St John Vianney Seminary

YouTube Preview Image

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14661155158237286805 Heide Seward

    Thank you, Father, for posting this. I always find it very moving to see a group of young priests (or would-be priests, in this case) who love Christ and his Church–young men who take their Catholic faith seriously. Deo gratias!

  • Blarg

    Chaste Celibacy. I agree it is “community lived” because I could not live it without the hugs and kisses of my parish family and honest dialog with my parish priest. Communion with other persons is a powerful drive, and the seminarian is right it doesn’t require sex. However, to say he must “survive” celibacy is to spin a negative direction on chaste celibacy. For that poor soul, celibacy will crush him until he learns a more positive direction. I cannot speak for everyone, but for me unless chaste celibacy is united with a mission of the Church–something that gives that sacrifice meaning–it is unbearable way of life in this sex saturated culture.Please don’t take this as my experience over Church teaching, but my experience with Church teaching.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01562944653624224107 Adrienne

    Great video. I grew up just blocks from St. Thomas.

  • Adam

    I really wrestle with the celibacy thing – I mean in tolerating that the church demands it of her priests. I know a lot of Anglican priests who are great priests. Celibacy was supposed to be a charism that is granted to a few – not demanded for all priests. It wasn’t until Pope Gregory decided around 1120 AD to make celibacy mandatory that this was enacted, and it seems to be an experiment gone bad in human resources management. I don’t think there is anything more holy about a celibate man than a married man, and I don’t think this policy is serving the church well. It goes against the first 1120 years of church history and we’re losing too many good men. Forgive me the rant, but this really troubles me. I’ve been thinking of taking my family to the episcopal church, despite its flaws, because I don’t want my son to be propagandized with all this ‘do you have a calling stuff’. I don’t want my son praying for a spiritual castration. I want my son praying to be a good human being with all that that means – including good human sexuality. I can’t imagine Fr. L can say much about this. I’m sure he’d be drawn and quartered to open his mouth against mandatory celibacy as an anglican convert. But I can’t imagine he agrees with it. And there is an opening for bishop in Charleston – would a non-celibate like Fr. L ever even be considered? Probably not.Sorry about the rant! Adam

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/08110341406524333073 chimakuni

    Adam – you would leave YOUR LORD in the Eucharist because of why?I am so sorry that you feel that the call to priesthood in the rite of the Roman Catholic Church with the discipline of celibacy is wrong…and you would take your own son to a church that is rife with sexual sin (homosexually acting bishops) and indeed found on disobedience…I believe your son deserves better – he deserves the right to be able to receive Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist – and not some wine and bread in the Episcopal Church.You can spout off history all you want to, Adam. But please know that the Church does not err…we humans do – you can get in line behind me ( – :Please do not deny your son, if you are not worried about your own soul, the Eucharist, though.Bless you -

  • Anonymous

    Hilarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and Austria, Representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions was asked why he wants an alliance between Catholics and Orthodox, but not with Protestants.Q: Why should Protestants be excluded from your proposed alliance?A: In the struggle against relativism the Roman Catholic Church takes an uncompromising stand, but by doing so it further distances itself from Protestants, whose positions are in most cases much more in tune with modern developments.More:http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/7_2

  • adam

    Chimakuni – Thanks for the thoughtful response. I see that it is well intended. My son (and daughter) are not even catechumens yet so I doubt I commit a sin by taking them out of the church but who knows? The church does not present mandatory celibacy as anything like infallible dogma and admits it can be changed. Ask yourself this – if the church was wrong from AD 33 to AD 1120 how can she be right from 1120 till now? The answer would be because she grew in wisdom with the Holy Spirit informing tradition. But I think it is fair to argue that the HS can point the opposite direction on this one, and I don’t like the demand that young men prayerfully request a spiritual castration from the HS, which is happening every day in our seminaries as this video bears witness.To the anonymous odox comenter -Yes I agree that the anglicans are beset with relativism and that we Romans bravely face that – but the odox church is terribly and sinfully ethnocentric. One is asked to be Russian or Greek first, and a Christian second. Between the Anglican Relativism, the Roman anti-sexualism, and the odox ethnocentricism I am not sure which is worse.

  • adam

    Dear Fr. L,Please contact me at zithromax4, at you know, hotmail.com if you might be able to spare some time to correspond with me privately. I am not a troll and do not wish to mislead anyone else with my faith issues but I could really use some help. Thanks! Adam

  • http://catholidoxy.blogspot.com Irenaeus

    Adam,I don’t mean to pile on. I’m a prot in the process of prepping to try and convert to catholicism (long story lotsa issues). I would just say (until Fr L gets back to you) that you’ve got the history wrong, or at least skewed. Most priests even in the second, even in the first, century, were celibate. It may not be “official” until the date you give, but in practice priestly celibacy was the rule. Although Orthodox priests can marry, they can be so provided they are married prior to ordination; but if they’re single at ordination, they cannot get married. If their wives die, they cannot get remarried. As a Prot, I don’t think there’s any real benefit to having married clergy (I mean, if your marriage is in trouble, get a marriage counselor; a priest exists not to be an ad hoc counselor but to confect the sacrament and get your soul into heaven), and in many ways it hampers ministry; you can’t get the serious training Catholic priests get because of family and financial concerns, and the minister’s family usually suffers seriously because of the demands on his or her time.Thanks for hearing me out, and I take your struggle seriously.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/08110341406524333073 chimakuni

    Adam, I don’t know verse and chapter, so please bear with me…when Christ asked if the others would also leave him over the Eucharist, they asked him where they would go – it was through Him that they would have ever lasting life.So, I challenge you – where will YOU go? Where is Eucharist? Perhaps in an orthodox church which permits her priests to be married – and that would be fine.My question to you is WHY do you wish to leave Christ in the Eucharist? You mentioned the Anglican church – they do not have valid succession and their communion, well intentioned as it is, is only wine and bread.Adam, look into orthodox churches … your argument is not with me, it is with God.

  • Anonymous

    Adam,Get the book “Celibacy, Gift or Law?” by Heinz-Jurgen Vogels.It is quite clear that priests WERE married – the first canon law on the matter is Pope St Siricius purporting to prohibit them having sex with their wives, on the ground that even marital intercourse constituted “filthy coitus”: Enchiridion Symbolorum., Denzinger, H & Schoenmetzer, A, Freiburg i.B., 1965, p 73. (*185). Due to the ever-increasing pressure from neo-Platonists (usually monastic clergy – including popes) this was eventually turned into a purported legislative prohibition against clerical marriage altogether, to accomplish the “spread of purity”.The mediaeval clergy knew their law, and realised that such attempts at legislation were ultra vires. Accordingly, they simply ignored the alleged prohibitions, and continued to not only marry, but sleep with their wives, rught up until the establishment of the seminary system…The story of the clergy of the counter-Reformation period is sadly different. DO get the book, there is nothing contrary to faith or morals in the theological and canonical arguemnts presented therein.P.s. Did you know that the famous canonist, Master Gratian – ironically a monk – having surveyed all the legal primary sources, came to the conclusion, contrary to the later Lateran II council’s (eminently fallible disciplinary) legislation, that the (secular) clery were allowed to marry?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X