Columnists
‘THE WAY I SEE IT’ Proper Priestly Formation Part I
Gerald Archibald, Edmonton, AB
Volume 34 Issue 7, 8 & 9 | Posted: October 11, 2020
“The priesthood cannot be liberated from the shadow of clericalism that besets the Church without a radical change in the way men are prepared for ordination.” (The Tablet, Sept 19, 2019).
In earlier issues of ICN, I tried to outline two major themes: the extreme negative effects of clericalism in the Church affecting both the ordained hierarchy and laity, and the other extreme to this being a need for all members of Christ's body to return to the ancient tradition of servant leadership. We can do this by adopting Jesus’ way of serving others and leading through service. The next two-three columns of “The Way I See It” including this one will examine the way priests are “formed” (more commonly identified as priestly formation or seminary education).
“The priesthood cannot be liberated from the shadow of clericalism that besets the Church without a radical change in the way men are prepared for ordination.” (The Tablet, Sept 19, 2019).
In earlier issues of ICN, I tried to outline two major themes: the extreme negative effects of clericalism in the Church affecting both the ordained hierarchy and laity, and the other extreme to this being a need for all members of Christ's body to return to the ancient tradition of servant leadership. We can do this by adopting Jesus’ way of serving others and leading through service. The next two-three columns of “The Way I See It” including this one will examine the way priests are “formed” (more commonly identified as priestly formation or seminary education).
This column will begin the discussion by delving into WHY present programs of priestly formation must change. The history of how priests were educated was extremely varied up to the time of the Council of Trent held between 1545-1563. Much could be written about this, but to put it in general terms, candidates preparing for the priesthood before Trent were poorly prepared through a variety of different ways – some were ordained after an interview with the Bishop, some sent to live with a parish priest or the Bishop for a few months, etc.
The quality of education tended to be haphazard to say the least. Newly ordained priests were not prepared for pastoral work; their theological education was often unsound. When the Protestant Reformation came, it was a result of many abuses in the church, but also because of the terrible formation of catholic priests.
This was addressed at the Council of Trent as a counter-reformation effort. Much of the discussion during this long meeting of Bishops was devoted to creating a system that would ‘produce’ much more educated priests in a very standardized fashion. But this Trent outcome was generally ignored until 1917 when a new code of canon (church) law was launched.
The 500 years though from Trent to 1917 saw both good and poor priestly formation programs. It was scandalous in many cases. Sometimes a new candidate hardly knew the basic prayers like the Our Father or Hail Mary. In Ireland it was not uncommon to send such candidates away to Europe to study because there they could raise money from Mass stipends to pay for their education (P. Corish as referenced in Models of Priestly Formation, 2019, p 12). Research also indicates that much of the present system of preparing candidates, while improvements have been made, hasn't dramatically changed from the Trent recommendations or the 1917 canon law requirements (Declan Marion, Models of Priestly Formation, pp xv-xxxiii, 2019; Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis or RF for short – 1971, updated 2016, Vatican City).
While many seminary programs are presently in transition, there is do much to do to adequately prepare our priests for the very demanding challenges in society today.
The Association of U.S. Catholic Priests has asked the U.S. bishops “to assure that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council become ‘the bedrock’ of priestly formation”. These teachings are not to be “little more than an historical footnote” or “a distortive moment in the Church’s pilgrimage through time.” (National Catholic Reporter, April 8, 2018).
What is directly implied here is that the present priestly formation programs in the U.S. (and Canada) are not fundamentally based on essential Second Vatican Council’s teachings.
The Need To Reform
On March 29, 2019, a 5,000-plus-word statement was sent by this Association to Cardinal Tobin, who chairs the U.S. Committee on priestly formation. This submission contained four necessary reasons for seminary reform:
- Departure of millions of Catholics from active participation and membership in the Church
- Decline of hundreds of active priests and candidates for the priesthood
- Fewer converts, fewer church weddings, fewer baptisms, and fewer parishes
- Growing identification of people as ‘spiritual’ rather than ‘religious’ (ibid).
On May 17, 2019 Father Tom Zelinski wrote “There are danger signs among some of the younger clergy. Some seem too enamored of the trappings of priesthood and seem to have a kind of nostalgia for some ‘old days’ of which they were never a part. There also may be a clinging too much to a sense of being ‘right’ … When I was in a parish, I tried to let the people teach me to be a priest. We are all in this together” (Ibid).
The Washington Post even links priest sexual abuse with poor priestly formation (Father Thomas Berg, “Want to address priest sexual abuse? The Catholic Church needs to overhaul its seminaries”; October 18, 2018). Not only must seminaries screen out potential sexual predators, but they must “also rise to the challenge of preparing for life and ministry men who are emotionally mature, and psychologically and sexually healthy” (Ibid). The author boldly states that candidates require training for modern society, something not being achieved in today’s seminaries.
Berg says, “In retrospect, many of our institutions have too often failed miserably in preparing men for ministry; many still fall far short of the goal of forming happy, healthy, holy priests. The church urgently needs new approaches to preparing men for priestly ministry given today's sexualized, secularized culture and the personal challenges facing seminaries”(p.2, ibid).
Berg has insight into the new type of candidate presenting themselves to be accepted as candidates: “Young men who feel called to priesthood, although well intentioned, often have enormous gaps in their formation and upbringing. Many lack interpersonal communication skills and need basic formation in Catholic teaching … they need counseling to discover and deal with trauma: ‘father wounds’, bullying, parental divorce, porn addiction and even sexual abuse.
Added to that they must acquire qualities and pastoral skills before ordination. Bishops, rectors, and seminary formation personnel can too easily believe that the way we're doing formation is just fine. But if we are honest, we know that in many cases it’s not.” (ibid). These are powerful words indeed!
So, this column on priestly formation is targeting the need for reform. The next one or two columns will outline some ideas for more suitable, appropriate, and effective ways to prepare our candidates for the priesthood.
A descriptive quote again from Thomas Berg states “Typically, our seminaries work like this: Upon a chassis of a heavily academic four year program we superimpose elements of human, spiritual and pastoral preparation for ministry…seminary life too often unfolds in the confines of old, cavernous, institutional buildings. Such parameters easily foster isolation, and work at cross purposes to an experience of genuine fraternity and the kind of deep-down formation required. This model of seminary is today highly inadequate, and it’s time for bishops to think far outside such boxes” (Ibid).
In the Vatican’s 91-page document “The Gift of the Priestly Vocation” (RF, 2016) there are many lofty ideas and more emphasis on ‘discipleship’ and ‘integration’ of all components of priestly formation. But there are some problematic ones as well.
To state just two: women are seldomly mentioned. As well clericalism is imbedded in this important document even though it claims clericalism must be removed. The concern is illustrated in this quotation “…in communion with the order of Bishops, Priests are inseparably part of the ecclesial community and, at the same time, by the will of Christ and in continuance of the work of the Apostles, have been constituted to be pastors and leaders. Thus ‘the priest is placed not only in the Church but also in the forefront of the Church’ (italics within the document). This sure smacks of elitism and clericalism to me. Where is the laity in this picture? We are also members of the royal priesthood and body of Christ.
So what needs to change to more adequately prepare our seminarians for an understanding of today’s needs and to be happy and holy priests prepared for ministry in today’s complex world? Stay tuned!
Gerald Archibald, Edmonton, AB