Update

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

[quote]Because she couldn't trust us, or because we weren't mature enough toknow what we needed? Not at all! But by just getting it ourselves, wemissed out on the blessing of God for that action. It supernaturalizesand sanctifies the mundane act of getting the toothpaste, to have theblessing of obedience for it. There is a certain beauty in the practiceof humility in the small things. That didn't mean it was any less anopen environment.[/quote]

Yes, and that all sounds good in theory. It's very nice sounding on paper. But I could see it getting unnecessarily annoying in practice. Of course, if these are cloistered nuns, it makes more sense, and if they can handle it, good for them. More as an aspect of poverty than obedience, I'd think, but that's a different type of life and one I've discerned is totally not for me.

[quote]But what you don't seem to understand is that religious life and thepriesthood is not about getting the people that do the best work, canaccomplish the most. It is not about doing what you think is the best,most productive thing. Oftentimes, it entails sacrificing what youbelieve would be the best use of your time, even what [i]objectively[/i]may be the most productive thing to be obedient. Obedience is not anobligation set in place because the members of a religious community tomake them childish and immature, but to conform them to Christ who wasobedient unto death. Christ is not extolled for his power, for hisgrandeur, for his abilities, but for his obedience. The obediences thatreligious exercise in even the small things, conform them to Christ.It's not about being the mover and the shaker... it's about being likeChrist.[/quote]

I get the sense that a lot of people giving me advice here have more experience with consecrated [i]religious[/i] life than with the secular priesthood which is, after all, the [i]secular[/i] priesthood.

Religious life is about the individual sanctification of the members, definitely. But the secular priesthood IS more concerned (or should be) with getting people who can do the best work, accomplish the most for the parish. The secular priest is the servant of his parish, as people have said, and of his bishop, and personal dynamism and competence on a practical level IS perhaps a lot more important than it is in a religious community (especially contemplative) where the goal is the sanctification of the members primarily. Holiness in secular priests is very desireable, of course, as it is in anyone...but it is not ultimately the primary goal in the diocesan priesthood as it is with religious life.

That's sort of my concern. That seminaries are like putting diocesan seminarians through a period more akin to the life lived by monks or contemplatives, when the whole point is that secular priests are NOT supposed to be monks or contemplatives. I'm definitely not called to that, I'm definitely called to secular life. Which is fine once ordained, but the seminary system in place since Trent seems to require that all seminarians go through what is essentially a period of pseudo-religious life first. Seminaries shouldnt be monasteries, not all men have that call, that's the point of the diocesan priesthood. But too many seem like they are.

[quote]I don't really see basis for these sweeping generalizations that youare making about seminary life, or that they produce priests who can'thandle parish life.The point I was making was that the men at theseso-called rigid seminaries [i]are[/i]psychologically healthy. I mean look at the FSSP... they have a verystructured seminary life, and then right after they are ordainedthey're thrown into parish life, and they handle it very well. [/quote]

Ahem, well, I'll refrain from comment here. I think that people must KNOW of places like I am describing, but are refraining from recommending them because of their own ideological bent. We all know there are places where you can live very independently. We all know there are groups of priests (even religious) who wear regular clothes and live alone in their own apartments. I'm not saying these are great, usually they are theologically liberal. But why couldnt such more secular, more independent dynamics...exist in a group that is theologically conservative? Why must theological orthodoxy be tied to Old World institutional models that are highly rigid and repressive?

[HisChild]

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='08 November 2009 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1257709211' post='1998291']

I'm not talking about anything major, and that's just it. But at a certain point it raises eyebrows that a seminarian has to ask the rector for toothpaste instead of just being able to drive down to the drugstore and pick some up on his free time.


[/quote]


A couple years ago, we had a program in our parish where we were given a seminary to pray for all throughout his studies. The one I was given was in his early 40s. Each year I'd ask him what he needed and he'd tell me something like he was running low on socks or toothpaste or whatever. Once he even said that these particular stores were nearby so I could just send a gift card (he knew not to argue with me and tell me something like 'oh I'm fine, don't send anything! LOL). So I know that he never had to go to a rector to ask for permission to get these things.

Are you sure you're not dealing with a very singular institute?

He was in OR, and I know he was never treated the way you claim. And he's just one of my most recent examples...

[picchick]

I am not trying to patronize you but perhaps you are comparing minor seminary to major seminary? I have heard about the permissions and the searching being done at minor seminaries but not at major seminary.

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

"There's a seminary in Boston for delayed vocations -- Blessed JohnXXIII. I don't know how old you are but it sounds like you've been outon your own long enough that you may qualify. Age boundaries is 30-60."

Very interesting. Not quite in the age range yet, but definitely something to keep in mind.

But it's very existence seems to confirm the existence of the double-standard I was mentioning with married permanent deacon candidates (and married former protestant ministers). They seem to treat older men, or married men, or men who have had a career first...with more respect, frankly. Like adults. Whereas men in their 20's seem to be treated more like children.

I dont know how the fact that the seminarian you were given, HisChild, was in his early 40s effected the level of independence his superiors allowed. It seems that if you are closer to them in age, they give you more independence/treat you more like an equal, whereas there is still a lot of "talking down" to the guys in their 20s. I guess because they're more willing to put up with that in a way that someone who's already had a career and lived out in the world wouldnt?

I dont know, but there is definitely this idea of keeping the younger guys "innocent" and "uncorrupted" that gives off a creepy vibe, and which is very different than how they treat older men who may be more of their peers age-wise.

Just an observation. So maybe the answer is just for me to wait until I'm older, till when they dont dare treat you like a child anymore??


For example, look at how Fr Zuhlsdorf lives. He's a graduate student in Rome apparently, but he's always globe-trotting, living on his farm, going to different conferences. He gives no indication that he has to go ask his bishop about every trip or anything. He's able to do it because he came in with a lot of money of his own from a prior career, apparently. Frankly, if I were a priest, I would feel very guilty living like that. The kind of "freedom" I'm talking about pales in comparison to that sort of independence. I just mean, like, being able to go to a store when I need something or out for lunch with friends on free-time (instead of having every minute of every day structured, being told that it's "lights out," etc). Yet, Fr Z is a well-respected priest. Is that the answer: having your own money? If I made a lot of money in a career first, and therefore wasnt particularly expecting them to "provide" for me or "take care of" me...do you think they treat those people differently in terms of self-direction than the young ones who come in with nothing of their own???

Edited November 9, 2009 by CruxOfTheMatterAgain

[humbleheart]

[quote]Holiness in secular priests is very desireable, of course, as it is in anyone...but it is not ultimately the primary goal in the diocesan priesthood as it is with religious life.[/quote]

Growth in holiness is the primary goal of all our vocations, whether that's the religious life, the priesthood, marriage, or the single life. It's not an optional extra. As St Francis of Assisi said, we can only sanctify our society through sanctifying ourselves. If the imitation of Christ isn't the priest's chief aim, then his abilities and personal qualities count for very little.

When I was a child we had a parish priest who was a remarkably intelligent man. He also had great charisma and affinity with his parishioners - our church was packed, week in and week out, with cars spilling out of the car park and people having to park on the road or in the playground of the nearby school. He gave wonderful sermons. He was a gifted hospital chaplain and confessor. He was very well liked in the community, and our parish kept growing year after year.

Then he suffered a stroke. He never regained his speech. He also suffered profound memory loss. His intellectual ability, all those well-written erudite sermons, his knack for laughing and joking with parishioners - gone.

His holiness remained. I will never forget the sight of him shambling up the aisle on his walking-frame during a special Mass for the children of our Catholic primary school. He was hastily followed by his sister and the deacon, who evidently thought that he had got confused. (He needed twenty-four hour care by this point.) We children were singing the kind of hymn that nowadays I would be tempted to dismiss as trite - "He's got the whole world in his hands!" - with accompanying arm gestures. I watched as his sister and the deacon tried to guide Father back to his seat, but he insisted on pushing forward. Then, slumped over his walker, he started to join in with the actions to the song.

I don't remember his brilliant sermons or his great charisma. I was too young. I do remember the sight of his arms jerkily making those movements and ropes of drool hanging from his poor misshapen mouth. Now that I know more about the severity of his stroke, I appreciate how much it must have cost him to shuffle up that aisle and stand there and pray with us like that. It wasn't his intellect or his personality that got him up there.

If holiness is only a secondary concern for you, what will you do if one day God sees fit to take all your abilities away, the way He did with Father Foley? They're only on loan to you, anyway.

[quote]Ahem, well, I'll refrain from comment here. I think that people must KNOW of places like I am describing, but are refraining from recommending them because of their own ideological bent. We all know there are places where you can live very independently. We all know there are groups of priests (even religious) who wear regular clothes and live alone in their own apartments. I'm not saying these are great, usually they are theologically liberal. But why couldnt such more secular, more independent dynamics...exist in a group that is theologically conservative? Why must theological orthodoxy be tied to Old World institutional models that are highly rigid and repressive?
[/quote]

You opened your post by remarking that the people who are advising you only have experience with religious life, which to your mind is quite a different thing from secular priesthood. You have experience with neither, but you're still convinced that you're right. If you hold your own abilities and perception in such high estimation, what is the point in asking any of us for advice? Or even your vocations director or pastor?

What you've written here shows me that you're not taking in anything of what has been said. In response to Zunshynn's post, you write that holy obedience is good for the nuns 'if they can handle it'. You may struggle to believe this, as you are trying to make your decisions based on your personal tastes, but most sisters don't go into the religious life because they think they can handle it. They go in expecting to be given the grace to handle it, yes, but their weaknesses and strengths are not their first consideration. You make it sound as though vocation is about human ability rather than divine grace, and that simply isn't true. Did Peter have the abilities to be the first Pope? I don't think so. He couldn't even 'handle' the servant-girl's question on the night before the crucifixion, let alone the responsibility of the papacy. He was only able to do it because he focused so completely on Christ, and he knew that he had absolutely nothing of his own to offer.

[organwerke]

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='09 November 2009 - 06:59 AM' timestamp='1257742767' post='1998659']
"There's a seminary in Boston for delayed vocations -- Blessed JohnXXIII. I don't know how old you are but it sounds like you've been outon your own long enough that you may qualify. Age boundaries is 30-60."

Very interesting. Not quite in the age range yet, but definitely something to keep in mind.

But it's very existence seems to confirm the existence of the double-standard I was mentioning with married permanent deacon candidates (and married former protestant ministers). They seem to treat older men, or married men, or men who have had a career first...with more respect, frankly. Like adults. Whereas men in their 20's seem to be treated more like children.

[/quote]

But are you simply looking for "your" seminary, or are you trying to rebel and complain because not all seminaries (and not only seminaries, but also religious institutions etc.) are like "yours"?

I ask you because there is a big difference: in one case you are only looking for your own way, and I think you could have success, while in the other one you don't accept anything different from yor ideal, and in this case usually vocations fail, or, worst, they create scandals, divisions and so on...
Now, if it is the first hypothesis, I'm sorry that I don't know how to help you because I don't know seminaries in US...
Because, after all, now that I understand your point, I think you could be a good priest.

If hypothesis two... I sincerely advice you to give up.

[HisChild]

[quote name='humbleheart' date='09 November 2009 - 05:17 AM' timestamp='1257769063' post='1998728']
Growth in holiness is the primary goal of all our vocations, whether that's the religious life, the priesthood, marriage, or the single life. It's not an optional extra. As St Francis of Assisi said, we can only sanctify our society through sanctifying ourselves. If the imitation of Christ isn't the priest's chief aim, then his abilities and personal qualities count for very little.

...

If holiness is only a secondary concern for you, what will you do if one day God sees fit to take all your abilities away, the way He did with Father Foley? They're only on loan to you, anyway.

You opened your post by remarking that the people who are advising you only have experience with religious life, which to your mind is quite a different thing from secular priesthood. You have experience with neither, but you're still convinced that you're right. If you hold your own abilities and perception in such high estimation, what is the point in asking any of us for advice? Or even your vocations director or pastor?

What you've written here shows me that you're not taking in anything of what has been said. In response to Zunshynn's post, you write that holy obedience is good for the nuns 'if they can handle it'. You may struggle to believe this, as you are trying to make your decisions based on your personal tastes, but most sisters don't go into the religious life because they think they can handle it. They go in expecting to be given the grace to handle it, yes, but their weaknesses and strengths are not their first consideration. You make it sound as though vocation is about human ability rather than divine grace, and that simply isn't true. Did Peter have the abilities to be the first Pope? I don't think so. He couldn't even 'handle' the servant-girl's question on the night before the crucifixion, let alone the responsibility of the papacy. He was only able to do it because he focused so completely on Christ, and he knew that he had absolutely nothing of his own to offer.
[/quote]

I couldn't have put it better myself. Holiness IS the aim and goal of our vocation, whether that be to married life or to any form of consecration/ordination. I'm sure, in the eyes of Crux, we're just being romantic when we write this, never mind that the words initially came from the mouth of our former Holy Father. Faith without works might be dead, but works without faith is equally absurd.

This is so frustrating. It could be that it's a Monday and I've had an extremely long week with a very short weekend. It could be that I'm frustrated with my own debt in the world and wish I was at the point in my life where I could simply visit a community and enter. It could just be that I'm at the end of my patience. Mea culpa to anyone if I seem harsh.

I've tried to explain what I perceive as faulty logic, but I don't think Crux even chooses to even TRY to look at where we're coming from, seemingly only choosing to begin debating in his mind and on another post before he's finished reading our words. As he's more focused on the temporal rather than the spiritual, with his generalizing treatises that all religious life and seminaries treat others like children, which is only a good thing for those who enjoy being placed on a short leash, I really don't think he's going to have an 'aha' moment here and realize that even in the smallest of shares, what [u]any[/u] of us writes has merit. That is, unless someone is able to pull a magical seminary out of their proverbial hat.

I've asked of Crux [u]several[/u] questions without any response. He's only interested in telling us how wrong we all are and how pathetic it is that no one understands him and that he can better speak with the liberals because even though they have different theological opinions at least they treat him as an adult vs. us who cannot be separated from our 'neuroses'.

I'm at the point of wondering if he's simply arguing for its own sake and while I've long tried in charity to answer his questions with patronizing remarks in return, I've decided to stop feeding the monkey as the saying goes because it's clear that all he's looking for is for someone to agree with him and/or generate the mob mentality of 'that's right! How dare they...' Either that, or pull some unnamed seminary out of thin air that will allow him to do the legwork of being ordained while at the same time allowing him to do pretty much whatever he wants as 'an independent American adult' the rest of the time.

Crux, you're obviously not getting the information you're looking for here. You came onto a public forum asking our advice, we gave it based on the way you phrased your request. It wasn't what you were looking for. Do you not realize by now that we probably don't have the solution you seek, in the way you seek it? We may be able to give you what you need, but it's obviously not what you want. I will say a third time that you should talk to your pastor, the diocesan vocation director, or find a diocese more liberal who can pull the resources you're looking for from their rolodexes. If you're looking for prayer for your vocation, if you're looking for support once you're in the seminary, if you're looking for anything other than seeking an outlet for continual negativity and complaining about everything but your own opinions, well you know where we are.

You'll be in my prayers. Good luck.

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

[quote]But are you simply looking for "your" seminary, or are you trying torebel and complain because not all seminaries (and not only seminaries,but also religious institutions etc.) are like "yours"?[/quote]

I assure, if I could find a place I was comfortable with, I really wouldnt care what was going on elsewhere. I might be a bit concerned in an abstract theoretical way, and might mention it if a bishop asked my opinion or something, but the thing about me is (unlike a lot of these seminaries!) that I am very "live and let live" when it comes to stuff like that. If I'm content where I am, and other people are content where they are...good for both of us! The Church has room for that sort of diversity. But the "seminary as monastery" model is definitely not for me. If I wanted to live like a monk, I'd go to a real monastery! I wouldnt try to impose the life I imagine on everyone if they didnt want it, why should they try to impose their model on me?

[quote]Growth in holiness is the primary goal of all our vocations, whetherthat's the religious life, the priesthood, marriage, or the singlelife. It's not an optional extra. As St Francis of Assisi said, we canonly sanctify our society through sanctifying ourselves. If theimitation of Christ isn't the priest's chief aim, then his abilitiesand personal qualities count for very little.[/quote]

Yes, but it doesnt work the other way around. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. A priest needs to be holy, but he also does need to be competent. In religious life, I've seen a sort of idealism replace any sort of pragmatism many places. And contemplatives, especially, can afford that, I guess. They dont really need people to competent on a practical level, as their sole goal is personal holiness.

Parish priests, on the otherhand, you can't treat that way. You CANNOT just say, "As long as they're holy, that's all that matters" like you can moreso with a contemplative. If a parish priest is holy, but totally incompetent, or creepy, or dull, or awkward interpersonally, etc...then that definitely [i]does[/i] matter. Yet many current seminaries seem designed on the model of religious life, to ensure holiness (which is a good thing in itself). But if they dont correspondingly weed-out (or funnel into monasteries) those who lack the interpersonal skills and competence needed to live a secular vocation like the diocesan priesthood (or worse, positively scare such people away)...then is a half-baked system. Holiness need not be opposed to those other skills, and seminaries dont have to sacrifice the latter in favor of the former; there are ways to train priests in holiness without turning the seminaries into pseudo-monasteries.

[quote]You opened your post by remarking that the people who are advising youonly have experience with religious life, which to your mind is quite adifferent thing from secular priesthood. You have experience withneither, but you're still convinced that you're right. If you hold yourown abilities and perception in such high estimation, what is the pointin asking any of us for advice? Or even your vocations director orpastor?[/quote]

Once again, my point was practical, not ideological. Specific and concrete, not abstract and theoretical.

Namely, I wanted to know (and still want to know) if anyone knew of any seminaries that allow for greater independence and secular life, instead of being these sorts of pseudo-monastic institution. Does anyone know any places or groups that train men for the priesthood...that are theologically and liturgically conservative, but which live in the more open "modern" way more typically associated with liberal orders after Vatican II?? A seminary where I could live like the grown-up I am, rather than being institutionalized like a child at boarding school.

This is a real question, that will be answered either with a "no, I dont know of any" or with a suggestion of places. It should be that simple. Do you know of any such places or not?? Please dont question my motives as for why I want such a place. Please dont try to argue that even if such places exist, they shouldnt. No, if they [i]do[/i] currently exist, I would like to know. This wasnt supposed to be about people trying to justify or defend the types of place that I've made it clear (and for what reasons) I have discerned I definitely DONT want. That's not asked for. Yet instead, rather than just give me the information on where any such places might exist, people are trying to convince me that that's not what it should be like. They may or may not know of any places like that, but if they do they are with-holding the information because they dont agree with such places and refuse to recommend them.

It is people [i]here[/i] who have interpretted it as an attack on other places (as I said, I dont really care if the other places are like this, if only I could find ONE that wasnt) and turned this thread into a defense of such places. It is people [i]here[/i] who have turned it into some sort of abstract discussion of my motives. It is people [i]here[/i] who taking everything idealistically instead of pragmatically...who started picking apart the very notion on a theoretical level instead of just giving me a simple practical answer as to whether they knew of any such places or not. I appreciate the concern, but that's not what I asked for.

I know there are groups that live in the open secular (ie, in-the-world instead of sheltered from it) way I imagine. Typically they are associated with the "sweater-wearing liberal nuns" in their 60's who have their own apartments, etc. But I dont see why that sort of life need necessarily be associated with theological liberalism. The secular priesthood is, after all, the secular priesthood...so I dont understand why the training takes place in a setting withdrawn-from and sheltered-from the world, when the whole life they are going to be expected to lead afterward is going to be very unsupervised, independent, and in-the-world. Yes, we all need to withdraw sometimes, but that's what Retreats are for. 5 years of seminary separated from the world, under constant supervision, very much dependent, etc...seems counter-intuitive to me when the men are going to be expected to live so heavily IN the world after that, on their own. But, if it works for some men, great! However, I'm wondering if there might not be at least ONE place that isnt. One place where priests can do their studies independently (more like regular university students), talk to a spiritual director weekly or whatever, maybe live in some sort of dorm with the other seminarians and attend daily liturgy with them, but otherwise be able to live independently and not under a rigid schedule.

I never asked for a defense of religious life or the pseudo-monastic model most seminaries seem to run on currently. I have discerned that's not for me. My comments were meant to describe what qualities I'm NOT looking for in order to help people recommend places that ARENT like that. It wasnt meant as an attack, I'm not looking for a justification of that model. I'm just asking for recommendations of places that dont use it.

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

[quote]If you hold your own abilities and perception in such high estimation,what is the point in asking any of us for advice? Or even your vocationsdirector or pastor?[/quote]

Because I didnt come here asking for "advice" spiritually or anything like that. I came seeking simple FACTUAL information: do any of you know of any places that are like I describe, or rather, that DONT have the qualities I've described as disturbing (and why) to me.

Anyone? There are thousands of communities with all sorts of diversity. Surely someone must know some? I'd even be open to hearing about moderately liberal communities at this point as long as they were sane. By which I just mean sane [i]by my standards[/i], not meaning to imply a judgment of the other communities as "insane" by any sort of objective universal standard...people just have different personalities, and what is insane to one person may seem perfectly fine within another culture or community, but I thought the Church was supposed to have a place for all of them, not the narrowness and defensiveness I've seen expressed here which has only reinforced my fears again and again. When I asked, "Do y'all know of any places like this?" a simple, "No, I dont" or "Yes, for example..." would have been enough. People didnt need to get all preachy, start questioning the motives, start shooting down the criteria I mentioned. We all know some places like this exist (CTU mentioned earlier seems like one, though only religious orders send men there). If they arent for you, fine. But dont with-hold information about them from ME just because you ideological disagree with how they live or because they dont conform to YOUR ideas of what a seminary "should" be.

Edited November 9, 2009 by CruxOfTheMatterAgain

[HopeFloats]

Crux,

I know just what you mean, but you must be patient with those whose outlook is really more that of a contemplative. It is a very different mindset than many of us have, but one that is clearly very holy, and while, as you say, they may sometimes not make a great distinction between idealism and practicality, or may start questioning motives instead of being straightforward when they see someone desiring a life different from their ideal, this is perhaps a necessary part of that charism, where single-mindedness is so very important.

But, I have private messaged you with the contact information for a new group. Well, I'm not sure I'd even call it a group. It's somewhat new, so I can't say much publicly, but I think it would be very much what you desire. They train men for the priesthood, but it is very independent. The men live in a residence on the campus of a Catholic University. They attend classes (in philosophy/theology) with all the other students, though there are a few (like pastoral and liturgical practicums) which only they take obviously, and graduate in 5 years. They meet with the vocation/spiritual director weekly for an hour. They have Mass in their chapel every day and, while most attend, they are free to attend Mass in the University chapel or in any of the nearby parishes (I know one of them goes to the TLM at a nearby church daily instead of in the chapel). They are on the campus cafeteria meal plan, but are free to eat whenever their schedule permits. There is definitely no curfew or lights off! They can even leave to go home for the weekend or whatever without particularly needing to "tell" anyone. Like university students, I guess. There is a mandatory recreation all together only once a month, where they spend a whole Saturday together, though I hear the "mandatory" nature is rather a joke as all the men quickly become friends anyway and do stuff together all the time anyway.

However, the one hitch is that they do NOT provide for any of your necessities. You pay for room-and-board and tuition. And when you complete your degree and are ordained, they dont give you any salaried assignment or provide materially for you at all. A few of the priests work careers in the world (in that sense, sort of like a secular institute) and just say Mass privately in the morning, and volunteer in parishes that need priests on Sundays. One older guy apparently had enough money of his own and "retired" as soon as he was ordained and lives very much the "Fr Z" lifestyle you were describing. Most of the priests, however, seek out assignments with dioceses on 1-5 year contracts.

This sort of "freelance priesthood" negotiating for contracts and assignments with the dioceses might make some here very uncomfortable, as I'm sure you can guess. Some people around here have really bought into the Institutional model you describe, but let me tell you bishops short on priests are always glad to get one of these freelance guys for even just a few years. Some people on here are probably already scandalized, so I hesitate to say much more publicly. But if you have any more questions, PM me, and I encourage you to write them at the email I sent you, they sound like your kind of guys. They're very orthodox, but also very normal, definitely in the world and not withdrawn from it, but they are rather discrete (please dont confuse that with repressive secrecy) just because of the reaction they often got from the "mainstream" vocation crowd (ie, the ones who want more strictness).

They are definitely independent. They have a "moderator" who is elected from all of them for 2 year terms, and are ultimately under the jurisdiction of a certain quite liberal bishop who ordains them and is trying this model experimentally (he's actually the one who thought of it), but their main superior is supposed to be their own ordinary or whatever bishop they take an assignment with, for the duration of that agreement.

I think this may be the place for you, I felt a definite inspiration when I read your post.

In Christ,

HopeFloats

Edited November 10, 2009 by HopeFloats

[Theologian in Training]

Crux,

Before anyone can answer your question, you should be able to answer one: why do you want to be a priest anyway? To me, from what I have read, it sounds like priesthood is just another job to you, and that you want to be able to live your life as you want but get "to be a priest" while you do it. There are more than a few of those "worldly" priests and, to be honest, we don't need another. I have priest friends that are more on vacation than they are in the parish, because, my guess, is their view is the same you share. Yet, when we lay down on the floor, before the bishop and the Church, we are dying to ourselves, giving everything up, including our independence and our time.

When someone calls at 8PM or 1AM, I can't tell them I can't come because I am in bed or that they are infringing on my free time, I have to go whenever and wherever I am needed. When someone wants to hear confession, when I have a hundred other things to do, I can tell them to come back, risking their souls, or I can hear their confession and put aside my other tasks. See, ordination is not inducting you into a club or giving you a paycheck, it is entrusting you with the care of souls. That means that their soul is in our hands, if you want a job description, that is it. What that means then is that, whether you like it or not, you really do have to die to yourself, you really do have to make sacrifices, you really do have to put yourself aside. That is not romanticism, that is reality. Granted, priests do like to think they can negotiate their time, treasure and talent, but, honestly, they are only fooling themselves, because, in the end, as I have seen more than once, God has the final say, because you are His, when you are consecrated, whether you like it or not.

Personally, from what you have said, I don't know that you have a vocation, you may like priesthood for what you have seen, but I fear you have only seen the stuff that would scandalize rather than inspire. I am not trying to make a judgment, but, rather, an observation.

I do, however, agree with the others, you might look for a spiritual director before trying to pursue a vocation. A guide on the road to discernment is never a bad thing, and, whether you like it or not, they keep us humble as we walk the path God has chosen for us.

God bless,

Fr. Brian

[CruxOfTheMatterAgain]

"Before anyone can answer your question, you should be able to answer one: why do you want to be a priest anyway?"

That simply isnt true, Father. I described something, and asked if anyone knew places that would suit me. It's a simple "No" or "Yes, for example..." question that shouldnt require any additional information on my part. It's like asking where First Street is and having the person grill you on why you want to go there and what the meaning of life is. It's well intended, I'm sure, but this sort of officiousness is very frustrating.

A few people have given me some VERY good leads via PM. The people posting publicly, however, seem to be more concerned with dissecting my motives and setting themselves up as their own self-appointed gatekeepers to the priesthood. The way people are refusing to just answer the question in a straightforward manner, and are instead cross-examining me and and attempting to control information is very creepy, and very much like the dynamics I fear exist in many seminaries.

Luckily, it looks like there are some places like I describe after all, and it's a shame that phatmassers try to cover up their existence because of a narrow ideological agenda about how cult-like vocations are supposed to be.

Edited November 10, 2009 by CruxOfTheMatterAgain

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='09 November 2009 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1257815987' post='1999239']
"Before anyone can answer your question, you should be able to answerone: why do you want to be a priest anyway?"

That simply isnt true, Father. I described something, and asked if anyone knew places that would suit me. It's a simple "No" or "Yes, for example..." question. A few people have given me some VERY good leads via PM. The people posting publicly, however, seem to be more concerned with dissecting my motives and setting themselves up as their own self-appointed gatekeepers to the priesthood. The way people are refusing to just answer the question in a straightforward manner, and are instead cross-examining me and and attempting to control information is very creepy, and very much like the dynamics I fear exist in many seminaries. Luckily, it looks like there are some places like I describe after all, and it's a shame that phatmassers try to cover up their existence because of a narrow ideological agenda about how vocations are supposed to be.
[/quote]

What's not true? Also, you come to see that no seminary is perfect and there is more flexibility in many of them than you might think. For example, in my sem, we could go out whenever and wherever we wanted after prayers. We also had parish assignments and so we would not get back until 9 or 10 sometimes

[HisChild]

[quote name='CruxOfTheMatterAgain' date='09 November 2009 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1257815987' post='1999239']


Luckily, it looks like there are some places like I describe after all, and it's a shame that phatmassers try to cover up their existence because of a narrow ideological agenda about how cult-like vocations are supposed to be.
[/quote]


Wow, it would seem that you have now become a bit paranoid or turned conspiracy theorist on top of everything else with your cover up theories. NO ONE on this thread has EVER said we even KNOW of a seminary that might be what you describe but we're covering up their existence because we've got it out for you. In fact, several posts have clearly pointed out that we don't believe you'd find what you were looking for (reading between the lines: we don't know of its existence).

Unreal that you think that because we don't agree with you that we're like some cartoon villain malevolently hiding all the 'good' seminaries from you. As if general posters have that much power over your ability to glean information. Your thought processes would actually be quite funny if it wasn't so sad.

Coverups, indeed.

Edited to add: In your last couple of posts you aver that we shouldn't have given you any advice because you never asked for it and we should have simply said 'yes' or 'no'. If you did not want us to comment on the 'why' of your thoughts, if would have been much more prudent of you to not post a 1/2 page of all your VERY emphatic reasonings of why you were looking for what you were looking. Since you want to place a script in the 'neurotic phatmassers' telling us all what we should have said, I will turn it around to you and ask if it would not have been better for you to simply ask if we knew of any seminary that allowed for a decent amount of autonomy and left it at that, instead of immediately going into a critical thesis of why all those other seminaries are wrong. And your first posts DID state they were wrong in so many words. Let me quote: "I'm hoping to find an orthodox seminary that treats their men like independent adults, instead of like children at a boarding school. " and "That whole atmosphere really creeps me out and cramps my style." and of course "But does anyone know any seminaries that would be more free and independent and treat me more like an adult in terms of living my life, like I was treated at University (and, frankly, at home before that even)? Many seminaries, even diocesan, seem to be very cloying and sorta repressive still, like it's boot-camp or something. Curfews, limits on going off-campus, limits on outside contact, remote locations, etc." You may not have said those words 'they are wrong' but you certainly never said 'they are good, I'm sure, but not for me'.

Add that to your posts a couple years ago which started out with 'terribly disillusioned... are they all so weird', what in the world did you expect others to think?

Edited November 10, 2009 by HisChild

[organwerke]

Well, first of all... my compliments to His Child for her (?) last post: it was really magnificent! And you said perfectly what puzzle me, for I can't understand, actually, what Cruxof etc wants!
If I read his simple question...I don't find anything wrong in it (only, as I said, I'm sorry I'm not able to help him since I don't live in the US so I don't know any American seminary.)
But when he starts to write very long posts with very long sermons (in this he is already very good ) I don't understand where he wants to arrive.
Everyone here is free, Crux, just as you demand for you, to tell everything he thinks.
And nobody here is forced to accomplish you. Because, if you ask me where the 11 street is, I can ask you where are you going simply because if you go in a certain point there is a route to follow, while to another point there is another route.
But, if you start to tell that I shouldn't care where you are going, and so on, I could at last ask you: "Why don't you buy a map and go there by yourself instead of asking me"?
I repeat that I can understand what is your problem but let me say that you seem very little able to listen to what other persons are telling to you, and you misunderstand others very easily!
But I'd like to add another thing, and this is more addressed to Hope Floats, especially whan he says:

[i]This sort of "freelance priesthood" negotiating for contracts and assignments with the dioceses might make some here very uncomfortable, as I'm sure you can guess. Some people around here have really bought into the Institutional model you describe, but let me tell you bishops short on priests are always glad to get one of these freelance guys for even just a few years. Some people on here are probably already scandalized[/i]

Well, if you really want to guess, this sort of priesthood doesn't scandalize me: it makes me very angry, and this is a big difference and I explain you why.
I know very well, unfortunately, the difference between idealism, and reality. I know very well there are plenty of priests that, for example, become priests only because they can have an esier career, not only a clerical career, but also in Universities and so on, to be introduced in some influential frienships and so on...
Do you recognize this?
I don't know, I only know that these priests exist, and oh if they exist!
I am very often in contact with priests...and how many times it happens that some persons who have very fewer titles in comparison with many other persons I know, are helped and protected only because they have a plenty of money or influential acquaitnaces?
And this thanks to that sort of priest you like so much and you praise so much!

But finally...I don't matter at all if you, Crux etc. are going to be priests, nor where you want to study. On the contrary, I am happy for you if you want to be. I only wish that you become good priests, and don't think only to your personal advantages as often reading you, you seem to do.