Translate

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

LET ME BANG MY SEMINARY DRUM IN A POSITIVE WAY FOR A CHANGE


Goodbye, Good Men was a book written in the 1990's and described how the lavender mafia was infiltrating the seminaries of the 1970's forward. Popes John Paul II and Benedict both authorized seminary visitations to deal with doctrinal, moral and discipline issues in the modern seminary as well as any homosexual subculture.

My seminary, St. Mary Seminary in Baltimore had been called by many as the "pink palace." I thought at the time of this book and still do that the gay culture was not as rampant has the book made it out to be. And in fact in my second year of seminary in 1977 two seminarians were booted by the faculty for homosexuality and they promptly went to the local press, print and television to tell their story and how poorly they were treated.

My seminary was very liberal, thought that academic theologians knew better than the pope and bishops and that they comprised a parallel magisterium.

There was a great deal of liturgical experimentation and down right denigration of the celebration of the Mass especially in the silly small group Masses we had twice a week in priest's apartments in the school. No vestments, no altar and sometimes no eucharistic prayer. But I digress.

We also were imbued with South American Liberation Theology and Jesuitical theology from South America, exactly what we hear Pope Francis espousing today.

We had no rule, came and went as we pleased, spent weekends away from the seminary and had no curfew and could have parties in our room where alcohol flowed freely.

My class in 1976 started with 60 men or so. Many of them conservatives like me, who had little or no college seminary experience, mostly secular colleges like me. The vocal conservatives did not fair well and by the second year we were down to about 40. By the time I was ordained our class number 23 men and one women. Yes, you read that right, one woman. I will explain further, because that was actually good. An no she wasn't a cross dresser or transgendered.

As far as I can tell, only 6 of us remain in active ministry. One committed suicide after having been convicted of homosexual harassment of men in the Navy. Several have been laicized due to sexual issues of abuse of minors and the like. Others left to get married. A couple died of aides.

And all of this was from a seminary that decried clericalism as is usually described by the likes of Cupich, Tobin, the bishop of Davenport and even the pope.

What was good about my seminary?

1. Lay men and women attended classes with us to earn degrees in theology. One of my very good friends, Marie Hall, whose son became a Jesuit priest, is the only women in the history of St. Mary's to appear on a class photo for would-be priests. She brought positive aspects to our seminary training.

2. We had priests, nuns and lay men and women teaching us to include Dr. Richard Sipe. Of course it was liberal theology of the day, but we were exposed to a variety of liberal thought from these teachers and a Jew was the counselor for the seminarians if needed. He taught pastoral theology to us.

3. We did have freedoms that for mature men was most appreciated. I would classify myself as one of the mature. But the "lifers" those who began seminary in high school, there was an immaturity that we non-lifers could detect and despised.

4. We were taught to be pastoral, not clerical. We did not wear clerics in the seminary unless we went on a pastoral placement. But there wasn't a dress code either until my third year. We wore casual dress to chapel and class, like shorts and flip flops.

It wasn't until one of our gayer seminarians began to wear flip flops and  bibb overhauls without a shirt that the rector thought that he might need to say something about that.



38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hopefully Brett Kavanuagh was not hosting any parties at your seminary. He would have been pretty young, but with all the last-minute stuff coming out before tomorrow's hearing, who knows? Well, at least we know, being born in 1965, he was not on the grassy knoll on Elm Street on the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But I hear there are witnesses who saw him in Los Angeles in 1968! As well as in Memphis of that same year!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Your comments led me to check my class photo again. We started with 52, but that number dropped to about 45 after the first semester or two. That's not uncommon - guys give seminary life a shot and find it is not for them. Some left on their own, others were asked not to return.

After 4 years 39 of us graduated and 38 were ordained. This was 1985. One was never ordained because he could not keep his alcoholism under control. Of the 38 ordained, 17 of us are "still hanging in there." 6 have died - they were all older vocations. Of the 21 "gone," 13 have married, and no one knows for sure just whatever became of a few of the others. Some among the "departed" were good friends and I have kept in touch with two of them.

We did wear clericals to class - I remember putting on the uniform for the first time and being shocked when I looked in the mirror. One day a guy from the mid-West named Bruce showed up in clericals and flip-flops. "Mr. XXXXXX! You are.... you are....UNSHOD!" was Fr. Quinn's comment.

We had, I think, only two "lifers." They had both been with the Capuchins beginning in high school, but joined their home dioceses along the way. Both of them are still active in ministry. At times I think the older candidates might be the more problematic ones in terms of formation. A younger man might be more "formable" than a 40 or a 45 year old who has had a career.

There were two lay women - no men - who were in class with us frequently. One was a retired nurse who brought a lot of practicality to not a few classroom discussions about human sexuality matters! We had mostly priests and one nun - Sister Ann Miriam Gallagher, RMS, as teachers. Some were superb, some were real disasters who should never have been teaching at all.


TJM said...

LOL

Father, was Latin part of the curriculum?

Anonymous said...

Father M, you have an alibi for both 1963 and 1968?!?!?

Who was the bishop of Baltimore during your seminary days? Sure seemed pretty liberal?

I can believe how liberal things were at yours and other seminaries, if just from one example; the late Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, Bennett Sims (1920-2006), did studies at Catholic University in either the late 60s and/or early 70s (when he was at nearby Episcopal Virginia Seminary in Alexandria, VA), and he turned out to be a very liberal bishop (1972-1983), of course endorsing ordination of women and later, "same-sex" marriages. Must have been those years at Catholic University!!!!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Bishop Borders and he was quite liberal and Oorah Winfrey was a newscaster at the ABC affiliate at the time, did a story on the seminary, couldn’t get along with her male anchor and was given an afternoon talk show, “People are Talking” to get her out of the news and the rest is history!

John Nolan said...

I suspect all this was at a time when young men were turned away for being too orthodox, and monitored for such deviant tendencies as showing an interest in Latin. It wasn't just in the US, either; the Venerable English College in Rome was a good exemplar of liberal Catholicism - an article in the Catholic Herald some 25 years ago was entitled 'Flower Power at the Venerabile'.

Decent men learned to keep their heads down and outwardly conform, for example concealing a volume of Joseph Ratzinger behind a Karl Rahner dust jacket. Thankfully the culture has changed, and it is the turn of the 'old guard' to lament the orthodoxy of the present generation of young priests.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

I think the idea of young men being turned away for being too orthodox is largely mythology. Our class (1981-1985) at Mt. St. Mary's in Emmitsburg, had both the conservatives - Trads as we knew them - and Libs - as they knew us. Some on both ends of the spectrum were radical; most of us hovered around a pretty middle of the road position. Some on both ends of that spectrum remain in ministry while some from each have left ministry.

The faculty pretty much covered the spectrum as well. We studied under more conservative and more progressive faculty in just about all areas - Scripture, Systematics, Church History, Moral Theology, etc. But they gave us a very broad view that has, I would say, been very helpful in a Church that is very broad.

TJM said...

Kavanaugh, did you study Latin there, per Veterum Sapientia? I would hate to think you are incapable of celebrating the Mass in the language of the Latin Rite as celebrated at Vatican II

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

I studied Latin in high school. It was taught by a Brazilian who spoke 7 languages.

I can celebrate mass in Latin. Anyone with decent reading skills and a basic knowledge of Lation pronunciation can.

I don't celebrate mass in Latin because it is not necessary, nor is it of significant benefit to the congregants.

The Egyptian said...

Not a seminarian but a farmer, please don't knock bib overalls, I wear them every day, sadly I have to wear a shirt, as old and out of shape as I am the look would define the word gross
now when I was young, late 1970's shirtless was the way to work in the heat of summer, ah to be young again. A farm, a wife, 5 kids and age does change things
Thought about the seminary when I was young but to quote a friend of mine, no booze, no broads, no Davy. Just didn't think I was what the church needed

Catechist Kev said...

Fr. Kavanaugh says:

"I don't celebrate mass in Latin because it is not necessary, nor is it of significant benefit to the congregants."

Yet the document Sacrosanctum Comcilium (p. 36, 54) from V2 *says* Latin is to be retained in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Seems the Council Fathers that it rather necessary.

John Nolan said...

'I don't celebrate Mass in Latin because it is not necessary, nor is it of significant benefit to the congregants'.

Fair enough; you don't have to, and you know your congregants better than I do. However, I would maintain that some exposure to sung Latin texts in the Novus Ordo is desirable. Paul VI certainly thought so when he issued 'Jubilate Deo' - simple Latin chants for the faithful to learn, as recommended by the Second Vatican Council. As far as I know it is still in print.

It's a pity that the issue of Latin and/or the vernacular has become ideologically polarized. Some progressive priests have even stated that Latin is a 'foreign' language and only one person in a thousand would understand a Latin Gloria or Sanctus - an absurd proposition.



Anonymous said...

Egyptian, it turns out that in the late 70s seminary did include booze, broads, and a myriad of other more unmentionable things...
God help us.

Anonymous said...

Jack here:

Fr. K, if your pronunciation is “Lation”, I don’t think it would work very well for Sacred Liturgy. (-:
(Sorry I just had to do it! You’ve done it to others here, so I couldn’t resist...)

God bless,
Jack

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Jack - I think I might have, subconsciously at least, been aiming for Laotian!

Kev - Who was responsible for determining what Latin would be maintained in the celebration of the mass? And what did those responsible give us as the direction we should follow?




Catechist Kev said...

Does it matter, Father Kavanaugh?

The *council Fathers* said Latin is to be retained in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Does not seem that hard to me, but I am just a pew potato catechist. What do I know?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Kev - Yes, it matters. Like an organization's budget, the plans laid out by Vat 2 were a blueprint for action, but the implementation of that blueprint was given over to Bishops conferences and individual bishops.

For example, some bishops established and funded adequately an Office for Ecumenism while some did not.

Catechist Kev said...

Latin is to be retained. That's what the council said.

Your "apologetics" for not retaining Latin in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass seem like lame excuses.

The faithful in so many places throughout Holy Mother Church do not even know Her language.

It is so sad.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...September 26, 2018 at 8:49 PM

"I don't celebrate mass in Latin because ... nor is it of significant benefit to the congregants."

Well Father, how do you KNOW??? Have you studied this? Do you have (dare I say) proof?

After all, you're making a pretty broad assumption here. How many of your "congregants" have ever even been educated on the Latin Mass and what it entails, or experienced it over a period of time, so that they may be able to correctly respond to a question of whether it is of "significant benefit" to them? (Is Mass supposed to be of "significant benefit" to the "congregants"? That would be news to me. I thought Mass was the worship of God....but then, I'm not a priest.)

God bless.
Bee

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Kev - You can repeat the Council's words a dozen more times. That will not change the fact that the implementation of the Council was given to Bishop's Conferences, Congregations and other Roman dicasteries, and to local bishops.

What is the advantage of being able to pray the prayers of the mass in Latin? Does it please God? Does it make the prayers more understandable to those praying? Does it have any discernible effect on the awareness of the people in the pews of their need for grace and reconciliation?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Of course, FRMJK, you are right about individuals and the community in terms of intelligibility for some of those individuals and communities. Since you have absolutely 0 experience with EF communities, tell them that. They would beg to differ and thus you must apply your same logic to them as you do to your own experiences.

But with that said, you miss the point of the Latin altogether for the LATIN RITE. It is a unifying language not a dividing language. I am in a parish where I may need to add a Spanish Mass and thus segregate the Anglos from the Spanish speakers thus dividing my parish.

If they only had the Latin choice as up to only 55 years ago, with today's technology all I would need to do is provide a translation of my English homily into Spanish and all could enjoy be one body, one spirit in Christ and actually relate to one another liturgically.

Catechist Kev said...

Well said, Fr. McDonald.

My take on it was obedience to what the actual documents of the Council say - and thus to the Fathers of the Council. (despite all of the various bishops conferences and their... wide variety of implementation)

As I understand it, the late Fr. Amorth (Rome's "go to" priest for the ministry of exorcism) said that the devil hates Latin. Guess maybe it's a good thing to use it in our Holy Masses then.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Bee - (Is Mass supposed to be of "significant benefit" to the "congregants"?)

Yes, the worship of God is a significant benefit to the Congregants. That benefit we call "grace."

Allan - Latin does not unify those who do not speak Latin. Using a language unknown to 99.9% of the members of the congregation does not unify anyone.

John Nolan said...

Kev

Sacrosanctum Concilium is ambiguous, and deliberately so. The use of the Latin language is to be retained BUT the vernacular can be allowed (whether and to what extent it's used being up to the bishops). HOWEVER the people should be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

A few years ago a commentator on the PrayTell blog suggested that the apparently conservative elements of SC reflect the fact that it was the first Council document to be signed off. Had it appeared two years later, he argued, it would have been more radical, even to the extent of prohibiting Latin altogether.

Be that as it may, the reformers were able to use SC as a blueprint for a liturgical revolution which few would have envisaged in 1963.

DJR said...

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... "I think the idea of young men being turned away for being too orthodox is largely mythology."

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/buffalos-seminary-rector-accused-of-homosexual-predation

From the article: "In addition to Wednesday's complaint filed against Gatto, Church Militant has also learned that clerical and nonclerical sources within the diocese are affirming Gatto used his position as rector of the seminary to solicit homosexual favors from new applicants to the seminary. Sources say applicants who did not comply with Gatto's requests were not admitted to the seminary program."

Catechist Kev said...

John Nolan,

Thank you, good sir.

Be that as it may, as Fr. McDonald says, we are the Latin Rite - *not* the Vernacular Rite.

My thinking is priests/bishops like Fr. Kavanaugh are not being true to the *proper* spirit of the Council's document on the Sacred Liturgy - despite ensuing documents from local bishop councils.

Can we have *some* Latin in the N.O. Mass? Please? It's not that hard, if you ask me. It brings a certain sacredness to worship, I believe.

Would the Fathers of V2 recognize the vast majority of N.O. Masses celebrated in the last 40 years or so? Would they say, "Yes, this is a Catholic Mass" or would they say, "This seems a protestant service to me"? It makes me wonder.

Peace to all for being very kind and civil in this discussion. :^)

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh at September 27, 2018 at 3:30 PM said,

"Yes, the worship of God is a significant benefit to the Congregants. That benefit we call "grace."

and prior to that said, "I don't celebrate mass in Latin because it is not necessary, nor is it of significant benefit to the congregants."

So I guess Fr. Kavanaugh does not believe the Latin Mass confers grace as a benefit to the "congregants"?

Gee Father, I'd stop while I was ahead if I were you.... (but of course, you won't, because you always have to have the last word.)

God bless.
Bee

John Nolan said...

'Latin ... a language unknown to 99.9% of the members of the congregation ...' (Fr MJK.)

I suspect that rather more than one in a thousand would have studied Latin at high school. Not to mention older congregants who would have attended Mass before 1965.

As for the rest, try them out with 'e pluribus unum'.

It's quite possible to 'know' Latin without being able to converse freely in that language. I once met a man who could do just that. He was a truck driver but had studied at the Gregorian University and took 'viva voce' exams in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Such people are few and far between.

I know people who sing chant but haven't formally been taught Latin; however, they know what they're singing.

Do I detect a note of condescension (I won't call it clericalism!) from someone who has shown on another thread that he is quite capable of employing a gerund in the genitive case?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"I suspect that rather more than one in a thousand would have studied Latin at high school." The vast majority of Americans attended public schools where Latin was rarely offered. Some, like me, who attended private schools, did have the opportunity to study Latin.

In 2007, 149,000 students in the US took the National Latin Exam. There are just over 50 million students in public high schools here. 0.3%

I suspect most under the age of 50 would have a very hard time explaining E Pluribus Unum.

Yes, one can repeat memorized Latin prayers without knowing the language. I don't think that that is of significant benefit to the congregants.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"I don't celebrate mass in Latin because it is not necessary, nor is it of significant benefit to the congregants."

Bee, let me make the meaning of the sentence clear for you.

"I don't celebrate mass in Latin because it (celebrating mass in Latin) is not necessary, nor is it (celebrating mass in Latin) of significant benefit to the congregants."

John Nolan said...

Fr MJK

Your sentence should read 'I don't celebrate mass in Latin because (in my opinion) it is not necessary, nor is it (in my opinion) of significant benefit to the congregants'. You are quick to criticize correspondents who state opinion as if it were fact. You should apply the same criteria to yourself.





Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

+ 1

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

John Nolan -

You should have written, "In my opinion, 'Your sentence should read 'I don't celebrate mass in Latin because (in my opinion) it is not necessary, nor is it (in my opinion) of significant benefit to the congregants.'"

John Nolan said...

MJK

I don't give two hoots whether you say 'mass' in English, Sanskrit, Swahili or Esquimau since the chances of my ever having to endure one of your celebrations are zero.

I simply accuse you of blatant double standards when it comes to distinguishing between fact and opinion.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

John Nolan, should you not have written, "I simply accuse you of, IN MY OPINION, blatant double standards when it comes to distinguishing between fact and opinion."?

DJR said...

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... "I think the idea of young men being turned away for being too orthodox is largely mythology."

From CNA Deutsch, 28 September 2018:

Bishop Genn of MĂ¼nster has declared he will not ordain "pre-conciliar clerical types." In 2017, three priests were ordained in his diocese. In January, the diocesan seminary rector spoke of "sleepless nights" because of the lack of vocations.

John Nolan said...

No, MJK, an accusation is not an opinion. The latter may be argued against, the former may be refuted. In both cases evidence is required.