Posted March 17, 2006
Drafting the New Program of Priestly Formation:
A Labor of Love
Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt
The late, beloved Pope John Paul II begins his Post-Synodal Apostolic
Exhortation, Pastores Dabo Vobis (March 25, 1992), (hereafter referred to as
PDV) by referring to God’s promise through the prophet Jeremiah to provide
shepherds for his people after His own heart (Jer 3:15). That promise
extends through the Old into the New Testament and down to our own times.
In that context, ordained priests provide an essential element for the
Church to live out her fundamental obedience to Christ’s two-fold command:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19) and “Do this in
remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19). To ensure a proper and continuous response
to those commands, adequate numbers of candidates must be both available and
willing to hear God’s call and then to be formed according to the pattern of
His Son’s Divine Heart. In this light, the formation and education of future
priests becomes one of the Church’s “most demanding and important tasks for
the future of the evangelization of humanity.” (PDV, 2)
The direction for educating and training priests in our present day is
given by the Second Vatican Council in its decree, Optatam Totius. That
direction was reformulated after the Council into norms which are contained
in the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis of 1976, later revised
in light of the new Code of Canon Law (1983) and reissued in 1985. It is
this document, the Ratio Fundamentalis, that serves as the normative guide
for governing all seminaries and which is to be adapted by each National
Conference of Bishops to its own local situation. Here in the U.S.A., we
are embarking on the 5th Edition of the Program of Priestly Formation
(hereafter referred to as PPF). That is to say, this is the fifth updating
of the application of the Ratio fundamentalis to our country.
My involvement with the 5th Edition began in November, 2001 when I became
Chair-elect for the USCCB Committee on Priestly Formation. The Chair at
that point was Bishop George Niederauer, who quickly asked me to serve as
Chairman of the drafting committee. Accepting this challenge, I, in turn,
sought out the best seminary or vocations personnel, past or present, that I
have met: Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Bishops Greg Aymond, Earl Boyea, Curtis
Guillory, Abbot Nathan Zodrow, OSB, Fathers William Baer, Mark O’Keefe, OSB
and Kevin Rhoades (later appointed Bishop of Harrisburg). I then set out to
ask Father Louis Cameli, who had edited the USCCB document on the Ongoing
Formation of Priests, to be our general editor and was delighted when he
agreed. Father Edward Burns, who serves as staff person for the USCCB
Office of Priestly Formation, proved to be a valuable member of our
committee. This, I thought, would constitute a full, active and resourceful
drafting committee. But I soon learned that the Conference of Major
Superiors felt there must be an additional representative of Religious Men
who had experience with the specific formation of religious seminarians. So
Fathers Robert Manning, S.J. and Daniel McLellan, O.F.M. were added to the
mix and, gratefully so, for they made an invaluable contribution to our
work.
Because so many in the seminary communities across the country are familiar
with the 4th Edition of the PPF, I have chosen here to highlight what is new
or, rather, given a new emphasis in the 5th Edition. Prior to forming my
committee, Bishop Niederauer had surveyed the bishops and seminary rectors
across the country on the strengths and weaknesses of the 4th Edition. The
overwhelming response was that the Norms of the 4th Edition were, by and
large, working well. “If it’s not broke, don’t try to fix it” was the
message. However, all agreed that a greater restructuring of the document
along the lines of the “Four Pillars” (i.e. Human, Spiritual, Intellectual
and Pastoral) outlined by Pope John Paul II in PDV would be helpful. And so
our committee set out to do just that. While all four elements were
embedded in the previous 4th edition, the Holy Father’s outline provided a
sharper focus for us.
Overall, our greatest attention was given to the following areas: 1) Human
Formation; 2) Criteria for Admissions of Candidates; 3) Required Course Work
in Philosophy; 4) Evaluation of Seminarians; 5) Ongoing Formation for the
Newly Ordained; 6) Differentiation in the Norms between requirements,
recommendations and suggestions. In limiting myself to these six
categories, I, in no way, wish to give the impression that other concerns or
aspects of seminary programming were not talked about or considered. My
hope is that the reader will study the whole document and find fresh insight
into matters that have been updated from previous editions. But the six
areas I have listed above are essential components for understanding what is
“new” about this 5th Edition.
Part I – Human Formation
One of the great insights that Pope John Paul II gleaned from the 1990
Synod of Bishops was the foundational importance of a “suitable” human
formation to the work of preparing men for priestly service (PDV, 43).
Using a brilliant metaphor to clarify what is involved here, the Pontiff
writes:
“. . . it is important that the priest should mold his human personality in
such a way that it becomes a bridge and not an obstacle for others in their
meeting with Jesus Christ the Redeemer of man.” (PVD, 43)
In this context, the Pope goes on to speak of the priest as “a man of
communion,” who exhibits “affective maturity” and “responsible freedom” in
his ecclesial service to others.
Citing Pope John Paul II’s own treatment of human formation in PDV, 43, the
committee lists ten characteristics of what a properly formed human person
looks like: he is free to become who God made him to be; he has a solid
moral character; he exhibits prudence and discernment in his judgments; he
has a capacity to relate to others; he communicates well; he is in touch
with but not driven by his feelings; he pays appropriate attention to his
physical well-being; he can work with persons of different backgrounds and
temperaments; he exhibits a simple life-style; and he is a person who
handles situations well in the public square.
These attributes are essential indicators for how well a seminarian can
integrate his physical, psychological and spiritual dimensions in a
life-long commitment to celibacy. Though called to sacrifice his life in
the married state, the celibate must embrace a universalizing love for all
people. This requires the development of habits and skills to master his
own feelings and passions especially in the area of ascetical practices and
a daily examination of conscience. Here, self-knowledge and self-acceptance
lead to the capacity for self-gift in imitation of Jesus, his priestly
model.
While the document is straightforward in terms of the resources that
seminaries must provide to assist a seminarian in his growth and personal
integration, nevertheless it also states clearly that the candidate himself
bears the primary responsibility for his own human formation. He, then,
must honestly assess his attitude and motivation to live a life of celibacy,
obedience and simplicity according to and not in dissent from the mind and
teaching of the Church.
Part II – Admissions
Having just described the outcome of what a candidate should look like as a
result of the formation program, the 5th Edition is realistic enough to
admit that those desired characteristics are not necessarily found in their
full actualization at the moment a candidate applies to the seminary.
Therefore, the document speaks of thresholds or foundations which refer to
basic minimum standards that a candidate possesses, which give evidence of
future potential. For example, does the candidate show signs of taking on
responsibility? Does he have empathy for others? Can he work well together
with colleagues? Is he faithful to his daily prayer? These are all signs
that a person is so rooted in such basic attitudes or dispositions that he
will likely respond in a positive way to the formational elements of a
seminary program and thus to his future challenges as a priest.
In this context, the 5th Edition offers a warning against giving
overemphasis to any one requirement in the admissions process. Interviews,
written autobiographies, recommendations from his parish priest, friends and
family members, observations during visits to the seminary as well as the
results of psychological testing must be taken together in an attempt to
capture an overall picture of the candidate. While our contemporary society
places much emphasis on the role of psychological screening of candidates,
such testing should not be the sole criterion for the acceptance or
rejection of a candidate. Ultimately, the final judgment belongs to the
bishop or major superior. Thus, the admissions process is always
strengthened with the direct participation of the bishop or superior,
whenever possible.
The 5th Edition also seeks to address the question of previous sexual
experiences by the candidate, recognizing the influence of the sexually
promiscuous society in which he lives. The document encourages open and
frank discussions in this area between the interviewer and the applicant.
Should there have been past sexual activity, the seminary must insist on a
prolonged period of abstinence (i.e., three years) prior to acceptance into
a program. At the same time, spiritual direction should be encouraged
during the waiting program. Whenever a candidate gives evidence of
significant unresolved issues, especially with regard to sexuality, it is
better that he find assistance outside the seminary program first before
making application to the seminary. That person can always reapply at a
later date.
Part III – Philosophy Requirements
Another area of significant discussion, but which, in the end, enjoyed
complete consensus, was one concerning the question of how much philosophy a
pre-theology or college seminarian should be required to take. The 4th
Edition had raised the norm to 24 credit hours, the 5th edition raises it to
30 credit hours.
This was not an arbitrary number. The purpose of a philosophy program is
to provide the seminarian with a coherent vision of the human person and,
indeed, the world. Such a vision is essential for the study of theology.
This vision, then, is not about the comprehension of separate philosophical
subjects as it is the apprehension of a body of wisdom. Our committee
determined the courses that we thought were absolutely essential for this
body of wisdom and only then counted up the credit hours. Included in our
formula are the study of logic, epistemology, philosophy of nature,
metaphysics, natural theology, anthropology and ethics. In addition, a
history of philosophy should cover in a systematic and comprehensive manner
the ancient, medieval, modern and contemporary periods.
The documents also insist that the entire philosophical program is
supportive of a Catholic viewpoint and propodeutic for the study of
theology. Since the writings of Descartes, a substantial doubt has been
raised as to the possibility of establishing objective truth. Often
religious truth, because it is not empirically verifiable, is relegated
merely to the realm of subjective opinion. The Church rejects this notion
and desires that the priesthood candidate have complete confidence in the
fact that what he preaches and teaches is objectively true. In this regard,
solid theological formation, while essential to the future priest, is not
enough. He must be able to argue from a philosophical or “Natural Law”
perspective to explain and defend why the Church believes what she believes
and professes. To my mind, the increase of philosophical requirements is
one of the most important developments of the 5th Edition.
The one issue debated on the floor of the USCCB General Assembly when this
document was submitted for approval was whether a two-year pre-theology
program “must” be required or “should” be required. The majority of
bishops, hoping to get future priests out in the field sooner than later,
voted for the latter. However, the requirement of 30 hours of philosophy
will almost certainly ensure a two year pre-theology program. The committee
thought this was essential not only for the sake of the seminarian’s
intellectual formation, but also for his adopting to a “Catholic culture” of
prayer, devotion and lifestyle. The Holy See concurred with our opinion by
insisting that pre-theology programs have a duration of two “calendar”
years.
Part IV: Regular Evaluations of Seminarians
One area in which both the commentary and norms of the 4th edition were
rewritten was in regard to the evaluations offered by seminary faculty of
each seminarian. Here the 5th Edition states that the context for such a
process is meant to be a positive one which helps the priesthood candidate
see the growth that is happening in his formative development. I recall
when I became a seminary rector, the seminarians told me that the one thing
they wanted to avoid were eleventh hour surprises in their evaluations. I
could not have agreed more. This desire is reflected in the new PPF which
states that the evaluation process should be clearly set forth in the
student handbook, should contain written criteria, should involve as many
members of the faculty as possible and should include regular feedback for
the candidate, a mechanism for his response and the assurance of
confidentiality. The latter is particularly important, especially when the
seminary community is not large. Seminarians ought to be able to provide
their own self-evaluation. Peer evaluation, under responsible conditions,
is encouraged. Time away from the seminary, especially during the summer
months, should likewise be evaluated.
The drafting committee also provided seminaries with a most helpful set of
qualities to be evaluated under each section of the “Four Pillars.” These
lists will help faculties to evaluate the standards which they are presently
using in their own evaluation documents. Such qualities might also serve as
the framework for conferences by the Rector or Spiritual Director as they
address the seminary community during a given formation year. In addition,
the canonical requirements for both Latin and Eastern Church candidates are
also set forth in detail within this section.
Finally, it is recommended that candidates who fail to give evidence of
formational growth should be advised to leave the program. All doubts
should be weighed in favor of the Church’s well-being, over that of the
candidate’s.
Part V: The Ongoing Formation of the Newly Ordained
The 5th Edition significantly augments the 4th Edition’s call for the
ongoing education and formation of the newly ordained. When I was a
seminary rector, I received the “free” advice of priests, religious and
laity on the kind of course work that should be required of future priests.
Often this would relate to the practical or administrative tasks of a
priest.
The fact is that seven or even nine (theology and college) years of
seminary training is never enough to teach today’s priesthood candidate all
there is to know about every eventuality he will face. A seminarian only
absorbs so much knowledge at any given moment. Therefore, it is necessary
that a systematic program of instruction and formation of skills be
continued after his ordination. Formation is a life-long process.
Pope John Paul II in PDV, 70 says:
“. . . one can speak of a vocation ‘within’ the priesthood. The fact is
that God continues to call and send forth, revealing his saving plan in the
historical development of a priest’s life and the life of the Church and
society. It is in this perspective that the meaning of ongoing formation
emerges. Permanent formation is necessary in order to discern and follow
this constant call or will of God.”
The seed for encouraging this ongoing formation must begin during the
seminary years. Yet the faculty must be deliberate in working with diocesan
personnel to ensure that there is a systematic program in place that
provides an easy transition for the newly ordained. The faculty itself
becomes an important resource for dioceses to achieve the goals set forth.
Again, the USCCB’s document, The Basic Plan for the Ongoing Formation of
Priests (2001) provides a standard framework for accomplishing this
important, if not essential goal.
Part VI: Differentiation in the Norms between the levels of their importance
As I indicated in the beginning of this article, the main focus of our
committee’s work was concentrated on the commentary rather than the Norms.
However as we reviewed the Norms, it became apparent that there was a lack
of consistency in the level of importance given to one Norm over another.
Our committee decided to review painstakingly each Norm to see whether the
verb “must”, “should” or “it is recommended” would be used. I believe that
this evaluation has provided a great service to our seminaries by clearly
distinguishing essential elements from those that are just helpful. This
should assist faculty and students alike in establishing priorities for
their formation programs.
As a bishop and priest who has served seven years in seminary formation
work, I cannot express enough the joy that I found in working with this
drafting committee to formulate the 5th Edition of the PPF. I believe it
was for all of us a labor of love.
At the suggestion of the Congregation for Education, the Bishops’
Conference asked only for a five year recognitio, in order to allow any
insights gained from the current Apostolic Seminary Visits to be
incorporated into a 6th Edition. But be that as it may, I am sure that this
5th Edition will provide a solid foundation upon which future adaptations
will be made.
At the conclusion of PDV, Pope John Paul II urges all those associated with
priestly formation to turn in prayer to “Mary, Mother and Teacher of our
priesthood.” He professes that she best models for us the full response to
God’s call. She serves as the perfect disciple who carries Christ’s
Presence within her and resolutely shares that Presence with others. Jesus,
the Eternal Priest, grew up being docile to her authority and being
instructed by her example. May Mary, Mother of the Church and Mother of all
priests, continue then to watch over and guide the work of seminary
formation in this country, ensuring that it leads faculty and seminarians
alike closer to the Heart of her Divine Son.
Bishop John C. Nienstedt has been the Ordinary of the Diocese of New Ulm
since 2001. He served as chairman of the U.S.C.C.B. Committee on Priestly
Formation from 2002-2005. He was the founding Rector/President of the
reformulated Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit from 1987 to 1994.
|
