_Letters___________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Editor’s note: Once again our Letters section is dominated by readers’ responses to a single article: the February Essay by Michael Rose on the alleged shortage in priestly vocations. We shall let our correspondents speak for themselves. However, since an unusually large number of readers asked to have their letters published anonymously, we take this opportunity to reiterate our editorial policy that Letters to the Editor must be signed. 

The unforgiveable sin
With all my heart I wish I could say that Michael S. Rose is exaggerating in his article “A Self-Imposed Shortage” (February 2001), when he describes how people who have a vocation to the priesthood or religious life soon come to realize that the formation they are forced to undergo only serves to undermine, not nurture, that vocation. My own (admittedly anecdotal) experience, however, tells me that he is describing a real trend, deliberately fostered by an ecclesiastical culture that feels threatened by the Pope, and indeed by the very transcendental reality of the Church across time and culture.

I would only add three points to Rose’s fine analysis. First, I am always struck by how much every major decision on a person’s fitness for advancement in a seminary or religious order depends on code language. Because of the Pickwickian—even Orwellian—way such words as “justice,” “compassion,” “caring,” and even “Vatican II” are used, candidates are put in a bind. Either they go along with the boilerplate usage of otherwise unobjectionable terms, or they fight the view these terms seem to represent—and suddenly they are categorized as anti-justice, anti-compassion, or even against the Second Vatican Council.

My second point touches on a topic rarely treated in these debates. No one seems to be asking just why vocations continue to flourish in orthodox settings but are dying on the vine in places where dissenting formation teams keep harping on the “spirit” of Vatican II. In my experience, orthodox settings of formation help to foster charity, whereas the constant invocation of liberal boilerplate fosters an us-against-them feeling of self-righteousness. Of course orthodoxy is a value in itself, for Jesus promised that he would send the Spirit of truth to lead us to the complete truth. (Jn 16:13) But even beyond that, truth also consecrates us in charity, which Paul calls the greatest of the three theological virtues. (1 Cor 13:13) Speaking from experience, I can testify from my knowledge of both styles of formation that charity thrives where true belief prevails and soon withers where carping dissent adopts the mantle of so-called “prophetic” witness.

My only other point is to ask this question out loud: Our Lord says that the only sin that cannot be forgiven is the one committed against the Holy Spirit. (Mk 3:29) Would these outrageous attempts to snuff out the flame of the Holy Spirit—a flame just starting to come to light in a newly enkindled vocation—not represent this very sin?
—Edward T. Oakes, SJ
Denver, Colorado

No closed shop
When reading Michael Rose’s article, I was struck with a sense of déja vu. Many of the problems that he mentioned are very similar to concerns that are being raised in England, where the “weeding out” process of orthodox Catholics starts earlier than the seminary. I attended a diocesan vocation retreat years ago and was appalled by the dissent and disobedience that I encountered there. Despite complaints to the relevant authorities, I learned from another man attending the same retreat some years later that the problems had not gone away. The institution that ran these retreats sees so few vocations now that they have had to justify their existence by running “leadership courses” for Catholic and even non-Catholic laity. 

It also doesn’t inspire confidence when certain seminary rectors publicly dissent from Catholic teaching, or when they write books which are full of error, as has occurred in our country. Despite the mounting evidence of problems, not enough people are speaking out against such things. I suspect many lay people feel that the seminary is a closed shop and isn’t really their concern; but they couldn’t be more wrong. The seminary provides future priests for the community, so we should all have the greatest interest in what goes on there; and we should complain long and loudly if dissent and abuse is going unchallenged. Until we do this, we will continue to get the priests—or lack of priests—that we deserve. 
—Kevin Rowles
Twickenham, Middlesex, England

Saved by rejection?
I read with much interest two articles published recently in CWR: “The Gay Priest Problem” by Father Paul Shaughnessy in your November 2000 issue, and “A Self-Imposed Shortage” by Michael S. Rose in your February 2001 issue. 

On the Father Shaughnessy article, it is as well to point out that in a recent review for Inside the Vatican of Father Donald Cozzens’ The Changing Face of the Priesthood, Father Benedict J. Groeschel, CFR, cautioned against too ready an acceptance of the alleged scale of the “gay priest” problem. 

As to Michael S. Rose’s article, it brings back memories. Twenty-one years ago I applied for admission to a diocesan seminary here. Some years previously I had got as far as Thursday of the pre-novitiate week with the Franciscans when a bad migraine headache coincided with my decision that the Franciscan life wasn’t for me—at that time at least. My application, years later, for the diocesan seminary was rejected, and I was told that I was too bookish, and didn’t have a robust enough personality, and was advised against the religious life as well. I was on the verge of going liberal at that time. The rejection may have saved me. Besides, with all the sex-abuse scandals of recent years, life in the active priesthood could well have become unworkable for somebody trying to be conscientious in the era of see-no-evil. 

I have met one priest who was ordained, he tells me, in spite of his seminary; and I know of other men who hoped to be priests, and who were rejected—probably on the grounds that they wouldn’t toe the liberal line. In the case of my priest acquaintance, he has since gone very liberal, and he is doing very well for himself in terms of his academic career. 

What is the use complaining if the bishops involved don’t get tough with the seminaries, and don’t root out decisively those who are peddling their own ideas on priestly formation, and not teaching faith and morals as understood by the Catholic Church? 

Serious consideration must be given to delaying the taking of the vow not to marry. Trent held that celibacy is a higher state than married life. Recognition of that in practice may help ease out the candidates who experience severe psychological difficulty with the celibate life, whether through heterosexual problems, homosexual problems, problems with ephebophilia, or pedophilia. 
—Séamas de Barra
Dublin, Ireland.

No greater scandal
I want to sincerely thank Michael Rose and CWR for having the courage to write and print his article. I studied as a major seminarian at the Ukrainian Catholic seminary in Washington DC from 1991 to 1994 and continued to study for an additional year as a lay student outside the seminary. While our small seminary did not experience the problems to the degree that our neighboring seminaries did, I was witness to a number of seminarians, good solid men, whose vocations were sabotaged through the usual political game of lies and deceit. I observed many other seminarians whose formation was corrupted by priestly and religious formators and whose loyalty was not to the Church but to hedonistic morals and New Age trends. I expect that many who have come from such systems will try to slough off Rose’s research and I am sure he will be slandered by the priests and religious who have shaped the Church in America according to their image because they are the ones who continue the lies and corruption in these seminaries. 

The process of corruption begins in the vocations office of a number of (not all, mind you) dioceses. A friend of mine in the Diocese of Albany (who didn’t make it) told me the vocations representative who screened him asked his opinion on whether women should become priests. I have since heard such a question is common in many dioceses. An applicant will in most cases not be accepted if the answer to such a question is in keeping with the Holy Father’s definitive teaching on the matter. 

On the day of the Columbine shooting in 1999, I sat for an interview in which I was seeking to become an assistant vocations director for the diocese of Charleston, South Carolina. I was asked by the vicar general if I believed truth was relative or absolute. I delivered a very carefully nuanced answer that ultimately gave my position away as absolutist. The whole interview became a charade after that. They had their answer. Of course, I never heard back from them. 

There is no greater scandal in my book than when men of faith who have been entrusted by God to care for his Bride, fail to stand up for her innocent members. 
—W. George Dragan
Milford Ohio

Believe it!
I read Michael Rose’s article on vocations with great interest. You see, until I had heard about this phenomenon I thought there was something wrong with me. 

I was studying at St. John’s Seminary in Boston and was told that I did not have the qualities required to be a priest. They said that I lacked leadership, intellectual ability, and emotional maturity, among other things. When I asked them to explain where these traits were exhibited they merely repeated the oft heard mantra: “It’s the consensus of the faculty,” and then would not defend or cite examples of said behavior. They had decided that I did not fit into their mold of what a priest should be. 

What were my crimes, you may ask? I stood up for what the Church teaches every time there was a question about it. I stood against the homosexual atmosphere which pervaded the college at that time and had the temerity to suggest that homosexuality is a disorder. I also did not engage in their pro-masturbation conversations which were commonplace in the halls and the dinner table. I was the target of a homosexual classmate who is known to have a violent history and required a restraining order to be taken out against him by another student. This student tried to have me kicked out by telling faculty and other students that I was out to get homosexuals and hated them. He made things up—which were believed, while nobody believed me.

I also stood up for the Church in a Holocaust class where Pope Pius XII and the Church were excoriated for “not doing enough.” Every session I would come to class armed with documentation to prove the heroism of Pius XII and argue every point that was made against him and the Church. Meanwhile the other members of the class were practically sobbing because of their shame.

I was kicked out while there were homosexual students dating. I was kicked out even though there was a student who was using the school’s telephone line to call ‘900’ numbers for porn. These students were treated with compassion and gentleness, while I was kicked out. Now I am blackballed from continuing studies for the priesthood anywhere. 

Is there a bias against orthodox seminarians? You’d better believe it! Readers of this letter may say that I am a disgruntled ex-seminarian and dismiss it. I realize that my tone is not neutral, but I’m not sure it ever could be. I was treated unfairly and without justice by people who are supposed to be training men to have the strength and character to stand up for the Church and what she teaches. 

I am grateful that you published Rose’s article because of the peace I gained from it, and also so that our laity might have some idea of what is going on and why there are not enough priests. I cringe every time I hear prayers for vocations.
—Paul Sinsigalli
Weirton, West Virginia

Time for resolution
I wish to congratulate you on publishing Michael Rose’s article concerning the crisis in vocations to the priesthood. I am a former seminarian and while my seminary experience was not as extreme as some of those Rose describes, I can confirm from my own experience several of the points Rose addresses.

This is an important issue that should not be downplayed. There are real problems in today’s seminaries, and it is time that they be resolved.
—Mario Derksen
via Internet

Personal experience
I have just finished reading the article by Michael S. Rose on the shortage of priestly vocations in the US, and it struck a nerve with me. I experienced at first hand the prejudice of which he wrote. I was told by my pastor that the only real drawback to my being accepted to the diaconate was my apparent rigidity regarding homosexuality and abortion. Needless to add, I was not accepted into the program. I truly believe that the American Catholic Church is committed to causes that are not in line with the magisterium and the Pope. 
—Claude Ouellette
via Internet

Better quality than quantity
Thank you so much for the honest and frank treatment of the homosexual problem in the Catholic Church. Unfortunately the problem is at the top; the fish smells from the head.

The time has come for the Pope to exercise his power of excommunication. Those bishops who tolerate homosexuality in their dioceses, and those priests and religious who continue to ignore and/or disobey the Church’s teaching on this issue, should be relieved and excommunicated. There may be an initial thinning of the ranks, but in the end the morale and quality of our leadership and the laity will rise.

To continue as we are is demoralizing and scandalizing our children and our friends and foes alike. We have nothing to lose, but our already thinning numbers. Let’s go for quality and not quantity.
—Linda Staten
Bethesda, Maryland

Questionable orders
Thank you for printing the important Essay by Michael Rose. Although I do not mention names, I ask you to accept my saying that I know whereof I write. I can support the allegations of the author with the following information:

A few years ago in a diocese of this country, an adult man, considering that he had a vocation to be a priest, applied at the local seminary. Following the interviews he was told that his application was not accepted. The reasons given for his refusal were two (and now read carefully): 1) he is not a homosexual, and 2) he does believe in transubstantiation.

The second point is borne out further by the following: In the same diocese shortly following their ordination to the priesthood, two priests told the bishop that they do believe in transubstantiation. His reply to them was: “If I had known that, I never would have ordained you.”

Questions and concerns abound. First, according to sacramental theology, although a minister of a sacrament does not have faith, it will be a valid sacrament provided that the minister at least “intends to do what the Church does.” In the cases at issue, the fulfillment of this last proviso becomes dubious. 

Since a deacon is being ordained to the priesthood in order, inter alia, to offer sacrifice—the sacrifice of the Mass, the sacrifices of the Body and Blood of the Lord—if the ordaining minister himself does not believe in this, how can he intend to do what the Church does? Was the ordination of these two priests (and others like them in the same diocese under the same bishop) valid? Are they truly priests? 

And very likely they themselves are sadly ignorant of their doubtful situation. What about the Masses they henceforth offer, and the absolutions they confer?

Consider a situation that might arise thirty years later: One such “priest” could be “consecrated” a bishop and assigned to lead a diocese. In his turn he would “ordain” his own seminarians. The possible ramifications are distressing.

Within the past couple of years I have heard that yet another American bishop has made it known that he does not believe in transubstantiation. “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
—Father David Wechter
Houstin, Minnesota

The scope of dissent
Michael Rose’s article about Catholic seminaries and the shortage of priests was superb. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the seminaries are so liberal. The problem of dissent is very serious in the US Church today. More articles along this line would be helpful. Keep up the good work. 
—Charlie Toye
via Internet

More on conjoined twins

I would like to add another opinion to the ones expressed in the letters, (Letters, March 2001), about the subject of the surgery performed on the conjoined British twins, Mary and Jodie. 

It was always going to be very sad whatever would be done, or whatever was not going to be done to those two little girls, and different people will have different opinions about the merits of this case and each will claim to have the right point of view, no matter who they are or who they represent in their daily lives. Sometimes, it becomes very difficult to apply Catholic teaching to individual situations, no matter how honest and hard we try. Indeed, as the Catechism (2268) tells us, the fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful, and the secular world sees that as murder. But there are instances where we see direct and intentional killing and where it can not be accepted as gravely sinful, for example, in warfare, where soldiers shoot to kill, but for the purpose of saving lives, their own or others. The intention of the soldiers is not to kill but to save lives and the killing is the secondary result of their intention. 

One example, (and there are many): when I lived in Holland in 1940 and the German army invaded my country, our soldiers had to shoot to kill, or be killed and with them many Dutch citizens. The same principle obtained when the gallant American army liberated Europe; they had to use whatever weapons of death they had, but they saved untold lives; just think of the poor prisoners in the German concentration camps. 

So to save the life of one of the conjoined twins, and only one life could be saved, the result of the operation was that one life was saved and another was lost. Here, the intention was also to save a life, not to terminate a life. People who say that one person was killed to save that life are obviously wrong; by saving one life the secondary result was that another was lost. Whether the surgery should have been performed at all, is a different matter and outside the scope of this present debate. 
—Hans Klaver
Queensland, Australia

Actually, the question of whether or not the surgery should have been performed is precisely the focus of this discussion. And while admittedly this is a hard case, we cannot discard the teachings of the Church on the grounds that their application is difficult. It is never morally licit to perform an intrinsically evil action, even for a noble purpose. So a doctor cannot deliberately kill one patient in order to save another—just as a soldier cannot deliberately kill civilians in order to halt an aggressor. The critical issue in the case of the conjoined twins is whether the operation, which killed one baby, was intrinsically immoral. The (admittedly fallible) consensus among CWR readers is that it was.
—The Editor 

Diogenes nods

I am a little slow getting to this, especially since it is a criticism of the usually astute Diogenes.
In the November issue (“Cuthbert’s Choice”), Diogenes criticized Cardinal (then Archbishop) Edward Egan for having invited pro-abortion activists—Vice President Al Gore and Mrs. Hillary Clinton—to New York’s October feast called the Al Smith Dinner. Did it not occur to him that Archbishop Egan, having only recently (in June) arrived in New York, had nothing to do with the invitations?
—Msgr. George A. Kelly
Rockaway Beach, New York

Msgr. Kelly—as perceptive an observer as I know—has a point. I stand corrected.
—Diogenes

Back to Catholic World Report - April 2001 - Table of Contents

Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page