Theological Education LEADERSHIP The Study of the Seminary Presidency in Catholic Theological Seminaries Volume XXXII Supplement I 1995 ISSN OO40-5620 Robert J. Wister Theological Education LEADERSHIP The Study of the Seminary Presidency in Catholic Theological Seminaries Joseph M. White and Robert J. Wister Volume XXXII Supplement I 1995 ISSN OO40-5620 1 Introduction THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION Volume XXXII, Supplement I, 1995 JAMES L. WAITS, Executive Editor JOSEPH M. WHITE, Contributing Editor ROBERT J. WISTER, Contributing Editor NANCY MERRILL, Managing Editor MICHELLE HUGHSON, Production Assistant Theological Education is published semiannually by The Association of Theological Schools IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 10 Summit Park Drive Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15275-1103 For subscription information or to order additional copies or selected back issues, contact the Association at 412/788-6505. Indexed with abstracts in Religion Index One: Periodicals, American Theological Library Associa- tion, Chicago, Illinois. Available on-line through BRS (Bibliographic Retrieval Services) in Latham, New York, and DIALOG in Palo Alto, California. 2 Robert J. Wister Contents Introduction to the Volume i Neely Dixon McCarter Leadership in the American Diocesan Seminary: Contexts, Institutions, and Personalities — 1791 to 1965 Joseph M. White Preface 1 European Traditions 3 Era of Adaptation I: 1791 to the 1850s 5 Era of Adaptation II: Freestanding Seminaries 9 Era of Adaptation III: Priests’ Communities and Religious Orders 13 Era of Adaptation IV: Accomplishments from 1791 to 1884 15 Seminary Reform: 1884 to 1907 17 The Roman Era I: 1907 to circa 1940 23 The Roman Era II: circa 1940 to 1965 33 The Effects of Institutional Change on the Office of Rector and President in the Catholic Theological Seminaries — 1965 to 1994 Robert J. Wister Preface 47 The Seminaries of 1965 51 The Response to the Second Vatican Council 65 New Structures Create New Relationships 83 National Coordination of Seminaries 103 Communication, Evaluation, and Recommitment 121 A Survey of the Presidents, Rectors, and Rector-Presidents 145 3 Introduction 4 Robert J. Wister Introduction Some years ago while serving as president of a theological school, I realized that very little research had been done on the origin and development of the office of the president in theological institutions. While studies of theological education had been made in the 1920s and 1930s as well as a study by Richard Niebuhr and his associates in the mid-1950s, none of them dealt with the president. The earlier studies pointed out that administrative structures and personnel were very weak and undeveloped. The Niebuhr study suggested that the schools’ administra- tions, especially the presiding officers, had never been studied and given the consideration necessary for a balanced operation. So while acknowledging the need for such a study, no study was made. This lack of consideration of the office led to imbalances of power and has contributed in our time to the confusion about what the president is supposed to do, what authority and power resides in that office, and how the president can function in the face of a multitude of societal and ecclesiastical demands as well as the reality of “shared governance.” After discussing these matters with Craig Dykstra of the Lilly Endowment, a request for monies to make a study of the presidency was submitted to the Endowment by the Graduate Theological Union. As director of the three-year project which has involved some 50 to 60 persons in the study of the presidency of seminaries, I am happy to be able to share some of the fruits of the research. An earlier publication on the search process for the president is now joined by this contribution by two prominent Roman Catholic scholars. In the first section Joseph White discusses the development of the rectorship in Catholic diocesan seminaries from 1791 until 1965. In the following section Robert Wister picks up the story in 1965 and leads us to the current scene, taking us through a period of considerable change and innovation both in the institutions and especially in the role of the rector. As a Protestant, I find two things of particular interest. First, both writers have assisted us with the terminology and organizational structure of the Catholic Church. Second, reading the material makes me conscious of the overarching importance of the Roman Catholic ecclesial structure and official documents, and their impact on the life of the rector and the theological institution. Many Protestant groups have no such framework to which to relate. Whether the Council of Trent Theological Education, Volume XXXII, Supplement I (1995): i-ii i Introduction or Vatican II, the Church’s edicts and directives shape theological education and the rector’s work in a quite different way than happens among Protestants. Both groups are, however, influenced by the currents of their sociocultural settings. We are indebted to these two scholars for their research and writing. Their insights become a part of the growing literature that helps all of us understand theological institutions and the persons who lead them. A companion volume dealing with the development of the office of the president among the Protestant freestanding seminaries will be forthcoming as an additional supplement to Theological Education. I wish to thank Craig Dykstra, Fred Hofheinz, and the Lilly Endowment for their encouragement and support that enabled the research to be done and in making the publication of these supplements possible for the good of the theologi- cal enterprise. In addition, both James L. Waits and Nancy Merrill of the ATS staff have been crucial to the issuing of this publication. Neely Dixon McCarter President Emeritus Pacific School of Religion ii Leadership in the American Diocesan Seminary: Contexts, Institutions, and Personalities —1791-1965 Joseph M. White Preface At Baltimore in July of 1791, François Nagot with four fellow priests of the Society of St. Sulpice and five seminarians arrived from Paris to begin the first diocesan seminary in the United States. They settled at the “One Mile Tav- ern”—about a mile from Baltimore harbor—on the site where the Sulpicians developed the school of ministry that became known as St. Mary’s Seminary. As the supérieur of the undertaking, Nagot may be considered the country’s first Catholic seminary president. For such a distinction, his name is scarcely known outside the membership of the Society of St. Sulpice. But under his unobtrusive leadership, the diocesan seminary tradition was introduced to the American Catholic community. That tradition dates from one of the milestones in the Catholic church’s history, the Council of Trent’s decree, Cum Adolescentium Aetas, of 1563 that laid the foundation for the idea that a formal program of training should precede ordination to the diocesan priesthood. This decree establishing the seminary addressed the training of diocesan priests only, and not the priests of religious orders, which had their own traditions of spirituality and learning. Despite such a limitation, the seminary as outlined in the decree launched the Counter- Reformation’s effort to create a renewed diocesan clergy. In light of the discussion of the seminary presidency, it is appropriate to ask what the Tridentine seminary decree has to say about who is responsible for directing the seminary. The answer relates directly to the historic function of the bishop as head of the local or particular church, that is, the diocese, and its clergy. He was the official logically assigned responsibility for preparing candidates for ministry in his diocese. And just as responsibility for clerical training was assigned to an existing church official, the bishop, so too the location of the training program was placed in an existing institution, the cathedral. The decree enjoins bishops to establish a seminarium there, the bishop’s official church, though allowance is made for locating it elsewhere. In establishing his seminary, the bishop was to gather together poor boys—the sons of the well-born and the wealthy had other paths to the diocesan Theological Education, Volume XXXII, Supplement I (1995): 1-2 1 Preface priesthood—in a program of general education, leading to the study of “scripture and ecclesiastical books,” and rites and ceremonies. The seminarians were to assist in the rich liturgical life of the cathedral. The bishop was to delegate direction of the seminary to two canons or senior priests of the cathedral chapter. Apart from the bishop and two canons, no rector or president, or other type of executive is mentioned in the decree, though a separate group of clergy chosen by bishop, chapter, and diocesan clergy was placed in charge of finances.1 The decree’s brevity allows the specifics concerning length of studies and content of learning to be left to the bishop’s determination. No Roman congregation or official is charged with devising a program and monitoring compliance with it. The primacy of the local stands out as a central character- istic of the diocesan seminary in the centuries before the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law in 1917. The latter’s canons outline the diocesan seminary’s operation so that the Catholic church at last had a universally applicable canonical blueprint for conducting the training of all diocesan priests. The Code also lists officials that the diocesan seminary was required to have including that of the “rector”—the office closest to the modern seminary president. From Trent’s decree of 1563 until the Code of Canon Law of 1917, the diocesan seminary had no organizational plan with named officials as man- dated from the church’s highest authority. Instead, between Trent and the Code, the diocesan seminary passed through 354 years in which its leaders’ work unfolded in a series of precedent-setting experiences. To come to terms with the American story of leadership for the diocesan major or theological seminary, this essay aims to profile the activities of its officials, either bishops or rectors and presidents, as they pursued their varied roles as founders, sponsors, administrators, or reformers until the era of the Second Vatican Council.