Seminarian crushes

[Young Searcher]

I just want to share this not so important thing . I don' t know what's with me but everytime I meet a seminarian,even if he's not that good-looking, there's this tiny pinch in my heart. It's too silly but this is how I really feel. I easily got turned on to them, maybe because of their qualities  they're so nice, God-fearing, smart, clean, etc.

 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

So like, when I was in college there were a few girls who, ugh, had particular friendships with a few seminarians. Those seminarians didn't stay seminarians long. Sometimes we had an unkind name for those people. 

So sure, crushes like these can be perfectly innocent or whatever, but they're not great. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Be careful about those. It is hard for you, and unfortunately a lot of seminarians like the attention more than they should.

[Peace]

I think it would be fine for an interested woman to try to pull a seminarian into the vocation of Marriage instead. You are not a priest until you are a priest. And just because one has started the process does not necessarily mean that becoming a priest is God's will.

Is there anything that the Church has said about that though?

[puellapaschalis]

I think it would be fine for an interested woman to try to pull a seminarian into the vocation of Marriage instead. You are not a priest until you are a priest. And just because one has started the process does not necessarily mean that becoming a priest is God's will.

Is there anything that the Church has said about that though?

Vocations, especially ones that involve celibacy, are delicate things. In formation stages in particular they're mere sparks that could become a good, solid flame, or could just as easily die out...regardless of whether the 'vocation' is 'true' or not. What I mean is that it is very possible for a true vocation to be lost along the way by (amongst other things) romantic distraction. As such, formators must tread a fine line between allowing novices/seminarians enough interaction with the outside world so that they don't become total recluses, and ensuring their (potential) vocations are protected and not unnecessarily endangered. In short, no it is not fine for "an interested woman to try to pull a seminatian into the vocation of Marriage". If the vocation is not a priestly one then that will be figured out along the way simply by the course of seminary life (encompassing studies, community living and spiritual guidance).

OP: attractions are fine, but like so much, must be purified before it can be fruitful*. So in that timeless phrase, my advice would be to offer it up.

*stop sniggering about 'being fruitful' at the back. Yes, I mean you.

[Basilisa Marie]

I think it would be fine for an interested woman to try to pull a seminarian into the vocation of Marriage instead. You are not a priest until you are a priest. And just because one has started the process does not necessarily mean that becoming a priest is God's will.

Is there anything that the Church has said about that though?

No, it's not fine, it usually ends badly for everyone. I've seen it happen, multiple times. 

In my anecdotal observation, the ones who discern out of seminary but later end up happily married aren't the same ones who discern out of seminary because he wants to date someone who's going after seminarians. I mean think about it - would people be okay with men harassing women who are postulants? I don't think so. 

[Peace]

Vocations, especially ones that involve celibacy, are delicate things. In formation stages in particular they're mere sparks that could become a good, solid flame, or could just as easily die out...regardless of whether the 'vocation' is 'true' or not. What I mean is that it is very possible for a true vocation to be lost along the way by (amongst other things) romantic distraction. As such, formators must tread a fine line between allowing novices/seminarians enough interaction with the outside world so that they don't become total recluses, and ensuring their (potential) vocations are protected and not unnecessarily endangered. In short, no it is not fine for "an interested woman to try to pull a seminatian into the vocation of Marriage". If the vocation is not a priestly one then that will be figured out along the way simply by the course of seminary life (encompassing studies, community living and spiritual guidance).

OP: attractions are fine, but like so much, must be purified before it can be fruitful*. So in that timeless phrase, my advice would be to offer it up.

*stop sniggering about 'being fruitful' at the back. Yes, I mean you.

Yeah. I think that makes sense. You don't want to actively encourage someone to NOT pursue becoming a priest who seems to have chosen to go along that path.

How about the opposite? Let's say that a young man is in a committed courtship. Is he then "hands off" as far as priests or others who might otherwise want to encourage him to pursue priesthood?

[veritasluxmea]

I just want to share this not so important thing . I don' t know what's with me but everytime I meet a seminarian,even if he's not that good-looking, there's this tiny pinch in my heart. It's too silly but this is how I really feel. I easily got turned on to them, maybe because of their qualities  they're so nice, God-fearing, smart, clean, etc.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with just feeling an attraction, welcome to being human lol. Classy men are attractive! In that situation I just dismiss it and move on which hasn't been to hard for me. If that's not an option or it becomes a problem, sever all ties and politely distance yourself immediately. 

No, it's really not ok to try and lure someone into marriage.  He needs to pick his vocation away from your influence. He has obviously chosen to date the priesthood for the moment. He's taken. You wouldn't try and lure him away from another women, would you?

[julianneoflongbeach]

I experienced similar attractions to priests and family men when I was younger. Don't think I ever came across any seminarians. I discerned later it wasn't the men themselves in particular that were attracting me but the inherent goodness of their vocations and how they emulated Christ (whom I did fall in love with).

[Luigi]

Yeah. I think that makes sense. You don't want to actively encourage someone to NOT pursue becoming a priest who seems to have chosen to go along that path.

How about the opposite? Let's say that a young man is in a committed courtship. Is he then "hands off" as far as priests or others who might otherwise want to encourage him to pursue priesthood?

Vocation directors don't typically try to recruit men in committed relationships. I think parish priests don't do that either. Normally, the candidate makes the first move to contact the vocation director - of his own free will. Perhaps in response to an ad, a video, an invitation, but VD's don't actively 'cut in' on the couple.

And the OP has never done that - she just feels a tiny pinch in her heart. Which is cute.

And it's fine to feel how you feel. But people who make decisions - to marry, to join a religious community, or to be ordained - need to decide of their own free will. In an ideal world, we'd all be independent, resilient, self-determining people who decide everything of our own free will. But a lot of people - especially younger people - are yet completely independent and self-determining.

[Peace]

No, it's not fine, it usually ends badly for everyone. I've seen it happen, multiple times. 

In my anecdotal observation, the ones who discern out of seminary but later end up happily married aren't the same ones who discern out of seminary because he wants to date someone who's going after seminarians. I mean think about it - would people be okay with men harassing women who are postulants? I don't think so. 

What?! I hit on nuns all the time. Where else can a man find a good Catholic woman nowadays?

J/K

[PhuturePriest]

So like, when I was in college there were a few girls who, ugh, had particular friendships with a few seminarians. Those seminarians didn't stay seminarians long. Sometimes we had an unkind name for those people. 

So sure, crushes like these can be perfectly innocent or whatever, but they're not great. 

Yeah, that's the reason I really dislike the Mount being used as a seminary. Of course guys have to learn how to handle seeing pretty girls and getting attention from them if they're going to be priests, but at some point seminarians are prone to think "Well, I'm not *technically* off the market yet..." whereas a priest obviously can't think along those lines.

[Basilisa Marie]

Yeah, that's the reason I really dislike the Mount being used as a seminary. Of course guys have to learn how to handle seeing pretty girls and getting attention from them if they're going to be priests, but at some point seminarians are prone to think "Well, I'm not *technically* off the market yet..." whereas a priest obviously can't think along those lines.

Well, the Mount only became CoEd in the seventies, and the seminary was there waaaaaaaaay before that. And if they weren't finding it in college girls they'd find a townie - there are similar problems at other places. Honestly when I was there it seemed like they do a really good job of teaching them to foster healthy relationships, with strict rules for younger pre theology students and then deacons serving as chaplains of all the sports teams (include womens!). They only share electives with women when they're much further along in their formation, and undergrads have to get special permission to take an elective at the seminary. The seminary's on the opposite end of campus from the dorms, and they mostly eat in another dining hall. The Mount forms some pretty incredible priests (as well as some average and below average ones, like all seminaries).   A lot of us undergrads did have a favorite seminarian or two, though, somewhat along the lines that Young Searcher is talking about. As long as it doesn't go any farther than that, it's totally fine.   Having a seminary on campus was pretty amesome. 

It's probably very unfeminist of me, but I have a much lower opinion of the women who turn themselves into formation issues than the sems who indulge them. It's incredibly disrespectful of someone to mess with their discernment process like that. 

[Yaatee]

I think it would be fine for an interested woman to try to pull a seminarian into the vocation of Marriage instead. You are not a priest until you are a priest. And just because one has started the process does not necessarily mean that becoming a priest is God's will.

Is there anything that the Church has said about that though?

Better before than after.

[puellapaschalis]

Better before than after.

Too broad a stroke for this discussion, especially as others have already nuanced things. 

[Yaatee]

Too broad a stroke for this discussion, especially as others have already nuanced things. 

Well, I would very much disapprove any daughter of mine "tempting" a priest.  Even if it worked out, say, and they got married, he might always regret his decision.  However, I do feel that it is legitimate for seminarians to go to school in a coed environment.  It is up to them to determine how much they are giving up.  Sex is the least of it.  There is warmth, companionship, children, grandchildren, and having family close by as one ages.  All of this is huge, and many young people can't appreciate what is involved.  A lot of this was supplied by friends in their parishes and  dioceses, but, as priests now have to travel so much (in my state) this sort of support is probably not as prevalent as it was.  And I believe that seminarians should at least be exposed to women in classes, because they certainly are going to be in their parishes. 

 

[truthfinder]

One diocesan seminary (that in all other aspects I think is fantastic) is actually the opposite of what FP is writing.  Some of my girl friends and myself had commented on how distant the seminarians were from women.  It's as if they were told that women were evil and were out to poach their vocation.  But at the same time, by the time they are ordained, they seem to have a healthy respect for women (or they leave and get married soon after).  So maybe it's just overkill when the vocation is new.  But I think I'd much rather deal with an unfriendly seminarian than one who wants to game the system.  

[Archaeology cat]

No, it's not fine, it usually ends badly for everyone. I've seen it happen, multiple times. 

In my anecdotal observation, the ones who discern out of seminary but later end up happily married aren't the same ones who discern out of seminary because he wants to date someone who's going after seminarians. I mean think about it - would people be okay with men harassing women who are postulants? I don't think so. 

Agreed. Just as I wouldn't think it appropriate for someone to try to tempt an engaged person from the vocation of marriage.

[4LoveofJMJ]

I can understand why one would have a crush on a seminarian.  They are strong men of God and gentleman to boot! Nowadays that's hard to find. However, crushes come and go, they can happen to anyone! Married or unmarried, a priest or a seminarian. The purpose of the seminary is for the young man to discern whether God is calling him to such a life. It's between him and God. If a girl likes him, she should keep that in mind while interacting with him otherwise feelings will be hurt. I've also seen it happen and the best saying that has come of it is "If God doesn't call him, I will!" 

[Gabriela]

I don't think we should be trying to "tempt" or "poach" or "lure" anyone into any vocation. But I do think it's totally legitimate to try to help someone who shows clear signs of having a vocation to priesthood/religious life see that they have that call, even if they're in a relationship. And if a person clearly has a call to marriage but can't see that because they're off in seminary or religious life for some reason, then I think we ought to help them see their true vocation there, too.

The problem is we rarely know what other people's real vocations are. It's a deeply personal matter. But I think we can sometimes know better than the people we're really close to, if they're in denial or avoiding a vocation out of fear or selfishness or whatever. In such a case, I think it's an act of charity to help them see their real calling, even if it means trying to persuade them out of whatever they're currently in.

The problem I have with the OP is that it sounds selfish. It's not okay to go after a seminarian (or postulant, or boyfriend/girlfriend, or other person already committed to a vocation, no matter how "far along" they are) just because YOU want them for yourself or because YOU wish they'd choose a different vocation. It's that person's life and that person's call. Any attempt to steer a person onto another course should be made for that person's sake, not yours.

I do think it's more likely that people will need to steer a person towards priesthood/religious life than towards marriage, though. Marriage is our "default vocation", the vocation our nature calls us to. Rarely do you meet someone who wouldn't like to have sex eventually (or even now). So I think that, in reality, there will likely be more (unselfish, well-intentioned) persuading out of dating relationships and into seminary/religious life. Those are hard calls to follow, and people do often ignore those calls. It frequently takes other people to make such individuals respond to the call. And I think we have a duty to do that when we see it's necessary.

Of course, if someone is in seminary/religious life and is obviously ill-suited to that, but well-suited to marriage, then I think we have a duty to steer them off their present course, too. And while I know that happens, I just don't think it happens as often, because most of us see seminary/religious life as "the harder options". Typically only someone who's running from something (e.g., fear of intimacy, a bad family life growing up, etc.) would take this road and need to be turned away from it.