I saw a double post, and I deleted one of them. I don't know exactly what happened.
Me neither. Sigh. Maybe the 3rd time will be the charm here. I expect that my
original original-posting (7:06 pm), albeit with tweaks, will
now follow:
- - - - - -
Early in, or near the middle, of the topic "
Sedevacantists and SSPX Seminaries" (substantively neglected since 2011), I read:
I am not so sure that traditional Catholics, especially sedevacantists, can insist that all their priests attend seminary anymore. It may be time for the lay faithful to be open to accepting priests who privately study with another priest for a number of years and who study under the guidance of a traditional bishop for a period of time before ordination.
It's fascinating that no one in that topic
ever mentioned a prospective seminarian's confidence in avoiding the
Lavender Mafia that's infiltrated the
Novus Ordo to such a devastating degree. If there are no seminaries in one's home country or region that inspire
reasonable confidence that
unnaturally immoral behavior is not a problem, then an apprenticeship model ought to be seriously considered as an alternative to seminaries.
It's a personal issue for me: In the decade after Vatican II, it became clear that my home-parish pastor was trying to encourage me to consider the priesthood, altho' trying to keep the encouragement somewhat subtle. For the record: I
never had
any reason to believe that there was
anything improper about it.
[Caution: The remainder of this posting is not quite G-rated.]
So the
widespread scandal that's surfaced in the decades since then has
often made me wonder: Had I applied and been accepted to a U.S. seminary, would I have found myself mired in an
unholy nest of the Lavender Mob that
emerged from the closet after Vatican II? Florida has at least one (arch)diocesan seminary that's reportedly aggressively lavender: "a kind of
gαy Hogwarts with palm trees", as a N.Y.C.-based on-line publication described it. Would I have found myself libeled or slandered by them if I made an emergency exit? Or tried to publicly explain
why I'd exited?
For the sake of the
sanity of every traditional heterosɛҳuąƖ seminarian, it seems to me that it'd be crucial to limit his choices to whichever orders and seminaries had been
demonstrated effective at screening out or summarily removing
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ faculty, staff, and seminarians.
I believe that seminaries
owe that to their heterosɛҳuąƖ seminarians who have agreed to make the great personal--especially romantic--sacrifice that's represented by a
future vow of chastity. Compared to enduring an oppressively
unnatural immoral environment, the issues of
sedevacantism vs. recognition vs. papolatry are merely matters of theology and philosophy.
Way back when I was the right age for entrance to a seminary, I had not even the faintest clue that the
now systemic problem even existed. So it is that nowadays I repeatedly thank God that I never truly believed I had the vocation. Now isn't
that a fine kettle of fish!
Modern prospective seminarians should be thankful that the Internet makes it
much harder to keep a lid on scandal. I believe St. Augustine would've welcomed that aspect of its technological development:
    "
It is better that the truth be known than that scandal be covered up."