www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Can seminaries benefit from social sciences?

I have a friend who is a seminarian in Mexico, he just finished philosophy and had to take a year off from the seminary before going on to theology. He is doing some hands on ministry away from the seminary before going on to do his theology. I am told all seminarians there do this. Don

Don - that's just the way any priestly formation program should be. At least one year should be taken off and out and away from the classrooms just to do hands-on ministry under supervision. There's plenty of good places to test vocations in that time away from the academic setting - soup kitchens, crisis pregnancy centers, family counseling, hospice, etc.

David,

I never said that I made the assumption that an only valid vocation was one with a degree.

As I have stated on several occasions on this board, an educated clergy is very inportant here in the US. Our people deserve, and want, more from our clergy then just pretty singing and knowing when to swing the incense. The need feeding, and in order to feed, and lead, and you need education.

I do not deny that God can call anyone, with or without education, but we need people with educaiton to lead the churches in the future.

Merry Christmas
Peter

First Peter,
I want you to know that this is nothing personal on my part, we are just having a discussion where we, at them moment, appear to have differences of opinion.

Okay, maybe you don't make the assumption that the only valid vocation is one with a degree, but you do make the assumption, by my reading of the above quote, that the only valid education is one with a degree.

I think your comment, "just pretty singing and knowing when to swing the incense" is offensive to those priests that you think fit this comment.

Just because someone has a pretty certificate that says they have a degree doesn't guarantee that are able to feed the flock.

You also said;

Now I assume that you are the product of the type of education we are talking about here.

This shows part of the problem. Basic statistics.

Averages mean nothing.

For example, we have two people, one makes 1 million dollars a year and the other, his chauffeur, makes 20,000 dollars a year. If we average them, it comes to 510,000 dollars a year. Does this really tell us anything?

Any numbers at the extreme throw the average out of wack.

What is meaningful, is the mean and the exact number. That is if we know that the mean as is X and there are exactly Y seminarians, then we know that there is exactly 50% older than X and 50% younger than X.

This brings up one of my favorite statistic jokes. I once knew a statistician who drowned while crossing a river with an average depth of 3 feet.

David

Dear David:

Let me clarify the point, lest anyone be led astray by your "statistics".

The average is the mean. The quantity that describes the 50th percentile is the median. Neither the median nor the mean, together with the number of data, convey much information: the median could be 36 with half 37 and half 35 or half 72 and half zero (in these two examples the mean and median are identical).

The quantity of importance, in this regard, is the distribution of the data, one measure of which is the square-root of average squared-deviation of each datum from the mean of the data. This quantity provides a measure of the range over which the data vary. In the above examples, the repective values are 1 and 36 respectively,

Only from the distribution, and not simply from the mean, could you quantify, for example, the probability of a randomly selected seminarian being over, say 40 years old ( 0 versus 50%). Or for that matter the probability that a person selected from one group with average height of six feet, would in fact be taller that one selected from a group whose average height is 5'9".

Averages can be used as an sensible abbreviation, provided there is some implicit understanding of the distribution. I think in the current situation, it is fairly obvious that we are not talking about 9 seminarians of age 18 and 1 of age 180. But you are right mean values alone can sometimes be misused, often to advance an agenda.

djs

David,

I love your avatar. It is me most days of the week!!!

Just for the fun of it. To respond to djs's good comments on statistics:

I think the quote is ascribed to Mark Twain

"Their are lies,
damn lies,
then there are statistics."

I use statistics in my work and hobbies. They are a tool, but be careful how you use them
and who's stats you use. All stuff you already know

All of you,

Have A blessed Christmas,

Paul and Family

David,

SOrry for sounding so mean, I just came off finals and I am a little sensitive. (Trying to get the pretty degree to hang on the wall) The Problem is, the degree will be written in Greek so I wont know what it says.

I do believe that there are other valid forms of education, I just think, that where our future priests are concerned, that they should have the best possible education possible. Both pastoral and academic.

The traditional seminary, even Sts Cyril and Methodius, and Holy Spirit in Canada, do more than just the "Book Learning" Being in community with other that are preparing for ministry is also important. It helps us when we are down, and we help others when they are down.

Sure, I would love to be out in the "field" helping people right now, but I am not ready. Not ready spiritually, pastorally, or academically.

The priest that I work with here in Boston, came from Romania, without a theology degree. It seems that seminaries were against the law when he went to seminary. After he was here in the states for a few years, he decided that he need an advanced degree in theology because of the questions his people were asking.

I guess what I am saying is that we need to come up with some way to get our guys the best education possible. If that means a formal seminary program, or something else, but they do need preparation.

Let me suggest this.... Lets stop focusing so much on the academic, and lets look at formation. Formation is what it is all about. Formation happens on 4 levels. I really do encourage you to read the encyclical I Will Give you Shephars" by Pope John Paul II, it is wonderful, and I think it will give you some insight into seminary education. You know, the Greeks are adopting some of the principals in the encyclical also for their seminary.

Anyway, have a wonderful Christmas, and a very happy new year.

Peter

Dear Brother Peter!

Christ is Born!

Yes, you ask a good question. I am delighted to agree, and suggest that a very good and very broad education benefits a preacher. To be "educated" and well read in many disciplines only enhances our preaching and enables us to speak to an educated and professional congregation. I am delighted when I meet a clergyman who is also accomplished in another discipline or profession. I have been so moved by preachers who have quoted the literature, and referenced the sciences in the same sermon. Those who know only "theology" (in the western sense of the word) as an isolated discipline can suffer from a narrowness of thought. Their ministry always benefits from their experience and gifts.

At the same time, some of the monastic fathers and mothers were utterly uneducated and almost illiterate by the standards of the world, and yet they could speak to the heart of things sublime and illusive to an otherwise well educated mind. Such simplicity is attractive and draws us all closer to God. And there is no school where that can be taught, except one, of course.

With prayers for the feast!

Friends,

Many good comments an ideas have been expressed so far. However, the main point of the issue at which David is driving is the over emphasis and reliance on the academic portion of formation. I know many priests, Latin and Eastern, that have a degree (or several) but no pastoral ability, yet they were ordained. Now turn the situation around and their are many men out there with pastoral ability (find a good father and you find a good pastor) but because they don't have a degree or can't attend seminary to gain one they aren't even considered for the priesthood or some diaconate programs. This is, in my opinion, wrong. Formation is absolutely necesarry, but formation does not equal degree, it doesn't even equal seminary. We must recognize that not all who are called need to go to semianry or earn a degree. If our Eastern Churches are to survive we must come up with alternative methods of formation.

In Christ,
Lance

Lance,

I submit that if e try and come up with alternate formation programs that will be the end of our church. As I have stated before, we need the best educated priests we can find. I would not want to go to a surgon that went through an alternative formation program, why would I want to go t a priest that has not gone to seminary.

There are many ministries in the church for people who, for whatever reason, cannot attend the formation programs.

Peter

Peter,

We are coming to the end of our Church because we are losing more priests than we are producing every year. Eventually we will run out and that day is fast approaching because, at least in the Ruthenian Metropolia, the majority of priests are old. If you look at the age of over half our priests, in 10 to 15 years they will be with the Lord. If our Churches don't have priests the people will go to nearest Latin Church, history has proven that. Fr. David Petras estimates that 95% of our people are now Latin Catholic. The Orthodox do not have a hang up about seminary education. Mnay of thier priests have never been to seminary and their Churches aren't coming to an end. They are quite strong and thriving in fact.

In Christ,
Lance

Greetings All,

Not being one to open old wounds, but I find this interesting. Iwas reading the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, I know I need to get a life, and this is what I came across:

Can. 384 - For those who are destined for the priesthood, the studies of the major semianry, without predjudice to can 345, are to be comprised of philosphical and theological courses, which can be followed either successively or conjointly. These same studies are to encompas at least six complete years in such a way that two full years are devoted to the philosphical disciplines and four full years to theological studies.

Can. 345 - The formation of students is to be completed in the major seminary, supplimaenting those things which, perhaps, in individual cases, were lacking in their formation in the minor seminary, by integrating the spiritual, intellectual and pastoral formation so that they may be effective ministers of Christ in the midst of the church, a light and the salt for the world of this age.

Comments?

Peter

If we would stick with the requirements set forth in scripture and the seven ecumenical councils, we'd all be far better off.

In Christ.

To me the best priest has to have excellent social and interpersonal skills as well as the best education possible. Experience without education is not good enough and experience without education will not do. We need well rounded clergy and religious

We do not enough to encourge religous vocations.