U.S. Priests and seminarians survey: more vocations in orthodox dioceses

AD 2000 ^ | August 1998

[american colleen]

As I implied above, the most valid conclusion that this study might yield is that whether a Diocese is progressive or orthodox depends on whether the area in which the Diocese is located is socially and politically progressive or orthodox.

Oh dang! More twists and turns! My head is spinning.

I reject your conclusion! ;-)

Seriously, shouldn't Catholicism, which is neither politically progressive or conservative as taught by the Magisterium, transcend a particular political climate? If it is taught according to the catechism, tradition and Magisterium, that is.

But you have a good point because priests coming out of seminaries in liberal areas were probably taught by liberal theologians who in turn either were taught in those same seminaries or colleges that their teachers came out of. It's kind of like an endless circle or a dog chasing his tail.

In the more liberal areas, a lot of the teaching centers on the parish/Church being primarily a social justice organization (which Cardinal Ratzinger sees as the greatest danger to the Faith) and I find this over and over again in priests and particularly nuns. The focus is on love and has an almost socialistic flavor.

Which is why orthodoxy works... by adhering to the Magisterium, we are able to overcome the temptation to interject political opinion.

[cebadams]

You bring up a many good points to consider. What I am constantly confounded with is that there appears to be a problem to solve (lack of vocations) and ample variance occuring (this article, for instance, can easily find dioceses where vocations are not a problem) yet there does not seem to be any concerted effort to explain the variance.

[american colleen]

...yet there does not seem to be any concerted effort to explain the variance.

A "fruit" of the USCCB? To discuss this issue publicly or seriously would be pointing fingers at the dioceses that have a dearth of vocations and to give a thumbs up to a diocese that has plenty of vocations. And Bruskewicz's diocese is cited most often as having plenty of vocations... but he is perceived as a bishop who rules with an iron fist, doesn't listen to "other voices" (he's not inclusive not pc!) and who is medievel in the words of my 68 year old parish priest.

The USCCB and "unity" keeps everything at the same level by not tackling the important issues with serious and soul-searching and public discussion. And it seems (to me) that the only "mavericks" who stand out a bit are the progressive ones.

[Loyalist]

Vocations PING

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Annual Catholic Directory. Look for it in larger libraries, esepcially at seminaries and universities.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

What you write is correct. The Philadelphia (St. Charles Borromeo) and Baltimore (Mt. St. Michael) seminaries are full, not just with local men, and men sent from other diocese, but men who have left places like Rockville Circus to study for a real Catholic Diocese.

Orthodoxy attracts, and heterodoxy repels.

The number of vocations probably does not differ that greatly, although individual parishes can be exceptions, as ThomasMore can tell you (and I can tell you too - the two indult parishes I've belonged to - St. Boniface in Pittsburgh and Mater Ecclesiae in Berlin, NJ both have 3 or 4 men in the seminary).

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Yes, they become Priests in the diocese they study for. No, they would not have become priests otherwise.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The progressive Dioceses are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically liberal. The orthodox Diocese are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically conservative.

That's not true as a generalization. Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Atlanta are not particularly conservative, and Tuscon, San Diego, Phoenix, New Ulm, Portland, and San Bernardino are not particularly liberal. The sample is good and representative.

[american colleen]

Do you have to get a dispensation or something similar from your bishop in order to attend a seminary in another diocese?

And if so, wouldn't the would be seminarian have to explain why he doesn't want to go to the local seminary and is choosing to go elsewhere?

Which might explain the underlying animosity directed at a bishop like Bruskewicz?

[american colleen]

Yes, they become Priests in the diocese they study for.

Maybe all the more reason to consolidate seminaries (makind them less locally bound) and have them run by bishops with a proven track record.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The bishops don't care. They are part of the problem.

[JNB]

I good contrast is between Kansas City MO diocese and the Kansas City KS Archdiocese, the KC Kansas Archdiocese has a far higher vocation rate than the KO MO diocese. The difference, KC MO has a fairly liberal Bishop.

[rogator]

"....have them run by bishops with a proven track record"

If they were consolidated, I'm afraid that the USCCB would have liberals running them (into the ground) in no time at all.
Better that good orthodox bishops have control of their own seminaries.

[rogator]

What I would like to see is whether a corelation exists between seminaries requiring their students to take Latin as required by Canon Law and ordinations.
I would bet that the heterodox dioceses with fewer ordinands do not require this aspect of Canon Law to be followed.

[Salvation]

Priests Down, Seminarians Up

Seminary Springtime: Father Darrin Connall s Big Success

In Seminaries, New Ways for a New Generation

[narses]

Grant us more "medievel" prelates Oh Lord, grant us many more!

[american colleen]

Right. Good point. I guess we are better off keeping it the way it is rather than risk running the few good ones into the ground. This way, when a good bishop gets moved around, he can start to clean up the new seminary and leave behind an old successful seminary with good people on board.

The USCCB just goes up my keister sideways.

[american colleen]

I agree with you, of course. But doesn't it seem like Bruskewicz in particular is sort of stuck in neutral mode right now? It seems if the bishop tones down his orthodoxy and hones his interpersonal skills (what is that Italian word "aggre...."?) then they move along and maybe have more influence - like Cardinal George. Bruskewicz just seems to tick off so many people because he says exactly what he thinks. I love that, though. You always know exactly where he stands.

[narses]

The truth often hurts. What the Church needs, what the world needs is ORTHODOXY not politically correct pap. Either the Truth resides in the Church and we believe that it does, or it is all a sad game. If the hierarchs have lost the faith, and I believe to many have, then they are enemies of the Truth. They are living a lie.

[Antoninus]

For those of us who live in more "progressive" doiceses, where parishes are being closed and the priest shortage is widely lamented, this report might prove instructive were the bishop to see it.

Doubtful. Those bishops in dioceses with vocations "crises" know what they're doing--They have absolutely no interest in increasing vocations.