Priestly and Religious Formation Today:
The Rhetoric and the Reality
by
Father Joe Mannath SDB
The following reflections are based on my experience of priestly and religious training, both as a trainee and as a formator. I joined the novitiate in 1961 and completed my (formal) formation period in 1975. If you add the four years of aspirantate (during which, too, we were exposed to lots of friendly bombardment on the priesthood and religious life), it adds up to a whopping eighteen years! I have been a formator for over twenty years—including my regency (1967-70) and the long and happy years in Poonamallee (from 1975, with a couple of breaks, up to 1993, when I joined the University of Madras). During these years, I have come to know from very close quarters a few hundred seminarians and young religious, as well as a couple of hundred priests and religious. In the following pages, I should like to look at some of the rhetoric we hear about a the vocation, training and contribution of priests and religious. All professions and groups have a rhetoric of their own. The relevant question is: How much of it is true? This needs to be asked with particular urgency about priestly formation, since it is one of the longest, most expensive and most carefully worked out training programmes among all professions, and its possible impact on the lives of people is significant. So, too, the key role played by religious in church activities is undeniable. Let us have a look at some of the rhetoric, and see whether it corresponds to he reality.
******
1. Vocation as God’s call and a free human response in love
The rhetoric: In theory, a young person joins the major seminary or novitiate in a free response to God’s call, which he/she discerns honestly with some competent person (usually a priest/religiouis selected for formation work). The candidate’s concern is supposed to be to deepen this call, to learn to respond to it more generously, and to commit oneself to doing God’s work, according to God’s will. If I go in for the priesthood or religious life for other reasons (family pressure, lack of opportunities, direct or subtle pressure from priests and religious, fear of leaving, etc.), then this would not really be a genuine vocation.
The reality: The reality, as I have repeatedly seen, is quite different. An ex-seminarian whom I had taught in Poonamallee, illustrates this point. When he told his parents that he was thinking of leaving, they were furious. They were worried about what people in the village would say. The other reason for their anger was less subtle. They told him plainly that they expected him to “become a priest and help them, as other priests are doing.” I admire the young man for sticking to his decision to leave, in spite of such family pressure.
I do not mean that there are no genuine vocations in our country. My own conviction (which I cannot prove or disprove scientifically) is that there is a committed minority of genuine candidates in every group. The rest, I am afraid, are more worried about not getting into trouble or being asked to leave (hence the much-touted “fear complex” in seminaries), rather than about finding and doing God’s well. My experience of seminary formation does not lead me to believe that the majority of seminarians come to the seminary in response to an inner call or any strong religious experience. I am , of course, willing to be challenged on this point, if your experience shows you the contrary; but this is what I think at the moment.
2. Leaving everything to follow Jesus
The rhetoric: Church documents and edifying writings from the lives of the saints speak of a person leaving everything to follow Jesus. Once you have found the pearl of great price, all else looks cheap or less important in comparison. One is willing to make sacrifices (as regards food, clothes, work, travel, accommodation, etc), since one’s happiness comes from following Jesus, not from having more things.
The reality: I have known exemplary priests, religious and seminarians whose choice of their state of life is along these Gospel lines. There are people who have left lives of comfort and voluntarily accepted a poor and simple life style out of their religious convictions. I have known seminarians, sisters, brothers and prieste who lead very simple lives, often inspired by some priest or religious they have known.
But, once again, they seem to be in the minority. For the majority of young men (and women) coming into a major seminary or novitiate, the change of life style is towards affluence. Most of us are financially better off and live more comfortable lives than our married brothers and sisters. Add to this the fact that major seminaries (and a number of religious formation houses) in India are amply financed by Rome and other centres, so that, when their peers are struggling to go to college or find a job, the seminarian and religious enjoy a carefree life, in a setting that provides everything free of cost. This is not the case in many other countries of the world; but it is so in India at the moment.
If we add to the financial security the undeniable fact that most candidates to seminaries and religious orders do not belong to the brightest students in a school or college, then this question, uncomfortable as it is, must be faced: Are seminaries (and religious houses) becoming the refuge of the mediocre, of persons who cannot succeed in the tough, competitive world outside?
3. Vocation promotion and selection of candidates
The rhetoric: We must help young people to say Yes to God and follow their vocation. The church needs good vocations. “The harvest is great, but the labourers are few...” Quoting such texts, religious orders and dioceses set apart people for the task of “vocation promotion.”
The reality: Just because someone joins the seminary or the novitiate, that does not mean he/she is called to that form of life. Vocation (in contrast to the use a number of priests and religious make of the word) is something everyone has. My father and mother have a vocation—and a holy one at that—just as I have. Vocation promotion, if genuine, consists in helping a person to choose before God that path in life where he/she will do God’s will best. Or, in simple words, that path is my vocation, where I will be more loving and happier, more true to the spirit and example of Jesus. For most people the right setting is marriage; it can help me to become a true disciple of Christ. What matters is to do God’s will and live a holy life, not which group I belong to.
If I forget this, or if I am more interested in the size or the survival of my group (religious order or diocese) than in what a young person is called to, then I will try to keep people in the seminary or religious life, without bothering about whether he/she seems to be really suited to this walk of life. Let us face facts: Wherever families were larger and living standards poorer, there have been more candidates to seminaries and religious orders. This does not mean all such candidates are on the wrong path (Don Bosco, for instance, came from a poor family), but it does raise doubts about the large numbers of “vocations” seminaries and religious orders are getting in poorer countries today. A higher number of candidates need not mean more vocations. People may be getting in (and staying in) for the wrong reasons—side by side with those who are joining and staying for very genuine reasons.
We must not also forget that there are many “vocations” in the church—not just to the priesthood or celibate religious life.
4. Perseverance in one’s vocation
The rhetoric: Some of us may remember a time when a companion’s departure from the seminary or religious life seemed a tragedy, and such persons would not feel comfortable stepping into the seminary or religious house again. If the departure was from the priesthood, then the shock and scandal were really great. “Perseverance in our vocation” seemed the most important value. A change of direction was at times called a “defection.” Some religious orders were even discouraged from having contacts with former members. The good thing about this era was the readiness to put up with hardships and be faithful to what one had undertaken, even when the going was very hard.
The reality: The truth is that none of us knows which path is better for a particular person. In case of doubt, it is better that a person leaves the seminary or religious order than that an unsuitable candidate should be ordained or stay in religious life. Perseverance in doing God’s will is essential; this is not the same as staying in the seminary or religious order. There can be good and holy reasons for leaving, just as there are for staying.
5. A new type of priest and religious for a changing world?
The rhetoric: There is much talk about the changing times, the new global situation, the impact of the media, and that blanket word, “nowadays” (as opposed to some supposedly less enlightened earlier era). A number of people assume that people’s religiosity or expectations have changed drastically, leading to very different expectations from priests.
The reality: Surveys show that what people expect from priests and religious has remained fairly constant. In the first place, they expect the priest to be a “man of God.” Especially in a situation where more and more people are getting qualified in a wide variety of fields, they know that the priest cannot and need not be a jack of all trades. In most secular areas of activity, there are lay people far better qualified than priests. “Man of God” does not mean he is only a liturgist. The religious dimension, if genuine, permeates all areas of one’s life. One plans, acts, leads, suffers, preaches, organizes, “with the mind and heart of Christ.” Seminarians would do well to listen to what lay men and women expect from priests, rather than listen only or mainly to one another and to the artificial questions that come up in the protected atmosphere of the seminary.
6. Current programmes of formation
The rhetoric: With a higher number of staff members with advanced degrees in philosophy, theology and other subjects, as well as better equipped libraries and other resources, we may believe that we are providing a better formation to seminarians and religious today than in the past. The choice of subjects is evidently larger, the books and journals available more numerous, the access to outside experts much freer. The accommodation and food are better than what older formation houses provided. Does all this mean a better training?
The reality: There is no evidence that we are turning out better priests or religious today. An experienced formator once gave me a reason for this. He said, “In my opinion, formation depends 70 percent on the candidate, 20 percent on the staff, and 10 percent on the programme.” Two priests who go through the same seminary training can (and do) turn out to be remarkably different. There is no way we can “produce” good priests or religious, or make sure that a candidate grows into a sincere, dedicated, God-centred, compassionate and effective apostle. Revised curricula and an updated syllabus are important, but no programme, however cleverly thought out, can ensure the quality of the final “product.”
7. Liberation theology in formation houses
The rhetoric: If we are to believe the more vocal seminarians and religious, it would seem that liberation theology is strong in our formation houses, that people are keen on action for justice, ready to engage themselves in transforming society in the direction of justice and respect towards all.
The reality: In my view, it is fashionable in a number of academic circles to speak of liberation and to mouth leftist slogans. Real liberation theology would have to start with committed action for justice among the poor. Theology itself would only be a second moment. I do not see much of this happening. What is happening, I think, is that priests, religious and seminarians speak about justice and use words like “liberation,” “oppression,” “the marginalised,” “subaltern perspectives,” etc. To do this while enjoying the security and the relative comfort offered by foreign money is quite easy; but it is not very convincing. Unlike what some conservative churchmen fear, there is no danger, in my view, of too much liberation theology in the seminaries or in the church in general; for it makes serious demands on life-style, ministry, readiness to confront the powerful and pay a price. We should not also forget that all serious liberation theology includes a strong spirituality. Gustavo Gutierrez, for instance, always insists that the first moment of theology is a double experience and commitment—the experience of God and commitment to the poor. Theology itself is only a second step. Liberation theology can be talked about in the classroom; it cannot be done or learned in a classroom.
8. Celibacy as a special call that frees us to love God and neighbour more fully
The rhetoric: The claim is that celibacy makes a person more single-minded in God’s service. It is also supposed to make us more available to people. Celibates may even develop a mentality by which we are somehow superior to married people, and expect special treatment. Some people think we are closer to God, or that our prayers are more efficacious.
The reality: A person may remain unmarried for many reasons. Mere bachelorhood is not celibacy. What Jesus proposed (and lived) is “celibacy for the kingdom,” that is, the commitment of one’s whole being to doing God’s will, with a totality of interest. Putting God in the first place is also the vocation of married people. While I have seen very committed celibates who are a reflection of God’s goodness, I cannot say that most celibates are very available or contribute more work and service than married people. In fact, I would even add that a number of priests do far too little work. I remember telling seminarians that, in my opinion, a number of them would work harder and be more responsible and self-sacrificing if they were married and had to support a family. It is no secret that there are a number of “unwilling celibates,” that is, persons who wanted to be priests, but were not keen on celibacy, and “tolerate” it because it is a requirement for the priesthood, or women who stay in, for want of real options outside. I believe, too, that we are not providing adequate training for celibacy. Exhortations are not enough, or to assume that all those who join the seminary want to be celibate. This is, I believe, a big area of problems; many people need help, and are often not sure how or where to get it.
There is also the real danger that an institution—religious order or diocese—may be looking only for “hands for work” and not for God-centred or correctly motivated candidates. If so, we cannot expect these same persons to be gripped by Gospel values, or live enthusiastic celibate (not merely unmarried) lives.
9. Our image of the Church
The rhetoric: Vatican II was over thirty years ago, but its teaching and spirit have not yet percolated to the body of the church. The theory we teach is that the church is a communion, that the hierarchy and the priesthood are in the service of the whole body, that all of us have the same call, namely, holiness, that clericalism is an evil, that women should be respected and listened to, etc. There are papal documents on the apostolate of the laity, on social justice, and a host of other contemporary topics.
The reality: Church documents are, generally speaking, not well known to the laity (probably because they are not being read by the clergy). Many bishops, priests, religious sand seminarians still have a feudal mentality, where privilege and distance mark their style more than pastoral availability. Accountability in financial and other matters is not the norm in most parishes. A seminarian knows that, whatever he may learn in the seminary, he can get away with a lot once he is ordained. He can take the people for granted without getting into serious trouble. He does not face much questioning by the people, unless he gives scandal in a sensational way. He knows, too, that a number of older priests live mentally in a pre-Vatican II church, and often he too falls in line.
There is, generally, more accountability in religious congregations. But here, too, the church of communion is far from being a reality. The feudal mentality so prevalent in India seeps into religious life as well.
10. Professors and Teachers as formators
The rhetoric: Most seminaries and religious formation houses today claim to have better qualified professors than years ago. In the vast majority of cases, this means that the staff have post-graduate degrees in an ecclesiastical subject from a foreign (usually pontifical) university or some other centre. Unlike the less sophisticated type of theology and philosophy taught years ago by priests without advanced degrees, today’s formation syllabus includes a variety of courses taught, as a rule, by persons who have academic credentials to teach that subject (except smaller orders of women). To have studied abroad is often equated with being qualified to be on the staff of a formation house.
The reality: To have studied a subject in, say, a Roman university or some other “higher institute,” is not the same as having the preparation to be a formator. Again, to have a degree is not the same as being a good teacher or a good community member. Most of us do not use the matter of our doctoral theses in our teaching. For our classes we need to read up and prepare ourselves each time. Many of the questions that face us in India are not treated in courses done abroad. Even if they were, theoretical knowledge of a subject is not the same as the aptitude or the training to train people for priestly ministry and life. As a student of theology once told me, “Many of you are good teachers. But what I need most is not a clever teacher of philosophy or theology. I need priests I can look up to, priests from whom I can learn how to be a good priest.” This brings us to the need of selecting suitable persons to be formators. Cleverness is not enough, nor is it even the main requirement. A degree in a subject can be one of the requirements for a formator, but it cannot be the sole or even the main criterion.
11. Spirituality and social commitment
The rhetoric: Nobody directly denies the need and the importance of prayer, nor the social dimension of a priest’s life. But, we often hear of references to social involvement as a danger to one’s spiritual life. Some even say that the role of the priest/religious is to be a “spiritual” leader, and not be involved in secular affairs. Others wonder how to combine their roles of teacher, pastor and prophet in today’s world.
The reality: The opposite of spirituality is not social involvement, but egoism. A priest or the member of an apostolic religious community must be a person of prayer (personal and communitarian) who can lead the community in prayer meaningfully and with conviction; he/she has also to be involved in the pains, anxieties and the struggles of his people. S/he cannot be a detached observer who just prays for them. A number of seminarians and young religious admit that they attend the daily community practices of piety mostly because they have to. Many have not yet found meaningful ways of praying. Some have told me that the easy life in the seminary or religious house provides no great incentive for developing a strong prayer life, while the hardships of life make their parents pray far more insistently. As for social involvement (e.g., among the poor), the danger, in my opinion, is not that we priests and seminarians and religious will spend too much time and energy for and among the poor, but that love of ease (e.g., hours spent in front of the TV) and the pull of power and money will sap our spiritual strength and bleed our souls white.
12. The Generation (and authority) Gap
The rhetoric: Older and younger people differ so much in ideas and mentality that it is difficult to understand those of another age group. The old blame the young for being worldly and irresponsible. The young think the old do not understand today’s world and are too narrow-minded. These divisions are unavoidable among priests, as in any other group. So, too, many seminarians feel they cannot relate to older priests in the diocese, and a number of older priests wonder what kind of formation today’s seminarian is receiving.
The reality: The real gap is not in years, but in our openness or the lack of it. There are older people who are very alert and close to the young, whom younger people love going to; there are others who are set in their ways and hard to relate to. But this is true of younger people as well. A seminarian may feel closer to, or better understood by, an older priest than by a younger one. Openness and loving concern are not dictated by age.
As for authority figures being distant, this is not inevitable at all. If you take bishops, for instance, there are bishops who are very informal, simple and easy to relate to, and others who are solemn, inaccessible and distant. If I may generalize a little (and say something undiplomatic), we see that bishops in certain parts of India are in general more informal and closer to their seminarians (whom they tend to know personally) than bishops in other states. Religious congregation differ a lot in the way superiors and others relate to each ther, and how the younger and older members mingle. We priests too can do more to treat the seminarians with love, like our younger brothers and junior colleagues in the ministry. They learn more from how we treat them, than from what we tell them. When deacons (who have spent seven or eight years in the seminary) thank the staff before leaving, what they remember are the apparently small acts of kindness they have experienced rather than all our lectures and conferences. The differences between generations can be source of mutual enrichment; they need not form a gap.
13. The family and other influences
The rhetoric: We may think that through our long and carefully planned formation programme we can produce a group of committed priests, or that priests as a group are better than lay people. We may speak as if listening to more religious talks and spending more time in religious activities (daily liturgy, recollection days, retreats, etc), we as a group must be more religious and exemplary. Is this the case?
The reality: After all these years in formation work, I am convinced (like many others) that the main formation house is our family. Most of our formation is over by the time we join the seminary (or the novitiate). I am more influenced even today by the memory of my father and mother (who died thirty-six and twenty-eight years ago) than by any priest or religious superior I have known. The testimony of the more convinced and generous seminarians, religious and priests I have known convinces me of the same. Their goodness and commitment was more the fruit of their family training than of seminary formation.
Another factor I have noticed is this: The more convinced seminarians and religious had, as a rule, known some good priest or religious who inspired him, and whom he wanted to imitate. This, too, tells me that, all in all, what he experienced (for better or worse) before joining the major seminary or convent is more significant than what comes later. What is your experience?
14 Kingdom Values and service of God:
The rhetoric: Church rhetoric (e.g., on someone’s ordination or profession day or silver jubilee), talks of priests and religious are people committed to God and God’s Kingdom. We speak of the years so-and-so spent in God’s service, and in the service of the people.
The reality: The sad reality is often less glamorous or even tragically different. Priests and religious often purse ungodly agendas—power, money, positions—and often lead the divisions in the church. Caste consciousness or linguistic and regional bigotry is by no means absent among clergy and religious. I have come across instances where students speak of the higher caste prejudice among the priests and religious teaching them than among the students themselves.
Conclusion: a few suggestions
Based on these observations, I should like to make a few suggestions on seminary training. They do not claim to be exhaustive, nor systematic They are just a few hints on some areas which need greater attention today, in our setting. Given the nature of this article, I have not explained any of them in detail.
(1) Know the candidate’s family: If the family is our main source of values, it is important that formators have some contact with the candidate’s family. How a seminarian or religious relates to his/her family members tells us more about them than their behaviour in the community. He/she and the rest of us have much to learn from the family that brought him up.
(2) Lay participation in formation: Priests and religious are trained for ministry in the church, which is made up of different types of members. We need lay people (and women religious) on the staff of seminaries. Their participation will make seminary training more realistic (and in some ways more demanding). It can also show the future priest that lay people are not only a group to teach, but also persons to learn from. Religious (both women and men) and seminarians can benefit much from being taught by lay men and women.
(3) Involvement of the family in formation: The family has a right and duty to be involved in the one’s formation, without, of course, undue interference. Whether it be in the form of a financial contribution, or visits to the seminary, or being informed of how he is doing, it is an essential part of one’s growth that one’s family is made an integral part of this process.
(4) Involvement with the poor: If the church is meant to be good news to the poor, and in our country they form the majority, it is essential that all through our training we should be actively involved with the poor. It is not enough to have seminars on social analysis or prayers for the poor; the young person must be involved in initiatives that bring him/her into direct contact with poor people. Apart from its apostolic value, such contact will make us also see our own tiny problems and inconveniences in perspective.
(5) Graded initiation into the ministry: One does not become a full-fledged apostle all of a sudden. Ministry is something one grows into, gradually and steadily. There must be graded forms of ministry all through his formation period. Theory alone, however good it is, does not prepare us for the apostolate.
(6) Training in youth ministry: One form of ministry for which the future priest of today must be prepared is youth work. In our country, the majority of the population are young. By the time a seminarian is ordained, or a religious makes his/her final vows, they are older than fifty percent of the Indian population. To minister to this young population, we need adequate training. Otherwise, we may be afraid of dealing with youth, or see youth as a problem or neglect them altogether.
(7) Selection of formators: This important point has been mentioned earlier. (For those interested, I can present the assessment from I prepared in Poonamallee seminary to evaluate prospective formators.)
I would think that a formator must be someone the student can look up to (Is he/she a person I can learn from?), who relates well to the rest of the staff and with the students, who is interested in ministry and has some experience of it, whose life style is inspiring, whose judgement is sound (since he has to assess the seminarian’s fitness) and who is intelligent enough to grasp and teach the subjects that need to be taught
(8) Updating of the staff: Any professional who wants to be effective, must keep learning. A middle-aged medical practitioner once told me that most of the medicines available today were not even known when he was a medical student. Regular and periodic updating courses for the staff are a must in the seminary. The “brushing up” can be in the subjects one teaches and one’s growth as a person.
(9) Community life: We train people not through exhortations, but by living with them and showing them through our life how a particular life is lived. The participation of the staff in all the activities of the seminarians and young religious (prayer, manual work, recreation, outings, apostolate,...) is an essential part of the training. The young observe us carefully, and learn from all we do.
(10) Formation for celibacy: Studies on the celibate experience of priests and religious shows that the training for celibacy is not adequate. It is not enough to tell young people the gospel reasons for celibacy, or imply that faults against it are serious. We need to do more to prepare them for life-long celibacy. There is plenty to be done in this area. In the second national Gathering of Catholic psychologists held in New Delhi in 2001, this need was expressed strongly. One of the suggestions was to prepare a programme/syllabus for training seminarians and religious in celibacy. Many unethical and even shocking instances of priests’ misbehaviour were presented, especially by sisters involved in counseling, to whom exploited nuns go.
(11) Normal contact with men, women and children: An artificial or over-protective environment produces strange characters, or people who are obsessed with what they miss. If during normal contacts with families a seminarian finds that he is not happy with celibacy and prefers to marry, it is better that he finds this out before his priesthood.
(12) Help those who leave: A theology student who left from Poonamallee made this suggestion to me. “If you can help those who are thinking of leaving to find a job or do some studies, many more seminarians will open their hearts to you about their problems.” The present policy of several seminaries of admitting only graduates is good for a variety of reasons. Apart from the greater maturity and preparation at the time of arrival, the degree also gives a young man greater freedom to leave if he is not keen on the priesthood. I still remember a conversation I had with a a theology student (who later left as a priest). “How can I leave now?” he asked. “I cannot go back to my village. My house is already called ‘Brother Veedu.’ I have no qualification to get a job. So, what will I do if I leave?” This question is all the more poignant in India when it comes to sisters. How do we help those who are not meant for religious life to leave and settle down?
(13) Dissociate the financial operations of the church from the priesthood: This and the following two suggestions regard church organization; they are not directly under the control of the seminary. A great source of abuses in the priesthood (and, to a more limited degree, among religious) is the availability of easy money that need not be earned or accounted for. I believe that, if the finances of a parish are administered by a finance committee (and not by the priest), with the result that a priest in a richer or larger parish will have no more money at his disposal than one in a poor parish, and if we de-link money and mass intentions, we will attract more genuine candidates to the priesthood. Right now, the pull of money is strong. And with it come many abuses.
(14) Have salaried posts for lay ministers in the church setting: This is the case in many other countries. For many ministries in the church, we do not need holy orders, or celibacy. Why concentrate all apostolate in the hands of priests (and sisters)? Youth ministry, for instance, or construction work or Sunday catechism can very well be coordinated by lay men and women. We need to provide structures by which a just salary is paid for qualified persons, just as it is done in schools or colleges. This will free the priest to do priestly work, and involve many gifted lay people in the running of the church.
(15) Use church funds to train different types of ministers: Right now, a good deal of money is spent for training future priests. I for one think that, for the amount of time, money and resources invested in seminary formation, the results are not proportionate. Compared to the resources invested in a priest’s training, sisters and brothers get very little help; and lay leader are given even less.. If the church belongs to all, and needs many forms of ministry, then this awareness needs to be shown in the allotment of funds as well. One way to start would be to use the large premises, libraries and qualified personnel of our seminaries to train a wide range of ministers.
******
These reflections are, as I said at the beginning, based on my experience of formation work. They are not meant by any means to be guidelines for others, but only an invitation to pause and look at this central activity in which we invest abundant human and financial resources. That it has a significant impact on the lives of at least some of our seminarians and religious, and, through them, on a wider circle of people, cannot be denied. The question here is: What can we do to increase its impact and to provide a more committed body of priests and religious to the church and to the world?
———————————————————————————————
Fr. Joe Mannath SDB is a professor in the University of Madras and an adjunct professor at Catholic Theological Union, Chicago. His experience includes about twenty years of formation work, ten years of University teaching and guiding research, and many seminars for clergy, religious, educators and youth. He is the author of the bestsellers, You Surprised Me and A Closer Look, and numerous articles. He can be contacted at: Dept of Christian Studies, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai 600005. Phone: (044) 24980316, 24981545. For more information and sample writings, see: www.joemannath.org E-mail: jmannath@vsnl.com
