“Katarina Schuth on Educating Leaders for Ministry”
from the website
Resources for American Christianity
http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/
Katarina Schuth
On Educating Leaders
for Ministry
By Tracy Schier
(This edited conversation is one of several pertaining to issues within
Theological Education.)
Katarina Schuth, O.S.F., is on the faculty of the
Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity, holding the
Endowed Chair for the Social Scientific Study of
Religion at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul.
She is a member of the Sisters of St. Francis,
Rochester. Acknowledged widely for many years
as a leader in the study of pastoral ministry and
theological education in the United States, Schuth
has authored many books and articles and served
on numerous boards of seminaries and colleges.
She is also well known as a consultant and
presenter, having served hundreds of national and
regional organizations with workshops and
presentations on issues of education for ministries.
Among her books are: Priestly Ministry in Multiple
Parishes, Liturgical Press, 2006; Educating Leaders
for Ministry: Issues and Responses (with Victor Klimoski and Kevin O’Neil),
Liturgical Press, 2005; Seminaries, Theologates, and the Future of Church
Ministry: An Analysis of Trends and Transitions, Liturgical Press, 1999; Reason
for Hope: The Futures of Roman Catholic Theologates, Michael Glazier, 1989; and
Cooperative Ventures in Theological Education (with Fraser, Friar, Radtke,
Savage), University Press of America, 1989.
Schuth holds numerous honorary degrees from universities and seminaries,
including Boston College, St. Bonaventure University, Notre Dame Seminary
1
“Katarina Schuth on Educating Leaders for Ministry”
from the website
Resources for American Christianity
http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/
(New Orleans), and Christ the King Seminary (East Aurora, NY). FADICA
(Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities) awarded her the
Distinguished Catholic Leadership Award for Service to the Catholic Church in
1995 and the National Catholic Educational Association Seminary Division
presented her with the Loras Lane Award for Outstanding Service to Seminaries
in the United States. She is a graduate of College of St. Teresa and holds degrees
in theology from Weston Jesuit School of Theology. Her M.A. and Ph.D. in
Cultural Geography are from Syracuse University.
This conversation was prompted by her book with Victor Klimoski and Kevin
O’Neil, Educating Leaders for Ministry: Issues and Responses. The book
highlights the learnings of the Keystone Conferences that took place in Colorado
between 1995 and 2001. With support from Lilly Endowment and the Holy Name
Province of the Franciscan Friars, five six-member teams consisting of
rectors/presidents, deans, and faculty members from a broad range of Catholic
seminaries convened for a week each year for intense conversation and study
around case studies from the participating institutions that illustrated how they
were handling pedagogical challenges identified by faculties. Of pressing
interest to these groups were several issues seen as universal within the
theological educational experience. Faculty development was an underlying
concern throughout the entire process.
This edited conversation is one of several pertaining to issues within Theological
Education. Others will be with David Cunningham, Malcolm Warford and Chuck
Foster.
Q. Much of the wisdom and practical applications that you and your
co-authors present in Educating Leaders for Ministry were prompted
by the experiences of the Keystone Conferences. Can you name the
issues that were front and center during the ongoing programs?
A.
The issues that emerged as the most challenging and that warranted the most
immediate attention across all seminaries during the 1990s were these: diversity,
integration, and assessment. As you know, diversity applies to a variety of
situations and groups. In relation to the students in our seminaries it is
something that is always expanding and changing and is broader than ever
before. And it was something new to everyone since the 1970s and ‘80s because
of demographic and other changes within the Church. Of course ethnic diversity
comes to mind immediately, but our students are diverse in other ways as
well―age, gender (larger numbers of men and women are going into lay ministry
while fewer men are studying for priestly ministry), students with a wide range of
theological knowledge and views of their own Catholicism, as well as students
2
“Katarina Schuth on Educating Leaders for Ministry”
from the website
Resources for American Christianity
http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/
with differing learning styles, abilities and disabilities. We found that seminary
professors needed assistance if they were going to respond to this diversity in
ways that would assure that students leave their classrooms with appropriate
knowledge and formation, self understanding, and the skills to be effective
pastoral ministers. We wanted to address the issue of how we teach most
effectively in light of all that diversity.
The second challenging issue was integration. We found that even when
students could understand theology and also do pastoral work, it was difficult for
them to see how the two areas complemented each other. In our book we say
that integration is marked by wholeness, and when talking about students it has
to do with a balance between the self and the community. Victor Klimoski defines
integration as a formative process engaging students in the traditions of
theological knowledge as well as in understandings of pastoral practice. In the
book he says that integration presumes a permeability among three things:
knowledge, practice, and identity. Faculties need to understand how they can
lead their students in this developmental process.
And our third issue was assessment―helping faculties to appreciate that
assessing their own work involves much more than responding to outside
pressures such as regular periodic accreditation visits. We want everyone
involved in theological education to see that assessment should be a constant
practice and come from inside the learning community. Assessment should
come from a desire to evaluate one’s own progress, and to gauge one’s own
value to students and to the institution—and ultimately the Church―as a whole.
Q.
If you could, by fiat, make three changes in contemporary
theological education, what would they be?
A.
I’m not sure about three―maybe more or maybe less. First let me say that
one of the most positive aspects of Catholic theological schools is our formation
system. I would definitely want it to remain. I would want students and faculty
alike to explore more deeply what spiritual development really means and how it
relates to other areas of formation.
A change I would want to see is better educational preparation for anyone
teaching in seminaries. There is especially a need for pedagogical preparation
for new faculty members.
Also, the seminaries need to be more effective in helping students understand
contemporary culture and the contemporary parish. Our students need to
recognize how much of an impact contemporary culture has on religion. In other
words, they need to be able to analyze situations and respond accordingly.
3
“Katarina Schuth on Educating Leaders for Ministry”
from the website
Resources for American Christianity
http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/
Q. In Educating Leaders for Ministry you say, “The issue of ongoing
development of faculty must be reprioritized if the work of integration
is to be advanced in significant ways.” Do you have a sense of how
extensively this might be happening in seminaries across the
country?
A. One thing really concerns me. We have a wave of new faculty coming in and
the proportion of priests on faculties is down. We are in need of opportunities for
orientation of new faculty in general to the roles of teaching and formation. What
we could use is a kind of mentoring program. We need a Keystone type of
experience for the new generation of faculty who need help with pedagogy. We
need a place or an effort to bring master teachers to demonstrate good methods
to new teachers. I know the Sulpicians have workshops for formation directors.
But overall, this need for help for new faculty members is huge in the Catholic
seminaries and I suspect this is true in Protestant seminaries as well.
Q. Does the integrative process happen more easily in theological
schools that are embedded in a university? It seems that this should
be so, given the proximity to wide varieties of disciplines, students,
faculty, and other programming.
A.
Yes, for the Saint Paul Seminary here (being part of the University of St.
Thomas) it is a goldmine. I can give you an example of something that is very
useful. Stephen Brookfield, who has written widely on adult education, offers
workshops on such topics as how to deal with controversy in the classroom,
testing, psychological services, teaching about race, how to get students to
participate in discussions. There are all kinds of benefits like this for embedded
seminaries.
Q. What do you see as the greatest threats to Catholic seminaries’
success in educating candidates for the realities of today’s
priesthood?
A.
One very difficult thing is the polarity, the division in the Church, the
conservative/liberal split for want of better terms. Young men often are coming
from a very traditional place, and they are not in the “same place” as their age
cohort. For many of the young men in seminaries, Vatican II is a negative instead
of a positive development in the Church. When these young men are ordained
they sometimes don’t adapt to the realities of parishioners’ lives and often they
are moved from parish to parish, or they cause people to move from parish to
parish, because of their lack of understanding and compassion.
4
“Katarina Schuth on Educating Leaders for Ministry”
from the website
Resources for American Christianity
http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/
Also troublesome is the declining number of priests with a greatly increasing
number of Catholics today. This situation requires many priests to serve multiple
parishes. These are very complex ministries. The seminaries have to educate
future priests for these changing ministerial structures. This brings us back to
what I said before about the need for special preparation of the seminary faculty;
especially those who are not as familiar with the requirements of ministry today
need to be able to help students appreciate what is required to reach people with
a vital spiritual message that touches their hearts.
Q. And, what do you see as the challenges to seminaries’ success in
educating men and women for lay ministry?
A.
Of course we know that one of the biggest issues is that of job conditions
and pay for lay ministers. In the Catholic Church right now an excess of persons
are prepared for lay ministry who are not finding jobs commensurate with their
education. And unfortunately another concern is young priests who aren’t
cooperative with lay ministers and refuse to work with them in a collaborative
way. In fact, in seminaries I talk with young faculty who know of priests in their
peer groups who don’t want to adapt to working with lay men and women. Dean
Hoge’s data show that only about half of the young priests are open to
ministering with lay men and women. We are in a precarious time for lay
ministers.
Q. Over your years as a member of seminary boards as well as a
scholar on seminary issues, what changes have you seen in the role
of boards of trustees (for good or ill)?
A.
I think what I see with seminary boards is probably true of college boards as
well. Members are often being chosen for their ability to donate or provide
access to those who can give money to the seminary, or perhaps for their
business acumen. When bishops are selected as board members, the choice
may be influenced by their ability to send students to the seminary. Also, we see
boards whose members don’t reflect the broad range of the Catholic population,
but rather a specific ideology.
I do see that committee work has improved, but deans and rectors could use
training concerning how to use committees more effectively. And I have seen
that boards seem to do well in times of crisis. Seminary administrators have to
grow to appreciate the board and its role, and to understand that the board needs
more than just people with financial acumen. There is definitely need for more
diversity on boards in terms of their backgrounds.
5
“Katarina Schuth on Educating Leaders for Ministry”
from the website
Resources for American Christianity
http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/
Q. What advice would you give to a new seminary board member?
A.
For a start, they should ask for orientation if it is not provided. And they
should take or make opportunities to go to board workshops and to read InTrust.
There is a need for more mixing of groups within the board, old members
welcoming new members, committees working together, and getting to know key
administrators and faculty.
Q.
Did the revelations of priestly sexual misconduct influence
seminary curricula and/or formation programs after 2002?
A.
After 2002 I wrote to all seminary rectors asking for all of their materials on
formation related to sexuality and celibacy. About half of the seminaries had put
into place programs and curricula that were well developed; one fourth had
moderately well developed programming, and the other fourth had minimally
developed materials. But I can see that there is change for the good overall―at
least teaching about sexuality and celibacy is more thorough than in the past.
Q. Can you speak about how seminaries are helping their faculties
learn to work with students who have weak educational backgrounds
or even have learning disabilities? From your vantage point can you
tell if seminaries are meeting these challenges or at least making
some headway?
A.
There are not enough common tests among seminaries to give us hard data.
We do have anecdotal evidence that the seminaries are working at remediation
but I am not sure that it is a growing trend. One positive area is with international
students who are having opportunities for language studies before they go into
their theological courses. Sacred Heart School of Theology in Wisconsin has a
program for students who are having difficulties: they take fewer courses and
study language even as they begin to study theology. St. John’s in California has
an excellent program for language training and so does Divine Word College
Seminary in Iowa. So, there seems to be a lot of development in assuring
language competence. In the area of learning disabilities, we see across the
board a proportion of students that ranges between 5% to 10% who have some
difficulty. One disability is ADHD and faculty see this represented in students
who have an inability to concentrate or who are not doing their homework.
In my own experience, in the past five years, ten or so students I have taught
were tested so that their problems could be properly diagnosed. Drugs such as
Ritalin do seem to help with ADHD. We also see that dyslexia is not well
6
“Katarina Schuth on Educating Leaders for Ministry”
from the website
Resources for American Christianity
http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/
diagnosed. A recent concern is addiction to computer games, which becomes
both an educational and a formational issue.
Overall, I believe all these problems are becoming better diagnosed and
identified; where we are not doing as much is with the older students who are
coming back after many years away from formal academic settings. Many are not
up to speed with technology or they lack a liberal arts background. And it is
difficult to adjust to classes since they have not studied for a long time. When
bishops ask them to move through a program too quickly, it can be a problem.
What is also problematic is that some of these difficulties are expensive to treat
once they are diagnosed. This is something that dioceses often cannot afford.
Q. Since the Keystone experience in the 1990s, Web-based teaching
and learning have exploded in higher education. The Aquinas
Institute of Theology is one place that seems to have done a lot along
those lines. As you look around the country, are you seeing other
schools following the technology path?
A.
I would say that in the seminaries, generally speaking, the use of Web-based
technology for teaching and formation is at a minimum. Theological schools are
residence based primarily and so that technology has not caught on widely. It is
used in a number of schools for ongoing education and for programs that are
chiefly for lay students. However, many faculty take advantage of PowerPoint
and use the Internet in the classroom.
Q. Do you see that seminaries are engaging in fruitful assessment
now? And as far as assessment goes, what could they be doing
better?
A.
ATS (Association of Theological Schools) has raised the bar in recent years
as far as assessment goes. They demand a great deal. Schools need to survey
alums, pastors, vocation directors on a regular basis and then take that
information and use it for making adaptations in their programs. There is
ongoing need for longitudinal and frequent assessment―it is not enough to rely
on the cycle of ATS re-accreditation studies and visits every ten years.
Q. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of Catholic
theological education and why?
A. There certainly are ups and downs, but in the long run I am optimistic. In the
short term I am very concerned about the immense change in leadership that is
going on―rectors are changing rapidly and it is not a regular, planned pattern of
7
“Katarina Schuth on Educating Leaders for Ministry”
from the website
Resources for American Christianity
http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/
change. So that concerns me. There is no doubt that we will constantly face
many challenging issues. For instance, the rising educational level of Catholics
and the growing number of Hispanic Catholics in our country are just two large
factors that will influence our seminaries in ways still unforeseen.
8