The Cult of Softness

 As this article explains:

"In the past few hours, Agenzia Fides has published the document “Statistics of the Catholic Church 2025.” Once again, the numbers reveal a bleak picture: vocations continue to decline. Yet there is an unspoken truth that no statistic dares to confront: the problem does not lie with young people, but with the places where vocations should be born and grow.

An archbishop who has dedicated decades to vocational accompaniment, visiting seminaries, listening to formatorsand priests around the world, confirms this. These days — he tells us — he is engaged in a series of visits to various seminaries in Rome and across Europe. His analysis is clear and unsettling: “The crisis of vocations does not arise from the absence of young people willing to give themselves, but from the toxic atmosphere dominating the very places where vocation should mature.”

Seminaries — at least in many cases — are no longer places of discernment, but of selection. And today’s selection is not oriented toward freedom and maturity, but toward docility and dependence. They welcome fragile, confused, often psychologically unstable young men, as if the institution needed patients rather than disciples. It even seems that the search is for “those who need to be healed,” in order to later “save” and control them.

The Cult of Fragility

In recent years, seminaries have stopped attracting balanced, creative, intellectually alive individuals. Not because such people no longer exist, but because — in a system that fears freedom — maturity becomes a defect. Many rectors and formators end up accepting only those with obvious troubles, those needing constant guidance, those willing to be “molded” according to uniform standards. The implicit idea is that a more fragile person will also be more faithful, more obedient, less likely to question authority. It is a pedagogical illusion that borders on ecclesial pathology: no longer forming the man, but manufacturing the dependent. Even aesthetics plays into this perverse game: preference is given to candidates who are unassuming, poorly groomed, under the belief that they will “cause fewer problems,” “draw less attention,” as though a lack of outward appeal guarantees a “safer” path, free of risk.



Behind this mentality lies an ancient fear and a subtle distortion: the fear that, should a priest one day fall, his fall would be all the more scandalous if he once inspired sympathy, charisma, or esteem. Conversely, if a young man is handsome, articulate, intelligent, socially adept, and perhaps has a following on social media, suspicion arises immediately: he will be too liked. Should he enter the seminary, his path will be strewn with obstacles — from unwanted attention to jealousy, envy, and accusations of “special friendships.”



Behind all this lies a criterion that is anything but Gospel-oriented yet deeply human: power prefers what it can control and distrusts what shines with its own light.

The Flight of the Free

The prelate observes: “Let us ask why so many priests who cause real problems in our communities — those who spread gossip, division, and tension — also display an external and personal disorder. They are overweight, troubled, and suffer from their own condition. Yet no one dares say anything, though they represent the true drama of dioceses now on the verge of collapse. The atmosphere has become unbearable: not only do young men refuse to enter seminaries, but even those inside seek to transfer, while bishops no longer know how to govern such realities.



Often, these are the very same men who show inappropriate attention to seminarians or confreres and, once rejected, react with slander and innuendo, attributing to others what in fact describes their own behavior. Paradoxically, these are often the ones who love to cover themselves in vestments, hiding behind form the emptiness of substance.” For this reason, many truly called young men — emotionally mature, with healthy friendships, passions, and interests — choose not to enter the seminary or leave once inside. Those with critical thought, cultural tastes, artistic or athletic pursuits, or healthy relationships outside the Church environment, find the seminary not a place of growth but a cage full of serpents.



Where one would expect a journey of freedom, one finds a climate of suspicion: spontaneity is read as disobedience, freedom as rebellion, maturity as danger. Many priests now advise young men who express a vocation to stay away from seminaries, warning that they would “come out worse than when they entered.”



Thus, the numerical data on vocations is deceptive: it is not that vocations are lacking, but that trust is lacking — in the places meant to nurture them and in the people the hierarchy appoints as “guardians” rather than formators.

Related reading

here.

Goodbye, Good Men here

The duty of fostering vocations...

Vatican II's Decree on Priestly Training (Optatam Totius) says that, "The duty of fostering vocations pertains to the whole Christian community, which should exercise it above all by a fully Christian life...All priests especially are to manifest an apostolic zeal in fostering vocations and are to attract the interest of youths to the priesthood by their own life lived in a humble and industrious manner and in a happy spirit as well as by mutual priestly charity and fraternal sharing of labor. Bishops...are to encourage their flock to promote vocations and should be concerned with coordinating all forces in a united effort to this end. As fathers, moreover, they must assist without stint those whom they have judged to be called to the Lord's work." (No. 2).

Unfortunately, this duty is not taken seriously by many within the Church. In fact, many vocations have been sabotaged by dissident priests and religious anxious to exclude those who are deemed "too rigid" or too "pre-Vatican II." Recall Michael S. Rose's book "Goodbye, Good Men." Such was my experience with the La Salette Missionaries. Because of my orthodoxy, I was never even seriously considered as a candidate. In fact, when I expressed concerns over La Salette priests promoting the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood during a vocation retreat, a La Salette Provincial accused me of "evil." I still have all my correspondence with several La Salette priests, one of whom actually had the grace and kindness to apologize to me for the way the La Salette community treated me.

Because I accept everything which is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and because I defend the teaching authority of the Church's Magisterium, I am treated with nothing but contempt in my own diocese. I am not even permitted to participate in the life of my parish. And I am not alone. As Archbishop Elden Curtis explained in an article entitled "Crisis in Vocations? What Crisis?":


"There is much media hype these days about the present and projected shortage of priests and its effect on the sacramental life of the Church. It is time to pay close attention to the dioceses and religious communities reporting increasing numbers of candidates. There have to be reasons for these increases that bear objective analysis from which some conclusions can be drawn.
I personally think the vocation "crisis" in this country is more artificial and contrived than many people realize. When dioceses and religious communities are unambiguous about ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines these calls; when there is strong support for vocations, and a minimum of dissent about the male celibate priesthood and religious life loyal to the magisterium; when bishop, priests, Religious and lay people are united in vocation ministry—then there are documented increases in the numbers of candidates who respond to the call.

It seems to me that the vocation "crisis" is precipitated and continued by people who want to change the Church's agenda, by people who do not support orthodox candidates loyal to the magisterial teaching of the Pope and bishops, and by people who actually discourage viable candidates from seeking priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines the ministries.

I am personally aware of certain vocation directors, vocation teams and evaluation boards who turn away candidates who do not support the possibility of ordaining women or who defend the Church's teaching about artificial birth control, or who exhibit a strong piety toward certain devotions, such as the Rosary.

When there is a determined effort to discourage orthodox candidates from priesthood and religious life, then the vocation shortage which results is caused not by a lack of vocations but by deliberate attitudes and policies that deter certain viable candidates.

And the same people who precipitate a decline in vocations by their negative actions call for the ordination of married men and women to replace the vocations they have discouraged. They have a death wish for ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines them. They undermine the vocation ministry they are supposed to champion." (Full article here).

It is incredible to me that while Senator Edward Kennedy's life was celebrated during a very public funeral - even though he publically dissented from the Church's teaching regarding the sanctity of life - I am treated with nothing but contempt by those who would exclude me because of my fidelity to the Church's teaching. The Senator was referred to as "Our brother and friend." I cannot even participate in the life of my parish. I am held in so much contempt that when I contacted my Diocese to inquire about the priesthood, I received no response whatsoever.

Maybe if I promoted the killing of the unborn or women's ordination, I too would be welcomed as "brother and friend." That's not going to happen though. For what does it profit a man....you know the rest.