Francis Doesn’t Like the Seminaries. Because They Form Priests Who Are “Rigid” and Incapable of “Discernment”

In this fourth autumn of his pontificate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is showing special concern for the seminaries, meaning the formation of new priests.

On December 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Vatican congregation for the clergy published a new 90-page “Ratio fundamentalis” for seminaries all over the world, which in reality departs very little from the previous instructions issued in 2005, and also repeats as-is the ban on admitting to the seminary and to sacred orders “those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies, or support ‘gay culture’”:

> Il dono della vocazione presbiterale

This reconfirmation of the ban raised the predictable protest from those who were expecting from Pope Francis an “openness” in keeping with his famous motto “Who am I to judge?” And the Jesuit Thomas Reese, the former editor of “America,” has been the most adamant in calling for non-discrimination toward gay priests, who according to him are “between 20 and 60 percent” of the entire Catholic clergy:

> Yes, there are lots of good gay priests

But it is difficult to imagine that the reconfirmation of the ban could have escaped the attention of the pope, who has one of his most dutiful lieutenants in none other than Beniamino Stella, prefect of the congregation for the clergy. And then for Bergoglio theory is one thing and practice another, considering the number of homosexual priests in the circle of his closest collaborators and confidants.

More than the publication of the “Ratio,” the true indicator of the reason why the seminaries are so close to the pope’s heart is found in the discourses he recently dedicated to the subject.

*

First of all it must be kept in mind what Francis said last October 24 in meeting with the Jesuits gathered to elect their new superior general, in the transcription released in “La Civiltà Cattolica” of December 10:

“Discernment, the capacity to discern, is the key element. And I am referring precisely to the lack of discernment in the formation of priests. We are in fact at risk of getting used to ‘black and white’ and to that which is legal. We are fairly closed off, by and large, to discernment. One thing is clear: today in a certain number of seminaries a rigidity has again established itself that is not closely compatible with a discernment of situations. And it is a dangerous thing, because it can lead to a conception of morality that has a casuistic sense. [. . .]

“I and those of my generation – perhaps not the younger, but my generation and some of the next – were brought up in a decadent scholasticism. We studied theology with a manual, and also philosophy. [. . .] It was that decadent scholasticism which provoked the casuistic attitude. And it is curious: the subject ‘Sacrament of penance’ was usually – but not always – taught by professors of sacramental moral theology. The whole field of morality was restricted to ‘permitted’ and ‘not permitted,’ ‘this far yes and this far no.’ [. . .] It was a moral theology very much estranged from discernment. [. . .] I believe that Bernard Häring was the first to begin seeking a new way to revitalize moral theology. Obviously in our days moral theology has made a great deal of progress in its reflections and in its maturity; by now it is not casuistic anymore.” Read more »