Author Topic: Are minor seminaries problematic? (Read 3322 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.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** May 07, 2015, 04:25:51 PM »

I believe ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are MADE, not BORN.

Boys that become ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ are corrupted by existing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, at a critical time in their psychological and biological formation.

I believe studies have been done on identical twins, etc. and the consensus of true scientists is that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are indeed "made" not "born".

Of course, the pro-sodomite lobby, with its agenda to degrade all humanity and destroy everything God made good, especially the institution of Marriage, would have us believe that "10% of people are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ", that they are "just like us", "they want to commit to each other and be married too" and that "it's something they were born with".

Our Lord's quote about a millstone being hung around one's neck for scandal comes to mind here.

saintalice · « **Reply #6 on:** May 07, 2015, 04:30:15 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I believe ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are MADE, not BORN.

Boys that become ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ are corrupted by existing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, at a critical time in their psychological and biological formation.

I believe studies have been done on identical twins, etc. and the consensus of true scientists is that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are indeed "made" not "born".

Of course, the pro-sodomite lobby, with its agenda to degrade all humanity and destroy everything God made good, especially the institution of Marriage, would have us believe that "10% of people are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ", that they are "just like us", "they want to commit to each other and be married too" and that "it's something they were born with".

Our Lord's quote about a millstone being hung around one's neck for scandal comes to mind here.

Well putting young boys together in a minor seminary apparently "made" some ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the modern Church and it could very well "make" them again in today's minor seminaries. But only time will tell. We shall see. God forbid...

Matto · « **Reply #7 on:** May 07, 2015, 05:05:04 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I believe ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are MADE, not BORN.

I believe ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is caused by temptations of demons. I believe demons tempt some people to fornicate and they tempt others to perform ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts of sodomy. And in some cases I think they are even possessed. I remember reading a quote from an exorcist who said the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ demon was one of the hardest ones for exorcists to exorcise successfully (sorry I don't have a source. It was something I read a few years ago.).

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** May 07, 2015, 06:09:31 PM »

Quote from: saintalice

Quote from: Matthew
I believe ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are MADE, not BORN.

Boys that become ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ are corrupted by existing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, at a critical time in their psychological and biological formation.

I believe studies have been done on identical twins, etc. and the consensus of true scientists is that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are indeed "made" not "born".

Of course, the pro-sodomite lobby, with its agenda to degrade all humanity and destroy everything God made good, especially the institution of Marriage, would have us believe that "10% of people are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ", that they are "just like us", "they want to commit to each other and be married too" and that "it's something they were born with".

Our Lord's quote about a millstone being hung around one's neck for scandal comes to mind here.

Well putting young boys together in a minor seminary apparently "made" some ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the modern Church and it could very well "make" them again in today's minor seminaries. But only time will tell. We shall see. God forbid...

Actually, you answered your own question in a prior post:

Quote from: saintalice

He stated that sex between the students (and the faculty) was certainly prevalent...

Not being around girls didn't make these boys perverts. Perverts (i.e., the faculty) made them perverts. If moral discipline had been the norm at the seminary and if any person (whether student or faculty member) who propositioned any person was promptly discharged, there is little chance any of the remaining boys would have been made perverts and the number of such men possessed with that evil would have been much lower.

moneil · « **Reply #9 on:** May 07, 2015, 06:16:23 PM »

As Matthew said in the other thread, this is a topic worthy of discussion.

Minor seminaries have been apart of the Church’s formation for the priesthood for centuries and the Council of Trent decreed that formation for the priesthood ideally begin at age 12 in “colleges” set aside for this purpose (Session 23 Chapter XVIII).https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct23.html

Until these modern times when their existence declined almost every diocese and most religious orders (except the Jesuits) either operated their own minor (high school) seminaries or sent their candidates considering the priesthood to one in another diocese. While the Jesuits did not operate minor seminaries they drew many of their vocations from their preparatory schools, where Latin and Greek were always part of the curriculum.

Also, until perhaps the early 20th century the Church has had a preference for single sex high schools, which are making something of a comeback in some urban areas. There are substantial ecclesiastical docuмents on this but I don’t have time to look them up at the moment.

I was born in 1951 and attended a parochial school. I did not go to a minor seminary but knew several who did. Back in those days the idea was that a call to the religious life came from God (i.e., NOT the idea that “I can be a priest, a doctor, a farmer, a lawyer, a plumber, I’ll pick the ‘career’ that appeals to me most”, NOR the idea that a religious vocation is somehow “planted” from scratch), God’s call was always involved. In grade school we were taught to carefully discern if the religious life might be God’s call in our lives. Most vocational recruitment occurred during middle school. Young men considering a call to the priesthood generally entered the minor seminary after 8th grade. Young men and women considering a call to the professed religious life generally became a postulant right after high school. There were always provisions for “late vocations” but what I described was the norm, and had been for many centuries.

While the least important reason perhaps, there was also a pragmatic reason for minor seminaries. It was generally necessary for one to be proficient in Latin by the time they began philosophy (the college phase of seminary, before theology), and four years of high school Latin served this purpose.

It would be interesting to know, of those currently in traditional seminaries, how many came from minor seminaries or at least traditional Catholic High Schools, and how many were home schooled or came from public high schools. I don’t know but I’m guessing the majority might be from the first two groups.

Anyways, when it comes to considering this question from the perspective of tradition, it makes sense to consider what Trent said.

saintalice · « **Reply #10 on:** May 07, 2015, 06:29:20 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: saintalice
Quote from: Matthew
I believe ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are MADE, not BORN.

Boys that become ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ are corrupted by existing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, at a critical time in their psychological and biological formation.

I believe studies have been done on identical twins, etc. and the consensus of true scientists is that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are indeed "made" not "born".

Of course, the pro-sodomite lobby, with its agenda to degrade all humanity and destroy everything God made good, especially the institution of Marriage, would have us believe that "10% of people are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ", that they are "just like us", "they want to commit to each other and be married too" and that "it's something they were born with".

Our Lord's quote about a millstone being hung around one's neck for scandal comes to mind here.

Well putting young boys together in a minor seminary apparently "made" some ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the modern Church and it could very well "make" them again in today's minor seminaries. But only time will tell. We shall see. God forbid...

Actually, you answered your own question in a prior post:

Quote from: saintalice
He stated that sex between the students (and the faculty) was certainly prevalent...

Not being around girls didn't make these boys perverts. Perverts (i.e., the faculty) made them perverts. If moral discipline had been the norm at the seminary and if any person (whether student or faculty member) who propositioned any person was promptly discharged, there is little chance any of the remaining boys would have been made perverts and the number of such men possessed with that evil would have been much lower.

As I said, time will tell...time will tell.

PG · « **Reply #11 on:** May 07, 2015, 09:17:38 PM »

I would not so much argue about whether they are born or made. But, simply understand that a human can be cursed from birth due to the sins of their parents. The old testament speaks of God punishing "up to the third and fourth generation of those that hate him". If the human is not of age to reproduce, then I would consider it demonic possession. If the human is of age, then I would consider it as a giving in to temptation. And, both of these situations are almost entirely the result of their upbringing.

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** May 07, 2015, 10:46:26 PM »

Quote from: moneil

Minor seminaries have been apart of the Church’s formation for the priesthood for centuries and the Council of Trent decreed that formation for the priesthood ideally begin at age 12 in “colleges” set aside for this purpose (Session 23 Chapter XVIII).https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct23.html

Until these modern times when their existence declined almost every diocese and most religious orders (except the Jesuits) either operated their own minor (high school) seminaries or sent their candidates considering the priesthood to one in another diocese.

This was my point as well -- minor seminaries were NOT a modern invention!

Quote from: moneil

It would be interesting to know, of those currently in traditional seminaries, how many came from minor seminaries or at least traditional Catholic High Schools, and how many were home schooled or came from public high schools. I don’t know but I’m guessing the majority might be from the first two groups.

At the Winona seminary, back in the "good old days" of 2000 - 2003, most of them came from public school. There were a FEW from St. Mary's, KS, and one that was homeschooled. But the rest were products of public school.

That is why we had to study Latin even as we studied the other difficult subjects. And it's also why +Williamson put in a "zero" or "humanities" year, to give many seminarians a chance to get up to speed, or at least a 1-year running head start, before the studies began in earnest in First Year.

poche · « **Reply #13 on:** May 07, 2015, 11:23:10 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

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?

I think that this is not necessarily good for girls' education.

saintalice · « **Reply #14 on:** May 08, 2015, 08:14:09 AM »

Of the "approved" minor seminaries in operation today in the USA one is run by the IVE (Institute of the Incarnate Word) and 2 are run by Legionaries of Christ. Need I say more?

As for them being part of the Church for centuries, only since the Council of Trent were major seminaries even organized. The seminary system is of very late origin in the 2000 year history of the Church, as is stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia. To say minor seminaries have been around for centuries is a bit of stretch.