Articles
Need for Serious Rethinking on Formation Norms
Opinion | Articles | M L Satyan | 09-Aug-2025
In the wake of frequent ‘suicide by priests’ there have been quite many articles written answering to 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 conducting 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.
I begin with a true incident. 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, “Brother, are you not keeping well?”. He replied, “Sir, we will rest only after the ordination”. I was surprised, rather shocked, by his answer. In Tamil there is a proverb: “testing one rice is enough to know whether the potful of rice is cooked”. The statement of the deacon conveys the present mindset among the seminarians. I am not making a generalization. There could be a handful of students with right motive. However, this student’s mindset is quite prevalent among the majority. It is indeed a great concern for the Formators.
By hook or crook, the seminarians try to study, mug up, write exams and pass. During the formation, their only aim is “ordination to priesthood”. In this process certain politics among the professors, favouring some unfit students for their selfish agenda, cannot be ignored. Once they are ordained priests, they aim for ‘wealthy parishes’ and ‘powerful positions’ like Director, Treasurer, Secretary, Rector, Dean etc. During formation they “struggle” (?) and do “hard work” (?) for 8 to 10 years and “take rest” and “relax” the rest of the time. This is the sad state of affairs today.
Model-1: Suggested changes in the existing formation:
- Recruit a candidate after a strict screening procedure.
- After minor seminary training and college studies, the students could undergo one-year of ‘work experience’. They could go back to their homes, find a job, earn and live with their families.
- 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.
- After the theology course, before they are ordained as deacons, they could go back to their homes, find a job, work and earn for one year.
- Besides other subjects, special focus must be given to psychology, sex education, personality development, interpersonal relationships, counselling and peer support etc.
- The suggested “three-year stay” with their families, will make them more mature. They will understand the hardships that their parents and siblings go through in their day-to-day life and how they face the challenges. The bond-between the students and their families will be strengthened. The “3-year job-experience” in a company/office/institution will give them a lot of exposure to: work with opposite sex and develop a healthy relationship with them; work in a team/group; handle tasks professionally etc. In the process, there could be some dropouts. The choice is theirs.
- Only those students who come back to the seminary after the “third one-year work experience”, could be ordained as deacons.
- After the Diaconate Ordination, the Deacons could do “one-year pastoral work” in a parish with proper guidance.
- Those who successfully complete the pastoral work could be ordained as priests.
- “Peer Support System” could be created for priests and monitored systematically. This is essential for diocesan priests.
These suggested changes will produce priests with more maturity 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 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. He gets used to other comforts of life – timely food, spacious accommodation with fans and ACs, transportation, pocket money/allowance etc. (Note: Some positive changes are being made these days). When the student goes home for his holidays, the parents struggle to provide certain comforts to him like timely food (with non-veg items), private room and vehicle for local transportation etc.
In the past, Christian missionaries sacrificed their comforts and came to India and lived like Indians. Whereas, the Indian priests today live like foreigners. This is the irony. In some areas of the tribal region, many seminarians are not quite enthusiastic to go to their native villages (usually located in the interior jungle) and live with their families during their annual or home holidays. Most of them stay with the parish priest in the parish house. I had met one seminarian who was spending his home holidays in a parish house. The reason was: he had to walk 5 KM into the jungle to reach his home. So, his parents came to the parish house to meet him. The same seminarian, while he was in the school, walked this distance to come to school every day. Being a seminarian, he was “reluctant to walk”. What a change!!
Such incidences are witnessed in southern parts too. Seminarians, from the rural areas belonging to lower middle-class families, rarely go home and stay. Probably they think that the home visit is “below their status”!?! The sad story is that the ‘gap’ between the seminarians and their families widens as years pass-by. When he becomes a priest, he goes home as a “special guest” and that too for a short period, provided the required comforts are there. The old “bond with family” that existed in the past is no more! Many priests get cut off from their families for personal reasons. To a great extent, this also contributes to their ‘loneliness’. However, there are a few exceptions.
Mostly every diocese has a “Formation House”. Vocation promotion could be done within a diocese and the selected candidates could study in the Formation House as ‘day-scholars’. The objective is that the “sons of the soil” study in their own diocese 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/job-experience”. During the total 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 more mature. This model also will empower the local priests (sons of the soil) to manage their own dioceses/provinces. Another added advantage will be the ‘huge reduction in the recurring expenses’ and the ‘number of professors’ required for maintaining a seminary with the resident seminarians.
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 have become bishops and provincials. It is noted that many southerners hold important portfolios in their dioceses/provinces. The negative consequence is that the “sons of the soil” get side-lined quite often. Empowering the local priests remains a distant dream.
There is another possibility in Model-2. Once the students are ordained in their native diocese/provinces, they could be given freedom/chance to work in other dioceses or provinces, depending upon the need or requirement for a period of 3 to 5 years. Presently there are hundreds of Indian priests working in US, Canada, UK and other European countries. Many of them go on a contract period of 3 to 5 years. This ‘exposure’ of working in other dioceses or provinces within India may enrich the priests.
Model-3: ‘Celibacy’ could be made optional. Those who opt for married priesthood could do so. With proper training, their ‘life-partners’ could play an important role, may be as deacons, in the pastoral life of the parish. Those who want to remain single, may do so, but it should be made 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 so far. Moreover, we find the married pastors “more mature in their pastoral work” than the Catholic priests. This is the reality whether one accepts it or not. It is also to be noted that the pastors’ wives play crucial and supportive role in the pastoral activities. The people fondly call the pastor couple“Pastor Ayya” and “Pastor Amma” in the southern states. That reveals the close bond that exists among them. When will the Catholic Church learn this lesson from them?
Last but not the least. The suggested changes need to be studied, debated and scrutinised with an “open-mind”. A paradigm shift and a change in the clerical mindset are needed urgently. Are they ready?
(The author is a freelance journalist who writes columns on social and religious issues. He can be reached at mlsatyan55@gmail.com. Views expressed are personal)
Leave a comment
