UP FRONT
The Importance of Seminary Formation
Edwin O'Brien |  Spring 2009

Early in the 1980s, Pope John Paul II asked that Cardinal William Baum, then Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, oversee an apostolic visitation of United States seminaries. The visitation would “take the pulse” of priestly formation in our country to see how the expectations of the Second Vatican Council were being realized.

The need for such a visitation in the United States and elsewhere must have been clear in Rome. Soon after the Council, the seminary pendulum had swung from a rigid uniformity throughout the seminary world to a sweeping variety of standards and programs in the screening and admission of seminarians, course content, pastoral formation and ordination criteria.

The fifteen years in the Council’s wake witnessed a precipitous fall-off of vocations along with large scale and ongoing departures from active priestly ministry. Were individuals’ expectations too high after the Council, leading to disenchantment? Were standards being lowered in order to attract and retain seminarians? Was there ambiguity or even dissent in communicating the church’s understanding of the ordained priesthood, given the council’s renewed emphasis on the priestly role of the laity? These and many more questions suggested the need for review and clarification.

Popularly known as the “Marshall Committee,” after then Bishop John Marshall of Burlington who was appointed as apostolic visitor, the review of free-standing theologates took almost three years and resulted in a lengthy September 1986 letter from Cardinal Baum to the U.S. hierarchy assessing the overall health of priestly formation as reflected in the accumulated reports.

While cast in an overall positive framework, the congregation’s observations and recommendations confirmed what many suspected at the time. In too many cases there were:

• A “blurring of the concept of priesthood” and an “undifferentiated notion of ministry”
  
  
• Some lack of diligence in accepting older men, individuals without philosophical foundation, recent converts or returnees to the faith, individuals needing psychological counseling, etc.
  
  
• Inconsistencies in spiritual direction
  
  
• Under-achieving, unchallenging courses in theology
  
  
• Ambiguity and confusion about the nature and content of the magisterium of the church.
  
  
• Overemphasis on practical field work experience to the detriment of theological study and reflection
  
  
• Failure to state clearly the seminary’s expectations of students re: performance criteria
  

Little doubt, the bishops of the country took the congregation’s recommendations quite seriously well before this 1986 letter, since each had received individual reports soon after each seminary’s visitation. (Toward the end of his letter to the American bishops, the ever-gentlemanly Cardinal Baum observed, “In some cases we have noticed a tendency to release our commendations and to be more discreet about our recommendations. We ask for a more balanced communication, especially to actual and potential sponsors, both episcopal and religious.”) In many (but not all) cases “Rule of Life” documents were rewritten for stricter accountability for both student and faculty, course content was strengthened with church magisterium more clearly presented, and criteria for seminary admissions and advancement to ordination were tightened and clarified.

Beginning 1990 and up to this moment, a significant and ongoing leap forward has taken place, the result of several related developments: the 1990 Synod of bishops on the formation of priests in circumstances of the present day; Pope John Paul II’s 1992 Apostolic Exhortation following the Synod, Pastores dabo vobis, I Will Give You Shepherds (PDV); and the 2005-2006 apostolic visitation of U.S. seminaries to determine appropriate formation for celibacy. This recent visitation came at the request of the American bishops following revelation of the sexual scandals early in this decade.
Undoubtedly, in my opinion and experience, the Holy Father’s insistence on human formation as the basis of all priestly formation is an element hardly treated in any document prior to PDV. Pastoral charity (mentioned more than 35 times) is the priest’s participation in the love of Christ for his flock and must presume an ability to relate to them in a context of affective celibate maturity. Human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral formation are reviewed and seen as strongly, deeply interrelated, and priestly formation in general is presented as a lifelong quest.

This has resulted in most cases in stronger emphasis on transparency in spiritual direction and referrals to psychologists both in the admissions process and in “growth counseling” during the years of formation. In addition, two years of pre-theology have become standard for those with college degrees but no seminary formation experience.

These elements formed the backdrop of the recent seminary visitation. Diocesan bishops and religious ordinaries have all received individual evaluations of their respective institutions and there is soon expected a letter from the congregation on the national state of priestly formation for celibacy. There will likely be an updated document (“Ratio Fundamentalis”) from the congregation on universal guidelines for formation, then a corresponding Program of Priestly Formation document issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and approved by Rome.

Clarity and depth in presenting church teaching on the ordained ministry, thoroughness in screening students’ readiness for holy orders at each step along the way and transparency in students’ interactions with formation advisers and, especially, with spiritual directors are emphases not pronounced in the field of seminary life twenty-five or even ten years ago.

Challenges remaining to be faced, somewhat reluctantly by bishops, are a willingness to release their best priests for advanced studies and full-time seminary ministry, as well as the maintenance of a number of large seminary buildings hosting only a few dozen resident students. On the student side, the all too proximate danger of addictive internet pornography is a culture-wide phenomenon that surely can find entry into seminary rooms. And what of the technophile seminarian more comfortable speaking to computers than with parishioners?

Finally, in light of the muddled, dissent-filled theological culture of some seminaries in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, orthodoxy is a worthy trait to be valued in the seminarian and newly ordained. Such orthodoxy will persuade very few, however, unless the priest of today is in the words of PDV a man of communion: “not arrogant or quarrelsome, but affable, hospitable, sincere in words and heart, prudent and discreet, generous and ready to serve, capable of opening himself to clear and brotherly relationships and of encouraging the same in others and quick to understand, forgive and console” (#43).

These qualities, certainly a profile of the Good Shepherd, are worthy of life-long pursuit by all who would be shepherds after the heart of Christ. Such is the seminary’s task well into our new millennium.

The Most Rev. Edwin O’Brien, a bishop since 1996, has been archbishop of Baltimore since 2007. He previously served as the head of the Archdiocese for the Military Services of the United States, as rector of the Pontifical North American College in Rome, and as rector of St. Joseph's Seminary of the Archdiocese of New York.