My priestly formation occurred in a very liberal 1970’s seminary, St. Mary Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland. I was enrolled there was 1976 through 1979. This is not to be confused with Mt. St. Mary Seminary in Emittsburg, Maryland, which in the 1970’s was considered a throw-back to the bad old pre-Vatican II seminary training. Horrors of horrors, the seminarians there in the 1970’s wore cassocks, prayed the rosary and went to adoration and Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament, all pre-Vatican II corruptions of the spiritual life.
Prior to Vatican II and up until about 1968, St. Mary’s Seminary was one of the strictness seminaries in the world and it is the oldest in the USA. It is said that the Navel Academy modeled some of its discipline on St. Mary’s strict regimen.
Prior to 1968, St. Mary’s followed a strict monastery method of life and formation, strictly regimented. All seminarians and clergy wore cassocks, went to Mass daily and communal Liturgy of the Hours. The Rosary was scheduled each day as well as various popular devotions, the preeminent prayer before the tabernacle and Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament.
There were strict rules about going outside the seminary and with whom. All meals were eaten in the refectory and in community. Particular friendships were suspect (why? Fear of homosexual liaisons or the temptation toward it).
The clergy were above the seminarians and no casual friendships of any kind were allowed, whatsoever! Formality in relationships and a hierarchical formality was demanded!
At the end of the day there was a grand silence and finally lights out. The curriculum and manner of teaching was formal, orthodox and solemn.
When I got there in 1976, after a rebellion that made the seminary a “spirit” of Vatican II seminary that viewed the Church and seminary life up until 1968 as an aberration and what transpired since 1968 the true way of doing things was in full force. This is only 8 years after 1968! It was a completely different seminary, Church and way of priestly formation.
This was my experience:
1. It was casual, casual lay clothes, first name basis with all priests on staff including the rector (I had never spoken to a priest on a first name basis before.
2. No cassocks whatsoever. Even to serve Mass we wore casual lay clothes.
3. The campus was open. We could come and go at will and with whomever. We were allowed particular friendships, guests in our room to include laity, male or female. We did not have to eat in the seminary and Mass attendance was not required, just encouraged. The only experience of communal liturgy of the hours was Evening Prayer which was only on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The other hours were on our own or with small groups on our seminary floor. Popular devotions were not encourage and seen as highly suspect, especially the Rosary and other Marian devotions, prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament completely absent until a protest erupted over it from my1976 First year seminarians. The compromise was to have it once a year! So I experienced it in the seminary a total of two or three times.
4. Classes could be attended in shorts and tee shirts. We were allowed to smoke during classes which i did as I smoked at the time. The teaching of the solemn deposit of faith was a casual, nonchalant experience, just like any secular class at that time would have been taught in a university setting.
My seminary experience as you can read what so much better than the pre-Vatican II model. No accountability, come and go as you wish, spend the night elsewhere as I did with my 3rd year placement at St. Isaac Jogues Church in Baltimore. In fact we had the weekends free, beginning at noon of Friday and we need not be back until Monday morning.
What that means is that we were not required to be in the seminary building for Sunday Mass (or any time from noon on Friday until Monday morning), we could go to Mass elsewhere, which I did with a group of friends as we visited almost every liberal parish in Baltimore to get an experience of the true new and improved liturgy.
I might add that as a 22 year old, I did not even have to seek permission to leave the campus for extended periods of time over the weekend or any holidays that allowed for travel.
Yes, the post-Vatican II seminary formation of St. Mary’s in Baltimore was the cat’s meow! So much better and improved from its previous 200 years of formation and anything the pre-Vatican II Church would have accomplished or mandated.
14 comments:
The Heresy of Seminarianism:
If you take a candidate, dress him like a girl, treat him like a child, he will be turned into a man.
Go for it.
Yes, terrible thing Mt. St. Mary’s did to their seminarians. My class fared so much better-NOT.
And yet for all of that you have come around 180 degrees back to the Latin. Guess God had other ideas when it came to your "Formation". :)
"Guess God had other ideas when it came to your "Formation". :)"
Or, in the absence thereof, Fr. McDonald makes things up as he goes along... :-)
Wasn't the rector at that time, Fr. John Dede, know as "Queen Dido" for his corpulence and toleration of homosexuality (both orientation and activity) among the seminarians and priests?
No, I do not know that priest. You must be thinking about another seminary.
Fr. Dede was rector there from 1966 until the end of academic year 1972.
I had a friend there for his first year in 1972, but he had to withdraw for reasons of health before the end of the academic year because of the insanity going on there. (His bishop was willing to send him to another seminary for his second year.) Some of the saner seminarians called the place as "SMUT" for "St. Mary's University - Theology".
Thanks for the info, I don’t remember his name but he would have been there during its most tumultuous time. I looked up his obituary and he had a brother who was a priest and four sisters all of whom became nuns. He seems to have left the Sulpicians and returned to diocesan priesthood.
I have read works by people who could be labelled anything from "radically progressive" to "conservative traditionalists" who all admit and sum up seminary life during an approximate 15 year period, c.1970 to c.1985 as "CHAOS!".
I have also read over the years articles by " liberal/leftist" who openly boast that "a sizeable coterie of reactionary types" were turned away from seminaries because they were clearly men who if ordained would not adjust to life and ministry in "the contemporary church".
I wonder in the 1970s and 1980s (and afterwards?) how many hundreds of good men were turned away from seminaries because progressive and liberal priests and nuns employed at seminaries could label a young man " reactionary and rigid" or "inflexible and intolerant" simply because they agreed with and supported Church teaching on not ordaining women and that homosexual acts are sinful? Or prayed the rosary etc?
On the other hand - McCarrick was a product of a pre-Vatican II seminary, as were countless pedophiles such as the notorious Fr. Geoghan.
My own pastor, ordained 2011, is exactly what I would wish for in a pastor and parish priest - devout, faithful, endlessly serving the Church as pastor of 2 parishes, running a parish grade school, feeding the poor and homeless at the rectory door daily - to the tune of 100+/daily, Newman Center chaplain, and far more. He will drop everything for anyone in need of Confession or spiritual help, supports and is a member of our parish Knights of Columbus Council (not all pastors appreciate the K of C)and has expanded our Mass and Confession schedule.
I would not for one minute trade my excellent pastor for another. He is far more than we prayed for when we needed a pastor 2 years ago and pleaded with God for a good and faithful pastor who loved us but who loved Jesus more.
God bless and protect all here.
Susan@ 3:14PM
Could you please clone him and send him our way?
Susan OSF, what you say is true, but those formed in the pre-Vatican II model of seminary where checks and balances were notorious, especially concerning nefarious homosexual conduct in the seminary,collasped after Vatican II and Pandora's box, which up until then was shut tight, was flung wide open. It is the culture of the post-Vatican II clerical life that enabled McCarrick and others, many others and some simply to turn a blind eye so as not to appear too rigid or pre-Vatican II. Remember to be labeled pre-Vatican II right after the Council was like an "N" word.
However, there are those today and I would say my 1980's class is a prime example, from liberal seminaries such as St. Mary's who have a high rate of misbehavior leading to secular criminal charges and Church sanctions since the 2002 charter. Many of them were social justice warriors too.
I attended Mt. St. Mary's (then St. Gregory's) Seminary in Cincinnati from 1964-1970. What disturbs me now is that at no point did any administrator, priest or faculty member ask any of us why we were there. Screening was non-existent. Today, it's much better. I have become involved as the layman I've been since 1970, and I see greater screening, addressing of what it means to be a man in the priesthood, living alone, etc. Perhaps the reforms have had a good impact, compelling seminaries to look at the realities of what the Church needs today.
I think you are correct that things have improved and began to improve in the 80's and under Pope John Paul II. Prior to Vatican II, there was a distrust of psychology. What was looked at was the person's home life, divorced parents raised a red flag and any mental illness in the family as well, but apart from that, no one dug too deep.
When I was vocational director from 86-98, the candidates I had, had to go through a very in debt interview with me, with our diocesan psychiatrist and with a group of laity that met with them individually for their impressions. I appreciated that the most to be honest with you.
We instituted a pastoral year by the early 90's after second theology. The seminary itself had a strict regimen concerning evaluations and I would visit the seminaries twice a year usually to meet with staff there.
The problems today, though, have to do with broken marriages that many experienced and the instability of that, the culture we live in as it regards sexuality and poor formation as Catholics. They may have their heart in the right place, but other issues are serious too.
Post a Comment