www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Byzantine Seminary

I agree completely. Our seminaries should be hospitable places of formation to those men who are discerning and pursuing vocations to the priesthood. Whether these men also have a vocation to the married or single life shouldn�t matter.

I believe the Holy Father's remarks yesterday were fair warning that a significant portion of the celibate candidates should and can not be advanced to ordination.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20020905_339.html

All the more reason that the "rights" and tradition of our Church must be asserted and lived out if we have any hope of continuing in this country. I think it's fair to say that as things currently stand we are at a dead end.

Stuart,

If you are aware of a specific priest who is currently chasing after a woman or a child you have an obligation to report him to his bishop.

If your comments were general in nature I fail to see how such cutting comments about �secretaries and little boys looking good� are absolutely necessary to these types of discussions.

The simple fact is that the rate of pedophilia among married Protestant ministers is significantly higher than that among celibate Catholic priests and that the actual rate in comparison to the number of priests is quite low. That does not justify allowing it anywhere in the Church but it does help put it into perspective.

In the Byzantine Catholic Church a man should not be forced to choose between the vocations of marriage and priesthood if the Lord has called him to both vocations. Those who have already been ordained have made their choice and are expected to live up their oath of celibacy.

We can not change the past. We can either become mired in the lost opportunities and regret or move forward to build up the Body of Christ. I choose to move forward and build while learning from the past.

Admin

With all due respect, Mr Admin, this is what happens around a close family.

Seriously, though, I think the comments here are borne out of a sense of frustration that there are not more men in the seminary. We can discuss this and put the blame on celibacy, but as some one noted the Othrodox and Protestants are encountering the same issues. Seminaries are an outgrowth of the Counter-Reformation, and for hundreds of years the priesthood and the military was the only way for the peasant folk to provide a better life for their sons. (This may be why US bishops are cautious about importing seminarians from Eastern Europe.) Let's not forget that for a number of parishes the priest was the most educated person, that now is changing.

Perhaps a different model is now needed to call and form men to the ordained vocation. But of course change is hard, and this would demand thinking outside the hallowed halls of the seminary box.

IMHO, the issues are questions of faith and committment. As Bro. Peter has pointed out it is not high school boys who are answering the call, but older men, some who come from a professional field and have lived in the marketplace (not unlike the original Twelve). Do these men really need to placed in a seminary for 3,4, or 6 for more education? I would say that if they have been men of faith and committment as attested to by their pastors or spiritual directors, then why not have an education plan (even internet courses) and a mentor program with the pastor to prepare them for parish ministry. Most of us would probably agree that we learned more on the job, than in the classroom. Now, I'm not comparing the ordained vocation to a job, but the parish life presented situations to the pastor that could never be anticipated in the seminary, and the pastor learned from this situations.

I'm not saying education is not needed, but is 3 years at a seminary necessary for those men who have college degrees, and have exhibited a life of faith and committment? Let's not forget the prayer at ordination, "Divine grace, which always heals illnesses and supplies what is lacking, ordains..."

(Subdeacon) John

[ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

>>>If you are aware of a specific priest who is currently chasing after a woman or a child you have an obligation to report him to his bishop.<<<

That particular episode is history, and the damage that was done is done. But the effects linger still. I wonder if it would not have been better had the person who "informed" on the priest in question had simply remained silent.

In regard to more recent history, I have had the unhappy experience of having to listen to the cri de coeur of several people who, having problems with their pastor of an "intergenerational love" nature, took their complaints to the bishop and got blown off for their trouble. These were very serious, sober, pious people, who were deeply upset both at the effect that the situation was having on their parish, and the potential risk at which it put their Eparchy. I understand that the situation was a repeat of one that has caused great problems for another eparchy. In both cases, the bishop in question seems not to have wanted to know what was going on in his own back yard. Interesting, since this particular bishop is known to be a meddlesome fussbudget in other matters.

>>>The simple fact is that the rate of pedophilia among married Protestant ministers is significantly higher than that among celibate Catholic priests and that the actual rate in comparison to the number of priests is quite low. That does not justify allowing it anywhere in the Church but it does help put it into perspective.<<<

Tu quoque is not a good defense under any circumstances--and especially not in this one.

>>>In the Byzantine Catholic Church a man should not be forced to choose between the vocations of marriage and priesthood if the Lord has called him to both vocations. Those who have already been ordained have made their choice and are expected to live up their oath of celibacy.<<<

This ignores the reality of the situation in which many of our priests to date have found themselves. I have a reputation for being something of a hard-nose, but it would seem that I have quite a bit more compassion for priests than do many others. Perhaps I see them as human beings, and not as commodities to be inventoried, shipped, installed, transferred, and retired according to circumstances.

>>>We can not change the past.<<<

We shouldn't forget it or ignore it, either. Santayana, or someone.

>>>We can either become mired in the lost opportunities and regret or move forward to build up the Body of Christ. I choose to move forward and build while learning from the past.<<<

And when the same mistakes are repeated over and over? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

Here, Here! SubDeacon John: Your points are on the mark. Let the Church awaken from the haze, I pray our God.Welome the " late vocation" folks who have proved themselves and who are probably less likely to split a parish as the less isolated and younger ordaiined clergy.
Dennis

[ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

>>That particular episode is history, and the damage that was done is done. But the effects linger still. I wonder if it would not have been better had the person who "informed" on the priest in question had simply remained silent.<<

Remaining silent is never an option when people, especially children, are being harmed.

>>In both cases, the bishop in question seems not to have wanted to know what was going on in his own back yard. Interesting, since this particular bishop is known to be a meddlesome fussbudget in other matters. <<

Sadly, there are bishops who choose to turn a blind eye to such immoral and illegal behavior. When this happens the people must rally, politely but with just cause until the appropriate steps are taken to remove and discipline the offender. When the local bishop will not do what is right and just one must go the next higher authority (archbishop, bishop's conference, the Vatican).

>>Tu quoque is not a good defense under any circumstances--and especially not in this one.<

Quite true. And I clearly did not offer it as such and am sorry you chose to interpret in that light. What has happened is clearly horrible and unacceptable. But we must always keep in mind that we must go out of our way to support the vast majority of our clergy who lead moral Christian lives. Such tragedies affect and upset them even more than it does us (the laity).

>>We shouldn't forget [the past] or ignore it, either. Santayana, or someone. <<

Good. We need to pray and work with our clergy and leaders to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated in the future. It is a never-ending task.

What happened to discussing our seminary/vocation problems? It seems like this digression into individual weaknesses and scandalous behavior amongst clergy is getting to be an all-too often occurrance on this forum.

These problems existed in times of fuller seminaries, they just weren't as public as the situation now.

The bottom line is, there are three men in Pittsburgh at the seminary. It seems we should be working together to find a solution, across jurisdictional boundaries, to combine efforts in a constructive way to build the Greek Catholic church in the USA.

Slava Isusu Christu

Dear friends,

I can see why the Bishops are so hesitant to allow foreign seminary students to act as pastors for our churches. From a practical stand point a pastor has to not only administer to his flock but he also may have to make sure elementary schools in his jurisdiction are running properly, the church structure itself is running properly, handle all fund drives, make sure the Sisters are properly cared for, and administer to the sick and elderly. And this does not even take into account his acting as a good will ambassodar to other sister churches and other denominations. And if he is a pastor in an urban enviornment he will also have to be particularly friendly with the local police and fireman.

Obviously, the foreign seminary student who fits this bill will have to be extrodinary indeed.

My suggestion would be to encourage Deacons, Cantors, and older people with a vocation to join the priesthood.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Administrator:

>>>Remaining silent is never an option when people, especially children, are being harmed.<<<

I don't believe any children were harmed in that particular episode, but the parish was substantially damaged by the resignation of the priest and his change of affiliation thereafter. He married the woman, by the way--lending credence to what Joe and I were saying.

Would that we had elementary schools! We used to. Most, inter alia, were founded by the despicable "immigrant priests" who came here between the 1890s and the 1930s. Somehow, they seemed to get the job done. Their indigenously educated and formed successors should pray to do as well.

As for the "Sisters", they manage their own affairs, and are so few in number as to be no inconvenience to anyone.

Administering to the sick and elderly is something that an immigrant can do as well as a native, thanks very much, as can most of the other things you mentioned.

The main reason for finding married deacons to ordain is that they are sober, mature men, with proven track records, whose children are grown and who, in general, are self-supporting.

I would like to correct the information with which this thread began. This year, there are 14 students enrolled at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary. They include 3 seminarians, but also priests, deacon candidates, cantors and lay men and women, and even a cross-registration from Duquesne University. Several of these non-resident students are pursuing a Master of Arts in Theology degree through the Seminary's new affiliation with Duquesne University. These 11 non-resident students represent the student body the Seminary CAN recruit. We cannot recruit seminarians--we must rely on Diocesan Bishops and Directors of Vocations to do that; on pastors and parents to encourage it, on men (young and not so young) to dare it.

I was disheartened to hear far too much talk at Otpust about the imminent closing of our seminary. The Seminary is obviously serving a different population, but I think it's clear the Seminary is serving the Church and serving the academic and spiritual and pastoral interests of the Pittsburgh metropolia through this broader outreach. We risk the creation of a vicious cycle if pastors and eparchs start talking as if the seminary were about to close, thereby further discouraging the few potential vocations which do bravely emerge now and again. The potential is there: I know personally of some 7 college age men who are seriously discerning vocations and fully expect a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Seminary to be there for them in a year or two or three.
If the seminary should close, it will be for lack of vision on the part of our Church's leaders. The Seminary is on the short road to attaining legal degree-granting status, and accreditation of that degree should not be a problem. We have financial security thanks to the generous response to our capital campaign. We have a credible, professional academic, pastoral and spiritual program. We are unique: the only free-standing Byzantine Catholic graduate school of theology in the USA. These are what the Commonwealth of PA and our accreditors will look for.
Is optional celibacy part of the answer? For me, it certainly is, at least on the level of justice. The seminary will be ready when an eparch sends his first married candidate. The bigger issue, in this priest's humble opinion, is the life of faith being lived in our homes, the witness given by the priests in our parishes and the moral and material support our eparchies are willing to invest in any man who demonstrates a potential vocation to priesthood, diaconate, or monastic life.
Please forgive the length of this post. It's my first. I am glad this site exists for a healthy exchange of information and views.
Fr. Jack Custer