Vatican Clergy Prefect on “Traditionalist” Seminarians

At the website of the Congregation for the Clergy, there is a report on the plenary session of the Congregation held this past summer. Cardinal Beniamino Stella, prefect of the Congregation, says the following (see p. 3) about “traditionalist” seminarians:

As an addition to the various aspects of formation already treated concerning the Ratio, I wish also to emphasize the situation of “traditionalist” seminarians, who create not little difficulties first for the formators, then for the bishops after ordination. “Rigidity,” which the Holy Father has spoken about to us this morning, should thus be the object of careful discernment – fixation on an image of the past church, and also on appearance and external superficiality, often visible especially in the liturgical realm; not infrequently this can reveal narcissistic and vain personalities, and a propensity to “flee” from real pastoral duties, to take refuge in the intimacy and forms of a past which they have not lived and which does not pertain to their life. (tr. awr)

Stella, 76, was created cardinal by Pope Francis in 2014.

Editor

Katharine E. Harmon, Ph.D., edits the blog, Pray Tell: Worship, Wit & Wisdom.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

26 responses to “Vatican Clergy Prefect on “Traditionalist” Seminarians”

  1. Jim Pauwels

    Speaking as one who is not a traditionalist, I consider those comments by a Vatican official to be unfortunate and, frankly, to be painting with a broad brush. What can the result be except to further inflame culture wars within the church?

    I suppose it’s also worth noting that one needn’t search out traditionalist orders to locate priests (or deacons) with vain and narcissistic personalities.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Jim, yes and no. It sounds ‘fair and balanced’ to say that undesirable personal qualities are found across the spectrum, it sounds laudable to avoid painting with broad brush. But what is the truth?

      Yes, I’m sure that selfishness, vanity, and narcissism are found across the spectrum. But in my experience, rigidity, judgmentalism, and insensitivity are far more associated with younger conservative clergy and seminarians. For the cardinal prefect to be honest about this and name the problem, as does Pope Francis, is a constructive contribution to the discussion.

      I regularly get pained emails from Pray Tell readers about a new pastor who is turning everything upside down, undoing longstanding customs, turning people away from the church, causing division. I can honestly say that 100% of these emails about are about more conservative/traditionalist pastors, oftentimes (but not always) recently ordained. I haven’t yet gotten such an email about a more liberal pastor.

      This isn’t scientific, it’s anecdotal, I acknowledge that. A certain kind of person writes to Anthony Ruff at Pray Tell. But still, there is a very distinct problem among younger and more traditionalist clergy and seminarians, and we’re kidding ourselves, or falling for a false “balance and moderation,” if we deny that.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Paul Waddington

        You speak of new pastors who turn everything upside down, who turn people away from the church. Have you thought about the millions of people who have turned their back on the Church over the past 50 years due to the the arrival of trendy new pastors who have literally turned things around. I am thinking of celebrating the Mass facing the people rather than facing God.

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Assuming that lots and lots of mistakes were made 40 or 50 years ago – I suppose they were – I can’t imagine how that constitutes a defense of today’s mistakes. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        There is no proof of liturgical reform causing people to leave the church. Correlation is not causation.

        God is everywhere, not only at the back wall! The priest is still facing God when facing the people. (One wag once wrote here that the priest should lie on his back on the floor and face the heavens where God really is!) Note, I’m not an orientational fundamentalist, and I’m open to good reasons for ad orientem. But your way of opposing God and people gives ad orientem a bad name.

        awr

      3. Jim Pauwels

        Fr. Ruff, you ask, What is the truth? My experience is that the truth rarely is simplistic. I don’t know many traditionalist priests, but those I have encountered have led me to think that some are rigid and narcissistic, while others are brimming over with the joy of the Gospel and have real pastoral gifts. It doesn’t seem right that they should all be tarred with the same brush. Surely a commitment to truth requires a commitment to making such distinctions?

        Please note Lee Fratantuono’s comment below, as it speaks to the mutual lack of trust between traditionalists and the rest of the church. That’s not good nor healthy for the church. I consider Cardinal Stella’s comments unfortunate because they don’t seem designed to build bridges – really, they seem intended to do the opposite.

        I agree with you that Francis has leveled notable and refreshing criticism at clerical rigidity and narcissism. I’m open to correction, but I don’t think he has singled out traditionalists in this regard. What he is criticizing isn’t traditionalism but rather clericalism.

        The question of a good fit between a pastor or a parochial vicar and the community he is assigned to serve is an important one – in my view, it deserves more attention than it gets. Personally, I think it’s very complex, as communities are large and not monolithic. My experience is that, when a new priest arrives, some people immediately dislike him and some find him a breath of fresh air. That is true of traditionalist priests and non-traditionalist priests. Sometimes it’s because the priest speaks with a heavy accent. Sometimes it’s because he’s gay. Sometime’s it’s because he’s a narcissistic prig and not a very nice human being. I’ve seen all of the above and more.

        If plainer speaking is part of Francis’s program of reform, that’s probably a good thing. But one can be too blunt. Not every truth (or partial truth) need be articulated, especially in public life.

    2. Lorenzo Gonzalez

      Jim
      I am not in the Vatican, I am in Florida and I am absolutely agree with this view. I am one of the unfortunate priests who have faced the disrespect of arrogant and pride young priest who I simply asked to removed from the Parish for the God of the congregation I am serving.

      Reply
    3. Josh DeCuir

      Jim, I have a great deal of respect for your views, & I am not entirely unsympathetic to your comment here. But, I must say that I think the Cardinal’s comments pretty much hit the nail on the head for me based on my encounters with “Traditionalist” priests in my area. I’ve found their understanding of priestly ministry to be a mirror of extension of a certain well-known blogging priest in the upper Midwest, & who carry themselves as a kind of ambassador-without-portfolio for the Latin Mass & its general milieu (for lack of a better word). Worst, to me, is they to my view neglect their pastoral duties in favor of viritual communities or connections of like-minded priests & more compliant lay people. This includes attending various conference both domestically & internationally. It also includes frequent trips to Rome without parishoners & funded who knows how, where they obsess over cassocks & fiddleback chausable styles & lace albs to replace what they have back home at the parish with (again, funded who knows how). Finally, at least in the quite prominent case of 2 such priests I am directly familiar with, it also includes using social media as thinly-veiled right-wing political commentary. Fortunately, the latter finally caused the intervention of the local bishop in in at least 1 case.

      I do think this type of Traditionalist stands in marked contrast to the generally more “conservative” priest or seminarian, much like I think there are clear distinctions between, say, Cardinal Burke & Arch. Chaput. Unfortunately, I think even this difference may be collapsing to a degree, & I fault the bishops generally, & the seminaries as well, for not being able to better form more naturally conservative personalities into more constructive pathways. My experience with the seminaries is that they generally leave the seminiarians alone to a degree & thus these afore-mentioned online, virtual communities become quite important.

      Reply
      1. Josh DeCuir

        I also wanted to add that at one point, I thought myself somewhat favorably inclined to allowing greater use of the Extraordinary Form generally, but my experience of these Traditionalist priests has pretty much convinced me that on the whole it is not for the good of the Church. I am a great admirer of Pope Benedict, but I think his judgment was seriously flawed in promulgating Summorum Pontificum, & that the Church in this instance would be better served by following the instincts of John Paul II in restricting the use of the TLM.

  2. Lee Fratantuono

    Very unfortunate (though not remotely surprising) comments, which serve only to deepen polarization and reinforce false dichotomies.

    Seminaries should not be places for climates of fear…and comments like this bespeak that environment.

    For one wonders what exactly one must do to be labeled a ‘narcissistic traditionalist.”

    And what an easy way to get rid of people one doesn’t want in the Priesthood.

    Reply
  3. Brendan Kelleher svd

    I’ll avoid naming the countries and seminaries involved in the interests of privacy, but in my wider network of friends, SVD’s tend to network across the continents, over the years I’ve heard or read comments that would be on the same page as Cardinal Stella. Thankfully such seminarians are not attracted to our community, our commitment to cross-cultural living and dialogue probably doesn’t have a place in their list of priorities.

    Reply
  4. Jack Feehily

    Recently attended our annual priests’ jubilee celebration. As usual there was a table of Trads sitting conspicuously in their cassocks, one even wearing one of those shoulder cape things whose name escapes me. Among them are priests who have accused those in my generation of destroying the church—but not to our faces. In many of their parishes people are instructed how to fold their hands, what not to do with their hands, what kind of clothing to wear, encouraging girls and women to veil their heads out of reverence. They tell them that people seeking “blessings” have no place in the communion procession and that Mother Theresa said that receiving communion in the hand is an abomination. They attempt to surpress any normal aspects of their personalities while presiding (a term most of them detest) lest they turn into “emcees” or “chatty Kathys”. No altar girls, few female CM’s. Chomping at the bit to celebrate ad orientam amidst great resistance from parishioners. OK, I’ll admit I’m painting the worst possible picture, but many of you will be able to relate. I don’t think of them as bad priests, just priests who demonstrate great pride in presenting themselves as superiors of the people they were ordained to serve. There does seem to be a middle group who seem to reject the most unbecoming trad traits so as to better relate to all their confreres and the people they serve. They are all my brothers and I pray for them to find the via media.

    Reply
  5. Charles Kramer

    At the same time, how may of the older generation react with almost anaphylaxis at any attempt to introduce Latin or chant etc. into a parish? Some of the greatest rebels in the 1970’s and 1980’s have become the worst reactionaries.

    The question neither generation answered satisfactorily is “What does it mean to be Catholic?” To the extent the older generation had an answer, it didn’t look very different than being Protestant. It also threw away much that was good. The younger generation may define it in a way that concentrates on what seems to be the externals without, perhaps, penetrating to the core.

    Reply
    1. Ben Kalafut

      It is a common and destructive experience: younger Catholics, converts, and reverts seeking for their own spiritual benefit a less horizontalized, more contemplative, and more reverent Mass (perhaps just following what was set forth in Sacrosanctam concilium and Musicam sacram…), offering to contribute time and treasure to that end, and being refused at their local parishes because either the pastor is ideologically opposed or because he is afraid that Baby Boomers will not stand for it.

      In Newark, CA after 10 years and much catechesis in taking one Mass out of 9 on a Sunday very close to “by-the-book” and the options SC, Musicam sacram, (etc) put forth as normative–sung, mostly Latin ordinary, proper chants not substituted with Protestant hymns, preparing to turn ad orientem–there was a change of priests to one with a background in pseudo-Pentecostal revivals overseas, and the improvements were all destroyed in two months’ time. Some are driving to other Masses an half hour or more away, some went over full-time to the Extraordinary Form, and one or two fell away from the Church.

      Surely some of the young traddies are insensitive to Baby Boomers; surely many other priests are insensitive to the pastoral needs of younger Catholics, converts, and others who benefit from more reverent Ordinary Form masses. Even if we are only 10% of the Church we are underserved. In most places there is maybe one Mass per diocese that fits the bill and commuting for Mass takes us out of parish communities. Unlike the Extraordinary Form there are no canonical protections and we don’t get personal parishes.

      It’s probably just a numbers’ game, why one hears more about disruptive young traditional priests than (also rigid) reactionaries against “high churching” the Ordinary Form. There are far fewer communities to disperse and Masses to make un-pastoral changes to. The rigidity of proponents of the ’80s-style 4-hymn sandwich thus manifests in malicious obstruction, not destruction. With some exceptions as…

      Reply
  6. Fr. Anthony Forte

    It really amuses me how the more liberally inclined priests rail against the “rigidity” and arrogance of their traditionally minded brothers but do not recognize it in themselves. Rather that showing a traditionalist priest the door “for the good of the parish” try working with him for a legitimate alternative form of worship. If this cannot work in your own parish then work with the bishop to find a home for traditionalist Catholics elsewhere in the diocese.

    Part of the reason you might be experiencing rudeness is that is the only way, it seems, that traditionally minded Catholics can get anything. Over the past 50 years most of the parishes have been occupied by liberal pastors who forced their vision on everyone else. Once settled, when a younger traditionally minded priest comes around, they reply with NIMBY. If you do not want them in your parish, then work to find a welcoming home for traditionally minded Catholic, both priests and lay, within the diocese. Need I say it: Remove the plank in your own eye first!

    Reply
    1. Ben Kalafut

      Fr. Forte: Why not one mass per parish, or at least per deanery, on a Sunday, with a sung ordinary (preferably in Latin), penitential rite A or B, sung readings, and no substitution of unrelated hymns for the proper chants? At least one mass where pastors of souls teach their flocks both to speak and to sing the parts that pertain to them in both Latin and their mother tongue, and where Gregorian chant has pride of place, and so long as it is pastorally necessary at least one mass for those for whom these things are a psychological impediment to participatio actuosa.

      One per diocese has (at least in practice) the effect of division, and of making people choose between the spiritual benefits of a Mass faithful to Vatican II and Mass with their neighbors in their local parish. And this leads to resentments and perhaps then to sin on both sides. One per parish (or at least per deanery) turns the division into more of a mere difference. Of course the peace would have to be kept: this is fragile against NIMBYism by reactionaries at the other Masses for whom “I got mine” is not sufficient until it becomes “none for them”.

      Reply
      1. Fr. Anthony Forte

        The problem is than many of a more progressive mind will not admit that the options in the new Mass for a traditional from of worship are valid. Despite protestations that the Novus Ordo faithfully reflects Vatican II, they actually reject it as written.

      2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        OK, so this is a suggestion kind of from another planet. In the rural diocese I grew up in, the vast majority of the parishes never had congregational singing of a Latin Mass Ordinary ever in their history. (Most parishes were founded in the late 19th century.) Some parishes (not the majority) may have had a choir which maybe sang the Latin Ordinary at High Mass, but more likely sang Latin or English hymns during Sunday Low Mass. Most of these parishes now have no pipe organ, no organist, and maybe someone who plays electric piano. Maybe not. To think that one Mass per parish, or one Mass per deanery would move to all propers (no hymns), and congregational Latin Mass ordinary, is completely and totally out of touch with reality. Because of changing patterns of child-rearing, and the massive decline in music education, the resources of available musicians are reduced compared to 50 years ago. To think they will pull off your massive plan now, which they weren’t able to do 50 years ago, is preposterous.
        And note, V2 said what it did about Gregorian chant, but it also issued a series of other more foundational principals (active participation, cultural adaptation in SC 37-40) that relative the statements on chant.
        A bit of reality, and a bit of theological basics, please.
        awr

      3. Fr. Anthony Forte

        So it cannot be done in rural parishes then it cannot be done anywhere? Also, as I am sure you know, there are simple settings for the propers in both Latin and English. I was able to pull off a sung Latin Mass with six untrained voices. So yes, it can be done!

  7. Donna Zuroweste

    Charles Kramer, with all due respect, baloney. As a solid VII Catholic whose Msgr. twisted her grade school arm to be one of the first “girl” lectors, due to the charism of my voice leading the congregation into the Word; i have delighted in being in every one of my parishes wherein we have long chanted and sung portions of the Liturgy in Latin and Greek.

    And editor, thank you for reiterating that the Holy Spirit, Who is perpetually transforming everyone and everything, does not go backwards.

    And for the record, i will gladly offer or chant the entire Mass in Latin for you (oh wait, i am not allowed to do that yet :-)). Blessings to you!

    Reply
    1. Charles Kramer

      Donna:
      I don’t know in which diocese or part of the country you are in. But in my part of the country, if a bishop were to say that 1. pastors were to ensure that the people could say those parts of the mass that pertain to them in Latin and / or 2. the norm for music in the church (and not the exception) was to be Gregorian Chant hereafter, there would be a rebellion or mass retirement by those priests ordained in the 1970’s.

      Reply
  8. Berthold Kress

    I am actually wondering about numbers, to make the discussion more concrete. How many of the seminarians or younger priests in dioceses or (not explicitly traditionalist) orders have ‘traditionalist’ sympathies? How many of those are deemed to have narcissistic and vain personalities and to be thus unsuitable for ordination?
    I have the feeling that a lot more statistical work has to be done on recent developments. There are some news snippets (e.g. the Figaro suggesting that a quarter of all newly-ordained French priests belong to traditionalist orders) and there is some anecdotal information that normally describes one’s own echo chamber, but it would be good to get a more rounded view.

    Reply
  9. Robert ADDINGTON

    Some years ago I read an anecdote that ran something like this: A newly-ordained priest arrived at his first parish. The old pastor sat him down and said, ‘Terry, there’s only one thing you need to know. Ten percent of the people will love you, ten percent will hate you, and the rest just want to attend Mass’.

    Reply
  10. Paul Goings

    Although I am not prepared to back this up with hard data (I am relying on my recollections of various articles, ‘blog posts, comments here, etc.) the impression I have is that the percentage of traditionalist clergy is increasing more rapidly (much more rapidly?) than the percentage of traditionalist laity. The reasons for this–if accurate–are not difficult to understand. The difficulty, as others have pointed out, is that non-traditionalist laity will increasingly be served in parishes by traditionalist clergy, with predictable results. If there is an achievable modus vivendi, I believe that Cardinal Stella’s approach is the worst imaginable.

    Reply
    1. Berthold Kress

      To Paul Goings
      I am actually wondering what the reasons are – is it that the ‘traditional’ image of priesthood appears more attractive for many young men who explore a vocation, or that traditional parishes (or quasi-parishes) are more succesful than others in nurturing vocations from their own flock?

      Maybe it is too narrow to only speak of clerics, anyway – one should also ask how much the percentage of ‘traditionalist-leaning’ faithful is in different age cohorts. It seems to me that, while it may be lower than the percentage amongst seminarians or young priests, it will still be considerably higher than the percentage among the 60-year-olds.

      It would also be interesting to find out how many people of those who do not identify as ‘traditionalist-leaning’ made this decision consciously after encountering the old liturgy or simply had never the opportunity to experience it (be it that they never go to Mass outside their parish, be it that there is no old-rite Mass nearby, or that they were told that the old liturgy was something at the margins and not suitable for respectable Catholics).

      Reply
      1. Jim Pauwels

        Since I self-identified as not a traditionalist in my original comment, I’ll note that I’m not old enough to have any memory of the old liturgy (and I’m 56 years old – the line of demarcation between pre- and post-reform recedes a little more into the past every year). I was formed in the renewed liturgy. I’ve given a fair chunk of my adult life to trying to make it “work”, whatever that means, so I guess it’s fair to say I’m invested in it.

        Traditionalists and non-traditionalists aren’t apples and apples, because whereas the former consciously define their identity as not being the latter, very few non-traditionalists do likewise – they simply practice Catholicism as the church presents it to them. If we want peace and some level of integration between traditionalists and the portion of the larger church they’ve managed to vex, traditionalists, especially priests, have to figure out how to somehow strike the balance between continuing to embrace what seems the best of the tradition while loving and serving those who have little or no interest in traditionalism.

        I’ve heard the same statistics and projections about the disproportionate number of young traditionalist priests. I’ve thought for quite some time that a few years in a mainstream parish would cure those who really are meant for parochial life of whatever naive notions they may have harbored about bringing about fundamental change. Priests come and go but the faith community stays. We have to take the peeps we serve as they come, not as we wish they were.

  11. Rafael Wilks

    “Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savors of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety.”

    ~ His Holiness Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum

    It may all too plainly be seen that this Cardinal is in the category of those who Benedict XV warned us about. I do not deny that there may be individuals who outwardly claim to be traditionalist, while having narcissistic and vain personalities, but this raises the question: how can we be sure that clergy who, possessed by the spirit of Modernism, and have “a keen dislike for all that savors of antiquity”, are not themselves frequently vain and narcissistic? Are we to believe, according to this Cardinal, that an individual with a narcissistic and vain personality is acceptable if he has “a keen dislike for all that savors of antiquity”? It is not a matter of astonishment that those with Modernist tendencies are also the most revolting of moralists. Fortunately, we have Benedict XV (whose words about the spirit of Modernism have never been overturned by any Pope, as Pope Francis never officially condemned or forbade the desire to reverse the spirit of Modernism) to appeal to, over and above Modernist clergy who are not infallible in any way, shape, or form. As his motto, Psalm 71:1 says: “In you, LORD, I take refuge; let me never be put to shame.”

    Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Editor

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading