Theological seminaries have made considerable changes in the models and content pertaining to human formation in the past twenty-five years. From the information avail-able in diocesan seminary catalogs from the mid-1980s, the mid-1990s, and current catalogs (2008-2011), it is evident that almost every seminary changed its formation programs in response to pressing problems in the church related to clerical sexual abuse and to directives from the Vatican and the USCCB concerning these matters. During the first period, virtually none of the programs described in catalogs referred to human formation, but, rather, under the banner of spiritual formation, they mentioned the need for growth in maturity and balance in daily life for the sake of the people the seminarians would eventually serve. By the middle period, many seminaries adopted the language of personal development, and some described the formation associated with it as a separate component. Dur-ing that period more than a few seminaries adopted the practice of providing a formation advisor for each student to monitor growth in all areas of formation.
In this mid-1980s period almost all seminary catalogs described priestly formation as comprised of three basic ele-ments: spiritual, academic, and pastoral. In the thirty or so seminaries whose main mission was to prepare men for diocesan priesthood, the focus during this period was on the contents and organization of the spiritual dimension of formation. Almost all of the descriptions contained at least some mention of personal formation, but half the programs are called simply “Spiritual Formation.” The other half spe-cifically include in their titles the aspects of both spiritual
Table 2.3 Nature and Scope Study: Diocesan Priests by Seminary Analysis Group
Analysis Group Count Percent
Priests who attended a Minor Seminary 79 4.09% of
1,930 Priests who attended one of the 10 US seminaries that graduated
the largest number of priests with subsequent accusations of abuse 967 50.1% of 1,930 Priests who attended seminaries in countries other than the
USA* 263 13.6% of
1,930
* This group does not include those seminaries whose students are primarily priests from the United States.
Decade of Ordination Minor
Seminary Foreign
Seminary 10 US seminaries
1890-1919 * 1.20 1.28
1920-1929 * 1.00 1.56
1930-1939 1.00 2.07 2.03
1940-1949 2.13 1.63 2.18
1950-1959 2.56 2.03 2.70
1960-1969 2.70 2.57 2.77
1970-1979 3.62 2.14 2.47
1980-1989 2.00 1.90 1.86
1990-2002 * 1.38 1.45
* No cases.
Decade of Ordination Minor
Seminary Foreign
Seminary 10 US seminaries
1890-1919 * 72.00 69.73
1920-1929 * 61.29 61.04
1930-1939 54.00 52.91 52.50
1940-1949 44.50 45.51 44.38
1950-1959 43.06 42.50 39.72
1960-1969 38.32 38.33 35.07
1970-1979 32.14 33.09 32.71
1980-1989 28.00 38.62 34.28
1990-2002 * 35.90 31.56
* No cases.
Table 2.4 Nature and Scope Study: Average Number of Victims, by Analysis Group
Table 2.5 Nature and Scope Study: Average Age of Priests at First Incidence of Abuse, by Analysis Group
Decade of Ordination Minor
Seminary Foreign
Seminary 10 US seminaries
1890-1919 * 2.33 1.00
1920-1929 * 3.83 5.76
1930-1939 1.00 5.10 3.89
1940-1949 6.80 5.53 5.41
1950-1959 5.42 4.90 6.90
1960-1969 6.94 5.76 7.16
1970-1979 4.76 5.80 4.61
1980-1989 9.00 ** 1.09 3.15
1990-2002 * 1.43 1.64
* No cases. ** One priest
Table 2.6 Nature and Scope Study: Average Duration of Abuse in Year, by Analysis Group
and personal formation: eight use just that title, five others use a broader title of “Priestly Formation,” and two others are unique, one being “Growth in Life and Ministry” and the other “Student Life and Formation.” Clearly, human formation, and its associated topics, was not at the fore-front of the minds of seminary personnel during the 1980s and before.196
Several elements were common to most of the pro-grams during this time, regardless of the title, but for those called “Spiritual Formation” the emphasis, as expected, was on spirituality with minimal elaboration of other areas of formation. First among the common elements was spiri-tual direction, in which almost all seminarians were spe-cifically required to participate. They were to see a spiri-tual director every two weeks, or in a few cases, at least once a month. Many emphasized the confidential nature of the relationship, which was to be characterized by trust and openness. Terms like complete confidentiality and strict secrecy were used to indicate that this practice was entirely in the “internal forum,” the content of which was not to be revealed except under a few rare circumstances.
To balance this practice, in nine seminaries each stu-dent was guided also by a formation advisor who was to assist him with all areas of formation. This relationship was not confidential in the sense that material covered
in the conversations between advisor and student was understood to be in the “external forum” and thus, with the advisor using prudence about what to reveal, was to be included in evaluations. A third form of consultation mentioned by almost every seminary was psychological counseling. This arrangement would not be compulsory, but the service was available through the seminary. Accu-rate self-knowledge was the broad goal of all three forms of consultation.
A second common element in the Spiritual/Personal Formation programs was an emphasis on the importance of solidifying the vocation or commitment to lifelong min-isterial service on the part of seminarians. Part of this task was to be achieved by developing spiritual and emotional maturity, a phrase used in one form or another by virtually every seminary. Generally the descriptions made the point that development of the mature person was for the sake of the people they would eventually serve in ministerial posi-tions. They were to cultivate a deep prayer life, consisting of many required spiritual exercises, so that they could be prepared “to accept priestly burdens, particularly celibacy,”
as one seminary expressed it.
Less common were several other themes, most often included by seminaries whose understanding of spiritual formation was broader and involved a more developed
program of personal formation, later to be called “human formation” by Pope John Paul II in Pastores dabo vobis (PDV).197 Of particular interest was the inclusion of pro-gram elements dealing with sexuality and preparation for celibacy. Only about half the seminaries mentioned work-shops, formation sessions, and/or courses dealing with these topics. They described the programs as necessary for the seminarian to develop “a mature attitude toward his own sexuality and the celibate life,” learn about “the meaning of celibate chastity” and how to deal with it in ministerial situations, as well as understand “sexuality, intimacy, and generativity” and “the many facets of celi-bacy.” Less directly, they talked about “the ability to live a moral and virtuous life,” and “social maturity.” Often these expressions were followed by the comment that this development was for the sake of the “quest to be more fully human and fully Christian for the sake of the people.” Cer-tainly other seminaries may have discussed these matters, but until years later catalogs did not refer to them.
Responsibility for the evaluation process usually fell to the spiritual formation team, consisting mainly of faculty members. Spiritual directors, who were usually the heads of the Spiritual/Personal Formation programs, were not allowed to participate because of agreement about con-fidentiality. Components of the evaluation also involved peer evaluators, a practice in about ten of the seminaries.
The explanation of the purpose of annual, or occasion-ally more frequent, evaluations was to assess the readi-ness of the seminarian for pastoral ministry. His personal qualifications and attributes were to be judged largely on the basis of how effectively he would be able to serve as a priest.
By the mid-1990s, some shifts in the content of cata-logs relative to spiritual and personal formation were evi-dent. More seminaries identified personal formation as a component, but only one or two mentioned “human formation.” The descriptions of the human dimension of formation were relatively meager in most cases, and the emphasis was still strongly on spiritual formation. None of the seminaries had established distinct programs in human formation with its own goals and objectives. Yet personal formation and affective maturity received more attention than earlier. At least half the seminaries included some programs related to celibacy and described them at least briefly in a paragraph or two. These were often special workshops, class conferences, and discussions.
Notable in this period was the introduction of for-mation advisors in almost all seminaries, compared with only nine using this structure ten years earlier. The prac-tice allowed for information about seminarians to move from the internal forum of spiritual direction to the exter-nal forum of faculty evaluations. Seminary faculty in earlier years knew relatively little about the progress of
seminarians. The one who knew the most, the spiritual director, was bound by confidentiality. Certainly program development related to personal formation was expanded in the 1990s, but only in the mid-2000s and later did the content of the formation programs change significantly in seminary catalog descriptions.198
From about 2006-2010, immense changes were recorded demonstrating greater awareness of the need for human formation, including education about the role of sexuality and celibacy in the life of a priest. Separate pro-grams for Human Formation and Spiritual Formation were documented in twenty of the thirty-one seminary catalogs, and most others made at least mention of the two areas.
The term “human formation,” taken from John Paul II’s PDV, replaced “personal development” and similar phrases used in the past. The remaining eleven seminaries entitled their programs in different ways and usually combined the content of human and spiritual formation. About a third of the seminaries described the content of the programs in substantial detail, including considerable information about how the seminaries contend with the topics of sexu-ality and celibacy.
The effects of the sexual abuse scandal from 2002 and the Vatican-initiated visitation of seminaries in 2005-2006 undoubtedly influenced the considerable attention paid to these topics by 2010. The 2005 Program of Priestly Formation (PPF) included a chapter (twelve pages) enti-tled “Human Formation” for the first time, and it made numerous other references throughout the document to this dimension of formation. In particular, it provided extensive explanations and directives concerning the role of seminaries in preparing men to live a life of celibate chastity. Relative to admissions, for example, the PPF states, “For the seminary applicant, thresholds pertain-ing to sexuality serve as the foundation for livpertain-ing a life-long commitment to healthy, chaste celibacy. As we have recently seen so dramatically in the church, when such foundations are lacking in priests, the consequent suffer-ing and scandals are devastatsuffer-ing.”
Of particular interest is the shift in vocabulary that accompanied the new approaches to formation. To begin with, almost all seminaries discussed the importance of integration of the four aspects, or “pillars,” of formation—
human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral. These are not to be considered discrete or layered dimensions of semi-nary formation, but rather are to be interrelated. Human formation is the foundation for all the others; spiritual for-mation enhances the capacity of the individual to develop a relationship with God and others; intellectual formation provides an understanding of all areas; and pastoral for-mation is the expression in ministry of the other dimen-sions of formation. An emphasis on developing positive relationships characterizes the role human formation is to
play. Living community life to the full and developing fra-ternal bonds with other seminarians are opportunities to learn about effective ways of interacting. As a public per-son, the priest is to act in appropriate ways with parishio-ners and understand how his actions affect those he meets in future ministry.
Another approach emphasized anew in the human for-mation program is the personal responsibility each seminar-ian must take in preparing for priesthood. In this regard, development of moral virtues is considered necessary to the life of a priest—self-knowledge, self-discipline, integrity, justice, and prudence among them. The practice of these virtues is to lead to development of a moral conscience, a proper ordering of the passions, and maintaining boundar-ies in order to achieve good and avoid evil. Acquiring these qualities is to result in the seminarian taking on habits that will make it possible for him to build his capacity to become emotionally mature, to live a chaste celibate life, and thus enable him to meet the expectations of the church. Spiri-tual directors and formation advisors assist the seminarian in this growth; periodic evaluations enable him to recognize the shortcomings he still must overcome. The intercon-nected areas heightened in recent seminary programs, more than ever before, have to do with integration, relationships, and personal responsibility for moral behavior.