作者：祈士真 Casey, John J. 年份：1979
THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE MAJOR SEMINARY
Year after year in seminaries -- particularly around the time of ordination to priesthood and first assignments -- a question arises which can be a bit irksome to seminary staff since they are the ones who hear it most often. Usually in Hong Kong it runs something like this: "We know that the new priests have received a fine education in philosophy and theology, but will they be able to understand the problems of people at the grass-roots level in the resite areas and the housing estates and will they be able to help these people solve their problems?" More simply, what we are being asked is: "Does the seminary program blend properly the practical -- that is, the spiritual and the pastoral -- with the theoretical in preparing men for the priestly ministry?" And it is a bit irksome because it can only be answered by a hypothetical statement which in turn must be verified by experience which again in turn must wait the passage of time to see how the 'new' priest works out.
Be that as it may, however, the query is a perennially valid one because it is the root question of the successful seminary program. Indeed it was the attempt to arrive at a solution to this question at a certain time and in a certain place that gave rise to the institution that we are so familiar with today, the major seminary; the institution which the Second Vatican Council canonized as "necessary for priestly training." (1) And in canonizing this institution, the Vatican Council made it quite clear that one of its major tasks will always continue to be the struggle to blend properly at each time and in each place the practical needs of the ministry with the theoretical needs of the churchman. How these values originally established the major seminary is the subject of this paper.
The time was the first half of the seventeenth century; the Council of Trent had been over for fifty years and more. As was the political custom of the time. Catholic kings and princes had been expected to ratify the Council decrees in their territories, thus making them part of the law of the land. In the newly Protestant kingdoms and states in the North of Europe, of course, this would not be the case but in Southern and Western Europe which remained within the Catholic fold, rulers were expected to do so. Only then could the reforms of the Council of Trent receive the sanction of law whereby church-men slow to act could be forced to comply.
Among the decrees of the Council was the famous one on seminaries which made it incumbent upon diocesan bishops to establish special colleges wherein poor boys of about the age of twelve would be received and carefully nurtured and prepared to become eventually priests of their respective dioceses. The decree said much about the support of such a school but precious little about what it should be like. Nevertheless, shortly after Trent, many bishops were struggling to establish colleges of this kind led by Charles Borromeo of Milan, and the models used were the famous Jesuitrun institutions in Rome, the Roman College -- now the Gregorian University -- and the German College. The Roman College offered an excellent example of what a small studium generale or mini-university specializing it literary studies -- secondary school today -- philosophy and theology should be, and the German College an excellent example of what a well-run hostel for students for the priesthood should be. Put them both together and you had a good model of a hostel or college for clerical students with its own academic program stretching from the literary studies which a student started at about the age of twelve right up to ordination, everything the decree of Trent seemed to call for. Such endeavors were going on somewhat successfully everywhere in the Catholic world, it seemed, except France.
France was a Catholic kingdom, to be sure, but the government was very reluctant to make any changes, particularly those dictated by Rome. As a result, fifty years after the Council of Trent, the French government still had not ratified the Council so that the Church struggling to move with Trent was trapped in a pre-Tridentine mold. Yet it was this situation that made France highly suitable as an experimental proving ground for testing the practicality of the decrees of Trent. In other words, there was no force of law making anyone conform so that changes that did come about were the results of individual churchmen who saw the needs of the time and were able to translate them into programs which the people of France, clergy and laity alike, would freely deem beneficial to themselves and therefore be induced to follow. From just such an interaction, the major seminary as we know it today -- that composite of practical and theoretical preparation for the priesthood which admits only those students who have already finished their ordinary schooling or its equivalent -- was born.
The French Church of the early seventeenth century was divided into innumerable endowed benefices which provided the members of the clergy with their livelihood. So much was regulated by law which could be taken to the civil courts, that French bishops had little control over the selection of candidates for the priesthood. To be ordained, one merely presented himself to his bishop bringing documents testifying that he had a valid reason for seeking ordination and that he met the canonical requirements for the same. Preparation for ordination was left up to the candidate himself. Once a man was beneficed and ordained, he was something like a tenured public official who could only be removed from his position after a complicated legal procedure which would have to prove that the services inherent in the benefice were not being performed. And he was not obliged himself to perform these services but simply to see that they were performed through others whom he might hire to do these tasks.
Although preparation was left up to the individual himself, it was not taken lightly. There was a quality preparation for the priesthood that could be received at the University of Paris or if this was not feasible at one of the provincial universities. This consisted of the study of humane letters, philosophy and theology, and was the same as the quality education in France for any one of the three basic professions of the time with law or medicine at the top replacing theology for those wishing to pursue such careers. The humane letters course could be taken at any one of a number of colleges in France, the most famous of which were establishments of the University of Paris or the Society of Jesus. Following upon this, the student studied philosophy and theology, sometimes receiving a degree in both but in any case emerging with a degree in theology. Basically the course was supposed to train one to be a theological scholar and as far as any practical, pastoral application was concerned, this was not the task of the university. But, then, this quality training was reserved for the upper classes and for the bright who had special ecclesiastical ambitions which would hardly include the ordinary work in a parish.
The candidate for the priesthood who was of simple family background and of average intelligence learned how to do the job of a priest through what was basically an apprenticeship system. This was the almost universal pattern for priests in the country areas of France although it was common enough for parish priests in the city of Paris itself. A young lad who was destined to be a priest would be taken in by his local pastor and while working around the church, would be taught the rudiments of the ministry of a parish priest along with what knowledge of the faith the parish priest himself had. This was a time-honored way of preparing for the priesthood and those who underwent it received a certain practical pastoral knowledge which their university educated confreres did not. On the other hand, their theoretical knowledge was severely limited and depending on the priest under whom they did their apprentice-ship, could be practically non-existent. Also, apprenticeship did not necessarily take place before ordination and this caused more than the ordinary numbers of problems. Sometimes a man was ordained first and what training he received was on the job training. Needless to say, such priests were destined to fill the lesser benefices and in some cases no benefice at all but simply to be the employees of parish priests, what we might more aptly describe today as Sunday help-out.
1 OPTATAM TOTIUS, III,