I read this editorial when it first came out in the NOR. I have great respect for the NOR, but in this case, what goes unsaid is as important as what is said. "Stabilized" isn't necessarily a good thing. If a patient is healthy until he is injected with some horrible toxin, deteriorates until he is near death and then stabilizes, he is not, for that reason, out of trouble. He is merely no longer in precipitous decline. Our modern educational system has stabilized (one might almost say calcified) in unhealthy habits. As a result, children are taught NOT to think.
Stabilization can even be used to mean that instead of being in a state of flux (what is the defintion of marriage THIS YEAR) a situation is on a stable rate of deterioration.
I applied to a lay-degree program at a seminary in my area and told the director of the program that I had concerns about some members of the faculty. I was told that indeed some of the professors were not faithful to the magisterium but that there was nothing that could be done; they had tenure and that was that. Incidentally, I was denied admission on the grounds that I was suspect of holding my beliefs a little too rigidly.
Thanks for the informative post. I know that in the Detroit area much has improved over the last several years at Sacred Heart Major Seminary. All the recently appointed faculty (last 10 years or so) seem right on target and unequivocally dedicated to the Magisterium. I was wondering if you have any information on Mundelein seminary. I know there were problems there in the past. Have you heard anything about recent trends there?
Chris makes a good point about stability. Time will tell.
Josh - tragic. I'm sorry to say I've heard similar claims over the years.
I had what I would call an animated discussion with friends years ago about the wisdom of accepting men with homosexual tendencies into the seminary. They maintained that the vow of celibacy would take care of any potential problems. I answered that placing such men in an all-male atmosphere such as a seminary would be tantamount to asking a heterosexual seminarian to take his training in a convent.
"In other words, while Rose was being smeared by conservative Catholic publications, banned from appearing on EWTN, and threatened with a libel suit by one seminary, the Vatican summit essentially affirmed what he reported in Goodbye, Good Men."
While the portrait of the terrible problems in U.S. seminaries painted by Goodbye, Good Men is essentially or generally accurate, that doesn't excuse those places where he didn't get his facts straight. Several reviewers, even though sympathetic to Rose's concerns, rightly criticised the flaws in the book -- they weren't out to "smear" Rose out of hostility to his thesis, as Mr. Vree's words might imply.
Oh get real. Michael Rose has to ply thru piles of filth. Yes, he needs to be better, but do I hear anyone calling Rome out for allowing ANY of the crap they do: can any Catholic with a straight face defend the gaying of the priesthood? It is the elephant in the room, and you can see it just by perusing headshots, unless your own head is nine feet submerged in dirt.
As for NOR, hey Dale Vree: your enthusiasm for knocking NeoCons has blinded you a bit. This piece, the one in the current issue on St. Paul, and one a bit back on the unconditional love of God all indicate you are so zealous for political issues your theological precision is slipping, to say the least. Also, is it asking too much to ask for reviews of books normal people might read? Try Al Mohler's blog for a hint, unless you really wish to see your periodical consign itself to obscurity. I love NOR, or have, but the trend is quite discouraging. And now you want me to get happy over seminary stabilization? What meds are you on brother, because they are far better than the hallucinagins you may have encountered at Berkley!?!
"they weren't out to "smear" Rose out of hostility to his thesis, as Mr. Vree's words might imply."
Then what is your point, other than one best shared with Rose in a place other than a com box? "Hey, you are right, are seminaries are gay choirs, but you need to do a spell check?" Gotcha.
Catholics astound me: they will tar and feather those that criticize priests, bitch slap Protestants who share double the beliefs of liberal Catholics, and read into papal pronouncements things the pontiff went out of his way NOT to say. I am with Frank Sheed: thank goodness for other churches, as they offer the gospel to those who for (sometimes good) whatever reason will hear nothing Rome. One of those reasons is the fact that people maintaining objective truth like the SSPX are villified, whereas a guy like James Martin is granted a gold medallion from the CPA. We are in battle times, and people get worked up over footnote issues when we are talking about gay sex in the seminary dorms. That is the picture here. If I sound furious, reread the preceding sentence. I don't think it is unreasonable to resent my priest being a flamer while we talk about the happy seminary reforms. And let's not even touch the Weakland Center in Milwaukee. We have grown so accustomed to the garbage the outrage seems rude. For all the jokes on the Episcopalians, at least some of them had the sense to be scandalized. We, on the other hand, shrug ans say, "Rome's imperfections are further testimony to its truth." I guess so, but that is the lousiest statement of all.
Joe:
Settle down. You're quite right that there is much rot, humanly speaking, in the Church. You're also right that villifying the SSPX makes little sense. Why defend the "neo-cons" so ardently against Dale Vree? Surely the attitude of the Neo-cons is partly what gets us to the mess we're in now!
What do you mean that the NOR's obsession with political issues has blinded its theological vision? I for one was proud to read the NOR's denunciation of the Iraq war -- because it was the only journal I read which did so on Catholic grounds.
Then what is your point, other than one best shared with Rose in a place other than a com box? "Hey, you are right, are seminaries are gay choirs, but you need to do a spell check?" Gotcha. ***
The flaws in Rose's book are not spelling errors, but fact errors that slimed certain people's reputations. Mistakes like that in a published work are not to be shared privately with the author, but must be discussed openly, just as the allegations were leveled before a public audience.
Anyway, my point was exactly what I said it was -- Vree's comment might lead people to think Rose's critics were out to smear him. They weren't, but we rightly objecting to lapses in a book that otherwise would have been a lot more helpful for us.
Points taken, and I should apologize in that the motives of regular posters here are ones I should respect, not question.
And I do not have a problem with the NOR's smiting of NeoCons so much as I do of it batting its eyes at what appear to me to be muddled theological musings. There is a serious quality issue in the content department there--really, for several issues I have wondered why they are still printing, between obscure books reviews and pieces by the likes of Art Sippo. It might was well be a slightly more erudite version of Envoy magazine, which ought to sound all of us shrieking.
Commenting by HaloScan
