In the normal course, a vocation is formed from childhood or adolescence, in the context of a parish and a diocese, quite possibly in a Catholic school, under the supervision of a director of vocations, and in a diocesan seminary. In the circumstance I brought up the other day, a bishop under canon 970 must examine each candidate to see if he is capable of hearing confessions, but ordinarily the bishop assumes the seminary has formed him adequately to do this. Indeed, if the candidate was raised Catholic, which must be the almost universal case, he's been going to confession regularly and has learned quite a bit about it that way.
The problem is that when we bring in priests from other denominations, none of this applies. Fr Z notes that at least in theory, a Catholic priest must be competent in Latin, and the bishop must also verify this. In my diocesan parish, the Gloria, Sanctus, memorial acclamation, and Agnus Dei, as well as litanies, are often sung in Latin, and all i can say is that it's a struggle to bring back my high school and college Cicero, Virgil, and Catullus to keep up. Catholic formation is more than crossing yourself.
Er, these guys who've come in from the CEC -- they can speak in tongues all right, but how's their Latin? The last time I saw Fr Bartus (in court), he was dressed in clericals just like Bing Crosby.
A regular visitor countered my view by saying
The reality is that over 90% of the formation in an Anglican or Protestant seminary would be virtually identical to formation in a Catholic seminary. Courses in scripture, patristics, homiletics, dogmatic theology (the creeds, for example), and various areas of pastoral ministry (ministry to families, preparation for marriage, etc.) would be completely identical, or very nearly so, and courses even in liturgy and sacraments are likely to have covered the differences in liturgical practice and sacramental theology among various major denominations to some extent. Additionally, "Do you understand the theological differences, including distinctly Catholic dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?" and "Do you accept the Catholic belief?" are two questions asked of EVERY candidate for reception into the full communion of the Catholic Church, whether the individual will become a candidate for ordination or not. Thus, for an individual who has completed a full program of Anglican or Protestant seminary formation, what remains is the more mundane issues -- Catholic canon law, polity, processes, administrative procedures, and sacramental preparation and practice -- rather than an in-depth study of distinctly Catholic theology, liturgy, and sacraments.Wait a moment. I was raised (if you can call it that) Presbyterian. One of the biggest things that Rev LeCrone stressed in confirmation class was that between St Paul and John Calvin was a long period of error and false accretion. The guys who had it right, like Hus and Wycliffe, were heretics. This is part of Protestant formation. I've got to assume that a Protestant pastor, formed with this sort of input to his or her vocation, will proceed to seminary and be told not to waste any time with Aquinas, who is sort of an extreme development in the long history of error and accretion. Sola scriptura is an important, and anti-Catholic, doctrine.
In addition, while the quality of Catholic education isn't a reliable factor, secular education is dominated by materialist assumptions -- just look at how frequently the word "evolution" is taken out of context to mean any process with a good result. Asking, "Do you accept the Catholic belief?" may produce a well-intended answer, but it simply doesn't replace decades of Catholic formation, which ideally should include Catholic schools. If I now realize not having a Catholic education is a disadvantage to me as a layman, how big a disadvantage will it be for a priest?
I think my visitor, in simply assuming that 90% of what's taught in a Protestant seminary is the same as what's in Catholic formation, is glossing over very important differences and flirting with indifferentism. After all, if Presbyterianism and Catholicism are 90% the same stuff, why become Catholic? Indeed, if Anglicanism is 95% of Catholicism, isn't it even more good enough to be an Anglo-Catholic? As I learned in the Boy Scouts, there's a big difference between a coral snake and a scarlet king snake, even though they look 90% the same.
A big reason I've been on this journey is that I've discovered it's not good enough, and it's a big reason I'm becoming very skeptical of what Anglicanorum coetibus has led to.
