By M L Satyan
Bengaluru, July 14, 2020: In the wake of frequent ‘suicide by priests’ there have been articles written answering questions like why does it happen? How does it happen? What could be the motive? What/Who is to be blamed? What should be done? etc.
Based on my experiences of visiting formation houses and conduction sessions, I wish to suggest certain models of formation which could make positive impact on the priests and prevent unpleasant incidents/tragedies in their lives.
Once I was conducting sessions for the final year theology students (all of them deacons). As I began the post-lunch session, I wished them, “Good afternoon! Hope you all had good lunch and rest.” One student said, “No Sir!” I went close to him and asked, “Are you not keeping well?” He replied, “Sir, we will rest only after the ordination.” Please look at his answer! I do not hesitate to say that this is the mindset of most students who are in the seminary formation.
By hook or crook, they try to study, mug up, write exams and pass. During the formation their only aim is “ordination to priesthood.” Once they are ordained, they aim for ‘wealthy parishes’ and ‘powerful positions’ like director, rector, treasurer and secretary. During formation they “struggle” and do “hard work” for 8 to 10 years and “take rest” the rest of their life. This is the sad state of affairs today.
Model-1: Suggested changes in the existing formation:
a) Recruit a candidate after a strict screening procedure.
b) After minor seminary training and college studies, the students could undergo one-year of ‘work experience’. They could be sent to their homes, find a job, earn and live with their families.
c) After philosophy course, they could have a two-year break. One year they could do regency (as done presently). The second year they could go back to their homes, stay there, find a job and earn their living.
d) After the theology course, before they are ordained as deacons, they could be sent back to their homes, find a job, work and earn for one year.
e) The suggested “three-year work experiences”, while staying with their families, will make them more mature. In the process, there could be some dropouts. The choice is theirs.
f) Only those students who come back to the seminary after the “third one-year work experience”, could be ordained as deacons.
g) After the Diaconate Ordination, the Deacons could do “one-year pastoral work” in a parish with proper guidance.
h) Those who successfully complete the pastoral work could be ordained as priests.
i) “Peer Support” system could be created for priests and monitored systematically. This is essential for diocesan priests.
These suggested changes will produce mature priests and make positive impact on their work.
Model-2: The main drawback in the present-day formation is the “alienation from one’s family”. As soon as a student is recruited and joins the minor seminary, the “mindset” and the “lifestyle” of the student changes. Examples: the student who slept on the floor and ate with his hands at home is made to sleep on the bed and eat with spoon and fork in the seminary. When he goes home for his holidays, the parents provide these comforts to him. The ‘gap’ widens as years pass-by. When he becomes a priest, he goes home as a “special guest”. The old “bond with family” that existed is no more! Many priests get cut off from their families. To a great extent, this contributes to their ‘loneliness’. However, there are few exceptions.
In the wake of Covid-19, there is uncertainty about students attending classes in schools, colleges, universities. The same is applicable to seminaries. Will normal classes be resumed in seminaries? If not, most of the Regional Seminaries (where students from different dioceses and States study) will be closed. Taking a clue from this scenario, this model is suggested.
Mostly every diocese has a “Formation House.” Vocation promotion could be done within a diocese and the selected candidates, even if the number is small, could study in the Formation House as ‘day-scholars.’ “Sons of the soil” study and work in the same diocese. Religious congregations could follow province-level recruitment and formation. If the province is big, then, small formation centres could be located in different places in order to enable the students to be ‘day-scholars’. Their stay at home will strengthen their bond with their family members.
They could undergo the prescribed courses with the suggested years of “work-experience”. During the formation period the students will be with their families and come to the seminary only for classes. Occasional ‘in-house’ (staying in the seminary) short-term intense training could be done. In this model, the students who ‘persevere’ till the end, will definitely be found quite mature. This model also will empower the local priests (sons of the soil) to manage their own dioceses/provinces.
The present practice is that students are free to join any diocese or province. As a result, many southern priests work in northern/north eastern dioceses. Some of them become bishops and many southerners hold important portfolios there. The negative consequence is that the “sons of the soil” get side-lined. Their empowerment remains an unfulfilled dream.
In Model-2, once the students are ordained in their native diocese/provinces, they could be given freedom to work in other dioceses or provinces, depending upon the need or requirement for a period of 3 to 5 years. This ‘exposure’ of working in other dioceses or provinces may enrich the priests.
Model-3: Celibacy could be made optional. Those who opt for married priesthood could do so. Those who want to remain single may do so but make sure that the ‘peer support’ system is in place. A frank question: “Have you heard of any married pastor of any Christian denomination committing suicide?”
I have not heard. Moreover, we find the married pastors “more mature in their pastoral work” than the Catholic priests. Why does the Catholic Church hesitate to learn this lesson from them?