You know and I know that what's going to happen is that when a guy applies to a seminary, he'll get a subjective evaluation by those in charge of admissions. And if he gets turned down by Seminary A, he may well go try Seminary B, etc, until he either gets accepted somewhere, runs out of options, or gives up on a priestly vocation.
You know and I know that what's going to happen is that when a guy applies to a seminary, he'll get a subjective evaluation by those in charge of admissions. And if he gets turned down by Seminary A, he may well go try Seminary B, etc, until he either gets accepted somewhere, runs out of options, or gives up on a priestly vocation.
There's no way to draw a bright line rule because it's like having gay men in the military: some of them work out fine, and some don't.
Obviously, if a candidate can "shop around" for seminaries with differing standards, then that seems like a serious problem. But at the same time, if we have different schools of thought/interpretation on this question existing at all, then that's indicative of a much deeper deeper problem – which I happen to think that links back to (even if it also goes beyond) the definitional disagreement/confusion I was referencing above. In any case, there will always be a component of subjective evaluation, even when measuring against the most clear-cut requirements. But we can't successfully create or enforce a clear requirement at all if we don't fully agree on what that requirement should be, and why it should be that way. To be clear, I do happen to believe that the best "bright line" rule should be linked to behavior, and corresponding evidence of successful adherence to chastity/celibacy, regardless of orientation (which is, after all, a very modern notion/category lacking deep roots in the Church's moral tradition, which is far more concerned with actions and habits of vice/virtue than it is with "orientation"), etc.
there was a guy who got busted while I was in seminary, and turned out he applied to like a dozen different dioceses. The big problem is there's no protocol for keeping tabs on that sort of thing, outside of maybe vocation directors talking to each other. Most competent vocation directors will just ghost guys who don't pass their smell test, and that was probably most of the places that this guy and other weirdos apply. All I can think of for a system would be for parishes of baptism to note whenever a baptismal certificate is requested for seminary application, but that's also pretty far along in the process. They ask if you've applied anywhere else early in the process, but there's nothing stopping one from just lying about that.
I understand that the Bishops of England and Wales are setting up a database to record all applications from all 22 dioceses in England and Wales. This should prevent a guy attempting multiple applications within those two small countries.
It is obviously not going to detect a guy who has made unsuccessful attempts in other countries. We would need some serious international cooperation for that. But a USA only database with Social Security Number as a key could be very useful, if not bombproof.
I know a good priest who suffered rejection before being allowed to go through seminary and be ordained. He did some stupid non-sexual things in his youth and grew out of them.
As Catholics we should be in favour of forgiveness. I am glad to hear that this priest has proved to be good after a rocky start as a youngster. As long as the bishop and all concerned in his formation were fully aware of his earlier problems and scrutinised him very carefully for any problems before he was ordained. And the bishop was not acting out of utter desperation at the lack of vocations.
A few years ago there was the sad case of the assistant priest in the parish next to mine. Our previous bishop had asked him to leave the seminary. A few years later our current bishop ordained him. Not long afterwards his misadventures were out on the Internet - drunkeness and making sexual advances to the parish Master of Ceremonies. He has been "care of Bishop's House" for a few years now.
Obviously there are loads of gaps in this tale which we peasants may never be told. His case is common knowledge in local parishes, so there is no way he can ever be assigned to another parish. And no one seems eager to laicise him.
In this case the problem was what one might call extreme verbal forcefulness with respect to being righteous. He is still totally faithful but I think he is a bit more tactful to their face about other people's failings than he used to be.
You know and I know that what's going to happen is that when a guy applies to a seminary, he'll get a subjective evaluation by those in charge of admissions. And if he gets turned down by Seminary A, he may well go try Seminary B, etc, until he either gets accepted somewhere, runs out of options, or gives up on a priestly vocation.
There's no way to draw a bright line rule because it's like having gay men in the military: some of them work out fine, and some don't.
Obviously, if a candidate can "shop around" for seminaries with differing standards, then that seems like a serious problem. But at the same time, if we have different schools of thought/interpretation on this question existing at all, then that's indicative of a much deeper deeper problem – which I happen to think that links back to (even if it also goes beyond) the definitional disagreement/confusion I was referencing above. In any case, there will always be a component of subjective evaluation, even when measuring against the most clear-cut requirements. But we can't successfully create or enforce a clear requirement at all if we don't fully agree on what that requirement should be, and why it should be that way. To be clear, I do happen to believe that the best "bright line" rule should be linked to behavior, and corresponding evidence of successful adherence to chastity/celibacy, regardless of orientation (which is, after all, a very modern notion/category lacking deep roots in the Church's moral tradition, which is far more concerned with actions and habits of vice/virtue than it is with "orientation"), etc.
Agreed entirely.
there was a guy who got busted while I was in seminary, and turned out he applied to like a dozen different dioceses. The big problem is there's no protocol for keeping tabs on that sort of thing, outside of maybe vocation directors talking to each other. Most competent vocation directors will just ghost guys who don't pass their smell test, and that was probably most of the places that this guy and other weirdos apply. All I can think of for a system would be for parishes of baptism to note whenever a baptismal certificate is requested for seminary application, but that's also pretty far along in the process. They ask if you've applied anywhere else early in the process, but there's nothing stopping one from just lying about that.
I understand that the Bishops of England and Wales are setting up a database to record all applications from all 22 dioceses in England and Wales. This should prevent a guy attempting multiple applications within those two small countries.
It is obviously not going to detect a guy who has made unsuccessful attempts in other countries. We would need some serious international cooperation for that. But a USA only database with Social Security Number as a key could be very useful, if not bombproof.
I know a good priest who suffered rejection before being allowed to go through seminary and be ordained. He did some stupid non-sexual things in his youth and grew out of them.
As Catholics we should be in favour of forgiveness. I am glad to hear that this priest has proved to be good after a rocky start as a youngster. As long as the bishop and all concerned in his formation were fully aware of his earlier problems and scrutinised him very carefully for any problems before he was ordained. And the bishop was not acting out of utter desperation at the lack of vocations.
A few years ago there was the sad case of the assistant priest in the parish next to mine. Our previous bishop had asked him to leave the seminary. A few years later our current bishop ordained him. Not long afterwards his misadventures were out on the Internet - drunkeness and making sexual advances to the parish Master of Ceremonies. He has been "care of Bishop's House" for a few years now.
Obviously there are loads of gaps in this tale which we peasants may never be told. His case is common knowledge in local parishes, so there is no way he can ever be assigned to another parish. And no one seems eager to laicise him.
In this case the problem was what one might call extreme verbal forcefulness with respect to being righteous. He is still totally faithful but I think he is a bit more tactful to their face about other people's failings than he used to be.