Why the Irish Church Must Fumigate Its Seminaries
By Mark Dooley
Yesterday, the Vatican published a report based on an Apostolic Visitation to the Irish Church last year. In response to the deep and disturbing crisis which has engulfed the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI dispatched a number of senior prelates to Ireland with a view to ascertaining the true extent of the disaster. Nothing could have prepared them for what they encountered. When the Pope announced his intention to send a delegation to Ireland, I was lecturing at Maynooth University – the home of Ireland's National Seminary. I got to know many of the seminarians as they were obliged to attend my philosophy lectures. They also knew that, as someone with a public profile, I was in a position to highlight their grievances. Those grievances were shocking – so shocking that I did not hesitate to use my column in the Irish Daily Mail to expose them. Here is a sample of what I wrote in May 2010, and which I subsequently reproduced in my book Why Be a Catholic? 'Irish seminaries are hotbeds of serious moral decay which is devastating the Church in this country. Their culture is one that rejects piety and holiness in favour of religious laxity and moral confusion. This is resulting in priests who barely believe in the doctrine they are ordained to promote. Very few who enter the seminary system stay the course. According to one seminarian, of the 14 who started in formation in 2009, only 8 remain. Why? Not, as you might imagine, because they revealed themselves to be lacking in sanctity. In many cases, it was because they were deemed to be too devout. Another seminarian passionately laments that he is not allowed to kneel during Mass. In the course of his studies, certain priestly professors informed him that there is "no such thing as transubstantiation [the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ], and that he should not look to Rome as "they don't know anything". Worse is the fact that those who wish to uphold the old devotions, such as the Rosary, are frowned upon. All are taught that the Eucharist should not be taken literally, but is a mere "memorial" of an historical event. This means that the Holy Mass should be interpreted, not as the moment when Christ crosses the barrier between time and eternity, but as a simple "gathering" of the "community". Those who object are either sidelined or show the door. Meanwhile, others whose lifestyle is a travesty of the priestly life are made to feel at home. How on earth can the Catholic Church in Ireland recover when the very people charged with training our future priests are doing such damage?' In the weeks leading up to my series of columns on the seminary system in Ireland, I was invited by Maynooth to continue teaching on the university's graduate programme. However, once the columns appeared, I received a letter informing me that, due to 'financial constraints', I could not be re-employed. If anything, this gave me greater scope to pursue justice for those morally courageous seminarians who, by telling me their story, had put their priesthood in jeopardy. What follows is my response to yesterday's Vatican report which appears in today's Irish Daily Mail: It is nearly two years since I first reported on the Irish seminary system in this newspaper. While lecturing seminarians at NUI Maynooth, I became aware that serious problems existed which, if the Church were to recover, had to be exposed. To that end, I wrote a series of columns highlighting the appalling nature of priestly 'training' in Ireland. My message was clear: Unless the seminaries were fundamentally reformed, the Irish Catholic Church had no serious future in this country. Unless seminarians were once again schooled in the old priestly virtues, and unless they perceived themselves as standing 'in the person of Christ', confidence in the priesthood would remain at rock bottom. For it had become very clear to me that our seminaries were no longer places of piety, but seedbeds of moral and theological decay. The response to those columns was phenomenal. A tsunami of correspondence swept across my desk from priests, seminarians and those who had either left, or been ejected from priestly formation. Their stories followed a similar pattern: Those who pursued dubious 'extra-curricular' activities were actively encouraged, while those who simply yearned for a life of sanctity were sidelined. It seemed obvious to me that if the seminary system was that sick, the Church was in real trouble. It also proved why the crisis of clerical abuse in this country was particularly grave. The problem was not that priests were too remote from the world, but that they were far too immersed in it. As readers may recall, my dispatches on the seminaries were greeted with dismay in Maynooth. Shortly after their publication, I was informed that, due to 'financial constraints', my services were being terminated. Personally, it was a blow, but one which had the benefit of undermining a cosy clerical cartel. Even more satisfying was the fact that my findings were sent to Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York – the person appointed by Pope Benedict to lead the Apostolic Visitation to the Irish seminaries. This meant that, by the time of his arrival here last year, Cardinal Dolan was fully apprised of the chronic situation. He would, I hoped, deal with it as decisively as he did when, as Archbishop of Milwaukee in 2002, he rescued that diocese from the shame of sexual scandal through a radical process of seminary reform. Yesterday, the findings of the Apostolic Visitation to Ireland were made public. Correctly, the report emphasises the need to continually place the needs of abuse victims centre stage. But what does it tell us about how the visitors perceived the Irish Church in general, and the seminaries in particular? First, while the document is loaded with diplomatic niceties, there are particular sections which highlight how shocked the visitors were by what they confronted. It states that they 'encountered a certain tendency, not dominant but nevertheless fairly widespread among priests, Religious and laity, to hold theological opinions at variance with the teachings' of the Church. They recommend that this 'serious situation requires particular attention, directed principally towards improved theological formation'. They also suggest that the current diocesan structure in Ireland is inadequate, and that, under the direction of the Holy See, a process of consultation is taking place to assess how dioceses might be adapted 'to make them better suited to the present-day mission of the Church in Ireland'. If this means that we end up with fewer dioceses, and, thus, fewer bishops, that is excellent news. This is because few things have stymied genuine reform, more than those bishops who refused to exercise their Episcopal authority when it was demanded most. What of the visitors' findings in relation to the seminaries? While there are no drastic recommendations, such as seminary closures or sacking of formation staff, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that significant reform is underway. Indeed, responding to the report's claim that 'there are dedicated formators in Irish seminaries, committed to the work of priestly training', one priest remarked to me that 'they have been damned with faint praise!' It is particularly noteworthy that the visitors begin by proposing something which I have consistently argued is essential for real renewal. It must be ensured, they state, that seminary formation 'is rooted in authentic priestly identity'. Second, there must be greater 'Episcopal governance' and more 'consistent' admission criteria for potential seminarians. Most encouraging of all, however, is their insistence that seminary directors 'show greater concern for the intellectual formation' of their candidates, ensuring that 'it is in full conformity' with the Church's teaching. The so-called 'pastoral programme', in which seminarians are taught how to minister to their future parishioners, must be 'sacramental, priestly and apostolic'. Primarily, it must be 'duly concerned with preparing candidates to celebrate the sacraments and to preach'. Finally, the report strongly recommends that seminary buildings be 'exclusively for seminarians', in order 'to ensure a well-founded priestly identity'. Now, you might say that in the absence of direct criticism of seminary directors, these recommendations are useless. I say, the fact they have been stated at all, shows that people like me have not only been heard but vindicated. I also consider this report an implicit, yet no less powerful condemnation of what is currently a very rotten system. Put simply, the fact that the Pope's own envoys have called for Irish seminaries to fully comply with the Church's teaching, shows how far from that doctrine they have drifted. It also puts heavy pressure on seminary directors to defend a system which was, for far too long, very obviously deficient. In my view, only pride can now prevent them from considering their position. I do not say that the findings of yesterday's report will change the face of Irish Catholicism overnight. Sadly, we are in for a long, slow slog. Yet, I am confident that the Vatican now understands the true extent of the Irish crisis, and will do all it can to facilitate a fresh start. I have always believed that the best response to the terrible abuse crisis in this country is to reform the priesthood. After all, if a priest truly believes he is an 'alter Christus', or another Christ, how could he abuse anyone – least of all a child? That is why I felt compelled to expose the chilling complaints of so many of my former seminary students. While that may have cost me my academic job, it ensured that the seminaries could no longer be ignored as a principal source of the Church's problems. If, on the basis of yesterday's report, we can now expect genuine reform to begin in earnest, my small sacrifice will have been well worth it.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.