St. Tikhon's Mess Begins to Unravel

As a recent graduate of St Tikhon’s Seminary, I want to second what the above seminarian says about the monastery, but also to add some critical nuance.

It would be neither fair nor accurate to call St Tikhon’s Monastery “a joke.” In my personal experience, I found the monks to be spiritually serious and sincere in their discipline. Moreover - with one or two rare incidents of an exceptional kind, which I attribute to the stress of atmospheric pressures as well as personal idiosyncrasy - I saw them trying very hard to be kind and welcoming to the students and their families. It should also be known that they, too, like the students and faculty (maybe even far more so), were suffering under obedience to a Metropolitan who treated them with contempt, and who insisted on his own will in all things pertaining to the monastery church, without reference to the needs of those worshipping there.

It is true that the monastery church has not always been the most “friendly” place. I would say: most specially to families. I believe his, however, was due almost entirely to the hegemony of Herman and his favored “people,” who were always around and exercising their influence over things at the monastery church. To name one easy example: a number of years ago, Herman ordered the seminary wives not to come to all the Holy Week services with their children, as the "noise" irritated him. Other incidents of a similar nature, some more egregious and downright even cruel, could also be told.

But none, or almost none, of this attitude could be attributed to the monks (some of whom actually objected to it at least in private). To the contrary, in my time there, two or three of the ordained monks showed the most generous spiritual support to many seminarians AND their families. Without these monks, some students would almost certainly not have survived the stress of the program - with the work overload, the general poverty of most students, and the suspicious, controlling and (on occasion) abusive treatment which came from the seminary administration. Far from being source of the famed abuse and corruption, these monks deserve our gratitude and sympathy.

Yet, that being said, I do believe that St Tikhon’s seminary has relied far too much on the presence of the monastery as a selling point - and that in a rather misleading way. True, the monastery church offers a very full cycle of services. However, the seminary community itself does not worship as a whole together on a daily basis, as is the case at the other Orthodox seminaries in this country. Instead students have their assigned weekly “choir days” which they are required to attend. On any given Monday morning liturgy, say, when there is no such assignment, there may be a total of three students present in church. This set-up has a way of dividing the community somewhat, and creating a very individualist, and at the same time rather impersonal, approach to worship life.

Thus it is misleading to suggest (as has often been done) that the presence of the monastery allows students at St Tikhon’s a fuller experience of the services than at other seminaries - most especially as regards married students, who have to live off campus. In fact the seminary communities at both St Vladimir’s and Holy Cross enjoy a far more regular and frequent celebration of worship together than at St Tikhon’s: These seminary communities worship together on a daily basis, whereas St Tikhon’s does not.

The lack of married student housing, as well as of a regime of services specifically tailored to a seminary (not a monastery) schedule, make a big difference in this regard. It is common advice that in the life of prayer, daily regularity is on the whole far more important and effective than length or solemnity. In the case of a community which must live and work together day in and day out, this prayer should be both daily and corporate, involving the whole community - not just different groups putting in their time on different days.

Another thing. While some experience of a monastery may be very beneficial, it is also important that those studying to become priests get the opportunity to work in parishes during their time in seminary. In this regard, St Tikhon’s has almost totally failed (at least in recent years). With the exception of those already ordained, seminarians are allowed almost no opportunities to attend and help out in parishes.

In spite of all the talk about St Tikhon’s being the more “pastoral” school, it is again St Vladimir’s and Holy Cross which both allow and indeed require M Div students to do parish work in a variety of different capacities (music, teaching, youth work, etc), whereas again St Tikhon’s does not. There are students who have spent a total of 7 years at STS (undergrad priestly formation + M Div) and who - apart from one summer of parish internship - have come out having had almost ZERO opportunity to work in a parish. All those years - what a tragic waste of human time and energy. And the sheer number of students all together on Sundays in the monastery church (as well as some possible favoritism at work) does not allow much opportunity for many of them even to serve in the altar. Many seminarians are reduced to being simply choristers for most of their time in seminary.

Add to this the un-friendly atmosphere created at the monastery church by Herman’s sycophants and favored cretins, and in the case of married students and their families, this situation was, during my time there, even more painfully tragic. And ridiculous. Most of the married students have more than one Orthodox parish closer to their home than the monastery church. Yet students are not allowed to go to those parishes on the weekends; instead they are required to drive to the seminary/monastery 7 days a week (and twice on Saturdays - for morning liturgy and Vespers). All this costs gas money, and most students are poor, just scraping by. And when one considers the obvious need for teaching in the surrounding parishes - the most basic kind teaching which even many first year seminarians could provide! - the enormity of the waste, and the stunted vision of the seminary leadership which insisted on this arrangement, is all the more apparent. It is truly tragic.

It may be that, as the above seminarian wrote, “what was wrong with St. Tikhon’s is no longer there or happening, but what was left behind is going to take a while to sweep up.” I truly hope so. But I would insist that part of this “sweeping up” needs to include a re-consideration of the arrangement regarding seminary worship life. The monastery-seminary relationship is not a bad thing, but neither is it an unqualified good, especially if it means being cut off from the parishes.

Why not require weekend attendance at the monastery church for first year seminarians, but then allow freedom for 2nd and 3rd year students to attend nearby parishes? Why not give parish assignments to all 3rd year seminarians? That the seminary could exercise such a controlling and suspicious approach to grown men (many of whom are husbands and fathers) who will then be expected to lead parishes in just a few years is just plain twisted and contradictory.

Sorry for the long-windededness, but I don't hear these things being discussed - at least not in any balanced way.