What Real Diocesan Vocation Directors Do

I'm very grateful for input from a former seminarian who's filled me in on how real diocesan vocation directors function. Based on this, I think it's clear that when the statement is made that the ordinariates are "like" dioceses, this is simply not the case. The individuals who have carried the title "vocation director" in Houston -- I believe at least four have churned through -- simply do not perform these functions. It's also plain that the ex-Anglican clergy who have been ordained in the OCSP haven't had anything like this level of evaluation, and this clearly led to the Luke Reese fiasco, led in part to the Fr Kenyon fiasco, and I believe will lead to others.

I very much doubt that Bp Lopes or anyone else in Houston will ever make himself available to a public forum where informed people could press on why ordinary diocesan standards for ordination aren't followed in the OCSP, and consequently what assurances can now be given that not just children but other adults can be protected from OCSP priestly misconduct.

There are really two types of models for how a vocation director functions in a diocese. At least this is how it was 10 years ago.

Model 1 (The large archdiocese with its own seminary system, think Chicago, NY, Los Angeles)

In this model, the vocation director really functions as a vocation program director. They may be the first point of contact for someone considering priesthood or religious life. The vocation director organizes gatherings of those interested in a priestly vocation and helps that person discern if entering the seminary is right for them. They get to know the man, his background, his family life. The vocation director might weed out those who are just looking for something "different", but not necessarily geared toward the priesthood.

In the large archdiocese with its own seminary, it is the rector who has daily contact with the seminarian, he represents and vouches for the seminarian to the archbishop. The rector makes the recommendation to the local archbishop about the man's suitability for the priesthood. At Mundelein there is a Director of Chicago seminarians, he meets quarterly with each seminarian individually and compiles a report at the end of the year about the seminarian which touches on the man's spiritual life, his relationships, his academic progress and personal matters such as finances and health. At the end of the year, these reports and reviews from clergy and laity the seminarian has worked with (either within the seminary or in parishes) are compiled into a larger report on the man's progress during the course of the year, this report goes to the rector and formation faculty (priests and laity), they vote on the seminarian's fitness to continue on the road to ordination. This report and subsequent vote is forwarded to the archbishop for his approval.

Model 2 (Smaller dioceses who send their men to the seminary outside of the diocese, think Orange, Flagstaff, Rockville Centre in NY)

In this model the vocation director fulfills all of the functions in the first paragraph of model 1. But in this model, it is the vocation director who also vouches and represents the seminarian to the bishop. The vocation director will meet with the seminarian when the seminarian is home for vacation or for a parish assignment over the summer. The vocation director will meet with his semianarians as a whole and individually when the vocation director makes a visit to the seminary. In many cases the relationship between vocation director and seminarian is quite close. The vocation director continues to work with seminarians when they are in the diocese and away at the seminary, he is the point of contact between the seminary and the bishop.

In this case it is the vocation director who will receive reports compiled by the seminary and he will then compile a report which he will give to the bishop on each seminarian. The vocation director will many times proffer a recommendation to the bishop as to the fitness for a man to continue on in his studies for the priesthood.

There are of course good and bad examples of both models (human nature and "other duties as assigned" affect the quality of the job done by those who oversee a group of seminarians). Both models really do place someone squarely responsible for the seminarian and how the seminarian's fitness for ordination is transmitted to the bishop. I can also say, it's not a "hands off" approach.

The lack of the M. Div... I go both ways on this, I'm very much of the mind that if you require it of one, you must require it of all. Certainly no diocesan seminarian is ordained without an advanced degree in Theology, either the M. Div or the Pontifical S.T.B. If, however you are a religious order and you know the man will only be a monastic in a cloister or remain in a monastery setting, the M. Div. is really not practical nor necessary.

Prior to Vatican 2, there was something called "priest simplex", they remained in the monastery and said Mass and anointed the sick If they had faculties granted. They were not allowed to hear confessions or preach doctrinal sermons. Blessed Solanus Casey, a Franciscan from Detroit, was ordained a simplex priest. This was geared toward men who were not terribly "bright" but had a recognizable deep spirituality and vocation of a "prayerful type".

Apparently a very small number of celibate seminarians are going through this process in the OCSP, but clearly a much larger number of men with sketchy "Anglican" backgrounds continues to be ordained, several of whom in my view have slipped through the process in addition to Luke Reese.