It depends on what you mean by going to college, but contra Flynn, the clearest answer is "no".
The propaeduetic year must begin before the philosophy curriculum, which is the usual starting point for seminarian who already have a college degress. However, students going straight out of high school have general education requirements to fulfill, not just the philosophy curriculum. The new PPF permits students to take up to 9 credit hours (usually 3 classes) during their propaeduetic year, though their are intended to be further restrictions on what those courses could be.
Consequently, the most obvious trajectory would be for those coming direct from high school to complete their propaeduetic year *during college*. This would require some creative curriculum tinkering to compensate for the reduced coursework during that year--perhaps adding courses during the summer or adding an extra semester.
While I have never been to seminary so maybe not REALLY understanding how this works, but it seems to me that the propaeduetic year is a type of year-long "retreat" for the seminarian, yes? If so, then the purpose/goal of the prop year is to concentrate on prayer and to "detox" from the concerns of the world as the article appears to describe, and I don't see how a seminarian would be able to do that successfully AND maintain some semblance of a course load at the same time. As all of us who have been to college know, you can't "detach" from the concerns of the world while going to school. And since we are post-COVID, I can tell you that a good chunk of my sons' classes have continued to be online, so "detoxing" from the world of technology would likely be a no-go. It appears that, if it is to be done BEFORE the philosophy curriculum but also to be a period devoted more to prayer and thus separating from the world a bit, it should come AFTER the bachelor's program would be complete, but as discussed, before the philosophy curriculum begins. At the very least, it should be done in a way so that the seminarian is not distracted with the normal concerns that go along with taking college-level classes. Just my $0.02
For those coming out of high school, their bachelor's degree is in philosophy. So, they could in principle spend the first two years in general coursework, take a year off, and then begin the philosophy curriculum--or of course take a year off at before beginning any coursework. But they could not finish a bachelor's degree and then start the philosophy curriculum in a (formerly) eight year "college seminary" program; they would simply be doing a four year bachelor's degree, then begin the entirely separate, (formerly) six year seminary program.
As for detaching from the world and taking classes at the same, 1) three classes is a light course load, and the courses they would be allowed to take would have spiritual content, and 2) frankly, what else are they supposed to do?? Is the intention to hole them up in a semi-remote formation house doing dishes and sweeping floors, or are they going to be detaching from the world by pulling shifts at Arby's?
I think the biggest problem with having an entirely non-coursework year would be marketing that to high schoolers and their parents. If there's a year off to begin with, not only is the kid embarking on an eight year seminary program, but he can't even start it. And if it's a year off in the middle, the kid has to take a year off from his bachelor's right in the middle of it. A lot of families already balked at the previous iteration of college seminary, and it really seems like a full year off from coursework would make it a much more difficult sell.
Honestly, yes I do see this period as a time where you are "holed up" as you put it, and forming a much better prayer life. You can talk about light course loads all you want, that just means you don't get it. For those who "balk" at that, maybe it's a good thing they are not going into the priesthood. This is a vocation, NOT a career. Maybe that's been the problem, the Church has been trying to "sell" the priesthood like a job or a career in the military ("A priesthood of ONE!"). It's not, it's like entering into a marriage, not your next great new job. Sadly, most people these days tend to have your attitude, that this is just one job among many and a career path for any man who wants it; honestly, we have all seen priests like that (Hello Mr. McCarrick) and they have no place in the priesthood. This new program, properly applied, will test the candidates and see who is really being called. If we don't believe that, then maybe there should not be a priesthood. And maybe not even a Church.
I will say this and then I'm done......If some of these men can't understand what this is about, well....don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya. You're not called to be a priest; you don't understand what it means and you are not willing to take the time to learn how to listen to God. You can complain all you want that this will make it harder for some men to become priests. I will say, that's a good thing. That means only those who really want to be there - because they are being called to this vocation - will be there. The others.....well, they simply have to accept that not everyone who thinks about going to seminary is being called to the priesthood.
I appreciate the points that both of you are making. I would also remind you of The Pillar's call to Christian charity in comments. This means refraining from allowing the discussion to become personally directed. I don't think we're there yet, so please consider this just a friendly reminder.
As a primary clarification, it is usually the parents of young men who balk at college seminary and ultimately urge their children to instead try out "normal" life first: go to a normal college, get a useful degree, maybe even start a career, definitely get at least one long term girlfriend. For many parents, it is only after their son has suffiently tried out this life that they will give their blessing to seminary.
Without getting too detailed, I have personally taken full college courseloads well within the last decade, and I have also very seriously considered going to seminary in the same timeframe. Ultimately, that is not the path that I have been called to, but I am very familiar with these issues in the present day.
In the end, I simply disagree with the assessment that it is a good thing to make it harder for some men to become priests. While we should certainly be ensuring that the right men are entering the priesthood, and we should be certainly ensuring that they are receiving the proper formation to enter their vocation, we should be doing so in a manner that encourages and assists young men in eagerly and boldly taking up their vocations--be it priestly, religious, or marital.
Kind of like student teaching only for a priest. I like the idea of the spiritual initiation. I would have thought that was already a part of good seminaries.
My worry is that liberal priests will blackball conservative Orthodox types.
I daily pray for fearless and holy priests so I hope this helps!
It definitely has the potential to create liturgical stasis. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on how you view the prevailing liturgical culture in the Church. I would imagine that most of the priests chosen as formators are men who came before BXVI brought about a rethinking of post-VII liturgy. Perhaps that's even the point.
With all due respect, the post-conciliar liturgy cannot be called in any way a return to the apostolic liturgy. It bears little to no semblance to the forms which came before.
Having attended now the pre-Bugnini Holy Week rites, as well as according to the 1962 books, and the 1969 books, I feel I can safely say that there is no way forward for the Church but to return to the ancient rites, and to lay aside the tinkeritis which has possessed the Church for the last century.
I daily pray for less brazen and holier-than-thou priests like Fr. James Altman. I'm also not too keen on "Orthodox types", who presumably deny the Filioque and papal supremacy, being ordained as Catholic priests.
Here in Cincinnati we already have a year of pastoral internship. Seminarians go through two years of classes then have a year of pastoral internship in a parish. The next year they have another year of classes before being ordained to the diaconate. The fifth year they have another year of classes and formation before ordained to the priesthood.
My husband and I listened to your latest podcast today and you and Ed's discussion made us think that you thought the year of pastoral internship might be a problem. We haven't heard of any issues here and we know several people who have gone through it.
As far as liturgical and other formation for transitional deacons during the synthesis stage, I could see it being useful for seminaries to host periodic “reunions” or “training weeks” back on the seminary campuses. Some seminaries are clearly more prepared for some of these things than others. I went to Saint Meinrad for their Associate Pastor Workshop the year after I was ordained a priest and found it very helpful and fruitful: it is intended to help “newly ordained priests make a seamless transition into parish ministry, addressing the practical tasks and challenges, spiritual concerns, identity and accountability issues inherent within this transition” (https://saintmeinrad.edu/priests-ongoing-formation/effective-pastoring-workshops/). Of the 16 or so if us who attended, I was one of two who did not go there for theology. It continues to strike me as very odd that more seminaries don’t have this kind of program on the books, because it would not be terribly resource intensive for seminaries to host this kind of program. Under PPF 6, this sounds like the sort of program that would belong to the Vocational Synthesis stage, though adapted for diaconate.
Would the prop year have to be connected institutionally to the seminary where they will study as a single program? Eg if five bishops send their seminarians to St. Therese Seminary, could two send their men to St. Jerome Prop House and another to St. Ignatius Prop Center and two more to a different place? Or could one bishop send his domestic seminarians to one place for the prop year and his international seminarians to a prop year with an ESL program, or some such? Or does it all have to be one connected program with the seminary?
Yes, good question. The bishop can send his guys to any propaeduetic program he sees fit, and that could be distinct from the place where they do their philosophy (the next stage.)
Certainly much for the bishops and seminaries to pray about and decide. It seems there could be some losses for the transitional deacon change. With the deacons still being in seminary under the described current model, they have a year to learn from one another, practice homilies in a place designed to give quality feedback from multiple voices, and serve in a wider variety of liturgies with a wider variety of presiders than the typical parish has. I hope these opportunities for greater experience, learning, and fraternity with other transitional deacons are not lost. For the other seminarians too, there may be a loss from only having upper classmen as mentors instead of ordained men.
This brings to my mind the following: you live in a very conservative diocese where there is emphasis in formation on Latin ,seminarians being waited on by women religious,seminarians wearing long cassocks and formators who wear garb seen in Rome. I am very much for the last year residing in a rectory where the Pastor acknowledges Pope Francis and his leadership and one who keeps church and local politics out of homilies. I can imagine the consternation of some over these new directives.Since the laity pay for many of these institutions,it might be good for some lay input.
I think this is an excellent strategy in light of the 'sign of our times'. I can't imagine that giving men an opportunity to 'seek God in wilderness' is anything but a good thing, whether or not the young men continue on to ordination or not.
A year focused on spiritual formation for our potential priests prior to getting stuck into the intellectual formation is (once implemented) going to be very beneficial for them all. Especially for new 'reverts' or converts to the faith, a year focusing on personal and spiritual growth and 'trying on' a celibate spirituality seems to me like a no-brainer, for them and for the Church.
The opportunity to get to know your bishop seems especially important for making sure that a bishop isn't treating his priests like a CEO treats his employees (even if he is a good, humane CEO who appreciates and respects his employees). Done even mediocrely, it should be a huge benefit to both the Church and the men who experience it. Some will work out more 'efficiently' that a celibate vocation is not their calling, before years of 'sunk costs' in intellectual formation, or that they are called to a religious order, or that they are right where they need to be.
A final mildly amusing anecdote about a friend of mine, who spent 7 years in seminary only to realise THE NIGHT BEFORE HIS ORDINATION to the temporary diaconate, that he was making a huge mistake and he was not called to be a priest. Fresh with terror from this new insight he barged into his rector's office at 11 pm at night and blurted out, "I can't do it." The rector finished his night prayer, gave him a look and said "FINALLY! It took you long enough... Pack your things, you're free to go when you're ready. See you tomorrow in the pews." He married a gorgeous woman and had 7 kids (the youngest of whom is one of my good mates).
I have not yet read the new PPF so perhaps my musings have little value. It seems that many are presuming the propaedeutic year must take place in a seminary environment. Need that be the case? Could the propaedeutic year take place in the parish setting? I am from a rural diocese and on average we get one new seminarian each year (two if we are lucky). With so few seminarians in the propaedeutic phase for smaller dioceses like my own it seems doable to place new seminarians in a parish with a pastor who will be a good spiritual mentor. Detox from the culture could still happen by restricting use of technology. Of course there would have to be some other boundaries and rules in order to keep the men from getting swept up in the busyness of parish, but theoretically it could be done. It would also cut back on the cost of another year in formation and possibly allow the bishop to get to know his new seminarians better. Granted this model might work better for a rural diocese that does not get many applicants for seminary each year. It just seems the prevailing assumption is that this propaedeutic year has to take place at the seminary. Is that truly the case? There might be other creative ways and means of doing a propaedeutic year. Thoughts?
So will seminarians who enter straight from high school now have to do the propaeduetic year before going to college?
once things are rocking and rolling, yes.
It depends on what you mean by going to college, but contra Flynn, the clearest answer is "no".
The propaeduetic year must begin before the philosophy curriculum, which is the usual starting point for seminarian who already have a college degress. However, students going straight out of high school have general education requirements to fulfill, not just the philosophy curriculum. The new PPF permits students to take up to 9 credit hours (usually 3 classes) during their propaeduetic year, though their are intended to be further restrictions on what those courses could be.
Consequently, the most obvious trajectory would be for those coming direct from high school to complete their propaeduetic year *during college*. This would require some creative curriculum tinkering to compensate for the reduced coursework during that year--perhaps adding courses during the summer or adding an extra semester.
While I have never been to seminary so maybe not REALLY understanding how this works, but it seems to me that the propaeduetic year is a type of year-long "retreat" for the seminarian, yes? If so, then the purpose/goal of the prop year is to concentrate on prayer and to "detox" from the concerns of the world as the article appears to describe, and I don't see how a seminarian would be able to do that successfully AND maintain some semblance of a course load at the same time. As all of us who have been to college know, you can't "detach" from the concerns of the world while going to school. And since we are post-COVID, I can tell you that a good chunk of my sons' classes have continued to be online, so "detoxing" from the world of technology would likely be a no-go. It appears that, if it is to be done BEFORE the philosophy curriculum but also to be a period devoted more to prayer and thus separating from the world a bit, it should come AFTER the bachelor's program would be complete, but as discussed, before the philosophy curriculum begins. At the very least, it should be done in a way so that the seminarian is not distracted with the normal concerns that go along with taking college-level classes. Just my $0.02
For those coming out of high school, their bachelor's degree is in philosophy. So, they could in principle spend the first two years in general coursework, take a year off, and then begin the philosophy curriculum--or of course take a year off at before beginning any coursework. But they could not finish a bachelor's degree and then start the philosophy curriculum in a (formerly) eight year "college seminary" program; they would simply be doing a four year bachelor's degree, then begin the entirely separate, (formerly) six year seminary program.
As for detaching from the world and taking classes at the same, 1) three classes is a light course load, and the courses they would be allowed to take would have spiritual content, and 2) frankly, what else are they supposed to do?? Is the intention to hole them up in a semi-remote formation house doing dishes and sweeping floors, or are they going to be detaching from the world by pulling shifts at Arby's?
I think the biggest problem with having an entirely non-coursework year would be marketing that to high schoolers and their parents. If there's a year off to begin with, not only is the kid embarking on an eight year seminary program, but he can't even start it. And if it's a year off in the middle, the kid has to take a year off from his bachelor's right in the middle of it. A lot of families already balked at the previous iteration of college seminary, and it really seems like a full year off from coursework would make it a much more difficult sell.
Honestly, yes I do see this period as a time where you are "holed up" as you put it, and forming a much better prayer life. You can talk about light course loads all you want, that just means you don't get it. For those who "balk" at that, maybe it's a good thing they are not going into the priesthood. This is a vocation, NOT a career. Maybe that's been the problem, the Church has been trying to "sell" the priesthood like a job or a career in the military ("A priesthood of ONE!"). It's not, it's like entering into a marriage, not your next great new job. Sadly, most people these days tend to have your attitude, that this is just one job among many and a career path for any man who wants it; honestly, we have all seen priests like that (Hello Mr. McCarrick) and they have no place in the priesthood. This new program, properly applied, will test the candidates and see who is really being called. If we don't believe that, then maybe there should not be a priesthood. And maybe not even a Church.
I will say this and then I'm done......If some of these men can't understand what this is about, well....don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya. You're not called to be a priest; you don't understand what it means and you are not willing to take the time to learn how to listen to God. You can complain all you want that this will make it harder for some men to become priests. I will say, that's a good thing. That means only those who really want to be there - because they are being called to this vocation - will be there. The others.....well, they simply have to accept that not everyone who thinks about going to seminary is being called to the priesthood.
I appreciate the points that both of you are making. I would also remind you of The Pillar's call to Christian charity in comments. This means refraining from allowing the discussion to become personally directed. I don't think we're there yet, so please consider this just a friendly reminder.
Well put and will do :)
As a primary clarification, it is usually the parents of young men who balk at college seminary and ultimately urge their children to instead try out "normal" life first: go to a normal college, get a useful degree, maybe even start a career, definitely get at least one long term girlfriend. For many parents, it is only after their son has suffiently tried out this life that they will give their blessing to seminary.
Without getting too detailed, I have personally taken full college courseloads well within the last decade, and I have also very seriously considered going to seminary in the same timeframe. Ultimately, that is not the path that I have been called to, but I am very familiar with these issues in the present day.
In the end, I simply disagree with the assessment that it is a good thing to make it harder for some men to become priests. While we should certainly be ensuring that the right men are entering the priesthood, and we should be certainly ensuring that they are receiving the proper formation to enter their vocation, we should be doing so in a manner that encourages and assists young men in eagerly and boldly taking up their vocations--be it priestly, religious, or marital.
Kind of like student teaching only for a priest. I like the idea of the spiritual initiation. I would have thought that was already a part of good seminaries.
My worry is that liberal priests will blackball conservative Orthodox types.
I daily pray for fearless and holy priests so I hope this helps!
It definitely has the potential to create liturgical stasis. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on how you view the prevailing liturgical culture in the Church. I would imagine that most of the priests chosen as formators are men who came before BXVI brought about a rethinking of post-VII liturgy. Perhaps that's even the point.
With all due respect, the post-conciliar liturgy cannot be called in any way a return to the apostolic liturgy. It bears little to no semblance to the forms which came before.
Having attended now the pre-Bugnini Holy Week rites, as well as according to the 1962 books, and the 1969 books, I feel I can safely say that there is no way forward for the Church but to return to the ancient rites, and to lay aside the tinkeritis which has possessed the Church for the last century.
I daily pray for less brazen and holier-than-thou priests like Fr. James Altman. I'm also not too keen on "Orthodox types", who presumably deny the Filioque and papal supremacy, being ordained as Catholic priests.
Here in Cincinnati we already have a year of pastoral internship. Seminarians go through two years of classes then have a year of pastoral internship in a parish. The next year they have another year of classes before being ordained to the diaconate. The fifth year they have another year of classes and formation before ordained to the priesthood.
probably, since they have to do that after diaconal ordination now, it will be dropped from the earlier phase of formation.
My husband and I listened to your latest podcast today and you and Ed's discussion made us think that you thought the year of pastoral internship might be a problem. We haven't heard of any issues here and we know several people who have gone through it.
Problem in what way?
How it would be implemented. Maybe we misunderstood you.
Or maybe I forgot what I said! That happens a lot! haha.
As far as liturgical and other formation for transitional deacons during the synthesis stage, I could see it being useful for seminaries to host periodic “reunions” or “training weeks” back on the seminary campuses. Some seminaries are clearly more prepared for some of these things than others. I went to Saint Meinrad for their Associate Pastor Workshop the year after I was ordained a priest and found it very helpful and fruitful: it is intended to help “newly ordained priests make a seamless transition into parish ministry, addressing the practical tasks and challenges, spiritual concerns, identity and accountability issues inherent within this transition” (https://saintmeinrad.edu/priests-ongoing-formation/effective-pastoring-workshops/). Of the 16 or so if us who attended, I was one of two who did not go there for theology. It continues to strike me as very odd that more seminaries don’t have this kind of program on the books, because it would not be terribly resource intensive for seminaries to host this kind of program. Under PPF 6, this sounds like the sort of program that would belong to the Vocational Synthesis stage, though adapted for diaconate.
Yes, Mount St Mary Seminary & School of Theology also offers ongoing formation for newly ordained, recent pastors and ongoing intellectual formation for all priests. https://athenaeum.edu/category/2022-continuing-formation-conference/
Would the prop year have to be connected institutionally to the seminary where they will study as a single program? Eg if five bishops send their seminarians to St. Therese Seminary, could two send their men to St. Jerome Prop House and another to St. Ignatius Prop Center and two more to a different place? Or could one bishop send his domestic seminarians to one place for the prop year and his international seminarians to a prop year with an ESL program, or some such? Or does it all have to be one connected program with the seminary?
Yes, good question. The bishop can send his guys to any propaeduetic program he sees fit, and that could be distinct from the place where they do their philosophy (the next stage.)
Certainly much for the bishops and seminaries to pray about and decide. It seems there could be some losses for the transitional deacon change. With the deacons still being in seminary under the described current model, they have a year to learn from one another, practice homilies in a place designed to give quality feedback from multiple voices, and serve in a wider variety of liturgies with a wider variety of presiders than the typical parish has. I hope these opportunities for greater experience, learning, and fraternity with other transitional deacons are not lost. For the other seminarians too, there may be a loss from only having upper classmen as mentors instead of ordained men.
This brings to my mind the following: you live in a very conservative diocese where there is emphasis in formation on Latin ,seminarians being waited on by women religious,seminarians wearing long cassocks and formators who wear garb seen in Rome. I am very much for the last year residing in a rectory where the Pastor acknowledges Pope Francis and his leadership and one who keeps church and local politics out of homilies. I can imagine the consternation of some over these new directives.Since the laity pay for many of these institutions,it might be good for some lay input.
I think this is an excellent strategy in light of the 'sign of our times'. I can't imagine that giving men an opportunity to 'seek God in wilderness' is anything but a good thing, whether or not the young men continue on to ordination or not.
A year focused on spiritual formation for our potential priests prior to getting stuck into the intellectual formation is (once implemented) going to be very beneficial for them all. Especially for new 'reverts' or converts to the faith, a year focusing on personal and spiritual growth and 'trying on' a celibate spirituality seems to me like a no-brainer, for them and for the Church.
The opportunity to get to know your bishop seems especially important for making sure that a bishop isn't treating his priests like a CEO treats his employees (even if he is a good, humane CEO who appreciates and respects his employees). Done even mediocrely, it should be a huge benefit to both the Church and the men who experience it. Some will work out more 'efficiently' that a celibate vocation is not their calling, before years of 'sunk costs' in intellectual formation, or that they are called to a religious order, or that they are right where they need to be.
A final mildly amusing anecdote about a friend of mine, who spent 7 years in seminary only to realise THE NIGHT BEFORE HIS ORDINATION to the temporary diaconate, that he was making a huge mistake and he was not called to be a priest. Fresh with terror from this new insight he barged into his rector's office at 11 pm at night and blurted out, "I can't do it." The rector finished his night prayer, gave him a look and said "FINALLY! It took you long enough... Pack your things, you're free to go when you're ready. See you tomorrow in the pews." He married a gorgeous woman and had 7 kids (the youngest of whom is one of my good mates).
I have not yet read the new PPF so perhaps my musings have little value. It seems that many are presuming the propaedeutic year must take place in a seminary environment. Need that be the case? Could the propaedeutic year take place in the parish setting? I am from a rural diocese and on average we get one new seminarian each year (two if we are lucky). With so few seminarians in the propaedeutic phase for smaller dioceses like my own it seems doable to place new seminarians in a parish with a pastor who will be a good spiritual mentor. Detox from the culture could still happen by restricting use of technology. Of course there would have to be some other boundaries and rules in order to keep the men from getting swept up in the busyness of parish, but theoretically it could be done. It would also cut back on the cost of another year in formation and possibly allow the bishop to get to know his new seminarians better. Granted this model might work better for a rural diocese that does not get many applicants for seminary each year. It just seems the prevailing assumption is that this propaedeutic year has to take place at the seminary. Is that truly the case? There might be other creative ways and means of doing a propaedeutic year. Thoughts?