It seems like all your complaints are related to making being a priest easier for your personality type. Maybe you just can't hack it as a priest and everyone else is fine.
Except not being able to deal with the accidental interpersonal atmosphere of seminary...is not necessarily here or there when it comes to being able to be a priest. The life these seminarians will live as priests will be very different than the life they lead in seminary. Being able to "hack it" as a seminarian is different than being able to as a priest actually out in the parishes.
I very much worry that while these men some people (including their superiors) romanticize as the "ideal seminarians"...will not be the ideal pastors. In a monastery...perhaps they'd be fine. But the seminary should not be a monastery, because the life they are preparing for certainly wont be. They're going to need to be independent, deal with people, make their own structure, and handle events spontaneously.
Well, somehow the various religious orders have stood the test of time doing things this way. From the decadent eras, to the plagues, etc. they've managed to turn out good priests.
Only when the Seminaries became infected with Modernism, perverts, and touchy-feely crap did the priesthood start falling apart. It has nothing to do with how priestly formation was traditionally conducted.
Exactly. It's called being the right type of person to be a priest. Not everyone could or should be a priest. It requires certain personality traits like any other kind of job.
But psychological dependence and repression...should not be considered essential to the priesthood.
Being a Catholic has much to do with psychological dependence and repression, and moreso for the priesthood. Even the laity should have a "psychological dependence" on the teachings of the Church and repress the lower urges.
Don't you think it should be moreso for a priest who is called to a higher degree of sanctity?
I know many good, holy priests (admittedly they are neocon novus ordo diocesan priests) who arent like this.
And I know many good holy traditional priests who aren't like this.
When I was in high school I took one of those vocational tests. It said I should be a priest or in the military; as you and I have suggested, it seems the same personality attributes are good for both. I think that's for a good reason.
Clerics were forbidden from military action, and in the early centuries all Christians were. It's not just because of combat. It's because of what that sort of environment does to a person. There is a mindset it builds that isnt healthy.
Maybe you're forgetting that St. Ignaitus of Loyola started out as a soldier and based the Jesuit rule on a military system?
Not all Christians were forbidden from military service. That's ridiculous. St. George immediately comes to mind as well as St. Sebastian. They were both Roman soldiers after they became Catholic.
There is also a strong argument that from a purely natural perspective...both occupations are socially parasitic. Of course, from a supernatural perspective that cant be said for the clergy. But it can still be said for the army, and even for the clergy if people (including the clerics themselves) start to take a merely natural view towards their vocation, if they trivialize it with pragmatic functionality.
OK, so the military and the clergy are parasites. Got it.
Of course...we need somewhere to put a certain type of person. Certain people need to be institutionalized. And, though I find this attitude wrong...sociologists would explain that a celibate clergy and the army...are both designed to remove such people from the gene pool, ultimately.
If you find it wrong, why are you quoting it?
But I dont think that's the ideal we should be putting up for our priests and religious. It shouldnt just be a place for putting men who shouldnt breed. That sort of sociological pragmatism, while perhaps it made some sense in a purely Christian society...is irrelevant now.
You're assuming the nonsense the sociologists are spewing as a fact - that people became priests, or were led into it, because they shouldn't breed. However, it was quite the opposite. Most families, even if they had only one son, wanted their sons to become priests.
And the pragmatic attitude back then was because it removed some people from a life of misery - they had a living, they were educated by the Church, etc. And the Church always cautioned that pragmatic reasons were not a vocation.
I don't know where you come up with this stuff. I don't doubt you believe it to be true - in other words I don't think you're lying, but I think you should check into this Modernist garbage before you quote it as a basis for changing the way the Church has formed priests for hundreds of years.