anyway, isn't it? They'll just mix with others from a million and one different diocese' or orders. Before we do that abroad, why don't we do it here and restore a bit of dignity to our national seminary?
|
|
jaykay
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by jaykay on May 15, 2019 20:38:08 GMT
I really don't have much to contribute, as I know very little of Maynooth's current situation, but if formation were to be moved to Rome I assume that would mean students would live in the Irish College and attend the Universities? Apart from the obvious expense, what is the current reputation of that College? I stayed there as a guest in the early 80s, in late September - early October before all the students came back, but I don't recall being too impressed by it. And I was a bit of an ignoramus back then, albeit fairly traditional, if getting careless, due to my pretty traditional 60s/70s Catholic education (thank you parents and the Marist Fathers). So how does it stand?
|
|
|
Post by lanigaca on May 15, 2019 22:21:51 GMT
Its reputation isn't very good. Cardinal Timothy Donal called it "super gay" or something to that effect a few years ago, and last year two Irish seminarians were allegedly found to be sleeping or otherwise engaged with one another in a single bed. Much like Maynooth, there isn't anything wrong with the institution itself and its just those in it and those who are supposed to be managing it that are the issue. When you consider that there is an alleged "gay sub-culture" in Maynooth (according to Dublin's incumbent Archbishop) it seems that trouble just follows the flock wherever it goes. It needs to be rooted out, with proper management and continued oversight (another critique of Cardinal Donal was lack of oversight from Dublin).
It is currently used by some Irish seminarians, a few Americans and other internationals (as far as I know) and, of course, some lingering souls from bygone times. This brings me on to another problem though, Bishops here can't even agree on a single suitable institute for training and formation. Dublin sends men to Rome, Meath has only very recently said they will continue to send men to Maynooth and have explicitly distanced themselves from the idea of sending all men to Rome. We need to drop these individualistic notions and just accept that they don't work anymore.
Sorry, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record..
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 16, 2019 21:48:53 GMT
Surely it would not be possible to train all religious and secular clergy together? Religious are supposed to be formed in the spirit of their own Rule. (Associations of secular clergy such as the Vincentians or Oratorians are a different matter.) Part of the problem with Maynooth is that the bishops cannot exercise real authority over it because they're all on the board. Having the diocesan bishop in charge would place allthe eggs in one basket but at least it would allow decisive leadership. The worrying thing about the "Paris model" is that some - I said SOME, not all - of those who advocate it seem to want to desacralise the priesthhod in the sense of turning it into something like the Baptist or Pentecostalist ministry. www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2019/04/the-obstacle-to-rooting-out-clericalism-the-clergy/www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2019/03/time-running-out-to-save-the-church/
|
|
jaykay
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by jaykay on May 17, 2019 17:48:33 GMT
Thanks, lanigaca. It's been a long time, as I say, but even back then I recall not really liking the atmosphere - and not being able to put my finger on it as to why. Even though we were there as paying guests (except for one of our company who was an actual seminarian - still a Priest and a sound guy, as it happens) and I've been in Rome many times since, I was never anxious to go back there. That said, I certainly think it should be maintained.
|
|
|
Post by lanigaca on May 17, 2019 18:14:18 GMT
Surely it would not be possible to train all religious and secular clergy together? Religious are supposed to be formed in the spirit of their own Rule. (Associations of secular clergy such as the Vincentians or Oratorians are a different matter.) Part of the problem with Maynooth is that the bishops cannot exercise real authority over it because they're all on the board. Having the diocesan bishop in charge would place allthe eggs in one basket but at least it would allow decisive leadership. The worrying thing about the "Paris model" is that some - I said SOME, not all - of those who advocate it seem to want to desacralise the priesthhod in the sense of turning it into something like the Baptist or Pentecostalist ministry. www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2019/04/the-obstacle-to-rooting-out-clericalism-the-clergy/www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2019/03/time-running-out-to-save-the-church/ I don't see why some theological and philosophical instruction could not be shared among religious and secular clergy in Ireland. Of course aspects of formation unique to respective orders needs to be maintained, but I don't see why that, too, could not take place under the same roof. A single institute for all priestly formation would be a good thing. Of course there would be necessary segregation among religious and others for some matters - but this could, with a bit of genuinely committed management from Bishops and religious superiors, be facilitated and maintained. Currently there are, I think, 40-odd men studying for priesthood at Maynooth. This number could very easily double, if not triple, if religious here sent some of their own students to Maynooth. Like I said earlier, this would at least restore a bit of dignity to our national seminary and with proper management it is entirely possible.
|
|
|
Post by lanigaca on May 17, 2019 18:16:41 GMT
Thanks, lanigaca. It's been a long time, as I say, but even back then I recall not really liking the atmosphere - and not being able to put my finger on it as to why. Even though we were there as paying guests (except for one of our company who was an actual seminarian - still a Priest and a sound guy, as it happens) and I've been in Rome many times since, I was never anxious to go back there. That said, I certainly think it should be maintained. I've only been once myself, and it was only for a few hours in a day last year with a friend. Like yourself I am a Marist boy, and I'm still on good enough terms with them that there is usually a spare bed for me at the General house when I ask
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 23, 2019 18:40:27 GMT
One problem that underlies a lot of the argument over the seminary is a deeper uncertainty about what a priest is supposed to be and to do. When "clericalism" is discussed the people who use the term have many different things in mind, and some of them, it seems to me, object to the idea that there is any difference at all between a priest and a layperson: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/to-save-the-church-dismantle-the-priesthood/588073/See also:http://wdtprs.com/blog/2019/05/stupid-angry-lib-i-know-tautology-at-the-atlantic-against-priesthood/ www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/thou-art-a-priest-forever Remember what got Fr Flannery into trouble - he claimed the priesthood is a fraud and was not instituted by Jesus. I am also increasingly inclined to suspect that the attraction of this for some priests lies in the laziness and complacency which were, let's face it, part of preconciliar priestly culture and were further enabled by the changes - a desire to get away from the demands of the priesthood (while keeping the status by being "courageous protesting priests").
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 15, 2019 21:47:39 GMT
These posts (and associated discussions) from Rod Dreher's blog on the problems of US seminaries (note that much of the discussion is about Protestant- mainline denomination seminaries, which of course have significant differences from Catholic ones) is reminiscent of some of the points raised here. Similarities include: the intellectual anti-intellectualism (as distinct from the straightforward anti-intellectualism of bodies such as Baptists and Pentecostalists who traditionally distrust the idea of a learned ministry) with the consequent neglect of theology and view of the cleric as primarily social worker; the hermeneutics of rupture with its contempt for the denomination's historic traditions; and the condescending view of lay church members (as distinct from activists) as simpletons who just can't handle the truths known to the woke. www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/seminary-confidential-critical-theory/www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/woke-seminaries/
|
|