Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on August 11, 2014, 09:10:54 AM
-
A Traditional Catholic seminarian wrote about his experiences at a Traditional seminary from 2000 - 2006, comparing them to the movie "Platoon".
The work was written anonymously, and he has left out ALL names. He just wants to tell his story.
UPDATE 6/9/17: Over the months, I have met several people in person who were somewhat confused about who wrote this account. It was NOT me (Matthew Mc______ of CathInfo). If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm not the author of this story. I am not a teacher in any school (nor have I ever been).
P.S. One more thing -- you *don't* need to watch the movie Platoon to appreciate or get something from this story. The movie doesn't have a mere sprinkling of rough language -- they use gutter language like sailors or soldiers. Unless you're used to watching movies and/or language like that, I would advise AGAINST watching the movie.
http://bravsindex.com/nihilobstat/platoon-memoirs-of-an-ex-seminarian-part-i.html
“Platoon”: Story of a Seminarian - Prologue
UPDATE 2/16/24:
The author, M.Z., asked me "as a friend" to remove his story from the public forum.
I wasn't wild about the idea, but I don't see any other option.
I'm obviously keeping the story in a text file for myself, in case I ever need to personally refer to it.
-
If he had become a priest I would have dreaded his sermons. Too Long.
You know, the works of Shakespeare would have taken up much *more* space. So what? The question is: how well-written are they, how much substance is there, etc.
And you, ggreg, are not qualified to talk about those things since you JUST found this post. All you can do 5 minutes after I posted this is scroll down with your mouse, and see how long it's going to take to read it all. Sorry. His story happens to take place over 7 or more years, and a LOT happened during that time.
He is telling his story. Trust me, it's pure substance. I read the whole thing and it was very easy to read.
P.S. You'll forgive me for removing your post, because it was OBVIOUSLY SHOT FROM THE HIP without having read so much as a few paragraphs. Please read the story first, THEN discuss. It's the only honest and decent way to act.
-
I don't think there was anything malicious with gregg's original post; I certainly chuckled. After work I'll give this a read.
Sounds good. You'll be glad you did.
And yes, I understand ggreg was trying to be funny. I guess I figured that after what happened to this man, it wasn't very nice to poke fun like that. But, then again, I have already read the story, and you two have not.
-
I'm halfway through, taking a break because of its intensity and honesty. (If I watched Platoon I would be taking breaks, also). Dang, the idea of studying Latin in French without knowing French, in France with the French... :cry:
-
i read straight through.... holding my breath at times.... :pray:
-
I just read this through. A very compelling read, thank you for posting this.
Much food for thought in this mans story.
-
I have to admit, these behind the scenes glimpses into how the 'traditional sausage' is made can be a bit disillusioning to read. I am beginning to see why so many of the older, veteran trads seem somewhat jaded and cynical.
-
The General Superior came through on a tour and visited the priory. Nine priests gathered and welcomed him, including the district superior of that country. They took him to a resort for a meal. I remember the food was so expensive it made me physically ill to eat it. During dinner, the General Superior attempted to bring up a point of doctrine to discuss. The senior priest responded with, “We don’t want to talk about that – we want to talk about golf!” And the priests all laughed. I was truly scandalized. The bishop took it well, and sat back and let them talk. Years later, this superior general would fall under heavy criticism from some quarters for putting his “yes men” in positions of authority throughout the order. I always remember that moment at the table and imagine what it must have been like for him if every visit as he trudged over the world was like that. “Yes men” or not, he must have seen who was serious and who was not. Out of the 9 priests in attendance at that dinner, none of them were ever given major posts, even to this day.
I thought this particular anecdote interesting...
These various anecdotes from 'behind the scenes' do make me wonder, the Society of Saint Pius X seems to me to be more political/bubblelicious than I (or Rah! Rah! cheerleaders) would like to admit. Alas.
-
I can't say my favorite parts, but the parts I'd like to draw attention to FIRST are:
First year was a blur. Sometimes, seminarians left. Many times, there was no explanation as to why, and really, they didn't owe us one. But France was burned into my mind: they had struck me down without warning. In France, I had been the first to leave. Here, I was seeing better men than myself leaving and I couldn't understand why. Nor why I was still here and they weren't. A poor parallel would be to combat soldiers who come through a battle while some others don't and there's nothing but the mystery of the bullet's path to answer why. But vocations aren't mere chance. So I asked my spiritual director how one knew whether someone had a vocation or not. His response was vague: he was waiting. For what, he wouldn't say. And I became paranoid. It seemed to me just a matter of time until the carpet would be pulled out from under me. For every seminarian that left without a why, I became ever more fearful my turn was coming. The attrition rate for vocations when I was there was around 75% to 90% depending on the class...that's huge, and when no one can articulate how you become part of the 10% to 25%, you worry. This was a deadly worm in my mind: my trust for authority figures would never fully recover after France. Investing everything you are in something that you believe can explode at any moment is a horrible mental anguish, like hugging a bomb to your chest and running, hoping you'll finish the race before it goes off. I would live like this for the next four years, my mind raw with worry and expectations of betrayal.
and
Year three. There was a new rector. I thought nothing of it at the time as the shuffling of personnel was normal and the previous rector had had an unusually long run at the seminary. The new rector was not a bishop, and he brought in a new regime and new ideas on priestly formation.
I was now head of the Guest Department, a great privilege as I got to meet and talk with everyone who came through the seminary. However, there was a dark flip side: when a seminarian left, he did it through me. I had to arrange transportation. It was soul-crushing work. Too many times I’d open my door and be met with those eyes, those lost, defeated eyes. There were a few who left voluntarily, but even these rarely expressed or displayed any peace at their decision. Too many were just told abruptly…they had had no warning, no slow build of problems or cautions. You couldn’t prepare it seemed: the axe had just fallen and they didn’t understand why. And I felt it keenly, because I had been exactly where these men were – I was through the looking glass on this one. They deserved better: you have to give a man something to fix, or he’ll just dig into himself.
In that year, only one seminarian left with ease, with true peace. The rest specifically asked that I drive them out when the community was at prayer. They didn’t want to be seen. They didn’t want to say good bye. Some didn’t even tell anyone (but me) they were leaving. Those that did make it public had this aura suddenly around them, like a leper. It was heart-breaking. I began to have little anxiety attacks when someone knocked at my door – who was it this time? Whose eyes was it going to be? Why was leaving the seminary such a drama? If it wasn’t your vocation, there should have been such relief and rejoicing – you could go on with your life – you had put in the time! What friends you had made! You had been willing to make the sacrifice but were meant for something else! But I didn’t see this. Most were in shock. The car rides were silent. When was it going to be me again?
I knew the new rector. I knew that he would take the first year and watch, get the pulse of the place. I saw seminarians cozy up to him and knew they were cooked. He didn’t rebuke them, he let them hang themselves. Miserable. I gave warnings, but no one heeded them. Maybe they had to go. We all did in the end.
and
But the most horrible thing [the vice-rector] ever did was start telling me who was going to get kicked from the seminary. I don’t know why he did that. That was hell. I knew before the seminarian knew. I would leave his room and I’d see that seminarian, laughing and talking and doing his duties. He didn’t know it was over. Once I was told 3 months in advance of the actual culling of someone. There was no reason why. That ex-seminarian, to this day, doesn’t even know why he was asked to leave. He was just “unsuitable”. I knew the knock was coming. Oh, the rage, the helplessness. These were not humanities or first years he was name dropping, these were men who’d already put in 3 or 4 years, men who were committed. How can a vocation not be discerned after 2 years? That is a massive disservice. Sure, there might be exceptions, but this was becoming the norm. Their dreams were dead all over their face. Their efforts destroyed, reasons mysterious, and I felt party to it by my silence. But what was I to do? Tell them? What would that solve? I felt powerless.
-
Very funny. A LOT of this crosses over with my experiences at Winona.
-
They really should have let the poor guy receive the cassock. There's absolutely no excuse for their informing him after his parents were already on the way there. That's just a downright lack of charity. What's the big deal? It's not even a Minor Order, just a little ceremony. If he turned out not to have a vocation to the priesthood, then big deal, he would be about one of 10,000 who received clerical tonsure without subsequently being ordained to the priesthood. Stuff like this really makes me wonder about the spirit behind Traditional Catholicism.
-
Very funny. A LOT of this crosses over with my experiences at Winona.
I was at Winona several years before the author, but I too recognize a lot of what he talks about. It was certainly a disillusioning experience.
-
When you come down from the mountain, you have to "hit the brakes" at some point, and find a new level of spirituality you can maintain as a layman in the world.
I've heard about ex-seminarians falling all the way down to losing the Faith after their seminary experience. I always wondered incredulously about that -- until I read this. This level of disillusionment would do it.
Remember, these men have already given up on "Novus Ordo land", and consider that THIS is the anti-Modernist resistance (pardon the term -- I'm applying it to the SSPX in this case), where the good guys are. Once you are forced to give up on those "good guys", then what? Where does that leave you?
It's very dangerous for a young, idealistic man to come face-to-face with the Church's frail human element. It is always a Faith-testing experience. How each man fares depends on many factors.
-
They really should have let the poor guy receive the cassock. There's absolutely no excuse for their informing him after his parents were already on the way there. That's just a downright lack of charity. What's the big deal? It's not even a Minor Order, just a little ceremony. If he turned out not to have a vocation to the priesthood, then big deal, he would be about one of 10,000 who received clerical tonsure without subsequently being ordained to the priesthood. Stuff like this really makes me wonder about the spirit behind Traditional Catholicism.
There do seem to be many of these reports about the SSPX seminary(ies) and with a common theme. I for one do not believe this to be a case of merely sour grapes, to mix metaphors, there is simply too much smoke here for there not to be any fire. It does give me a lot of pause, just what the heck is going on in the Society ?
Just shut up and pray, pay and obey ?
-
Powerful stuff ...
-
Perhaps this has always gone on, but for the first time, because of recent events people have removed the Rose Tinted glasses and are prepared to consider these accounts at face value. In the past people like this were, more often than not, outcast.
Having been on the receiving end of some degree of injustice or cover up or censure more Trads are more open minded to other people's negative experiences and more willing to consider that the emperor perhaps is not dressed as impeccably as groupthink had made them believe.
It's hard to operate with your own thoughts. Most people want the security of a tribe around them.
-
I am about half way through, and was under the impression that this was a novus ordo semary story(and feeling like I am wasting my time). However, the "4 bishops of the order" statment and ladislaus post tell me that this is the sspx. So, I want to confirm, is this the sspx?
-
Sounds like most of this took place under + Williamson's watch. Although the author speaks highly of him, truth be told the "Captain of the ship" is ultimately responsible for the course the ship takes. I wonder if post +Williamson seminarians would relate the same experience? Perhaps the exit of +Williamson was the reason for the greater number of ordinations since he left? One could argue that +Fellay was right in his decision to relieve +Williamson from Winona.
Not a chance.
The number of seminarians was increasing every year, starting in about 2000.
The SSPX had become quite large, and the various schools (including St. Mary's, KS) had been around long enough to bear fruit. Except for myself and one other seminarian, the other 40-60 seminarians were from some SSPX chapel or other.
Bishop Williamson was exiled for one reason -- the same reason he was ejected from the SSPX. He wouldn't compromise on the truth. He had too much influence in the English-speaking world. That's why he was sent to a non-English-speaking country. To limit the damage, as it were.
-
I was at Winona under Bishop Williamson. One of the funny points in the story was about showering once a week. That's actually in the SSPX rule for seminarians. So I dutifully obeyed, much to my extreme discomfort. I would often wash my hair in the little sink we had in our rooms because I really couldn't deal with having greasy hair for a week.
Then after a few months of this, Bishop Williamson had gotten wind of this practice among the seminarians who were trying to diligently observe the rule, and mentioned it in one of his daily talks. He said that the spirit behind the rule was that seminarians had to take a shower AT LEAST once a week, not that they could shower ONLY once a week. At that point, I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Needless to say, I started showering every day. Bishop Williamson said that this was because of the French who didn't feel the need to shower for months on end. So the rule was "Seminarians should shower once a week." Ambiguous on the surface. To the American mind, this could ONLY mean that we had to limit showering to once a week because we simply took it for granted that we would shower at least that often.
-
I am about half way through, and was under the impression that this was a novus ordo semary story(and feeling like I am wasting my time). However, the "4 bishops of the order" statment and ladislaus post tell me that this is the sspx. So, I want to confirm, is this the sspx?
Ya he is talking about the SSPX seminary in Winona. Not sure which French seminary he might have been refering to.
I remember listening to the interview given by former NO/SSPX seminarian John Thomson gave on the True Restoration show, he mentioned a purge as well, right after Archbishop Lefebvre died. So that would have been around 1991 or so. Sounds like this type of thing has been going on for a while now in the society, at least since Archbishop Lefebvre passed away.
It's seems the second largest traditional group outside the SSPX is ex-SSPX members clergy/laity :stare:
-
My educated guess is that the French Seminary is Flavigny.
He referred to the location of a famous Roman battle featuring Vercingetorix. That is probably the battle of Alesia. It is where Julius Caesar defeated the Gallic tribes united under the leadership of Vercingetorix.
:dwarf:
If you look up Flavigny and Alesia (today: Alise-Saint-Reine) on a map they are in more-or-less the same location.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@47.5247467,4.488796,12z
-
Thanks Matthew. I was playing. Devils advocate. It would be interesting yo know however, if recent seminarians would relate the same type of story.
Of course they would NOT relate anything close to the same type of story.
What you have in this story is a transition period. Seminarians who studied under +W were purged, based on how "influenced" they had been by the good Bishop, and how malleable they were to the new ways.
That was part of it. The other part was the vice-rector's political power plays. That vice rector is no longer there, so obviously all that drama is a thing of the past.
Right now, all the seminarians there have been formed according to a new ideal from day one, with a given leadership in place. So there won't be any other crises, drastic changes, 180 degree turns, or whiplash for now.
Just like there is no crisis/change/whiplash in Novus Ordo churches today. The drastic changes have long been implemented! Those who were shocked by the New Mass, or those who faced a crisis of conscience have long since left.
-
I wouldn't want the priest reading long tracts from King Lear either.
So a man has just poured out his soul about his experience in the seminary in a very articulate manner and all you have to do is criticize the length. Bizarre.
-
A telling tale, and an interesting analogy. I knew the author and his brother, and their entire family, during my "tour of duty" at OLMC New Hamburg. I didnt know how bad though the seminary experience was in reality.
Being an avid historian of wars and conflicts, having read and watched almost everything concerning the Vietnam War (perhaps a bit odd for a Canadian but I am very much interested as well in the War between the States) I trust seminary was not anywhere as bad as serving a tour in the Nam. Nonetheless it makes for an analogy/metaphor that is worth exploring.
-
If he had become a priest I would have dreaded his sermons. Too Long.
So is that the secret to the financial success of which you so frequently boast in this forum? By which I mean a brain that can accomodate ideas or narratives only if they're not much longer than a profane tweet?
The New Testament that I use as reference occupies 280 pp. as published- :  So I suppose all CathInfo readers should dismiss it as "Too Long"!
-------
Note *: In an ordinary size of type for a Bible intended for a bookshelf.
-
If he had become a priest I would have dreaded his sermons. Too Long.
So is that the secret to the financial success of which you so frequently boast in this forum? By which I mean a brain that can accomodate ideas or narratives only if they're not much longer than a profane tweet?
That's what I was thinking. Some things are WORTH the hours spent reading.
As long as the long text in question is interesting, well-written, well thought out, not repetitious, etc. This text passes all those tests.
Not everything can be digested into a "5 minute soundbite".
Notice that even CNN.com is getting in on the low attention span action now -- they have a "five things you need to know today" article every day now, giving you a quickie version of the news.
What people need is MORE depth in their lives, not less!
-
Some things are WORTH the hours spent reading.
My unexpected hours of reading were assisted by a progression from coffee to fermented adult beverages.
As long as the long text in question is interesting, well-written, well thought out, not repetitious, etc.  This text passes all those tests.
Indeed it does. Were I to be demanded--yes, under duress and in haste--to devise a single phrase to describe the posted narrative, I'd describe it as "highly disturbing": What seems to be an overwhelming majority of traditional priestly vocations scuttled at certain traditional seminaries!? And the majority of those decisions without any reasons given? It's not as if there's a surplus of traditional priests nowadays.
The narrative made no mention of the Lavender Mafia, so all truly traditional Catholics must hope & trust that it was not merely an unmentioned issue, but one that was totally irrelevant to the seminaries in the narrative.
Some of the faculty making so many egregious--seemingly capricious--decisions denying vocations might find their skulls mingled with those of bad bishops whose skulls pave the floors of levels of H@||.
-
Some things are WORTH the hours spent reading.
My unexpected hours of reading were assisted by a progression from coffee to fermented adult beverages.
As long as the long text in question is interesting, well-written, well thought out, not repetitious, etc.  This text passes all those tests.
Indeed it does. Were I to be demanded--yes, under duress and in haste--to devise a single phrase to describe the posted narrative, I'd describe it as "highly disturbing": What seems to be an overwhelming majority of traditional priestly vocations scuttled at certain traditional seminaries!? And the majority of those decisions without any reasons given? It's not as if there's a surplus of traditional priests nowadays.
The narrative made no mention of the Lavender Mafia, so all truly traditional Catholics must hope & trust that it was not merely an unmentioned issue, but one that was totally irrelevant to the seminaries in the narrative.
Some of the faculty making so many egregious--seemingly capricious--decisions denying vocations might find their skulls mingled with those of bad bishops whose skulls pave the floors of levels of H@||.
Indeed, I was there and I can attest that I never saw anything Lavender going on, or even any hints of the same.
I think it comes down to opportunity. The Trad world presents plenty of unique challenges to priests, some of which successfully passed (to their credit) and others are failed miserably (to their condemnation).
Specifically, I mean the temptation to power, bully, abuse, and start a cult. Look at how many groups in Traddieland have become de-facto cults. Bullying from influential parishioners, written abjurations, forbidding parishioners to attend the other Trad Mass in town, etc.
In normal times, most average priests would never have a chance to be thus tested. They would be much more supervision and a lot less isolation. They wouldn't be "the only game in town".
I was indirectly mentioned twice in the story, by the way.
In that year, only one seminarian left with ease, with true peace.
I knew before the seminarian knew. I would leave his room and I’d see that seminarian, laughing and talking and doing his duties. He didn’t know it was over. Once I was told 3 months in advance of the actual culling of someone. There was no reason why. That ex-seminarian, to this day, doesn’t even know why he was asked to leave. He was just “unsuitable”.
...
These were not humanities or first years he was name dropping, these were men who’d already put in 3 or 4 years, men who were committed. How can a vocation not be discerned after 2 years? That is a massive disservice. Sure, there might be exceptions, but this was becoming the norm. Their dreams were dead all over their face. Their efforts destroyed, reasons mysterious, and I felt party to it by my silence.
-
Thank you to Mr Z and to Matthew for posting this fascinating history. More pieces of the puzzle click for those of us who only see some of the pieces.
-
Upon reading, one wonders where does Catholic, and in the footsteps of Christ, come in as a reality, in such a jaded seminary?
It is like a trip to the island of Dr. Moreau. Is it any wonder that the priests of the new formation are unquestioning automaton foot soldiers?
But, they do look good upon the pages of the glossy brightly colored brochures.
-
Thanks Matthew. I was playing. Devils advocate. It would be interesting yo know however, if recent seminarians would relate the same type of story.
Of course they would NOT relate anything close to the same type of story.
What you have in this story is a transition period. Seminarians who studied under +W were purged, based on how "influenced" they had been by the good Bishop, and how malleable they were to the new ways.
That was part of it. The other part was the vice-rector's political power plays. That vice rector is no longer there, so obviously all that drama is a thing of the past.
Right now, all the seminarians there have been formed according to a new ideal from day one, with a given leadership in place. So there won't be any other crises, drastic changes, 180 degree turns, or whiplash for now.
Just like there is no crisis/change/whiplash in Novus Ordo churches today. The drastic changes have long been implemented! Those who were shocked by the New Mass, or those who faced a crisis of conscience have long since left.
The changes to Novus order were meticulously done in "phases".
-
I've heard about ex-seminarians falling all the way down to losing the Faith after their seminary experience. I always wondered incredulously about that -- until I read this. This level of disillusionment would do it.
Indeed.
As I read and as I neared the end, I was reminded of the film, Catholics, now generally available under the title, The Conflict. It truly seemed in many respects to sound similar to the Superior's expression of his loss of faith in the film.
I hope this man has retained the Catholic faith.
-
i found the whole piece engrossing, and it showed, in a much lesser way of course, the newdirection of the society, and how it now relates to the laity, take us or leave us. there must be many young men who have suffered similarly, my goodness, we were cocooned for a long time, but we are awake now, by the Grace of God.
-
there must be many young men who have suffered similarly
Alas more than we know. I myself knew many who left there as complete basket cases. If I didn't know any better, I might think that it was being done on purpose: "Goodbye, good men."
-
Does anyone here know of any memoirs of seminarians (ordained or not) from the earlier Archbishop Lefebvre days in the 70s/80s ? They might make for some interesting reading, to contrast with some of these later reports.
-
it showed, in a much lesser way of course, the new direction of the society [...]. [T]here must be many young men who have suffered similarly [....]
Alas more than we know. I myself knew many who left there as complete basket cases.
A fine segue into one of the most troubling conclusions offered:
[quote="Ex-seminarian" at bravsindex.com via Matthew (Aug 11, 2014, 9:45 pm)]A decade later, I have met some of the men who have been ordained
from this system. They are good men. Calm men, very pious who know their technique--I’ve never seen a mass celebrated with such exactness. But there are no character men among them, and no leaders. And that will become a problem in the future when they will need those seminarians whose vocations they so ignominiously wasted.
[/quote]
Although the excerpt was otherwise plain enough, the writer's phrase "no character men" was really puzzling. It came across to me as a broad insult to the seminarians ordained later, but the writer's style of expression seems inconsistent with intending such a meaning.
-
Here is what I think he meant:
He's NOT saying they have bad character.
He's saying that there are no "characters" among them. No one who stands out, no one with a lot of unique personality.
Kind of like a "character actor" plays a certain role in movie after movie.
I've observed the same thing, and that's what I've said here many times. They're all phlegmatic, or at least they act phlegmatic on the outside.
SSPX priests used to be so interesting and full of life. In the past, each priest had his own personality and various natural talents which were crowned with the graces and character of the priesthood. It was a beautiful thing. Why did they have to change?
-
Thank you to Mr Z and to Matthew for posting this fascinating history. More pieces of the puzzle click for those of us who only see some of the pieces.
It is a fascinating read. Yet at the same time, I think it would be a bit wrong to manipulate his outpouring of soul as a means to bolster the "resistance." Again though, as I keep saying, I nevertheless DO NOT disagree with many of the premises of the "resistance."
-
when i read the piece, i did not think i was reading 'resistance ' i was reading someone's story,
-
This idea of dominance is entrenched in many Catholics. They lament about how bad the world is and how certain its approaching end must be, but you can spin them on a dime when you ask why Catholicism is so great, and suddenly you get litanies of praise about Catholic art, music, culture and progress. But where are those things now? In the past century, what has Catholicism done? Nothing. Catholics now seem content to rest on their laurels while waiting for the end of the world. It must be the end, because we’re not winning anymore – God’s going to come in and just clean everything up for us.
This is so true. It seems trads are unwilling to fight for restoration but instead only grit teeth and await the end.
-
For me it was like going back 25 years and reliving the same events I witnessed and experienced reading this piece. I had to read every single word to fully understand the agony of this fellow.
One observation, however, did he not hear the infamous +W welcoming talk on the 1st Saturday night after dinner when he would quote Truman about "heat" and "kitchen" and how the "seminary" would be a "pressure cooker" ? He gave that intro every year as I recall and boy he wasn't kidding !
It wasn't difficult to guess the names but then I could have substituted different names from an earlier generation and the story would have been the same as Ladislaus and I both witnessed and to which he alludes. I often wondered what happened to so many good men - pure tragedy !
-
A telling tale, and an interesting analogy. I knew the author and his brother, and their entire family, during my "tour of duty" at OLMC New Hamburg. I didnt know how bad though the seminary experience was in reality.
Being an avid historian of wars and conflicts, having read and watched almost everything concerning the Vietnam War (perhaps a bit odd for a Canadian but I am very much interested as well in the War between the States) I trust seminary was not anywhere as bad as serving a tour in the Nam. Nonetheless it makes for an analogy/metaphor that is worth exploring.
The author needs to read Digger Dogface Brownjob Grunt and see if he still feels his experiences compare with a Vietnam era infantry soldier, jumping out of a helicopter 8 ft from the ground with 70 lbs on your back to crawl through a jungle with leeches on you, not enough water in a million degrees, or during monsoon season with your feet always wet, picking up the pieces of your battle buddies and putting them in a plastic bag, shooting old people and children, having your testicles and limbs blown off your body, and multiply this a year of duty under threat of imprisonment doesn't compare to liberal seminary.
You're the first person to lambast him for using the Vietnam analogy. Kazimierz went about as far as one could reasonably go: "it's a bit weird, but I get it".
It was an analogy. You know what that is, right?
He is by no means saying that his experience was as harrowing as living through fighting the Vietnam War. He was drawing certain parallels, as seen in a particular movie at that.
He said his seminary experience was like Platoon, not like the Vietnam War. There is a difference.
And if you actually READ the work, rather than just the comments that followed it, you'd know what a great job he did of fleshing out that analogy.
Once again, people are quick to slam a work when they haven't produced anything better themselves.
I'd love to see Tiffany write a long, heartfelt story about a crucible she went through, and then post it online. I'm sure we could find much more fault in it than she found above.
-
And then there are our Missionary priests and Catholic laity in communist China who were beaten, tortured and some martyred.
Christians today are being persecuted and martyred.
So what?
You're right, he should stop his whining. :rolleyes:
Give me a break!
As if psychological torture isn't every bit as painful and real as physical torture.
You know what? You two are saying, "He doesn't know REAL suffering...let him try out the Vietnam war and he'd find out quickly what a wuss he was being..."
Well how about this: You don't know extreme physical suffering OR the psychological kind he describes, or you'd be more compassionate.
I must say -- there is nothing more compassionate than a woman on her good day, and there is nothing more cruel than a woman on her bad day. Along the lines of "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
And actually I think he could have dealt with the rigors and horrors of war easier than he dealt with what he went through at the Seminary. He was very athletic and had tons of energy, and had a good spiritual foundation. He is a tough man.
-
Matthew anyone in seminary can leave, they can go work at McDonalds, they can go live in a cardboard box and eat in a soup kitchen, none of that is an option when you are being fired at with a machine gun and lying in feces and mud with leeches on your private parts dying for a drink of water and crawling to a battle buddy whose insides are torn out and making sure your men keep firing, or hearing one of your men scream and you cannot locate them due to the battle fog.
This is what's called "missing the point" and "getting lost in the example".
Have you ever heard the scholastic expression, "all comparisons limp, except for the point of comparison?"
omnis comparatio claudicat
You're right, he was downright comfy compared to that physical hell.
But imagine if you and your son were being imprisoned by horrible men, and you were made to watch them do various things to put him in anguish -- spiritual, mental, and/or physical. Or you woke up each day not knowing if today would be the day they'd torture your son and make you watch.
Wouldn't that be ITS OWN BRAND of hell, just as real as the hell you describe above?
Don't be so quick to dismiss someone else's suffering as "nothing". You come across very heartless and non-compassionate, and that's the polite, scientific version of what you seem like.
It is very unbecoming for a woman to be so lacking in compassion. You are obviously damaged goods; something happened to you to make you this way. You need to recover the "compassion" aspect of your feminine nature.
-
And then there are our Missionary priests and Catholic laity in communist China who were beaten, tortured and some martyred.
Christians today are being persecuted and martyred.
So what?
You're right, he should stop his whining. :rolleyes:
Give me a break!
As if psychological torture isn't every bit as painful and real as physical torture.
You know what? You two are saying, "He doesn't know REAL suffering...let him try out the Vietnam war and he'd find out quickly what a wuss he was being..."
Well how about this: You don't know extreme physical suffering OR the psychological kind he describes, or you'd be more compassionate.
And actually I think he could have dealt with the rigors and horrors of war easier than he dealt with what he went through at the Seminary. He was very athletic and had tons of energy, and had a good spiritual foundation. He is a tough man.
No I didn't mean it like that.
Also, I have endured both kinds of suffering but I try to offer it up to God. also,I pray for people who suffered more. I always think about the saints and martyrs of the Catholic Church too.
I have compassion and prayers for the writer. He is right , There is need for more charity, patience and guidance in the seminaries,and even the convents too. Also in laity too. Instead of breaking people down, they should be
Teaching and be encouraging like Jesus Christ.
I
-
I've never dismissed someone's suffering as nothing.
Your saying going through the horrors of what the infantry soldiers did in Vietnam would be easier to deal with is ludicrous.
No, what is ludicrous is attempting to weigh which suffering is greater.
"This person was only waterboarded. Being scourged is MUCH worse."
"Being drowned is MUCH less painful than being burned at the stake."
"Having your fingernails pulled out is WAY worse than having your teeth pulled out."
etc.
I think it's silly because I'm sure each of those sufferings is horrible in its own way. Human beings are capable of suffering in a near-infinite variety of ways.
And it's not like you're exactly a Vietnam vet yourself. You don't think a highly thoughtful, intelligent thirty-something man can attain as good a grasp of the horrors of war as you have? You're an American single mom in your thirties! What personal experience of war can you lay claim to!?
THAT is what I find hilarious.
-
Didn't Jean Vianney have a similar seminary experience (with his teachers) with the addition of uncharitable fellow seminarians.? Also Father Damian if I remember correctly had it really rough in seminary. Maybe some things never change.
-
Didn't Jean Vianney have a similar seminary experience (with his teachers) with the addition of uncharitable fellow seminarians.? Also Father Damian if I remember correctly had it really rough in seminary. Maybe some things never change.
Yes, the Cure if Ars. I was thinking of him too.
-
More Christian charity needed in the seminaries, convents and even
Among the laity too.
-
Didn't Jean Vianney have a similar seminary experience (with his teachers) with the addition of uncharitable fellow seminarians.? Also Father Damian if I remember correctly had it really rough in seminary. Maybe some things never change.
His fellow seminarians started a petition to have him thrown out because he was not academically and mentally up to the challenge.
He signed it.
-
And let's not forget good old St. Joseph Desa of Copertino, patron of struggling students.
-
The SSPX seminary was obviously trying create one particular mould of what a priest should be. They should on bolstering and encouraging one strengths and abilites, their different gifts, rather than the Parris Island Marine boot camp, esp during the sixties.
Certain men because of physical, spiritual, an academic capabilities, good in themselves,would obviously not fit into the SSPX mould. This does mean the man does not a vocation, but rather his place in not be found with the SSPX.
Charity, humility and obedience to a lawful good given by those who try to genuinely form one's character. Correction likewise ought to be charitable and fraternal. To be humiliated in the manner in what we have read of the account leads down a dark path. If the psyche is not strong enough, the candidate breaks, leaves, and will suffer to that degree of what was inflicted on him. I could draw examples from Full Metal Jacket
The superior of the monastery I was with briefly, was initially kind, welcoming and charitable. Then be brought in a suspect priest to help out with formation. We soon discovered how incompetent the superior was and how this was damaging the foundation of the fledgling community. A few years later he was arrested for child molestation, and defrocked. It took a while for to recover from this debacle.FRagging your superior office as they did in Nam does have an analagous parallel here.
May the Resistance bring forth true goodly priests. Do not expect them from VA or overseas.Spiritual combat leaders coming from the establishment now will lead you into a massacre of the mind and soul.
-
There are of course two (or more) sides to every story. It does seem that this particular seminarian had some issues. So, for instance, his constant forceful emphasis about how he needed hours and hours of vigorous exercise per day suggest that he had certain issues that might not be compatible with the duties of state typically required of a priest or a religious. I knew lots of guys who got up an hour earlier than everyone else and went for a long run. If that isn't enough, then I think you've got some problems that are incompatible with the priesthood. Doesn't by itself necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with you, but perhaps the priesthood isn't a fit then.
Now I saw a lot that I disagreed with in the formation process myself, but my attitude was that I am who I am to a certain extent. If someone could persuade me that there was something wrong or incorrect about any particular attitude or opinion of mine, then that's cool. But, at the end of the day, I thought for myself, and I didn't let the other swirl bother me much. I just went about doing what I felt that I had to do. Problems happen, however, when the priests continue to emphasize obedience and humility to the point that the seminarian thinks that he has to conform mentally and emotionally to be a clone of the particular Frenchman who happens to be running the seminary at any given time, or otherwise there's something wrong with him. By trying to adopt an attitude of humility, they start to judge things about themselves to be wrong that just happen to be various personality traits or character attributes that are on their own morally indifferent. That's when the psychological problems start. "I know that this thing about me is defective and wrong, but I can't change it." That's a FAR CRY from "Well, there's something about me that's not a fit for the priesthood." Of course, the problem is that back in the normal times of the Church there were SO MANY ORDERS and different permutations on options and choices for religious orders and so many different WAYS of living out the priesthood or religious life that there was almost always SOMETHING that suited a person's temperament or personality traits. Just because one doesn't, for instance, find resonance with Jesuit or Franciscan or Dominican or Cistercian or diocesan priest spirituality, it DOESN'T MEAN THAT ONE DOESN'T HAVE A VOCATION.
SSPX has LONG held the absurd view that if one doesn't fit into the SSPX seminary spirituality then one does NOT HAVE A VOCATION. That's utterly ridiculous. Not only that, but it also often narrowed even more, so that if you didn't have the spirituality of the FRENCH SSPX, then you didn't have a vocation, despite the fact that it could simply be that French CULTURE and the French MINDSET didn't resonate with you.
-
As an example, I often said when I was at the seminary that if there was a vocation just to be a seminarian then that would be a perfect fit for me. I was more quiet and contemplative by nature, and the idea of what the average typical SSPX priest did after ordination did not appeal to me (going from place to place on planes, organizing, book-keeping, hustle-bustle, etc.). I really felt that I was more suited to a contemplative / monastic style of the priesthood. There were others there who felt the same way and even tried to get transferred to more of a monastic setting but there was huge resistance and we were told, in so many words, that if we couldn't fit into the mold of the French SSPX priest model, then we didn't really have vocations to the priesthood. What a loss for the Church. So many wasted vocations.
There was a limited monastery or two here or there, but most were oversees so that choices were extremely limited ... unlike how things were before Vatican II.
-
The superior of the monastery I was with briefly, was initially kind, welcoming and charitable. Then be brought in a suspect priest to help out with formation. We soon discovered how incompetent the superior was and how this was damaging the foundation of the fledgling community. A few years later he was arrested for child molestation, and defrocked. It took a while for to recover from this debacle.FRagging your superior office as they did in Nam does have an analagous parallel here.
This dynamic happens over and over again!!
Experts say that 1 in 25 people is a sociopath. The collateral damage is enormous, at its very worst in religious houses or schools --the military--wherever the system of order requires a holy type of obedience. It takes years to sort out, but so many get cast to the wayside beforehand.
-
Ladislaus, I am sure you know that nobody goes to a monastery to become a priest but to become a monk. The superior of the monastery decides who among the monks will become priests. Perhaps it is not like that anymore in the Novus Ordo monasteries.
-
Ladislaus, I am sure you know that nobody goes to a monastery to become a priest but to become a monk. The superior of the monastery decides who among the monks will become priests. Perhaps it is not like that anymore in the Novus Ordo monasteries.
There is truth in this, yet one may aspire to be a priest within a monastic order. But you do become a monk first, then we wait for what Holy Mother Church through Her priors and abbots perceive about one becoming a priest.
-
Did I read correctly? Because I came away with the understanding that before the changing of the guard, there were problems with the formation - a destruction of individuality in favor of a man wearing a mask or facade.
The replacement of the individual of character with the equilibrious pietist.
Why would substitution of the real man with the organizational rube be considered an honest formation?
Quite a fascinating read, BTW. Best thing I've come across in quite a while.
P.S. I disagree on the negative connotation given to the man's need for vigorous physical exercise. Disagree entirely. Some temperaments require extreme physical exertion to balance extreme mental and emotional exertion (including repression of emotions). Not receiving that medicine would cause manifold negative effects in the entire organism.
-
Imagine if all these political games of attrition were never played then the SSPX would much bigger and stronger.
-
.
Elizabeth[/url]]I'm halfway through, taking a break because of its intensity and honesty. (If I watched Platoon I would be taking breaks, also). Dang, the idea of studying Latin in French without knowing French, in France with the French... :cry:
There is another SSPX priest whom I know, whose formation closely parallels several of these aspects here, so I know that this kind of thing is not too uncommon in the Society.
Studying sacred theology in your mother tongue is challenging enough, but in a foreign language?
SUCH AS: sitting with the Society leaders at a table for lunch, and having Bishop Fellay ask one other priest a question in German and he answers in French, and then +Fellay responds in Latin, while comments in Spanish and English dribble in from time to time. It can't help but put you "on the spot" when your second year French studies have not quite mastered the subjunctive mood verbs they keep throwing around like a football.
In retrospect it seems +F was doing this kind of thing because he was fishing for Liberals all along. He wanted to earmark young potential candidates for moving into positions of power such as Capitulant or District Superior of Oceania or Poland or India.
Imagine if all these political games of attrition were never played then the SSPX would [have become] much bigger and stronger.
Like that.
.
-
Not to dismiss this man's experience he had at the seminary, but human nature being what it is, could not a man or even a large group of men, have had the same experience at a seminary say 50, 100, or even a 1000 years ago?
This isn't an inappropriate question, and I think it would take someone with more experience in seminaries and stories of seminaries of the past to answer this.
Fr. Pfeiffer has mentioned that his mentor, an Irish priest, Fr. Hannifin (of happy memory), had told him many stories of how the priesthood had been before Vat.II and how the seminaries had changed since then. So Fr. P. would be a good one to field this question your have, John Steven.
I might not be too far off by observing that it wasn't until the mid-19th century that Modernism was beginning to take a firm hold of seminaries worldwide, and we had been blessed with a string of good popes (Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XII and perhaps then Pius XI and XII), who waged a gallant battle against Modernism. But all that changed with John XXIII et. al., to the point where we could then say that "the same seminary experience 50 years ago" might have been well-nigh impossible because the corruption had not sufficiently "evolved" at that time.
This is a complex and anti-reactionary state of affairs, as I see it. The deeds that were done in the 1970's were flat-out bad, but later, the deeds done inside the Society which was supposed to be correcting the Newchurch corruption, are doubly corrupt, and such a level of defection from the good had not been 'needed' before.
But I could be wrong.
My sense of these times is, that Modernism, as condemned and defined in Pascendi, is not something that priests of 1,000 years ago would have understood. What I mean to say is, if you could somehow go back in time and try to warn priests of the first millennium after Christ about "the grand sewer of all heresies" that would erupt in the distant future, they would most likely would have thought you to be off your rocker.
There are many reasons for this, but it is founded in the fact that in the study of philosophy, specifically, the field of EPISTEMOLOGY was then something that they knew existed, because philosophy had developed to the point, even among the ancient Greeks (before Christ), on a natural plane, so as to recognize the existence of that branch of the "queen of the sciences" that would be identified as the study of what it means for man to know.
Epistemology is the study of knowing about knowing, per se. Now, you can know THAT you know something, but that does not address HOW you know that thing. And in those 'saner' days, they would have not seen any great need to study the science of studying the science itself. Even so, they were wise enough to recognize that this branch of the science in fact existed, yet it was so to speak, left unexplored, for lack of any motive for engaging what it took to make the exploration happen.
But then along came Immanuel Kant, and that's a long story in itself. Suffice it to say that in his home town, there endures to this day a street named "Philosopher's Walk," which is a street he used to take for his daily stroll. (Speaking of "exercise".) People living in houses along this way could look out their windows and SET THEIR CLOCKS to the moment they saw Kant walking down the side of the road. You see, they did not have Fort Collins, Colorado or Radio Controlled timekeeping based on a cesium clock that guzzles liquid nitrogen as if it were a soft drink. He did the same activities every day. He took his walk at the same time because he got up at the same time, got dressed at the same time, ate breakfast at the same time, read the newspaper at the same time, and sat down to "PHILOSOPHIZE" at the same time, every day. Later, he took his walk at the same time, and he took the same walk at the same rate of speed. So he passed each house at the same time every day. Isn't that just beautiful? He was the first modern "professional philosopher." And in his so doing, he tore down what it means for us to think (the verb infinitive), to its most fundamental elements, and began to REBUILD the theory of how we think, and how we know -- EVERYTHING that we know. He basically re-invented thought.
Now, 1,000 years ago, nobody had to deal with the complications that emerge when a guy like that re-invents thought. And since Modernism is an outgrowth of what Kant did to our thinking of thought, those guys in the year 1001 wouldn't even give you the time of day if you had tried to warn them about it. Why would they be concerned with Modernism when it was nowhere on the radar?
They didn't even HAVE radar.
.
-
I know next to nothing about Seminary life or studies or order but as a mother to sons I read this and I was very disturbed and it made the hairs on my neck stand to think of my sons going through this.
I know someone very well who was told he had no vocation and he still carries scars.
My experience with a lot or most SSPX priests is that they have very little skill in dealing with grey. What I mean by this is that people who were not cradle trad caths carry grey baggage from living in a modernist world. SSPX priests are not able to unravel modernist thinking gently. I have a very simplistic way of thinking and find it hard to write what I am thinking so I will give an example.
A friend of mine who grew up with very little catholic influence and was entrenched with the ways of the world. She has embraced Traditionalism and is struggling but she has a very astute mind and is willing to learn. She spoke to a priest about how she is not feeling anything during mass. The priest said ' stop thinking about your feelings' ....end.
She could not comprehend this at all when all her life your feelings are explored, talked about and are at the centre of every day life. I was able to undo some of the modernist idea on feelings and show her that they are not the bar or parameter you measure mass with and also daily life.
In my own opinion priests do not read the person and see where they had come from or what was their influence. They do not possess the ability to bring the grey back to black and white. They are so focussed on truth and rightly so but they lack people skills to help those who do not understand the truth or do not yet possess the ability to hear it.
You ask a sspx priest a question he gives you an answer in black and white but he forgets that most people are starting from a grey position. The answer might be very difficult for a brainwashed modernist to comprehend.
My ex seminarian friend said that they do not study pastoral care in the seminaries and he thinks that's where they fall. And just like how I find sspx priests do not have the people skills it seems in the seminarians are treated with black and white and just get on with it.
p.s. the author has my full sympathy but he does seem very highly strung.
-
i found thatwriting gripping. probably, because it resonates with many experiences with sspx. we all believed we 'had a dog in this race'(excuse the expression) we were there for the long haul, nothing was to much trouble, we gave our time, our homes, our pennies, all for the beloved society, and the glory of God. and the worst part for me is, the complete lack of charity, shown by ALL of the priests we accompanied on this journey. their failure to alert us, when things were changing, their their inability to defend the indefensible, and so their silence, became complicity, where colatteral damage to the souls they pledged to serve, is sacrificed, they lead us from the desert, into a greater one,
-
My experience with a lot or most SSPX priests is that they have very little skill in dealing with grey.
Rather, I think, they characterize as black-and-white things that are actually gray. French are really masters of this. They have these cultural perspectives and biases which they try to impose on everyone, and then if you don't fit in with THAT, you "have no vocation".
My ex seminarian friend said that they do not study pastoral care in the seminaries and he thinks that's where they fall. And just like how I find sspx priests do not have the people skills it seems in the seminarians are treated with black and white and just get on with it.
They have a CLASS in "Pastoral Theology" but it's all academic; it's about what to do in the abstract. People either have good people skills or they don't, at the end of the day. But even if you DO NOT have good people skills, this does not necessarily mean you don't have a vocation to the priesthood. It might just mean that you're more suited to be a priest in a monastic setting.
That's my biggest gripe about SSPX formation, which I elaborated earlier. Holy Mother Church in her wisdom has always understood that people differ in temperament and character and that one size doesn't fit all. Back in the day one might have a choice from among dozens and dozens of different groups and orders with different emphases and perspectives and spiritualities. One who might not make a good Franciscan could very well make a superb Jesuit or Dominican. One who might not make a good religious priest might make for a good diocesan / secular priest. But the SSPX mentality has been that if you don't fit into the SSPX FRENCH mold then you simply and categorically "have no vocation". That's why you have the broken men leaving the seminary. Many of them most likely DO have vocations, so their souls and hearts and minds are broken; they simply didn't have a vocation to the SSPX FRENCH way of life.
-
Ladislaus, I am sure you know that nobody goes to a monastery to become a priest but to become a monk. The superior of the monastery decides who among the monks will become priests. Perhaps it is not like that anymore in the Novus Ordo monasteries.
I wasn't speaking about just monasteries, but about orders in general: Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans ... or even diocesan priests.
-
Is this autobiographical?
Can you read, poche?
I said at the very beginning that I'm not Canadian or athletic. In short, that this story isn't mine. There are about a million clues in the story that it's not me. Did he ever mention getting married and having 5 kids? I guess you're not very observant or a very good detective -- maybe that's why you're still Novus Ordo?
I will admit, though, that he was a friend of mine at the Seminary. One of my classmates, actually.
And somewhere in this thread, I quoted the part where he's talking about me -- the seminarian who got "name dropped" 3 months before he was sent away for no apparent reason. That was me. I was at the very beginning of the "purge" which would eventually reduce our class from 10 remaining seminarians (at the beginning of 3rd year) to 1 seminarian (ordained in 2007).
Our class originally had 20 at the beginning of Humanities ("zero") year, not counting those who joined during 1st year. True, some of them did NOT have vocations -- but a 95% attrition rate? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
-
True, some of them did NOT have vocations -- but a 95% attrition rate? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Absolutely. If I recall, 3 were ordained from my original class of 22. Something definitely NOT RIGHT there. Admittedly I left on my own for theological reasons, but none of the others did. Not only that, but almost all of those who were kicked out or forced out left as basket cases.
-
The stress of people just disappearing, but nobody knows why or dares to ask.
Wondering, "Am I next?", not knowing whom to trust. Never understanding the unspoken rules until it's too late. :shocked:
-
There were some practices there which made some of us wonder out loud about whether there wasn't some cult-programming stuff going on.
-
Didn't Jean Vianney have a similar seminary experience (with his teachers) with the addition of uncharitable fellow seminarians.? Also Father Damian if I remember correctly had it really rough in seminary. Maybe some things never change.
If I understand some of the author's points, the change is that so few candidates for the priesthood ended up being ordained.
It's one thing to go through an enormous supernatural work which ends well, but quite another when people are left shattered.
(I'm not critical of your thoughts, Miseremini--just adding my 2 cents)
-
No, he is not pro-Resistance. He is teaching at the SSPX school in Wilmot to make "Catholic men". This is the battle that he has chosen for now. He doesn't agree with the Resistance.
Amazing how some people cannot see the reality of the situation, and yet can analyze some components precisely.
-
And then there are our Missionary priests and Catholic laity in communist China who were beaten, tortured and some martyred.
Christians today are being persecuted and martyred.
So what?
You're right, he should stop his whining. :rolleyes:
Give me a break!
As if psychological torture isn't every bit as painful and real as physical torture.
You know what? You two are saying, "He doesn't know REAL suffering...let him try out the Vietnam war and he'd find out quickly what a wuss he was being..."
Well how about this: You don't know extreme physical suffering OR the psychological kind he describes, or you'd be more compassionate.
I must say -- there is nothing more compassionate than a woman on her good day, and there is nothing more cruel than a woman on her bad day. Along the lines of "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
And actually I think he could have dealt with the rigors and horrors of war easier than he dealt with what he went through at the Seminary. He was very athletic and had tons of energy, and had a good spiritual foundation. He is a tough man.
Jesus'agony in the garden was the worse of all the tortures he recieved during his Passion. Even though he was whipped, crowned with thorns, mocked, and hung on the cross. The agony was the worse. So it is many times with psychological torture.
-
"Goodbye, good men."
That tragedy is exactly what I though of. The (evidently) institutionalized destruction of vocations and the men who offered themselves for the love of Him and His church runs in a strong parallel in these stories, except the N.O. incorporates abomination to haze Good Men out of their vocations.
I certainly felt the same despairing rage (among other things) reading this as I did reading "Good Bye, Good Men" years ago.
-
This is so true. It seems trads are unwilling to fight for restoration but instead only grit teeth and await the end.
Yes, that really resonated with me, too. And it stung as I looked at myself through that lens.
And, it seems that the traditional remnant disassembles into ever smaller groups/factions who each consider themselves, to one extent or another, the last remaining bit of the One True Church.
-
In defense of those Trads who give up and "wait for the end" --
It sure seems to be humanly impossible for us to do anything. Just look at the "Story of a Seminarian" we just read.
I discovered the SSPX around 2000 and was totally inspired by their mission. I read the works and biographies of Archbishop Lefebvre, the history of Vatican II, etc. and I could see that the SSPX was at the top of a very short list of groups that were doing exactly what needed to be done in the Church today.
Fighting error 100%, not giving up where they shouldn't (on the Conciliar Church for example), but not sticking their heads in the sand either. Completely Catholic, but not bitter. They were apostolic and zealous to convert souls. They even had an unbroken line with Tradition (Abp. Lefebvre). They even had some measure of legitimacy, having been lawfully set up within the Catholic Church in a given diocese (was it Fribourg?) as a pious union to form priests, etc.
It was the perfect position! I'm not being sarcastic either. I really thought they had the perfect, Catholic, balanced position in this Crisis. Even today I still think they DID have the perfect position, which is why I support the Resistance today -- they are the heir apparent to the classic SSPX position.
And then look at this story. Zealous young men like myself who believed in the SSPX mission and signed up to become priests -- look what happened to so many of them. We thought we could throw our financial support, even our lives at this Great Cause to help rebuild the Church, and what did it get us? Disappointment.
Like Bishop Williamson, I'm very discouraged by the human side of things right now. I don't think any amount of street preaching, door-to-door, public processions, retreats (only Trads sign up for these), or any other apostolic work is going to turn this mess around. Only a chastisement would be sufficient to get everyone to shut off their gadgets long enough to think about Eternity and the state of their souls. Everyone is engrossed in distractions and pleasure -- how can even a saint compete with that?
The fact is that no book, not even the most well-written, can compete with a TV commercial, much less any TV show or movie. Even a poor TV program is easier to digest than the greatest of books. One is completely passive, the other takes effort.
St. Paul said that "Faith comes by hearing" -- suggesting that someone has to be speaking that truth to you. He didn't say "Faith comes by watching" or "Faith comes by viewing [on a screen]". When reading a book, you basically "hear" the words as well. So the only way to convert people is to preach (in person) or distribute pamphlets/books. But people won't and can't read anymore.
So yes, I don't have infinite amounts of patience or hope. I have hope, all right -- that God will send his Chastisement soon and save the greatest number of souls. What do we do with ourselves in the meantime? Just live as virtuous a life as possible, and maybe hope to help a few people along the way. But it's not going to amount to much, as far as results. There are too few of us, and way too much power on the side of distraction/pleasure/error. Things are too far gone.
Never has there been a turnaround after a situation as dire as this one. The world is now worse than it was before the Flood. And even though there have been turnarounds before, they have always involved a chastisement like the Black Death. It's simply the way things work.
-
Only a chastisement would be sufficient to get everyone to shut off their gadgets long enough to think about Eternity and the state of their souls. Everyone is engrossed in distractions and pleasure -- how can even a saint compete with that?
...
Never has there been a turnaround after a situation as dire as this one. The world is now worse than it was before the Flood. And even though there have been turnarounds before, they have always involved a chastisement like the Black Death. It's simply the way things work.
Indeed, Matthew, but the lack of a chastisement IS the chastisement. God is Love, and chastisements are in fact a great expression of His love, just like any loving parent might spank a child for his own good (despite being hard to do). Unlike human parents, of course, God doesn't lose His cool. God's chastisements have always been His greatest mercies. Whenever there's suffering, a war, a crisis, a famine, the once-empty churches suddenly fill with people on their knees, and they realize their need for God. But at some point the parent might just give up and say, "There's nothing more I can do. This child is just doing to do what he's going to do, no matter how much I try to intervene." That's where I'm afraid the world has gotten to, where God won't even bring a chastisement upon the world because He knows it's gotten so corrupt and evil that it most likely wouldn't help. Instead of seeking God and repenting, humanity would only collectively curse His Holy Name.
-
Only a chastisement would be sufficient to get everyone to shut off their gadgets long enough to think about Eternity and the state of their souls. Everyone is engrossed in distractions and pleasure -- how can even a saint compete with that?
...
Never has there been a turnaround after a situation as dire as this one. The world is now worse than it was before the Flood. And even though there have been turnarounds before, they have always involved a chastisement like the Black Death. It's simply the way things work.
Indeed, Matthew, but the lack of a chastisement IS the chastisement. God is Love, and chastisements are in fact a great expression of His love, just like any loving parent might spank a child for his own good (despite being hard to do). Unlike human parents, of course, God doesn't lose His cool. God's chastisements have always been His greatest mercies. Whenever there's suffering, a war, a crisis, a famine, the once-empty churches suddenly fill with people on their knees, and they realize their need for God. But at some point the parent might just give up and say, "There's nothing more I can do. This child is just doing to do what he's going to do, no matter how much I try to intervene." That's where I'm afraid the world has gotten to, where God won't even bring a chastisement upon the world because He knows it's gotten so corrupt and evil that it most likely wouldn't help. Instead of seeking God and repenting, humanity would only collectively curse His Holy Name.
Probably the worst chastisement is when God precisely does not do anything at all; but leaves free way to this damned race of Adam, by depriving them from His grace and letting them fall in free spiral. Tainted with original sin and pride of life, there is absolutely nothing but abyss and hollowness, that can be expected from humankind without God's help.
-
You are saying we need a catastrophe to propagate the faith, and therefore should expect one? The former is objectively false and the latter is hubris.
You keep saying hubris -- "stick and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
So what are you saying, basically? What are YOU doing to turn this around? Do you cut electric cables, blow up cell towers, go in peoples' houses and sabotage their electronics, or what? How do YOU get people to pay attention to the Catholic message (the Gospel)?
Because I'm here to tell you that most people just DON'T CARE. You could have the most awesome, organized conference at your local Trad Chapel, but most people would just take off after Mass anyhow. Or even if they attended, they probably wouldn't take it to heart. People are too well programmed by mainstream TV to embrace pure Catholic culture and attitudes at this point.
And what's all this talk about "Inquisition" (rather than "The Inquisition") -- are you saying we need to torture people to get them to convert, or what? We need to violently overthrow our government, or what?
Spit it out, man.
-
Another point --
My family is integrally Catholic. That is to say, our Catholicism is 7-days-a- week. You wouldn't be scandalized if you followed us home after Mass. The girls' dresses don't come off once we get home. They wear them all the time. We don't have a TV. We teach our kids the Faith from an early age. Our kids know their prayers. We don't eat meat on Friday -- both inside and outside of Lent. We attend Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days. And so forth.
And yet, my integrally Catholic family has very few friends at our SSPX chapel of 200+ people. Sure, there are some -- some acquaintances and those we get along with. But most people either live too far away and/or aren't interested in forming close friendships with us.
The million-dollar question: Why?
One might say that our Catholic family is a microcosm of the Catholic Faith. How many people are interested in becoming "estranged" from The World? Not many. We are certainly estranged from it -- which is why we have few friends. That's my theory, at least.
I'll admit -- I'm not a social butterfly and neither is my wife. So part of the problem is our own melancholic temperaments, and I'll admit that. But we're friendly to everyone, and we USED to be friends with 2 different young families there several years ago. So our introverted natures didn't stop us then! But they both moved away to St. Mary's, KS, and we haven't really had any friends there (in the same state of life, I mean) since.
Part of the problem is that my wife and I both *know* that some families just aren't that similar to our own. Either they send their kids to public school (that's a HUGE difference right there), both parents work, or something along those lines. It's hard for an orange to be friends with an apple. Human friendships have to be formed on something in common. The Faith is something, but if the entire rest of your life is 100% different -- then what?
Some people just aren't cut out to be friends. Very sad, but true. There is one family in particular that bothers me to no end, because we just don't get along. (My Irish heritage teaches me to be affable and get along with everyone. My father (R.I.P.) was that way.) Anyhow, I could list a dozen things we have in common, but our personalities just clash too much for some reason. And I'll admit there are differences, too, and I suppose those differences do outweigh the similarities.
It reminds me of trying to form friendships based on "we both have the same disease or disorder". Ok, now what? You're still just a stranger, even if we both have _____ Syndrome.
Also, it reminds me of trying to pair up young Trads for marriage. Sure, you both go to this particular Mass in Latin every Sunday. But beyond that? What are your lives like? Your family culture? Your interests? Your attitudes towards work/family roles/money/entertainment/TV/swimming/you name it? They could all be night & day different, even though you both go to the same church.
-
I certainly felt the same despairing rage (among other things) reading this as I did reading "Good Bye, Good Men" years ago.
Same here, but it's not a good place to be (as I well know).
The only way to stay reasonably sane is to offer good for evil. Looks as if our Author is doing this by teaching, and sharing his story with people who truly understand and empathize.
-
How exactly do we "restore uncompromised Catholic unity"? The "uncompromised" is the easy part. Getting everyone else on board, especially Trads (who each have their own divergent ideas) is another matter.
How are we going to FORCE all Catholics of good will to be united?
Another point -- Men like the author of this story put his money where his mouth is. He joined the most uncompromising organization at the time, full of Catholic ideals. The ONLY WAY to convert men -- one at a time, or en masse -- is to first sanctify yourself. That allows God to work through you. Money can't convert people; neither can numbers. Neither can flashy buildings. Only holiness is capable of drawing people to Christ. Holy Catholic priests can work an immense amount of good.
Remember the devil's quote, "If there were only three men like you (the Cure of Ars) on earth, my kingdom would be undone."
It's not the author's fault he picked the wrong spiritual director and eventually got railroaded out on account of politics. He was on the right path. He was doing all a mere man could do in this fight against principalities and powers.
You think you have a better way (the Inquisition), which has me scratching my head. I guess you torture each member of your new organization, getting them to confess if they're a plant, Marrano, or subversive? Give me a break.
Do you think the SSPX was designed to be infiltrated? If it could happen to them, it could happen to any group. Let's see...it happened to the Roman Catholic Church; Christ's One and Only. You think you can do better than Christ?
You were saying about Hubris?...
-
You have been intentionally vague about what you mean by the "Inquisition worldview".
What do you mean? Don't mince words. If you're talking about torture, just say torture. If you mean excluding all those with Jєωιѕн heritage or connections, say so. Whatever you mean, just spill it.
Because I have no idea what exactly you're getting at.
Of course the devil owns "his own" and they do hold most power in the world today. I am a firm believer in the тαℓмυdic Jєωιѕн "those who say they are Jews but are not, but are the ѕуηαgσgυє of satan" conspiracy. Many of those at the highest levels actually worship the evil one and offer foul, unholy sacrifices to same.
How to get Trads to unite and fight the devil is the ten million dollar question that no one seems to be able to answer.
You're not coming up with anything novel here. This is a big "no duh!" question.
-
Excellent post Matthew. A friend asked me if I had read this post or I would have never noticed it. I am only to part IV, so I'll have to finish later. I saw and prayed at the tomb of the drowned seminarian a few years back so it was easy to put the story into context.
-
.
I know, this was a lot of pages ago, but it's about something important to me.
For those of us who know new seminarians about to enter Winona, how does this all relate to what they ought to know before going in?
That is to say, for those who have already made up their mind and are committed to going there, Winona, and won't be considering any alternative (if they think there is one, somewhere), what should we tell them, or what should we print out for them?
Would reading this be to their benefit, in your opinion, or, would reading this OP story be something that could cause them trouble once they get started?
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33212&min=25#p3)
Thanks Matthew, I was playing. Devils advocate. It would be interesting yo know however, if recent seminarians would relate the same type of story.
Of course they would NOT relate anything close to the same type of story.
What you have in this story is a transition period. Seminarians who studied under +W were purged, based on how "influenced" they had been by the good Bishop, and how malleable they were to the new ways.
That was part of it. The other part was the vice-rector's political power plays. That vice rector is no longer there, so obviously all that drama is a thing of the past.
Right now, all the seminarians there have been formed according to a new ideal from day one, with a given leadership in place. So there won't be any other crises, drastic changes, 180 degree turns, or whiplash for now.
Just like there is no crisis/change/whiplash in Novus Ordo churches today. The drastic changes have long been implemented! Those who were shocked by the New Mass, or those who faced a crisis of conscience have long since left.
I'm glad I found this post, above, because it serves somewhat as an introduction, inasmuch as it answers a question that the story itself does not address.
Any new seminarian at Winona should know this intro material before reading the OP, IMHO.
.
-
I haven't read the thread yet but have gotten this far. I printed the story to read offline but if this is his view the whole time I'm not sure it will be a good read. I am sure there is a lot of truth to it in some ways but this little preview shows a very humanist view of vocations.
No one is ever "good enough". It's not a matter of us being worthy or not.
Wisdom is viewing the world and ourselves from God's perspective and I am just not seeing that in the way he expresses himself. It seems to be all about ME and what IVE invested, others being better or worse than ME, and when it's "over" for ME etc... So far it's a letdown from the way I have viewed my own experience and from the way I've heard others speak of theirs. I don't know that I can handle reading 16 pages of such a self-centered recitation.
Perhaps he has grown since then and is only reciting how he felt at that time? I hope so.
I'd like to know from what other perspective, exactly, one can write memoirs or an autobiography...
He can't write this story from the rector's perspective, my perspective, a 10 year old boy's perspective, or any perspective other than himself!
Let's be realistic.
And yes, he has a point. A vocation shouldn't be THIS mysterious. Read the whole thing -- he makes a lot of very good points. You don't have 5 men, all of whom are dedicated, intelligent, have a sufficiently solid spiritual life, etc. and none of them ended up being "called". You also don't have a 95% attrition rate from a given class.
"God only calls some.", "You can never know for sure that you have a vocation", etc. is only a handy excuse for power plays and politics on the part of the authorities. Whether it's a vice-rector that enjoys power trips (as in this story), or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in power (like in Good Bye, Good Men), it boils down to the same injustices against men with very real vocations.
-
I haven't read the thread yet but have gotten this far. I printed the story to read offline but if this is his view the whole time I'm not sure it will be a good read. I am sure there is a lot of truth to it in some ways but this little preview shows a very humanist view of vocations.
No one is ever "good enough". It's not a matter of us being worthy or not.
Wisdom is viewing the world and ourselves from God's perspective and I am just not seeing that in the way he expresses himself. It seems to be all about ME and what IVE invested, others being better or worse than ME, and when it's "over" for ME etc... So far it's a letdown from the way I have viewed my own experience and from the way I've heard others speak of theirs. I don't know that I can handle reading 16 pages of such a self-centered recitation.
Perhaps he has grown since then and is only reciting how he felt at that time? I hope so.
I'd like to know from what other perspective, exactly, one can write memoirs or an autobiography...
He can't write this story from the rector's perspective, my perspective, a 10 year old boy's perspective, or any perspective other than himself!
Let's be realistic.
And yes, he has a point. A vocation shouldn't be THIS mysterious. Read the whole thing -- he makes a lot of very good points. You don't have 5 men, all of whom are dedicated, intelligent, have a sufficiently solid spiritual life, etc. and none of them ended up being "called". You also don't have a 95% attrition rate from a given class.
"God only calls some.", "You can never know for sure that you have a vocation", etc. is only a handy excuse for power plays and politics on the part of the authorities. Whether it's a vice-rector that enjoys power trips (as in this story), or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in power (like in Good Bye, Good Men), it boils down to the same injustices against men with very real vocations.
I am reading it and got through the first few pages last night.
What I mean by God's perspective vs a self-centered perspective is that in retrospect we ought to be able to pinpoint what actions God was taking in our souls at different points in our lives.
For example, my husband and I are reading Joy in Suffering right now. She often states that it was Providence that such and such happened while such and such was happening; that this particular suffering caused the growth of this or that virtue; or that this weakness made her susceptible to that fall etc... It's what makes the tales of the saints not only disturbing for the pain and suffering they've endured but also uplifting for the way they see the supernatural side of it all. It's not something that is put on, it is so engrained in the way they view their lives and sufferings that it just comes out naturally in the way they tell their stories. Once you're used to thinking that way at all times, you notice when it's missing.
However I made that comment, hoping that all those pages weren't like the 3 paragraphs you quoted. Already in the beginning he speaks to being too idealistic so I have hope that there will be glimpses of objectivity throughout.
-
However I made that comment, hoping that all those pages weren't like the 3 paragraphs you quoted. Already in the beginning he speaks to being too idealistic so I have hope that there will be glimpses of objectivity throughout.
Believe me, he's quite objective and he's had many years to think about this whole experience. Talk to me again after you've read the whole thing, including the Epilogue.
It's only fair to read/watch that which you're critiquing.
After all, what value is my "review" of vacationing in France if I've never been there? Less than zero.
-
By the way, here's a graphic showing the path jogged in the early A.M. by the protagonist of the story.
The red X is the "bottom of the hill" and the seminary is marked with the red Google Maps marker.
It gives you some idea of the distance.
It also gives you a bit of the idyllic, rural surroundings of the seminary. Look at all the green! The immediate surroundings, at least. You couldn't hear or see the nearby city of Winona at all. One never heard any police sirens, etc.
-
Very interesting read. I finally finished, at the expense of morning dishes. :smirk: Most of the observations that I had while reading were well summarized in the end. That was good to see. He had my eyes welling up by then. That's the clearer-mindedness and edification/resolution that I hoped would be there.
I do find it interesting that he inadvertently confirms many claims of the resistants by describing the "purge", and wishes they had simply been told it was going in a new direction, that old molds were not welcome. It is telling that it comes from someone not involved with the resistance.
The politics that were there before, are there now and likely always be there is nothing new. Disappointing, disheartening, damaging, but not new. Not for the SSPX and not for any Order under the sun at any time in history.
As for wasted vocations, it's a tough theory to prove. I have a different take from what seems to be popular here. I don't doubt there are some who fell victim to the new brand the SSPX is looking for, but I do not believe it applies to this particular author. His issues began immediately, years before the change and I believe they reflect a forced vocation rather than a wasted one. As much as individualistic modern man hates conformity, it is necessary, especially in this kind of environment. He simply could not adapt and in retrospect that ought to be obvious to him. This is not something bad about him, it is simply a fact and it can be a sure sign of not having a vocation.
There is no mathematical formula to having a vocation to the religious life. I say this as someone who can relate to the torture of "limbo", the instability of not knowing my state in life and grappling with it similarly. From the age of 15 until I met my husband, not ONE teacher/superior/director (and I had a few) was able to give me straight-forward direction on whether or not I had a vocation. Yet those same people were very accurate and insightful about others. I was very confusing to them, as I was to myself, for some unknown reason. I had all the qualities they were looking for spiritually and mentally but when it came down to living the life, I withered. I simply wasn't suited to it and I looked at a few places. In the end I do much better making my home my cloister. A person can easily have good qualities yet still not necessarily have a vocation. A person can WANT a vocation with every fiber of their being and not necessarily have a vocation. And we all know that person who did NOT want a vocation yet has one! It's a surprising and seemingly illogical business and always will be.
That's what jumped out at me from every page. If they did him any great injustice it was in keeping him longer than they should have. But even then, he says frankly that he went in distrustful, that he did not open up to his spiritual director and that he sometimes passive-aggressively and othertimes openly resisted him. He also admits several times that he went back with the wrong intentions. How could he possibly think that would end well?
The standoff between him and his spiritual director is very unhealthy but I have to reserve judgment on that since I will never hear the other side of that story. As much as he speaks of honesty and integrity, I don't see that in the way he handled himself. He ought to have said everything clearly and taken the consequences of being deemed unfit or of "bad spirit" (if that's what was going to happen) or left of his own accord. Presenting only half of himself for fear of losing his dream of having a vocation was deceptive and put his superiors at a great disadvantage for clear discernment and proper guidance. I would bet the horror stories go both ways there.
I also have difficulty with his perspective that everyone was feeling the way he did or if they didn't they were simply repressed or had no character. His idea of having "character" is largely based on his own larger than life character and his idea of "active" is overly physically based. Not everyone has his extremely high strung energy and I would bet that many find the seminary life to be quite "active", if they aren't obsessed with a physical interpretation of the word. There are active souls and active minds. A little bit of recess, some daily chores, that's about what most of us get, whether in the seminary or not. And the seminary is a dedicated intellectual pursuit. It would be odd for them not to be focused 100% on studies and be exercising hours a day.
Not only that but he admits that being larger than life, he could not handle himself. Yet he resisted help. How could that possibly have transitioned well into priesthood? Was all of this turmoil going to magically disappear with Ordination? Somehow I doubt it. Ordination, like marriage, is when the real work begins. If he could not handle SSPX seminary, I doubt he could have handled SSPX priesthood. That's where I think Ladislaus has a good point. In other times there were mutiple choices which could suit all different types. Now it's pretty slim picking. If you don't suit one or two choices, you're out of the game. I don't consider those lost vocations though. God put us in the here and now knowing full well what the situation is. To my mind it means there is no vocation present. Otherwise we'd be saying that He gives vocations where there is no way of materializing them. That would be especially cruel.
He should have seen a psychiatrist. He took that as an insult but if seminary life was driving him crazy, which it clearly was, (and I say this as someone who would go crazy in the convent, not as someone pointing a finger) it would have helped for them to know if he had any underlying condition or if it truly was just the life that was too much for him. I don't see this as the psychological weapon he thinks it was. Reacting badly to the life IS one of the ways that the lack of vocation can manifest itself. It doesn't mean he is crazy or bad-willed. Neither does it take away that he is gifted and magnanimous. It simply means no vocation to the SSPX. But since he was bent on having a vocation no matter what....this was just another way that he could block their ability to discern. (As a side note even if he had had a condition it is not necessarily an impediment. It depends on the condition and its treatment. There is at least one SSPX priest that I know of with a family condition, who broke down in seminary yet was ordained after a few years of sabbatical.)
As for the favorites thing, it seems natural that he would catch their attention if he is as gifted as he is. They would be robotic and not human if they didn't notice and pay attention to his potential. It seems like they'd be damned if they did and damned if they didn't try to accomodate his individuality as much as they could. One of his greatest complaints is about conformity yet it's clear by his own account that they tried several different ways to help him adapt. He had a voracious mind, they fed it. He needed more exercise, they let him run. He was breaking down, they let him skip a class. He needed more time to talk, they let him see his director more often. If these accomodations made him feel worse, it is not their fault for trying. Nor is it necessarily his fault either. Again, to me that simply underlines a lack of vocation, with them at least.
That's not to say that someone with a vocation breezes through. They all have enemies, witness injustices, are stung by meanness and other sins committed by their superiors and classmates etc... but they receive the graces to get through it and grow, even if it seems impossible at first. In this case, the author either didn't receive those graces as a sign that he wasn't meant to be there or he rejected them. I have difficulty believing he rejected them. I think he was good-willed and very generous, it just wasn't for him.
I feel for the torment he went through. It is not an easy way to go. It would be much easier to be told yea or nay right off the bat. But it's not always that simple. Sometimes we get in our own way and in His wisdom God allows it. Othertimes we do everything right and still God allows us to "fail". I don't know what his intentions are in putting this out for the public but it takes a lot of courage to make oneself so vulnerable. It cannot have been easy for him to relive it all in writing it down. I really hope that getting it all out on paper is cleasing for him.
-
I would just like to ask Wallflower something:
Were all (95%) of my class "crazy", "too high strung", "didn't have a vocation"?
Were 100% of the next class in those categories?
And did God suddenly decide to send tons of true vocations to the succeeding years, who JUST SO HAPPENED to join the seminary after Fr. Le Roux got there and the vice-rector was transferred?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
And, most importantly , there is a gulf as wide as the Pacific Ocean between the author of this story (larger than life, more energy than a nuclear reactor) and the phlegmatic "cookie cutter" priests coming out of the Seminary these past several years. The latter are almost indistinguishable from one another.
Most SSPX priests would fall somewhere in between. But it's undeniable that a new kind of priest has been coming out of the seminary for the past 10 years.
Having too much personality is one thing. But I'll tell you this: most SSPX priests (ordained before, say, 2003) had a lot more personality. They didn't have to be "colorful characters" to be something more than a robot.
-
I do find it interesting that he inadvertently confirms many claims of the resistants by describing the "purge", and wishes they had simply been told it was going in a new direction, that old molds were not welcome. It is telling that it comes from someone not involved with the resistance.
As for wasted vocations, it's a tough theory to prove. I have a different take from what seems to be popular here. I don't doubt there are some who fell victim to the new brand the SSPX is looking for, but I do not believe it applies to this particular author.
I did write a book so it was possibly overlooked but I addressed that. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a difference in the new seminarians. However this particular story only tells of it indirectly in my opinion. A direct hit would be a well-adjusted seminarian being axed for not following a change in SSPX policy towards Rome. But that would be a rare find. TPTB would be much more subtle than that. And I believe they have been. I just don't see it in this particular story where the trouble started from day 1 and continued under all different leaderships. The testament to the purge is more accidental to his story than essential.
-
This essay is the most tragic story that I have ever read and while I felt much frustration reading it, I found the truths described very profound. Although one could spend much time dissecting the essay as it relates to the chaos and evil in the Church, mentioning several passages might highlight better my thoughts about the cause of the tragedy the author so well describes.
"To embrace the priesthood I would have to give up substantial things – any chance of a family of my own, possessions, even my own will. This was the pearl of great price. I wanted to serve something pure, something greater than myself, and to be consumed by it. I had prayed and done novenas and consulted with priests; everyone agreed that it was my path to try. I expected that when I arrived at the seminary, I would be surrounded by people that burned with the same zeal and who would help direct my energy."
Ideals are the substance of great young people and they of course should be part the bedrock of great young priests, and their teachers! High ideals must be nurtured because they are good and pure motivations. While a good dose of realism must be present to provide context to the seminarian or young student, sacrifice of high ideals must not be given up to attain growth. The seminarian had high ideals and he rightfully expected his superiors in the seminary to have them as well.
An example of crushing the ideal is given by the seminarian:
"I often monitored the head table. It was my job to clear plates and serve the next course. Often, I misread or missed the cue and the rector would give me this look. Sometimes, exhausted, I would zone out and that always got me a light-hearted public humiliation. I really had to bite my tongue – this man expected to be served as if it was owed to him. It was my job yes, but as he was the leader and my example, I needed to see his humility more than my own. I hate assumed privilege – it’s one of the most unflattering and ungracious things someone can demonstrate."[/b]
Ideals are broken when those whom we admire or should do so behave in disappointing, despicable fashion. In the spiritual life, humility is something that is counter to pride. We all know that, but why do spiritual men in power not practice it? Is it necessary to demonstrate sinful behavior to young seminarians who seek the ideal in order to "break" them to be obedient? Is obedience to man greater than virtue to a higher calling, to the ideal? Third order members seek to perfect their lives so that we might be more pleasing and a blessing to our Blessed Lord, so that we might attain heaven. It is no more necessary to embarrass or cause tortuous experiences to build character. Those who envision a seminary as a boot camp are looking at experience in the flesh and not the spirit. Creating robot priests who behave the way the leadership wants them to be is not ideal, it is not honorable, nor is it holy. Leadership without humility is dead leadership and leads only to sinful pride because it is driven by such. Wisdom and prudence? These are mere words to such behavior as described by this seminarian of his superiors on this essay.
"The Catholic priesthood was the most noble of things a man could hope to serve. What a beautiful life: a double sacrifice, one of your own life, one of the altar. I understood that the priesthood was made up of men, but how could it be that so few aspired to be more than the sum of their proclivities? I didn’t need to see good men – I just had to see men fighting to be better."[/b]
The seminarian returns again to his dashed ideals. Rather than being beaten down physically and emotionally to be an obedient soul, he needed to witness ideals and humility in those who had charge of his formation. "I just had to see men fighting to be better". When we all fail to see that, we give up some of our own zeal and ideals. It seems his spirit was crushed by those who should have modeled virtues that are good and pure rather than use contrary vices that should be shunned and abandoned.
The lessons of this essay explain not only what is wrong with the Society of St. Pius X, but what is wrong with the whole of the Church. It is ironic and a lie from the pit of hell the seminarian was told he had failed at the seminary because he came into the influence of a "bad spirit" because the "bad spirit" is what has fatally wounded the Society of St. Pius X and the Church as a whole.
Isaiah 5:20 has this to say:
"Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."
-
I learned much from the autobiography of the seminarian. A real tragedy in motion, driven by evil, yes satan himself.
As I heretofore had never seen the movie "Platoon", I tried watching it today. The perhaps accurate cussing and irreligious thoughts and spoken word of soldiers in combat is tragic enough. Poor souls left to their flesh in the midst of death and destruction have nowhere else to turn but to their emotion driven cries of imminent death and hatred for their combat buddies who may have let them down. Whatever comparison with the movie and the situation with the SSPX really doesn't matter to me. That some saw a comparison is fine for me. However, any comparison with a Hollywood movie and the condition of the Traditional Catholic Church is doomed to over reach and ultimately fail.
I see the real significance of the Story of a Seminarian is THE reason the SSPX leadership and a good many of its priests have lost their way, its faith, and its discernment of truth. This comparison is not exclusive to the SSPX either. Politics = the flesh=evil. No other way around it. Priests, brothers, and sister, obedience simply cannot excuse obeying that which is objectively evil and false.
Priests who do not turn away from evil and their misguided obedience must be allowed to fail under the weight of their own prideful ignorance, and fail they will do. Nothing good can come from persecution of good priests and bishops because a "superior general" or "district superior" directs them to do so. What wrath do we need to witness to learn otherwise?
Matthew, thank you for marking the one year anniversary for this initial posting. The autobiography needs to be re-posted at the head of class for all to read and re-read.
-
No offense to the author, but in the end, the man didn't have a calling to the priesthood. All those other stumbling blocks described in the autobiographical account are in place to help young men decide if the priesthood is their calling and this man stumbled over ever single one of them. Even stumbled over some blocks of his own imagination.
I was bothered by his use of the phrase "save the world". A priest is to save souls by providing the sacraments.
It seemed too that it wasn't the SSPX but the ICRSS that he was describing but that's neither here nor there. The part of the story that seemed most real was the exuberance he felt when he discovered the Traditional Latin Mass.
-
"It seemed" -- how so?
I had to look up ICRSS -- usually it's abbreviated ICK in the English-speaking world. I know, it spells "ICK!" but objectively speaking "ICK" is still the initials of Institute of Christ the King.
You're the first person to say this. I'm curious to know why.
You also reacted differently than just about everyone else so far. Are you intentionally not mentioning the things others have pointed out? Or is this story just that ho-hum to you, being the story of what happens to a man who doesn't have a vocation when he goes to seminary?
I'd say you must not have read the story, except you claim to have read it. Are you sure you didn't just skim it?
-
"It seemed" -- how so?
I had to look up ICRSS -- usually it's abbreviated ICK in the English-speaking world. I know, it spells "ICK!" but objectively speaking "ICK" is still the initials of Institute of Christ the King.
You're the first person to say this. I'm curious to know why.
You also reacted differently than just about everyone else so far. Are you intentionally not mentioning the things others have pointed out? Or is this story just that ho-hum to you, being the story of what happens to a man who doesn't have a vocation when he goes to seminary?
I'd say you must not have read the story, except you claim to have read it. Are you sure you didn't just skim it?
I read most of it earlier today and have come across that story online somewhere else in the last year or two.
Something struck me as odd. I'm glad the guy discovered the TLM but to bounce from that to becoming a priest and acting on it seems like a disconnect. There are SSPX priests who started life as novus ordites and even as protestants but their conversion usually happened earlier. One particular priest was born as a protestant but his Mother converted to Catholicism (conciliarism) and when as a young college student he saw his first TLM, he went Traditional and that led to the seminary and to the Holy Priesthood.
This young man in this story had so many gripes on so many levels that he sure acted as if he was not at peace with himself internally pre-, during, and post- seminary days.
My reference to the Institute of Christ the King was that he confided in conciliarists before trying to go into the seminary. So I deducted it, perhaps I was completely wrong but telling a post-Vatican II priest that you wanted to become a priest after assisting at the TLM they would steer you in the direction of the FSSP or ICKSP. Add in the French seminary and learning French, I do remember reading that the ICKSP seminary is in French for the first two years with the last two years being in Latin entirely and that is where I drew my conclusions.
We should also turn the coin over and look at this from another perspective. If this young man stumbled often and even took issues with the not having enough time to work out, what would happen if the seminary was so lenient as to ordain him and then set him loose on some small parish somewhere? At one portion of the article, the part where he discussed how he devoured some Russian writers works in a matter of a couple months and this led him to bemoan his lack of worldliness when compared to his contemporaries out in the world, I thought he didn't really understand what he was undertaking.
Other posters pointed out different items. Some posters commisserated with the author and I certainly can understand that. My comments reflected how I saw the article.
-
I just noticed that the new forum software was truncating any post longer than 65,000 characters! I fixed it.
I had to go in and restore this particular post, since I put the whole autobiography in one post.
The author's website was closed at some point, so now the only place online to read his story is here on CathInfo.
If anyone here hasn't yet read this behind-the-scenes look at life at a Trad Seminary circa the early 2000's, then by all means read away!
It's very, very interesting.
Over the months, I have tried to trim some of the fat from the thread.
-
As someone considering STAS, this is an interesting topic.
-
As someone considering STAS, this is an interesting topic.
Just keep in mind that the seminary described here was STAS 2000-2005. The first few years were under +Williamson.
I'm sure a lot has changed since then -- they push the 3 D's now! Theology is taught in English, and they constantly beat into the seminarians that they should have as much truck (communication, commerce) with Conciliar prelates and the Conciliar Church as possible. To avoid being "schismatic" of course...
(and they don't call it the Conciliar Church anymore)
::)
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/neo-sspx-seminary-pushing-the-3-d's/
-
This reminded me of a young Merton, "Seven Storey Mountain"-esque.
Extremely moving. Painfully able to express his tortured soul.
I sense this man will not find peace again in this life and longs for the next. Heaven is his only option now. Nothing mortal will do.
God bless him.
-
Please.
I was at the same seminary at the same time.
I enjoyed my time there very much. Just didn't have a vocation.
Talk about a clear-cut case of "shoot the messenger"!
What about all the facts he listed?
What about the fact that 95% of some classes were dismissed, and 100% of other classes?
Sounds like a legit problem to me, regardless of the author's temperament.
Also, he had a good point: how can you not know you have a vocation 3 or 4 years into your seminary years? There are only so many variables.
Dismissing seminarians who have been there 4 or more years, getting good grades, no spiritual issues, who want to become a priest, etc. suggests a problem --
Remember the part where Fr. Doran told him when he was going to axe someone a few months before it happened? Yes, the author was sensitive so it bothered him more than, say, you.
However, what about the fact that Fr. Doran was thus trying to bully his dirigees, and dismiss good seminarians without cause? I'd say that's the much bigger problem here.
-
Regardless of what you think of the "messenger", these are the issues that need to be addressed:
First year was a blur. Sometimes, seminarians left. Many times, there was no explanation as to why, and really, they didn't owe us one. But France was burned into my mind: they had struck me down without warning. In France, I had been the first to leave. Here, I was seeing better men than myself leaving and I couldn't understand why. Nor why I was still here and they weren't. A poor parallel would be to combat soldiers who come through a battle while some others don't and there's nothing but the mystery of the bullet's path to answer why. But vocations aren't mere chance. So I asked my spiritual director how one knew whether someone had a vocation or not. His response was vague: he was waiting. For what, he wouldn't say. And I became paranoid. It seemed to me just a matter of time until the carpet would be pulled out from under me. For every seminarian that left without a why, I became ever more fearful my turn was coming. The attrition rate for vocations when I was there was around 75% to 90% depending on the class...that's huge, and when no one can articulate how you become part of the 10% to 25%, you worry. This was a dєαdlу worm in my mind: my trust for authority figures would never fully recover after France. Investing everything you are in something that you believe can explode at any moment is a horrible mental anguish, like hugging a bσɱb to your chest and running, hoping you'll finish the race before it goes off. I would live like this for the next four years, my mind raw with worry and expectations of betrayal.
and
Year three. There was a new rector. I thought nothing of it at the time as the shuffling of personnel was normal and the previous rector had had an unusually long run at the seminary. The new rector was not a bishop, and he brought in a new regime and new ideas on priestly formation.
I was now head of the Guest Department ... when a seminarian left, he did it through me. I had to arrange transportation. It was soul-crushing work. Too many times I’d open my door and be met with those eyes, those lost, defeated eyes. There were a few who left voluntarily, but even these rarely expressed or displayed any peace at their decision. Too many were just told abruptly…they had had no warning, no slow build of problems or cautions. You couldn’t prepare it seemed: the axe had just fallen and they didn’t understand why. And I felt it keenly, because I had been exactly where these men were – I was through the looking glass on this one. They deserved better: you have to give a man something to fix, or he’ll just dig into himself.
In that year, only one seminarian left with ease, with true peace. The rest specifically asked that I drive them out when the community was at prayer. They didn’t want to be seen. They didn’t want to say good bye. Some didn’t even tell anyone (but me) they were leaving. Those that did make it public had this aura suddenly around them, like a leper. It was heart-breaking. I began to have little anxiety attacks when someone knocked at my door – who was it this time? Whose eyes was it going to be? Why was leaving the seminary such a drama? If it wasn’t your vocation, there should have been such relief and rejoicing – you could go on with your life – you had put in the time! What friends you had made! You had been willing to make the sacrifice but were meant for something else! But I didn’t see this. Most were in shock. The car rides were silent. When was it going to be me again?
I knew the new rector. I knew that he would take the first year and watch, get the pulse of the place. I saw seminarians cozy up to him and knew they were cooked. He didn’t rebuke them, he let them hang themselves. Miserable. I gave warnings, but no one heeded them. Maybe they had to go. We all did in the end.
and
But the most horrible thing [the vice-rector] ever did was start telling me who was going to get kicked from the seminary. I don’t know why he did that. That was hell. I knew before the seminarian knew. I would leave his room and I’d see that seminarian, laughing and talking and doing his duties. He didn’t know it was over. Once I was told 3 months in advance of the actual culling of someone. There was no reason why. That ex-seminarian, to this day, doesn’t even know why he was asked to leave. He was just “unsuitable”. I knew the knock was coming. Oh, the rage, the helplessness. These were not humanities or first years he was name dropping, these were men who’d already put in 3 or 4 years, men who were committed. How can a vocation not be discerned after 2 years? That is a massive disservice. Sure, there might be exceptions, but this was becoming the norm. Their dreams were dead all over their face. Their efforts destroyed, reasons mysterious, and I felt party to it by my silence. But what was I to do? Tell them? What would that solve? I felt powerless.
-
I want to repeat, for the Ggregs of the world, and the Sean Johnsons of the world:
It doesn't matter:
1. The temperament, sensitivity, ability for compassion, or strength of emotions in the author
2. The level of energy, dramatic flair, or high-strung nerves of the author
3. The fact that the author is a skilled writer, and chose to write a long autobiography about the events
The core of the issue is clear from the sɛƖɛctıons I quoted in my post, above. Were ALL the seminarians crazy, drama queens, wusses? If the author had been phlegmatic, would there have been "no problem"?
Don't shoot the messenger; that's not logical or rational. How about you address THE FACTS OUTLINED IN THE DOcuмENT instead.
If Ladislaus or another "opponent" committed such a clear case of shoot the messenger, Sean Johnson would be rightfully upset, perhaps enraged, and he'd be all over him like white on rice.
-
There were clearly games taking place with regard to the elimination of seminarians. My class started with 22 and finished with 3 being ordained. I felt that of the 22, probably 19 seemed like they would have made good priests. After all, doesn’t just the fact that they were there say something all on its own? In fact, the 3 that made it were the very three I would have said would be gone first.
Another problem was that it’s possible that some of these men might have had callings to other expressions of the priestly vocation. But the attitude was binary. Either you had a vocation to SSPX or you had none. There was never any talk of “you might be more suitable for the Dominicans or Benedictines or Redemptorists”. Before V2 there was a spirituality for everyone ... whether you were more into Liturgy/chant or studies or pastoral work or missions or helping the poor. Here, if you weren’t drawn to the SSPX quasi-secular priest model or a fit for that, they threw you overboard. In retrospect, I don’t think I would have thrived in the SSPX priest lifestyle, but would have been happier as a Benedictine or Dominican. Those one or two who were inclined to think of alternatives, they were nearly always discouraged and told they had no vocation. If you have no vocation to SSPX, then you have none at all.
-
Imagine if St. Thomas Aquinas had been told to hit the road because he wasn’t suited to the Benedictine “ora et labora”. Some souls are suited to theology, others need a fair bit of physical work, still others are of a contemplative nature. Everyone is different and there used to be a place for everyone.
I do feel it’s one reason so many post SSPX vocations crash. They really weren’t meant for the world. But they were told they were and their souls never adjusted. They were happy in the religious life and felt like fish out of water after seminary. But they weren’t given the guidance to explore other variations of religious life. So they crashed and burned.
-
Sadly, it’s more proof that infiltration happened at the sspx long ago. 1) +Williamson was liked by the seminarians, but was transferred. Wasn’t this right after +Fellay was in control? And a Frenchman took +W’s place? Seems too coincidental. 2) A 90% failure rate? Gotta keep the sspx small and controllable. Only ordain ‘yes men’. Get rid of normal joes. 3) Find an intellectual seminarian? See if you can control him by psychoanalysis, special promotions and coercion. (See Fr Robinson). 4) Have the seminary run by negative, controlling, power hungry priests. Take all the catholic beauty out of religious life. 5). Focus on obedience and conformity, in an effort to thwart those seminarians who are charismatic, sanguine and creative. Because those types of priests (St Don Bosch, St Paul, St Peter) make great leaders.
.
The list goes on and on. I’m
Sure this isn’t how +ABL ran a seminary. This sounds psychotic. And purposeful. You shouldn’t be a changed person going through seminary. A better person? Yes. An improved person? Yes. But changed? No. God uses the personalities He creates for the good of the Church. Everyone has different talents to offer.
-
My spiritual direction had turned into a patient visiting his psychiatrist. My insomnia and fears had me returning to him a couple times a week, sometimes even after Compline (which is not exactly according to the rule) and stretching into the early a.m. Sometimes I just sat there... Sometimes I vented. He kept poking, digging. I don’t what he thought he’d find. I don’t know what he was looking for.
.
During any of these late night/early morning sessions, did it never dawn on his spiritual director that maybe this guy had a few squirrels missing in his park, and he should have been sent home as not having a vocation? I mean, there's normal first-year-seminary scrupulosity and anxiety, and then there's next-level derangement. This is obviously Box Number Two. If I fault the superiors here with anything, it's for stringing him along for five years instead of telling him he doesn't have the mental balance and emotional stability needed for the priesthood, and sending him home.
.
But the more he made me feel that something was wrong with me, the more I believed it. [YOU THINK??!] Thinking back, all I needed was a reassurance that I was not crazy – that I was on the right path. [No, that was the last thing you needed]
.
This man truly didn't understand what was going wrong with himself, and he really was let down by the people who should have told him he was not on the right path in pursuing the priesthood.
.
While his account is intriguing, it's really hard to take it all that seriously, as he is a deeply disturbed man and I don't think he is all that capable of giving an objective account of a lot of these events. I'm sure the basic facts are true, but they are obviously seen through the lens of a terrible mental illness.
.
I feel bad for his mental pain, and I hope he has found some peace.
-
Good points. It goes back to the point that these seminary directors weren't putting seminarian's needs first.
-
We have been talking about ex-seminarians lately, so I thought this thread might be good to revive.