Genuinely Catholic seminaries will sometimes have bad fruit, and maybe they can just hide it, I don't know.

Many of the worst people behind V2, including the bishops, priests and antipopes likely including Francis were educated and formed in pre-Vatican II genuinely Catholic seminaries.

Don't kid yourself -- there is always free will.

That's like saying if two parents ended up with 1 or 2 children who went bad, those parents must have done a lousy job raising them. Not necessarily. Everyone has free will, and each person has the faculty to choose:

easy over difficult
broad path to destruction over the narrow path of salvation
The World and/or the flesh over Christ
comfort over mortification
lesser goods over greater goods
etc.

If anyone doubts me, just look at the College of the Apostles. Judas went bad and lost his soul. Was Our Lord's priestly training program defective? (I ask purely as a rhetorical device.) God forbid I (or anyone else) should suggest such a thing!

It's called ORIGINAL SIN and you're never going to get away from it, no matter how intense your program of studies or curriculum vitae.

I would only add:

It's fine to muse about things like this, but if you become too much of a stickler for perfection (for individuals, groups, seminaries, etc.), you might find yourself a "home aloner" someday. Don't forget that the Church has always been made up of fallible, frail human instruments, from St. Peter onwards.

And God has been in control, is in control, and will always be in control.

I found the formation at STAS to be excellent, and I disagree that +Fellay is not an intelligent, well-educated man.  Unfortunately, with the dimming of Catholic light in Rome, we're all left trying to apply Catholic theological principles to this present crisis largely on our own.

Quote from: Ladislaus

I found the formation at STAS to be excellent, and I disagree that +Fellay is not an intelligent, well-educated man.  Unfortunately, with the dimming of Catholic light in Rome, we're all left trying to apply Catholic theological principles to this present crisis largely on our own.

What turned Fellay to the dark side?

With an abundance of agents-provocateurs who sabotage what little good we can do, it is not surprising that very few remain faithful to our Lord, and that we, the faithful remnant, seem to be losing, but we will prevail. God will provide.

Speaking of "the dark side", any good storyteller or person understanding human nature knows this. Hence why a Jєω like George Lucas would know this.

Obi-wan was a completely good guy; he did his best to train Anakin Skywalker -- but unfortunately the latter chose the path of evil (the dark side). But the movie clearly doesn't place blame on the teacher.

The idea that man has free will is very ingrained, because it's so true!

People are fascinated by this aspect of the plot, because there's a mystery involved. The "mystery of iniquity". Why do some people choose evil over good?

I hope that this extract  touches somewhat on this topic even though the article in question concerns Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND SEDEVACANTISM
by John Daly
(Four Marks, 2006)

http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/



<<<<< 10. What seems much harder to countenance is the consequent policy of pragmatism by which a position the Archbishop himself was not sure of became officially obligatory in the Society in order to maintain unity and streamline the Society’s apostolate. Like all men, priests need to be able to converse freely with their peers about their concerns and their doubts, without fear of denunciation for “thought-crime” and possible sanctions. The Archbishop failed to provide this facility and it still does not exist in the SSPX. One consequence is the weakness of character of many SSPX priests – inevitable outcome of a sectarian training. Another is the massive defection rate from the Society: some have become sedevacantists, some have accepted the indult, some have gone independent, some have gone off to “marry” and some have succuмbed to nervous breakdowns – all bear witness to the Society’s internal stress problem.

We have seen that there is no truth in the mythology according to which Archbishop Lefebvre had a firm and consistent policy of recognising the Vatican II popes, sternly and consistently rejecting sedevacantism as a solidly refuted error. On the contrary, the Archbishop often expressed views so hard-line that today no SSPX priest or seminarian would dare say anything similar for fear of expulsion! The mythology is due to the fact that the Archbishop fluctuated and hesitated, leaving on the record words and acts enabling him to be invoked both by the liberal and by the hard-line camps. Indeed his fluctuations and hesitations were on a scale such as to be tolerated only because of the great personal veneration which the mass of traditional Catholic faithful felt for the Archbishop himself. And today the Society no longer has any prominent member whose personality or ecclesiastical status are comparable to those of the Archbishop. Thus the Society’s need for credibility requires it to show more consistency than the Archbishop himself did, while continuing to invoke his authority for decisions that no one can feel any confidence he would have endorsed.

Let us be candid about the origins of this situation. The SSPX’s independent traditionalist apostolate was originally intended only as a provisional succour for a temporary need. Understandably no one foresaw the length of the crisis. Emergency measures sometimes have to be undertaken before there is time for a full theological evaluation of the need that calls for them. But there can be no lasting and effective apostolate which is not firmly founded on theology. This does not mean merely that effective apostles must have an adequate formation in theology, though that is true. It means that the basis, nature, actions and aims of their apostolate itself must also be theologically determined. This is not and never has been the case of the SSPX, because the Archbishop’s legacy to the Society he founded did not include any ecclesiology of the Conciliar Church’s relation to the Catholic Church. The SSPX malaise will continue until this omission is fully rectified, if that is possible.

And that malaise cannot be denied. A quarter of a century ago, the SSPX was swamped with vocations, had a high level of priestly loyalty and was in a position to contrast its success with the manifestly miserable state of the Modernist seminaries and clergy. Everyone knows that the gloating has stopped. Fewer vocations, very high drop-out and expulsion rates in the seminaries, numerous priestly defections in every direction, scant sign of a theological élite among the Society’s clergy, the toleration of priests infected with the innovative itch, high second-generation lay lapsation rates even among those schooled in the Society’s own schools – the sad tale is undeniable and things are not getting any better. Meanwhile, the Society is losing the theological debate not only with sedevacantism but also with the indult groups, who have shown a remarkable drawing power and a surprising ability to produce a learned and thoughtful clergy.>>>>>

He was named bursar general immediately after ordination. What does that tell you?

Quote from: De Pauw

To continue this discussion, I would say that Fellay was not only a product of Archbishop Lefebvre, but was highly trusted by him.

I have heard not necessarily so much.  Has anyone else heard that the concecration of +Fellay was something of a last minute decision?

Quote from: Maria Regina

Quote from: Ladislaus

I found the formation at STAS to be excellent, and I disagree that +Fellay is not an intelligent, well-educated man.  Unfortunately, with the dimming of Catholic light in Rome, we're all left trying to apply Catholic theological principles to this present crisis largely on our own.

What turned Fellay to the dark side?

I don't see it as quite so black and white.  There's nothing "dark" about a Catholic wanting to be in submission to the Holy See.  +Fellay simply cited Traditional Catholic theological principles which hold that it's impossible that submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline can bring harm to souls.  In fact, these are the VERY SAME principles which turn most people to sedevacantism.  It's that tension constantly created by R&R which is seeking resolution (either in canonical submission to Rome or else in sedevacantism).

Just because there's inherent "tension" and/or a balancing act required doesn't mean the position is contradictory, untenable, messed-up, or anything like that.

I could cite dozens of other examples from real life where a person is torn in two directions, but has to stay the course.

I could either

A) Throw myself into my career and make good money, compete well, have financial/job security -- but spent way too much time away from my wife and children, or

B) Not care so much about work, prioritize spending time with my family, and end up unemployed or barely employed (or employable) since my career skills are lacking from spending so much time with my wife and children -- basically being a stay-at-home dad.


Or I could "sit on the fence" and try to have both steady job/solid career AND a family whose members I love and want to be close to.

It would be easiest to give up on one or the other -- the family or the job. But it's MOST DIFFICULT to try to juggle both.

But I really don't see any more true position than this. Any other path would be wrong.