On Saturday, the 6th July 2013, Pope Francis addressed a group of Seminarians and Novices. In his address he wittingly said, “Once a priest, a good priest, who did not feel he was a good priest because he was humble, who felt he was a sinner, said many prayers to Our Lady; and he said this to Our Lady “this evening, Mother, the promise is sincere. But in case anything happens, do not forget to leave the key outside”). However, he said this with love for the Virgin — people say “Our Lady” — constantly in mind. Yet when someone always leaves the key outside, for any eventuality…. It won’t do. We must learn to close the door from the inside! And if I am not sure, if I am not sure, I think, I shall take my time, and when I feel sure, in Jesus, you understand, because without Jesus no one is safe! — when I feel sure, I will shut the door. Have you understood this? What the culture of the temporary is?”
How true are these words regarding the formation!? We are happy to keep the status quo. When we are training someone under us and sending someone for the formation to a place, think that our burden is over. We pass the ball on to the other court, “now it is your duty,” and conveniently wash our hands. Has our duty over with this? Or have we any plans for them?
Yes, I am speaking regarding the formation of our both future priests and the present priests. Once a person is ordained or finally professed the hierarchy thinks that they are done with their duty as if a new vehicle is out from a factory for the use. They are used till people say, “it is moving and therefore alright.” Have we ever prepared an action plan for the ongoing formation of the ordained or professed people? Ditto is regarding the formation of the seminarians.
In my three years as a resident teacher in a major seminary, I saw very fewer seminarian in-charges or their bishops or the coordinator for formation coming and meeting the seminarians in the seminary, and checking their living condition and learning their mind. My interaction with several diocesan seminarians over nine years in formation of major seminarians across the country revealed to me that they are least cared for by their authorities. Many are not even given a timely correction, but the action is being taken suddenly for the ‘unsatisfactory report’. Did they give enough correction and time to mend their ways? Did they give proper “caution” or “ultimatum” before expelling or giving a corrective punishment? If yes, you are in the right direction and if not you are unjust in your judgement.
Where have we gone wrong if we find a priest or a seminarian not committed to one’s mission? Who are to be taken into the task? Let us not blame each other, rather accept the fact of our ‘lukewarmness’ or ‘the trackless train’. I would like to raise a question on the very process of evaluation and guidance that we give to our seminarians and young priests. Do the concerning people have any periodic evaluation and discussion with young seminarians and priests and inform about their growth?
There is a need for all the seminaries to relook into their mode of formation. I am afraid, the priority of some places is the only intellectual formation and they lack a good human and faith formation. When the heads of the institution are not bent on faith and human formation, the product of intellect will bring no good result in the mission in the longer run. Some seminaries lack good counsellors and experienced spiritual directors. If a major seminary is appointing a newly ordained priest as the spiritual director, surely one can gauge the depth and seriousness of the authorities who appoint them.
Of course, the major part of the life of a seminarian is taken care of by the seminary and its staff, and evaluation is tended to the diocese. And now the task is of the diocese. How often it is being communicated to the student with a fatherly face? How often a report or an evaluation is being asked from the place of ministry (even if it is a month) by the authorities and discussed accordingly with the student? Let’s move towards our regents. Regency is a period of such formation where the person learns to live a practical mission life. It is here he is exposed to the world and the real mettle is known. It is here, the directors need to be extra cautious to direct the person and the responsibility falls more on the seminarian in-charge to check the growth both physically, emotionally and intellectually.
Yet, there is another drawback we find in appointing a regent to a place. Mostly the criterion is “we need a person to take care of” and not ‘whether someone can direct him out there or not.’ The same thing applies when we speak about the ongoing formation of young priests. A newly ordained priest needs a person who can direct the youngster to apply himself for the mission. I have seen many young ordained priests who are unable to administer a sacrament with proper liturgy, unable to face people and break the Word of God. Do they not need a fatherly person who can support and correct them? In my meeting with new priests on a couple of occasions in a major seminary, I learnt that many were appointed to a place where their presbytery superior is only venting out dissatisfaction, or the place where they leant to ‘drink’ and ‘play shuttle.’ How about the talent, passion and specialization of a young priest is taken care of while sending to a place? I reserve my critique here.
Partly, the entire formation system is to be blamed. Today we lack people who can think twenty years ahead of time. We lack trainers having vision in life. Add to this, there is no proper "reward" for seminary professors in today's modern society. School and established parishes fetch more 'income' than being the seminary professors. Being in seminary staff is no more glamorous and rewarding. Professors are always at the mercy of their seminary financial system and often it is the hand-to-mouth situation in all seminaries. This could be another reason the talented and worthy students do not opt for higher studies in philosophy or theology to be part of seminary staff. Yet, at the end of the day, seminary professor can breathe well with the satisfaction that he was part of the greater good in moulding the future of the church and society.
Another darker side of the system is the soft media. The 'short-cut' culture of electronic media is affecting our formation too. When lot of information is available at the fingertip, people prefer to have a shorter version than an elaborate hard text. The same culture is being transferred to your younger priests and the result is poor communication, lack of reading habits, un-updated knowledge, over-dependence on others, isolated and free-life. Spirituality has become a matter of choice. Therefore, I insist that the junior priests should undergo time to time certain courses on spirituality, liturgy and related topics. Seminary curriculum till the ordination is not sufficient in today's changing time. It is only after the ordination many become serious of their formation.
Another important aspect of the formation is the knowledge of the mission one will be spending the rest of one's life. This means to say, before the ordination, a seminarian needs to know the geography of the diocese; mission, vision and goals of the diocese; language and culture of the place; and a general rapport of the priests of the diocese. Holidays are the occasions one can get acquainted with these. Do we have any concrete action plans?
Let's strive for a better formation.
Dr. Fr. Raju Felix Crasta
