Yaatee Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4LoveofJMJ Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 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!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Searcher Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share Posted July 6, 2015 Some of my seminarian friends are too "touchy". Like it's very usual for them to hold hands or hug, which I experienced a lot. Its too awkward for me but I just bring out the thought of not bringing any malice of their moves, their just being friendly and maybe got too attached by me. But I love hanging out with them they're fun to be with! And they also serve as one of my bridges in increasing my spiritual faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Some of my seminarian friends are too "touchy". Like it's very usual for them to hold hands or hug, which I experienced a lot. Its too awkward for me but I just bring out the thought of not bringing any malice of their moves, their just being friendly and maybe got too attached by me. But I love hanging out with them they're fun to be with! And they also serve as one of my bridges in increasing my spiritual faith Hold hands with each other or hold hands with women? I don't see where that's appropriate of any seminarian, priest, or religious (in formation or otherwiise). No wonder you're all confused! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Searcher Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share Posted July 6, 2015 Hold hands with each other or hold hands with women? I don't see where that's appropriate of any seminarian, priest, or religious (in formation or otherwiise). No wonder you're all confused! with their girl friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 with their girl friends. Yeh, they shouldn't be doing that. When one of my best mates started seminary the hug quotient plummeted. Painful at first (I'm quite tactile with close friends), but absolutely necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 with their girl friends. Yeeeahhhh no. I wouldn't be down for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Searcher Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share Posted July 6, 2015 Yeh, they shouldn't be doing that. When one of my best mates started seminary the hug quotient plummeted. Painful at first (I'm quite tactile with close friends), but absolutely necessary. even if its just a friendly hug or touch of hands? Yeeeahhhh no. I wouldn't be down for that. like when were under one umbrella, he grasped my hand(the one holding the umbrella), it just felt weird and I began to think if he really intented to do that or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marigold Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 even if its just a friendly hug or touch of hands? like when were under one umbrella, he grasped my hand(the one holding the umbrella), it just felt weird and I began to think if he really intented to do that or what. Ugh what. #1. Nobody gets to touch you without your consent. Better to back away and have an awkward moment than head down the slippery slope of feeling like you can't tell a guy no. #2. He's a seminarian. That means #1 x10000. There's a concept called 'the fence around the law'. It means not only do you not do what is explicitly not allowed, you also don't do anything that could possibly in any way be construed as doing what is explicitly not allowed. I think that applies in these situations of friendly huggings and touchings of hands with seminarians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 even if its just a friendly hug or touch of hands? like when were under one umbrella, he grasped my hand(the one holding the umbrella), it just felt weird and I began to think if he really intented to do that or what. If it felt weird, it probably was. Trust your gut. My SD and I often joke about sharing an umbrella in Central Park on a rainy day, listening to Pink and taking in the city. But he's a committed priest, I'm a discerning lay person, and we never touch. EVER. There's no need for affectionate hand touching. Hugs should be light and quick -- and in my world, they are side hugs. That sounds wholly inappropriate to me. It's too easy for signals to get mixed in situations like those. Best to guard yourself and his potential vocation by not involving yourself in that kind of activity / those displays of affection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Searcher Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share Posted July 6, 2015 Ugh what. #1. Nobody gets to touch you without your consent. Better to back away and have an awkward moment than head down the slippery slope of feeling like you can't tell a guy no. #2. He's a seminarian. That means #1 x10000. There's a concept called 'the fence around the law'. It means not only do you not do what is explicitly not allowed, you also don't do anything that could possibly in any way be construed as doing what is explicitly not allowed. I think that applies in these situations of friendly huggings and touchings of hands with seminarians. thank you very much falling in love or having commitments to sseminarians doesn't even come to my mind I am also discerning to my vocation Yes thank you! I understand all that you've said. Just simple tapping of backs and shoulders and light hugs would do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I would just tap you on the shoulder and say, "There there. There there." Then if any girl tried to hug me I would say, "Thou shalt not touch!" Ah, those would be fun times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now