

























207 

15 

PROMOTING A SEMINARY FORMATION 

THAT IS CONTINUOUS WITH THE 

PRIESTLY MINISTRY 
 

Idahosa AMADASU, Ph. D 
Department of Theology, 

Seminary of All Saints, Uhiele, Ekpoma. 
idahosaamadasu37@gmail.com 

 
Abstract 
Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Pastores Dabo Vobis, is most renowned for 
the four areas of priestly formation it proposes. But one who picks up 
this document and intends to immediately read about these areas might 
by disappointed. The document first examines the current situation of 
the priest today and the nature of the priesthood. Only in the fifth of the 
six chapter work did the work discuss the areas of formation of 
candidates for the priesthood. The loud message of the structure of this 
document is that formation of future priests must be attentive to the 
nature of the priestly ministry and the context where it is to be exercised. 
Considering the challenges facing the priestly ministry in Nigeria today, 
especially a religious context characterised by an aggressive 
pentecostalism and a militant Islam, this paper wishes to show that a 
sound theological formation, a spirituality that is informed by the great 
masters of the Catholic tradition motivated by a strong pastoral zeal, 
marked by sincerity and openness and imbibed in a way that is 
continuous and not discontinuous with Seminary formation is 
indispensable for a sound priestly formation today. 
 
Keywords: Seminary, Formation, Ministry, Priesthood, Pentecostalism 

 
Introduction 
Pope John Paul II’s Pastores dabo vobis is well known for the four areas of 
priestly formation it outlines. With this vision, the post-synodal apostolic 
exhortation wishes to state that the seminary formation of the future 
priest should be anchored on human formation, spiritual formation, 



208 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

intellectual formation, and pastoral formation. But one who picks up the 
document and hopes to immediately read these four areas of formation 
might be disappointed. It is only in the fifth of the six-chapter work that 
these areas of priestly formation are enumerated and discussed. The 
earlier chapters of the text are focused on the contemporary context 
where the priest would work today, and on the nature and mission of the 
priestly vocation. The clear message of the structure of the document is 
that the meaning of the priesthood and the contemporary context of the 
priestly ministry must inform the formation of candidates for the 
priesthood.1 

This message also implies that the candidate for the priesthood 
should be trained in a way that seminary formation flows into priestly 
ministry. But the pontiff writes with an awareness of certain hindrances 
that might militate against this continuity when he states about the on-
going formation of priests: “With priests who have just come out of the 
seminary, a certain sense of "having had enough is quite understandable 
when faced with new times of study and meeting. But the idea that 
priestly formation ends on the day one leaves the seminary is false and 
dangerous and needs to be totally rejected.”2 What the pope identifies 
here is not a passing problem confronting the priestly ministry. In our 
own Nigerian context, this problem resonates in the mentality of ‘I have 
arrived’ that often characterises how some view their priestly ordination. 
This mentality frequently promotes a certain rupture with seminary 
formation. We therefore often have the exhibition of certain characters in 
the priesthood whose modes of priestly ministry and service are alien to 
the formative program of the seminary. An example of this is the mad 
rush of many newly ordained priests to take up healing and deliverance 
ministries and to exhibit styles and patterns of preaching and the 
celebration of the liturgy that are inconsistent with their seminary 
formation. Religious figures far from the practice and tradition of the 
Catholic Church are easily taken up by these priests as models. It is not 
books on the lives of saints and their teachings, Church documents, 
classical Catholic books, sound theological texts that dot their shelves; 
rather, the books and religious materials they consume are works of 
popular pentecostal pastors.  

While stating that the discontinuity between the way some 
priests exercise their ministry and their seminary formation expresses the 
heart of our problem, it however does not tell it all. It should be asked: 
what is responsible for this discontinuity between the way some exercise 
their priestly ministry and their seminary formation? If the seminary 
formation ought to have had the necessary formative ingredients that 
should help the priest exercise his ministry with integrity, then why has 
it failed to follow the priest into his ministry? Or more concretely, one 



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    209 

may ask, is there something lacking in the seminary formation that 
facilitates its easy discontinuity with the priestly ministry?  Might we also 
ask if there are other causes beyond the seminary formation that 
contribute to this discontinuity?  

This paper wishes to respond to these problems by first 
examining the current style of priestly formation with special attention to 
the Nigerian context. After a discussion of the problems inherent in the 
formation of priests, we shall proceed to propose a way forward on how 
this discontinuity can be overcome in order to have a credible seminary 
formation that is continuous with the priestly ministry.  
 
Seminary Formation of Future Priests 
The institutionalisation of priestly formation began in the Middle Ages, 
specifically, with the Council of Trent. It was precipitated by the 
problems that plagued the priesthood at that time, especially as it 
concerned the moral life of the clergy. There was, therefore, a certain 
vision of forming the future priest in a way that protects him from the 
dangers of the world. The idea of the seminary was thus envisaged with 
the model of a monastery. But with the pastoral renewal that Vatican II 
called for, while retaining the classical model of formation, there was a 
shift to a more pastoral style of formation. What this means is that while 
the enclosed system of seminary formation remains, there is also the 
need to form the candidate in a way that would make him equipped for 
the challenges of the priestly ministry in today’s world.3 

Pastores dabo vobis’ (PVD) outline of the four areas of priestly 
formation shows this post-conciliar emphasis that significantly builds 
upon the conciliar document on the training of priests, Optatam totius 
(OT). It should be noted that in the decades before the council, as 
Katarina Schuth recalls from most published articles of seminary 
formators, the formation of seminarians was perceived to be too isolated 
and they were, therefore, not equipped to face the world and its 
challenges. One of such authors, Stafford Poole, a Vincentian, 
recommended that “if the seminary is to keep abreast of the modern 
world, it is going to have to be reunited organically with lay education.”4  

It was therefore not surprising that OT saw pastoral formation as 
the framework for all other aspects of formation.5 Spiritual formation 
“should be closely connected with the doctrinal and pastoral.”6 The study 
of philosophy and theology should be taught in a way that their 
connection with the mysteries of Christ and the faith and life should be 
evident.7 There is, however, no specific mention of human formation in 
OT. Nevertheless, elements of human formation are present when it 
asks for the need to ascertain the freedom of the candidate, his ability to 



210 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

bear the burden of the priesthood and also the maturity needed to 
undertake the obligation of celibacy.8  

It is instructive to note that human formation, which was not 
clearly explicit in OT, was taken as the basis for all other areas of 
formation: spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral in PVD. While OT 
presents pastoral formation as the framework for all other aspects of 
formation, in PVD, human formation is taken as the foundation of all 
other aspects of formation. In fact, citing the synod fathers, PVD notes 
that “[t]he whole work of priestly formation would be deprived of its 
necessary foundation if it lacked a suitable human formation.”9 PVD 
believes that a thorough human formation that is open to the truth 
comes to completion in spiritual formation.10 It shows how human 
formation is at the foundation of intellectual formation when it notes 
that the latter is a fundamental demand of the human intelligence by 
which one participates in the light of God’s mind.11 Here one could read 
the intimate link between philosophy and theology. After affirming how 
human formation leads to spiritual and intellectual formation, PVD then 
shows how these form the content of pastoral formation, which “cannot 
be reduced to mere apprenticeship aiming to make the candidates 
familiar with pastoral techniques.”12 

One can say that OT and PVD sought to harmonise the classical 
seminary training of monastic model with helping the future priests face 
the challenges of the contemporary world. OT shows how this is to be 
achieved by proposing that pastoral formation should be the framework 
of all other areas of formation. PVD seems to shift this framework to 
human formation, while at the same time giving more substance to 
pastoral formation. This did not however, concretely remove the tension 
between the monastic model and facing the challenge of the world that 
was already present in the introductory pages of OT.13 Perhaps it is for 
this reason, that despite its clear vision of how priestly formation should 
go, OT asks that each bishop or episcopal conference should domesticate 
or inculturate its proposal on priestly formation.14    

Some countries and dioceses have attempted this domestication 
of the vision of the council by the periodic publication of a program for 
priestly formation.15 In Nigeria, what is mainly obtainable in this regard 
are the handbooks/rules and regulations of the seminaries.16 They are 
usually anchored around the seminary horarium, content of courses, 
social behaviour of seminarians, and a brief philosophy of formation. 
The presentation of the four areas of priestly formation usually defines 
the seminary’s philosophy of formation. This presentation also tends to 
be elaborate in showing the formative principle behind each rule. Here, 
one could find the tension between the monastic model of formation 
and training the candidate for the world. For example, one of the rules 



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    211 

and regulations published by SS. Peter and Paul Major Seminary, Bodija, 
Ibadan, states: “To avoid a diminution of their fervour for the interior 
life, and the distraction of their attention from sacred studies, 
Seminarians shall not go out except at set times for outings, and in 
exceptional cases for a grave reason and with the approval of the Dean of 
Students. However, after Christmas break, the Year VII Students have a 
general permission daily after lectures.”17 The seeming opposition that 
this rule reflects between the residency of the seminarian in the seminary 
and his outings is revealing. When this is put bluntly, it can be said that 
the seminarian who goes out often risks losing the fervour of his interior 
life and distracting himself from his seminary studies. Anyone who has 
been to the seminary or is familiar with seminary formation would know 
that there is some truth in this rule. The ordinary horarium of the 
seminary is quite tight. So, if a seminarian goes out often or 
indiscriminately, then he may not properly apply himself to the seminary 
program. While this is a given fact, the way the rule is worded presumes 
some inability of the seminarian to make use of his discretion in going 
out, hence he is advised to only go out on outing days or with permission 
for a grave reason. Only those seminarians in the final year, and after the 
Christmas break, when they must have been promoted as deacons or 
deemed fit to be ordained deacons, can enjoy some general permission in 
going out.  

However, one could argue that since only adults are admitted to 
the seminary, that is, students presumed to be qualified for a university 
education, should they not be given more discretion in deciding when to 
go out, and thereby facilitate growth in training in freedom that OT and 
PVD speak about? Here, one who is familiar with how some seminarians 
perceive the seminary as a prison yard would see how this impression 
resonates in the tension between the monastic model of formation and 
openness to the world. It can be said that this impression, justified or 
not, is what gradually grows to facilitate the discontinuity that manifests 
itself between seminary formation and priestly life.  

Just as the tension between outing and residence in the seminary 
resonates the difficulty in harmonising the monastic model of formation 
and openness to the world, another area that reflects this challenge is the 
ban on the possession and use of private mobile phones by seminarians. 
Like the presupposition on the rule on outings above, it is reasoned that 
the possession of a personal cell phone would greatly distract students 
from applying themselves to their program of formation. One thing clear 
about the ban on personal cell phones is that despite the strict 
punishments that go with possessing one, such as a probation or 
expulsion, some seminarians still keep their personal phones. There 
seems to be a deep lack of inner conviction about why they should not 



212 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

have a personal cell phone. The consequence of this is that it could 
promote a subculture where the seminarian hides certain aspects of 
himself so that the whole self is not brought out for formation. Such 
subculture could promote a general lack of sincerity towards formation. 
At this point, beyond the ban or permission of private cell phones, we 
could anchor a major reason why there is often a discontinuity between 
seminary formation and priestly life in the existence of a subculture in 
the seminarian that does not make the candidate fully open to formation. 
The lack of realization of the harmony that should exist between the 
monastic model of formation and openness to the world is the context 
for the growth of this subculture.  

Generally, one could describe a subculture as the presence of 
some beliefs and practices that are at variance with the belief of the larger 
group. In this case, it means the existence of certain beliefs and practices 
in the seminarian that are at variance with the practices and expectations 
of elements of his priestly formation and priestly ministry. It could be 
credibly said that it is this subculture that comes into the open at 
ordination and manifests itself as a rupture between priestly life and 
seminary training. For example, what is also at stake in a seminarian 
possessing cell phones against a clearly stated ban by the seminary’s rules 
and regulations is the grooming of a subculture of disobedience. If the 
candidate is to be formed in learning how to obey for supernatural 
reasons, he should be ready to obey a law that is not sinful, even though 
he is not personally convinced about the reasonableness or validity of 
that law. No one can practice ecclesiastical obedience if he only wants to 
obey what he is convinced about.  

But it is one thing to state a problem and its consequences, while 
it remains a task to confront the root cause of a problem and work 
towards a solution.  Let us now move towards more effective ways to 
find a continuity between seminary formation and priestly life.  
 
Continuity between Seminary Formation & Priestly Life 
The major cause of the discontinuity between seminary formation and 
priestly ministry that we have identified is the tension between the 
monastic model and facing the challenges of the world. This can also be 
described as the context of the problem. But it is not a context that is 
detached from the substance of the problem. There is need to harmonise 
the strength of the monastic model and the relevance of openness to the 
world. This is indispensable for domesticating a credible formative 
program that would be well assimilated and lasting. A significant point of 
departure here is that the monastic model or the isolated seminary 
environment should not be considered as existing against the world, the 
way the aforementioned rule of SS. Peter and Paul on outing seem to 



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    213 

have been phrased.  One central message that the future priest would 
have to teach the people is how lay persons in the middle of the world 
can have an interior life. The interior life is not something that should 
exist outside the world, but it must form how we live the world. This 
fact can be explained by the way Joseph Ratzinger understands the model 
of an open Church. He first notes that there should not be opposition 
between the Church and the world, because the Church is not world-
less (Weltlos). The world is not a place that exists besides the Church, just 
as it does not exist for itself because its history and development is 
closely tied to the history of humanity. The biblical picture, however, 
shows that the history of human relationships exists in ambiguity 
because of the goodness and the evil present in human history. For this 
reason, Ratzinger notes that the dialogue between the Church and the 
world should reject a one-sided demonisation of the world, and a one-
sided glorification of science and technology. The crucial element of this 
dialogue is not a matter of the degree of the Church’s openness to the 
world, but how the Church is open to the world.18  

In the same vein, the enclosed set up of seminary formation 
should not be conceived as a place designed in opposition to the world. 
Rather, it should be viewed as a place to prepare the future priests for the 
world they will live and exercise their priestly ministry in. When this is 
concretely understood, it would be easy to see that for example, it is 
more profitable that the seminary environment teaches the seminarian 
how to use and keep a personal cell phone than to have a ban on keeping 
one because of perceived abuses. In this way, a vital aspect of the self, that 
is, the use and possession of a personal handset, is made open to 
formation. Such efforts at formation would be directed to drawing out 
formative ethics on the use and ownership of cell phones rather than 
disciplinary measures to ban them. In this way, one would be able to 
avoid the growth of a subculture that is at odds with the formative 
culture of the seminarian.  

What this example of the cell phone points to is that the more 
seminarians are made to be open, the better they can be formed. The 
affirmation of PVD that human formation is the basis of all other areas of 
formation can be interpreted along this line: only when the seminarian is 
open or the enabling environment is created for him to be open, can he 
be formed in all areas of priestly formation. When PVD states that 
human formation entails the capacity to relate with others, it implies that 
only one that can relate with others can also relate with God. If God is 
personal, without a capacity to form personal relationships the candidate 
will not be able to deal with God as a person. It is for this reason that the 
Ratio Fundamentalis says that a well-structured humanity is indispensable 
for a true spirituality.19  When a true openness leads to the development 



214 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

of a sound spiritual life, the seminarians’ intellectual formation will be 
driven by love for the truth. It is a love for the truth that is founded on a 
genuine human inquiry and faith. In this case, fidelity to the Church’s 
teachings or orthodoxy will not be viewed as a mere adherence to some 
prescriptions. Rather, they will be a motivation of the human inquiry for 
the truth. Just as being critical does not turn one to being sceptical, so 
being faithful to the Church’s teachings does not make one uncritical or 
unable to ask Mary’s question to Archangel Gabriel’s message: “How 
shall this be done, since I do not know man.” (Lk. 1:34). 

In this respect, the seminarian will not see the expectations of his 
state and the priestly ministry as mere rules and regulations to keep. 
Rather, they will be seen as truths to live out. He will not see himself as 
doing something extraordinary in taking up the obligation of celibacy. 
Rather, when celibacy is understood and accepted with formation in the 
four areas, it will first be seen as a specific way to live out the virtue of 
chastity. The well-formed seminarian knows that every Christian, 
including married persons are called to live that chastity. It is in this 
respect that celibacy will be understood as a joyful renunciation of what 
one considers great and beautiful. This frame of mind makes its easy to 
exercise vigilance and avoid any occasion of sin or compromising 
situations out of a firm conviction, and not simply to put up some 
external appearance.  

It is precisely for this reason that PVD identifies the formation of 
conscience and maturity as indispensable for human formation. This 
formation is the best guarantee for exercising authentic freedom and 
responsibility. The emphasis on formation must seek to address the 
conscience of seminarians, make them always recognise their freedom to 
be priests, and how that freedom could also make them to properly 
discern a choice for a different state of life. With such a mindset, just as 
the seminarian could in freedom decide not to continue in the seminary, 
so does the seminarian that looks towards the priesthood prepare himself 
beyond priestly ordination. The seminary horarium would be seen as a 
means for that formation, an aid to developing a plan of life. One 
significant fact of the horarium is the daily recitation of the divine office, 
which only clerics and religious are obliged to recite. Seminarians recite 
it daily as a way of helping them to form the habit that would enable 
them to take up this future obligation. But on certain days in the week, 
like their free days and outing days where the regular horarium does not 
apply, seminarians are asked to say these prayers privately. This, I believe, 
is one of the best ways to gauge whether seminarians are imbibing a 
prayer life that will lead them into the priestly ministry. There are slim 
chances that the seminarian who does not say his prayers on those free 
days will do so in the priestly ministry.  



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    215 

Such days that seminarians are asked to do their prayers privately 
cannot be assessed by external disciplinary measures. This is where a 
good culture of spiritual direction is indispensable in the seminary. Here, 
many seminaries in Nigeria would need to do better. Some don’t have 
sufficient number of spiritual directors compared to the number of their 
seminarians, and quite often, most spiritual directors do not have the 
training that is comparable to that of their other colleagues. It is not so 
common to find spiritual directors who have studied up to doctoral level 
as we have in those who teach other courses in philosophy and theology. 
There is need for more time, personnel, and resources to be invested in 
spiritual direction in our seminaries. A good culture of spiritual direction 
will help the seminarian assimilate the elements of his formation in 
greater depth. A seminarian who does not go for spiritual direction often, 
or who lacks a good culture of spiritual direction, will also not be able to 
give spiritual direction to others. Little wonder that there are frequent 
complaints that most priests are not disposed for spiritual direction. What 
we often have are problem centered counseling sessions. A systematic 
culture of spiritual direction, where the Christian is led to live a balanced 
interior life with the goal of holiness of life is frequently lacking for 
many lay persons. The root cause of this problem might be traceable to 
how seminarians have been formed in the culture of spiritual direction. 

This point on spiritual direction already draws our attention to 
how a good human and spiritual formation also leads to a good pastoral 
formation. This pastoral formation will be supported with clear ideas that 
are informed by a sound intellectual formation. Philosophical studies 
must prepare the mind to think clearly; to appreciate the foundation of 
objective truth and knowledge and the subjective dimensions in which 
these have been expressed throughout history. Such an opening creates 
the enabling environment for a theological formation that is orthodox 
and at the same time critical. With the guidance of Scripture and the 
Church’s teachings, in critical dialogue with other human disciplines, the 
seminarian will be equipped with the content of his pastoral ministry. 
Such content cannot be a mere acquisition of knowledge to be dispensed, 
but it must always have depth in the candidate’s personal conviction and 
way of life.  

It is for this reason that the seminarian’s intellectual and spiritual 
formation must be sufficiently exposed to Catholic tradition in a way that 
every seminarian would adopt models from the great spiritual masters 
and saints. This exposure, which should already begin in the spiritual 
year program, would help the seminarian to have tested guides and their 
rich experiences to draw from. When this is lacking, as people always 
look for models, in their craze for relevance, the seminarian or priest 
easily picks up models that are at variance with his formation as we see in 



216 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

the corrupt pentecostalism that is afflicting the priestly ministry of some 
today. This lack of having true models is not helped by the fact that 
many of these practices that are contrary to a sound priestly ministry as 
we find in the preponderance of healing and deliverance ministries, seem 
to be tolerated in the dioceses. The seminarian could therefore grow 
with a mentality that certain practices not in tandem with his seminary 
formation could be practiced as priests. Little wonder that one often 
hears that seminary formation is not practical for the pastoral ministry. 
But the fact is that it is a seminary formation that has not been well 
imbibed and the existence of a certain subculture groomed within and 
outside the seminary that is ultimately responsible for the rupture 
between seminary formation and priestly ministry. 

Finally, one cannot rule out the role of formators in helping 
seminarians inculcate the seminary formation. It is a time-honoured 
recommendation of the Church that only the best of priests or those 
who exercise their priestly ministry with integrity should be sent to be 
seminary formators.20 This must be followed religiously. While on-going 
formation of formators is important, the seminary system should have an 
internal system of accountability where formators can always have 
personal and communal review of their participation in the formation 
program. For example, at the end of every course, there should be a way 
of evaluating or getting feedbacks about how the course has been taught 
by the formator or lecturer. This helps to maintain a certain standard 
among formators.  
 
Conclusion 
In this paper we have shown that the discontinuity that exists between 
seminary formation and the priestly ministry can be traced to the tension 
between the monastic or enclosed seminary set up and openness to the 
world. Both dimensions have strengths that can be harmonised when 
they are not seen in opposition: the enclosed seminary set up is to 
prepare the seminarian for the world he is going to serve. Therefore, 
rather than seeing the world as something to protect the seminarian 
from, he should be prepared to live in the world. As advised by PVD, 
human formation should be taken as the basis of this formation. Here 
the emphasis on formation in conscience and openness would allow the 
seminarian grow in a maturity that would enable him to exercise his 
freedom responsibly. This would avoid the growth of any subculture, 
within and outside the seminary, that leads to hiding aspects of the self 
that become manifest after ordination to create a rupture between 
seminary formation and priestly ministry. With such a strong human 
formation, the candidate is disposed to having a personal relationship 
with God which makes him imbibe his prayer life beyond the mere 



Section 1: Ecclesiastical/Theological Perspectives And Seminary Formation    217 

observance of routine or seminary horarium. The prayer life should be 
founded on an interior life that is open to the truth and founded on an 
intellectual formation that is orthodox and critical. This helps to shape a 
pastoral formation which flows from a deep interior life. The role of 
spiritual direction in helping the seminarian grow in this interior life 
cannot be overemphasized. The seminary must always be equipped with 
well formed spiritual directors, just as it should be for other formators 
who must have a systematic program of on-going formation. It is hoped 
that when the right environment is created for the seminarian to open up 
himself for formation with an exposure to the tested models of Catholic 
spiritual and intellectual traditions, the seminary formation will find a 
continuity in the priestly ministry.   
 
 
Endnotes 
                                                      
1 John Paul II, Pastores dabo vobis [Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the 

Formation of Priests], Vatican Website, March 25, 1992, accessed February 23, 2020. 
2 Ibid, 76. (sic) 
3 Cf. Katarina Schuth, Seminary Formation: Recent History— Current 

Circumstances— New Directions (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016), 11, John 

W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press), 201 
4 Poole, Seminary in Crisis, 14, 28–29; also as quoted in White, The Diocesan 

Seminary in the United States, 413. All cited in Katarina Schuth, Seminary 

Formation: Recent History, 23 
5 Vatican II, Optatam totius, 1 
6 Ibid, 8 
7 Ibid, 16-18 
8 Ibid, 4 
9 John Paul II, Pastores dabo vobis, 43; Synod Proposition, 21 
10 Ibid, 45 
11 Ibid, 51 
12 Ibid, 58 
13 Katarina Schuth notes how this tension was expressed: “From the first paragraph 

onward considerable disagreement is evidenced between the traditional and the 

progressive council fathers about the direction OT should take. In the introduction, 

the document first acknowledges the “supreme importance of priestly formation” 

and in the same sentence goes on to assure the more traditional bishops that it 

would strengthen the regulations that had long been in use and shown to be 

sound. At the same time, it promises those who see the need for a new kind of 

seminary that it has added new elements that “correspond with the constitutions 

and decrees of this council and with the changed conditions of our time” (OT 

Introduction). The prescriptions of the decree directly concerned the training of 



218 Formation of the Human Person in the 21st Century 

                                                                                                                         
diocesan clergy but were to be appropriately adapted to all clerical training, 

including religious and monastic priests.” Katarina Schuth, Seminary Formation: 

Recent History, 14 
14 Vatican II, Optatam totius, 2. 
15 For an example of such programs in the United States, for example, see Katarina 

Schuth, Seminary Formation: Recent History, 19-32. 
16 See for example, Catholic Major Seminary of All Saints, Handbook of the Seminary 

of All Saints (Benin City: Floreat Systems, 2014); Seminary of SS. Peter & Paul, Rules 

& Regulations (Bodija, Ibadan: Claverium Press, 1987); Seminary of SS. Peter & Paul 

and Seminary of All Saints, Handbook on the Social Behaviour of Seminarians (Benin 

City: Floreats Systems, 2015) 
17 Seminary of SS. Peter & Paul, Rules & Regulations, 44 
18 Joseph Ratzinger, “Der Christ und die Welt von Heute.” In Dogma und 

Verkündigung, (Donauwörth: Eroch Wewel Verlag, 1973, Reprint 2005), 179-189 
19 Congregation for the Clergy, The Gift of the Priestly Vocation: Ratio 

Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis, Vatican Website, December 8, 2016, 

accessed February 28, 2020, 93 
20 John Paul II, Pastores dabo vobis, 67 

 


