"I attended a Roman Catholic seminary--THE MOST CONSERVATIVE seminary in the United States---from 1969 to 1976, and there was never a sermon, talk, discussion, retreat subject, meditation, or private spiritual direction about the subject of celibacy. None. Nada. Never."
Now, go back and read what I said, specifically: During this period A MAN has every opportunity to CONTEMPLATE HIS personal sacrifice.
How do you extract "communal discussion" from what I have clearly stated here to be ONE MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOBER REFLECTION? There can be no contention of this point, for the consideration is a black and white issue.
"The assumption was made that, if you were in the seminary, you knew how to handle celibacy."
PERSONAL MEDITATION is appropriate to the gravity of the consequence that comes with this most PERSONAL CHOICE. One man taking responsibility for his own actions and decisions is not a difficult concept, or at least that used to be the norm. Sinkspur, do you mean to imply that a man, who has made the profound decision to enter the priesthood, requires "counseling" to make this decision about celibacy? If this is your view of being accountable for one's own actions, then there is no wonder that the Church finds herself in such dire circumstance. A man makes his decisions and then he must live with them--period. There is no "wiggle room" here.
"Thankfully, celibacy is now clearly explained with its implications and obligations."
Just what part of "NO" do they not understand?
"And, thankfully, most men ordained today are in their 30s and out of the testosterone-ridden 20s when men made decisions about a life of celibacy when they were clearly not mature enough to make them."
Then such men were also not mature enough to enter the seminary; and moreover: had the procter been doing his job by the traditional standards of evaluation, such men would not be allowed to finish seminary training. Immaturity on this level would reveal itself at others--the flaw would be obvious--To wit obvious for those who cared to take notice; but then, that IS the problem we are dealing with now: A corrupt seminary system? After all, you did comment that the period of your attendance was 1969-76.
"It is also clear that, as St. Paul said, not many are called to live as he did."
I rest my case.
posted on 05/23/2003 6:03:26 PM PDT
(War is better than terrorism)
Then such men were also not mature enough to enter the seminary; and moreover: had the procter been doing his job by the traditional standards of evaluation, such men would not be allowed to finish seminary training.
Nobody, at age 18, is "mature enough" to embrace celibacy. If a man remains in that protective seminary environment for eight years, with no direction in dealing with sexuality, he will be just as socially immature as he was at 18.
Have you been alive long enough to remember minor seminaries, when we took teenage boys out of circulation? The Church actually thought TEENAGE BOYS could discern a vocation to the priesthood!
I was in a seminary that styled itself on a pre-Vatican model.
A model which was the butt of a well-known joke: The Roman Catholic seminary is the only institution in the world that can take in a man and turn out a boy.
Is it any wonder that 20,000 men left the priesthood to marry when given the option of laicization?
They never should have been ordained in the first place, just like these pederasts who are abusing young men.
A corrupt seminary system? You bet. It's been in place for over a hundred years.
posted on 05/23/2003 6:20:37 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson