Author Topic: Are minor seminaries problematic? (Read 4060 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 07, 2015, 12:14:33 PM »

Someone in another thread stated:

Quote

In the past minor seminaries have been problematic for the Catholic Church as they were often times breading grounds for those with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies. Young men living together from the time they are 14 until they are 18, hormones raging with no contact with girls and then they go straight into the seminary, I think that is just asking for trouble. I understand [a well known boys school] is now going to be opened up to 8th graders (13 year olds). I think that is a mistake. But that is just my opinion.

I never heard this before -- that minor seminaries were inherently dangerous.

It strikes me as very "modern American" to suggest that boys need to mess around with (not necessarily fornicate with) girls during their teen years; and to remove the temptation will cause some of them to become homo.

After all, American public schools have been co-ed for years. Just think of the good old 50's -- dances, drive-in movies, drive-in hamburger stands served by young women on roller skates, soda fountains -- it would seem that the average "Fifties-lover" would be against the traditional Catholic concept of separation of the sexes for education, at least above age 11. "What youthful fun times would be missed!" they think.

I don't think removing women from young mens' lives is dangerous. If anything, it helps them be able to focus on their studies. Besides, dating (really, "courtship") is for marriage -- if you're not established financially enough to be able to get married, why mingle with the girls yet?

Peter15and1 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 07, 2015, 02:29:20 PM »

I have never heard of such a thing before.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** May 07, 2015, 03:13:16 PM »

Sounds like pop-psychology and the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖist mindset. The very idea that the onset of puberty (i.e., "raging hormones") without lots of girls around could, in any way, cause ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is ludicrous.

Could you provide the link to the original post so I can give him a thumbs down? (Unless, of course, it was posted anonymously, since giving a thumbs down to Guest has no value.)

PG · « **Reply #3 on:** May 07, 2015, 03:29:14 PM »

I don't agree with his reason for being opposed to the minor seminary system(boys needing to be around girls at that critical age). But, I am not against being opposed to a minor seminary system(for reasonable reasons).

saintalice · « **Reply #4 on:** May 07, 2015, 03:31:59 PM »

I never said it "caused it" but it is undeniable that some males have ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies at a very young age.

Keep in mind that all of you are answering as an adult with an adult brain. The adolescent brain does not function like that of an adult. This is not pop psychology. fMRI scans have been performed on adolescents that prove this.

Furthermore I have knowledge of a "first hand account" of a man who attended a minor seminary in Nebraska Pre-Vatican II. He stated that sex between the students (and the faculty) was certainly prevalent especially among the students. Some of these students went on to become priests. This man is of the opinion that the minor seminaries were the root cause of the sex scandals. I'm not sure I would agree with that. It is a much more complex problem than that. But I don't think minor seminaries are helpful or necessary. Vocations come from strong families not institutions. Education comes from strong families, not institutions. Boys learn to be men from strong fathers, not institutions.