Here is a self-criticism by one of the best children of the church in India on his own mother church, especially on its formation of the clergy... Kindly go through this and come out with suggestions to help her to re-invent her as would her master would have preferred to...
Third Millennium, 17-1 (January - March
2014), pp. 7-46.
Forming Priests for Mission! Is It Possible?
Subhash Anand
43subhash@gmail.com
Before speaking
about forming priests for mission, I wish to imitate the greatest missionary
Paul of Tarsus. He claims to be a fool for Christ (1 Cor 4.10). He, however,
did want others to take him for a fool (2 Cor 11.16), but if they insisted then
he would agree with them: he was a fool for Jesus (2 Cor 11.23). He behaves
like a fool by boasting about himself (2 Cor 12.6, 11). Like Paul I am not a
great missionary. Nobody will, however, prevent me from being a fool like Paul.
In any case, this is not the first time. My boasting will give you some idea
about the background for what say. I can give many examples to prove my claims,
but space does not permit it.[1]
After being a
student of Jnana-Deep Vidyapeeth, Pune, for seven years, and a seminarian at
the Papal Seminary, Pune, for eight years, I served both these institutions as
teacher and formator for thirty-two years. I also served three years in St.
Joseph’s Regional Seminary, Allahabad. I have served as visiting faculty in
other major seminaries and scholasticates. I have been a resource person for a
gathering of bishops and priest-representatives of the Agra ecclesiastical
province (1993), of the Hindi-speaking dioceses (1980), and for a CBCI meeting
(1988). I have also been consulted by the staff of Regional Theology Centres
and by Province Co-ordinators for Formation. I was present at the All-India
Consultation of the Major Seminary Staff (1969), and participated in the
consultations that helped in preparing the draft text of the charter for
priestly formation, presented at the CBCI meeting of 1988. I have preached
retreats to over a hundred groups of priests; conducted theology seminars and
formation programmes for priests serving in ‘missions’ and parishes, seminary
staff and young priests; and assisted major seminary staff in evaluating their
performance. Dear reader, “I wish you would bear with me in a little
foolishness. Do bear with me!” (2 Cor 11.1).
During my journeys,
I have heard many bishops, priests, superiors of nuns’ congregations, and
educated lay people. From the internet I know that many others are saying what
I am trying to say. On the other hand, we cannot forget that the Church
functions on the basis of confidentiality (read: secrecy), and we have not yet
passed the bill of right to information within the Church, nor are most Church
authorities wanting it. More than once, when I tried to get some information I
needed, I was curtly told: “Mind your business!” Many Church authorities are
not transparent and resent scrutiny. Deep down they are insecure. In my
presentation I may sound to be judgemental. This is not my intention. I will
definitely point out behaviour patterns that appear to me to be wrong. As for
the intentions of the people involved, I leave that to God. I believe that we
are not always conscious of the complexity of the motivation that drives us. So
often we have a good motive that we publicly profess, and the real motive that
is actually driving us.
A. Daring Dreams
We must start by answering two questions: What is mission today? How
do we fulfil this mission today? Only a correct answer will help us to
articulate a vision for formation for mission—if we can do that. For the
correct answer we need to go back to Jesus, who was a dreamer, unacceptable to
people in power—secular and religious. As a result, Jesus became the
marginalized Jew.[2]
Mission cannot be anything less than sharing his dream, and carrying it forward
till he returns. We wish to dream with the Master, willing to be marginalized
as he was.
A1. Mission as
Self-affirmation
The mandate to baptize people is not found in Luke’s two books, nor
in John. The second ending of Mark (16.9–20), which has the mandate “is not
present in the best Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) as well as
some important manuscripts of the ancient versions... Its language, style, and
content are so different from what appears in the body of Mark's Gospel that it
cannot be regarded as the original ending...[3]
Even Paul told us that Jesus sent him not
to baptise but to proclaim the Good
News (1 Cor 1.17). In the past most of our missionary outreach has
been based on Mt 28.19-20: the mandate to preach the Gospel to all people and
to baptize those who accept it.
This idea of going to the non-baptized in order to bring them to the
Church has led to some very negative consequences. First, we begin to think
that the Church is alright. It is the others who need conversion, and we have
to convert them. The community becomes very self-complacent, not open to
renewal.[4]
It has been my experience that as a group we priests and bishops are the most
difficult people in terms of renewal.[5]
Other may need updating to function better, not we! We priests and bishops are
insured for the rest of our life: thanks to our ordination.
Second, we have had instances
of people going to foreign countries as missionaries ad paganos as the earlier generations would say, or ad gentes as the post-Vatican II
missionaries say. Some have given their best. Others have alienated the
converts. Sad to say, some had to be hurriedly packed home as they were found
exploiting the local women, most of whom were not educated, as so often is the
case in the Third World countries. In some of these countries, extra-marital
sex is not a problem. Also many innocent women think that to sleep with a
priest is an honour!
Third, the mandate approach has given birth to religious
congregations with mission ad gentes
as their specific charism. Their members can only serve in countries other than
their own. As a result they attract many ‘vocations’. Some of them have been
caught womanizing. I know for certain two students of one such congregation who
had visited the red light area. They were summarily dismissed. This may well be
the tip of the iceberg.[6]
Some others go abroad and really find their vocation! They marry some nurse or
some other woman employed there; get a small job and stay on. Others gather a
lot plenty of money to help their family back home. Others get incardinated in
the local diocese.
Fourth, the mandate
approach has led some to a distorted sense of mission. We have resorted to
money and power to get people into the expanding empire known as Christendom.[7]
Then the numerical expansion of the missionizing Church or the political or
economic advancement of its patrons can become more important than the welfare
of the ‘evangelized’ people. Mission then ceases to be an act of service and
becomes a selfish and therefore sinful exercise of institutional survival and
expansion of power.[8]
In the past we have cooperated with colonial nations that have
ruthlessly grabbed the land and women of the people they conquered.
In theory, the Mission System worked to convert Native people to
Christianity... In reality, Native people became virtual slaves with no freedom
where they lived the rest of their lives within the confines of the mission.
The mission system eliminated Native mobility, freedom, and traditional
life-ways. Franciscan missionaries used shackles to subdue Natives who were not
cooperative. Missionaries used whipping as punishment, suppressed traditional
Native religion and culture, and Spanish troops raped many Native women.[9]
We have similar reports also from many parts of Africa, America,
Asia and Australia.
A2. Mission as Self-emptying
There are other
texts from Matthew, which make mission much more challenging. As Christians we
may start calling Jesus: “Lord, Lord!” That will not help unless we do what he
tells us (7.21): be salt of the earth and light of the world. This light is
seen in our good works (5.13-16). By good works, Jesus does not mean solemn
religious celebrations, successful schools and colleges, excellent hospitals,
efficient NGOs, colourful processions and noisy conventions, much less priests
and consecrated people displaying their religiosity by a special dress. All
this was alien to Jesus. We do good works by reaching out to our needy
neighbour, as Jesus did. This is the only
newness Jesus brings, the only sign
of his presence (Jn 13.34-35). Only that makes us worthy of God’s Kingdom
(25.31-46). Mere belonging to the Church is useless (Lk 10.29-37).
When mission is
becoming salt of the earth, and light of the world, then it is not the
efficient activity of some powerful agency, supported by money and all that
money can procure, producing statistics and being applauded. The greatest
missionary was not bothered about statistics; he was even thankful that he had
baptized very few (1 Cor 1.14).[10]
Authentic mission is the effective presence of a vulnerable person, nourished
by love and all the inner resources love can awaken, whose left hand does not
know what the right is doing, and yet who lives joyfully in the Lord. Mission
is not a comfortable career with many attractive possibilities, but a difficult
service with many frightening demands, and at times indirect and even direct
persecution. To be a missionary of Jesus, it is not enough to be nice guys—most
of our priests and bishops are fairly nice guys. To be a missionary of Jesus, I
need to be gripped by Christ, and let him live in me (Gal 2.20)), and through
me reach out to others to draw them to himself (Phil 1.8).
When we understand
mission as going out to the non-baptized we end up with “mission territories”,
“missionary personnel” and “missionary congregations”. This makes many
Catholics very comfortable. They think they fulfil their task if they pray for
those serving the missions, and collect resources for them. If the church can
be the Church of Jesus only by being on mission, then every believer is called
to mission, and where he is becomes mission territory. We become missionaries
if our life enables us in some way to be the salt and the light. Otherwise we
cease to be disciples of Jesus. Hence, even priests who are engaged in
traditional pastoral work can be effective pastors only by being salt and light
within their community. This is the
contemporary challenge of pastoral ministry. “Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if
he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses.”
[11]
When we do what
Jesus tells us, the church becomes present here and now and there will be great
joy (Jn 2.1-11). Our love for people will be the only sign people will see and
believe—not our flashy cathedrals and costly churches, not our successful schools
and colleges, and definitely not people going about in colourful habits and
costly cassocks. To people living in a land where corruption is so rampant both
in the secular and religious spheres, the members of the church will come
across as persons with greater moral integrity and concern for others, whoever
they be. The public life of the nation will slowly be more and more humane. The
disciples of Jesus will find favour with others, and others will join them
(Acts 2.47). Their presence is not a threat to others, because they are not
competing. This is precisely the mission of Jesus: he came to serve, not to
compete. Our service will be more directed to those who are vulnerable,
insecure, marginalized. This church will not seek success and publicity. In this
church there will be no caste system. It will be a community of equals (Mt
23.9-10). In this church we may not even need statistics, “lest the cross of
Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor 1.18).
The true community of Jesus will not have any minority rights.[12]
In the world the disciples of Jesus have only those rights which all humans
have as humans.[13] The
religion of Jesus—if at all he intended any religion—gives us no rights and
privileges, but only duties and obligations. Theologically speaking, minority
rights make sense in a secular society only when we are dealing with ethnic or
linguistic minorities. When in the past I spoke in this vein, my students told
me that I was not realistic, or that I was an armchair theologian. But let us
go back to our history. The first Christians were really a minority, that too
in two senses. They were numerically a small group, and they belonged to the
poorer sector of their population. In fact, many were slaves. But the power of
the Gospel was operative among them. It was only when Christians began to
receive political patronage with the so called conversion of Constantine that
slowly corruption set in.[14]
A community that seeks protection from the state forfeits its prophetical claim
and loses its missionary appeal. It ends up becoming as corrupt and oppressive
as the state. This is amply borne out by Church History.
B. Distorted Dreams
Right now there are two churches among the Roman Catholics. First,
we have the church that is not easily noticed. It is the constituted by
millions of disciples of Jesus who struggle to be what their Master wants them
to be. Some of them may not be ‘practising’ Catholics;[15]
other may not be Catholics and some not even be baptized. I pray I may be found
worthy to belong to this church of Jesus, because this is the only church Jesus
wanted. Second, the Church of which we so frequently speak, the Church we so
often quote—the Church as a multi-national corporation. This is the Church that
hits the headlines. The formation of future priests is what this Church needs
and so it is largely an enterprise undertaken, and carefully monitored by it.
This Church ensures the structures it thinks it needs to perpetuate itself.
Sad to say, the atmosphere of the earth and of the Church is getting
more and more polluted. “The general view is that the universal Church and the
Church in India are passing through a crisis...”[16]
With malice towards none, I am forced to say that as a result of the approach
followed by our leaders, we have gone back to the pre-Vatican II days,[17]
nay “the Church is 200 years behind time.”[18]
This Church cannot provide a suitable environment for the formation of future
priests and religious as healthy humans and as mature disciples of Jesus. Only
mature disciples of Jesus can have a mission.
B1. Commercialized
Cultification
We have so many sacraments and sacramentals, blessings and
exorcisms, ordinations and consecrations, first vows and final professions,
holy hours and perpetual adoration, rosaries and novenas, Stations of the Cross
and May\October Devotions, First Fridays and Mercy Devotions, days of
obligation and days of penance, etc. This makes things easy for us, because
cult does not call for either much intellectual depth or personal integrity. A
great number of our priests function primarily as cult-managers. They are not
capable of celebrating an uplifting liturgy, or of leading people in deep
prayer. The reason for this is that many priests do not really have a life of
prayer, even though they may be saying many prayers.[19]
Many bishops are content if their priests say Mass, observing the rubrics laid
down by Rome. The ritual has to be performed. That is primary. Rituals do not
make liturgy. What disturbs me even more is that many of the sects, that are
attracting large number of Catholics, do not have all this baggage of cults and
rituals. Yet one of the reasons why they succeed is precisely because through
them people get God-experience—at least this is their claim. “God experience is
the most important factor that attracts believers to Neo-Pentecostalism.”[20]
Cults may not help people, but priests definitely profit from them:
they bring in lot of money. Cult centres have shops selling ‘pious’ objects:
statues, medals, rosaries, etc. So often this is a real business, similar to
what was happening in the temple of Jerusalem (Mk 11.15). It is not so much the
mission of Jesus but the commission they get is what many priests are concerned
about. We have centralized this cultification: people have to come to us. That
gives us a sense of power. We use different cultic contexts—baptism, marriage,
funeral—as opportunities for indulging in blackmail and arm-twisting to recover
the dues the person may owe or to get even with him after a conflict.
With modernization and with our laity becoming more educated and
less gullible, less people are flocking to the traditional cults and rituals.
Priests need to find new ways to make more money. One way is to promote
‘pilgrimages’. Catholic weeklies carry advertisements announcing tour packages:
“Walk where Jesus walked.” Priests soon discovered that there is a lot of money
in this. Now they take pilgrims not only to the Holy Land, but also to Rome,
other parts of Europe, Hong Kong and even Macau, the paradise of gambling. “Now
you can pray and play, and have a priest to bless it too.”[21]
It is clear that many priests “have to make money. Their social acceptability
helps to clear hurdles during tours.”[22]
Travel agents in Kerala admit that the presence of priests attracts more
tourists, and the priests get not only a free ticket and much more.
Cultification has led to commercialization. The market has invaded
our sanctuaries. Our ordinations and consecrations are becoming more and more
costly. Functions during which people profess evangelical poverty are becoming
more colourful. Money is no problem. Spending a lot of money on ourselves is
the worldly way of saying: “We matter!” People affirming their own importance
cannot share the mission of Jesus. Our vestments are becoming gaudier; our
churches and altars are covered with glamorous decorations; crucifixes and
statues are lit up with twinkling lights that are more of a distraction than
help. Highly paid choirs perform during these cultic functions. Photographers
and videographers crisscross even the sanctuary all the time and disturb the
service. After the function we have fire-works that add to the decibel level
and to the atmospheric pollution. We make sure that at least the local papers
report our functions.
The great danger in today’s world, pervaded as it is by consumerism,
is the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the
feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience. Whenever our
interior life becomes caught up in its own interests and concerns, there is no
longer room for others, no place for the poor.[23]
A Church that is engulfed in consumerism cannot reach out to others.
It cannot be on a mission. Then it ceases to be the Church of Jesus.
B2. Comfortable
Churchification
Addressing a conference in Rome, “Evangelicals ‒ Pentecostals ‒
Charismatics ‒ New Religious Movements as Challenge for the Catholics”, the
President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal
Kurt Koch said these movements question the ‘churchifying’ of the Christian
faith and life.[24] Yes,
that is exactly our problem. We have so many costly churches and expensive
cathedrals, adoration chapels and grottos, parishes and ‘missions’, convents
and monasteries. Many priests and bishops feel most comfortable within the walls
of these institutions. As a result, thanks to our motorized vehicles, we go
from parish to parish, grotto to grotto, convent to convent, “to share in the
joy of others,” “to build up human relations.” We seem to forget that to share
the joy of others and build deep relations, we need to be truly joyful and deep
ourselves.
We priests, and especially bishops, are only too happy to serve as
chief guests and add grace to the functions organized by Catholics. Many of the
functions we priests and bishops attend do not really need our presence, except
as decorations. We can do all this because even without putting in really
productive work our needs are taken care of and we have more than enough money
for the petrol. We are much better off than many of our people, who in spite of
eight hours and more of hard work six days a week, all through the year, do not
have enough. Those who can have a comfortable life in spite of investing a lot
of time on functions that are not really helpful but part of a consumer-glamour
culture, belong to the social elite. Only those who become poor like Jesus can
share in his mission.
Ours is a horribly centripetal Church. This is borne out by data
supplied by a very extensive survey. The laity by and large is satisfied with
the performance of our priests within the traditional boundaries. The
traditional understanding of the priest is that he is a cultic minister. Cult,
by it very nature, tends to create boundaries: the sacred excludes the profane.[25]
“They [priests] are, however, rated very low on organizing the poor to fight
for their rights, reaching out to the Non-Christians, helping the poor by
providing food, clothing and shelter, and trying out new things in the Church.”[26]
Mission is by its very nature centrifugal. It is possible only when we are
prepared to cross boundaries and enter new terrains: geographical and
theological, emotional and cultural. We need to listen to Francis, Bishop of
Rome. On his visit to Brazil, he “told an assembly of Catholic bishops in the
cathedral of Rio de Janeiro to get out of their cathedrals and spread the
gospel and serve those most in need.”[27]
He also reminds us what John Paul II said: “All renewal in the Church must have
mission as its goal if it is not to fall prey to a kind of ecclesial
introversion.”[28]
Right now many in the Church have fallen prey to ecclesial introversion.
B3. Contagious Criminalisation
Criminalisation
becomes contagious when it is legitimized by people in authority. There are
three inter-related aspects of our life that tend to generate criminal
behaviour: sex, money, and power. Sad to say, the Church has succumbed to the
lure of all three, as they are interconnected. There are different ways we are
informed about what is happening in the Church. All the sources are not equally
public. That does not mean that they are not credible. What comes to light is
often an extreme form of unacceptable behaviour. It comes to light precisely
because it has become a scandal: everybody is talking about it.[29]
We do not like to remember the
embarrassing past but “the scandal of child abuse and subsequent episcopal
cover-ups refuses to die down.”[30] In 2003, one American
diocese alone “reached the largest financial settlement in U.S. Church history
with hundreds of victims of sexual abuse...”12 This settlement
covered 552 court cases, and cost the diocese about Rs. 390 crores. Here is an
report from Africa:
The number of catholic priests and bishops who are sexually active
in Uganda is unknown, but almost everywhere unedifying stories of priests
'sexploits', are not hard to come by. These stories are told in counselling or
as anecdotes or by the media. They are told within the parishes and beyond.
They are told at home in families, in taxis, in hair salons and in the markets.[31]
Church authorities do not like to face
the embarrassing truth. The Vatican itself is readying
to canonize John Paul II. Many people have serious reservations about this
move, and for various reasons.
Most horrifying was his [John Paul II] unwavering support of the
paedophile and drug-abusing founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Marcial
Maciel, and his stubborn refusal to look seriously at the credible evidence
against this fraudulent priest. This, and John Paul’s slowness to admit to the
problem of clergy sex abuse of minors, in general constitute, a black mark on
his pontificate that not even his greatest supporters can easily explain away.[32]
!!!???
Let me add. canonization cannot change the facts of history. When
some priests and bishops get intimately involved with women, many other tragic
consequences follow.[33]
In our country too we have our share
of sexual abuses of minors and other helpless persons. Our victims do not have
the courage and the resources needed to take us to court. From the confidences
I have received I know that there are cases of rape too. These are not faults
on the spur of the moment, but well-planned deeds. There are many priests who
are guilty of violating their celibacy, involving consenting persons, usually
consecrated women but sometimes even married and some single women.[34] These priests have a stock
of condoms. But if by chance a pregnancy follow, they even arrange to get their
victims or partners go in for an abortion. Of course, they have a lot of money
to make all the payments.
Very often superiors and others are aware of the criminal behaviour
of a priest. They keep quiet “to protect the reputation of the Church.”
Frankly, I do not think she has any reputation to lose. Cover up was the bigger
sin of the Church than the wide spread child abuse.[35]
This was possible for the Church, a powerful multi-crore international
institution. That makes criminalization contagious.[36]
On the local level this legitimizing of criminal behaviour happens when the
guilty person is merely transferred to a new place.[37] That gives him new
opportunities for his adventures.
Once, while talking to a bishop about the need to be stricter in
dealing with priests who abuse minor and helpless women, the bishops said: “We,
in the Church, believe in forgiveness.” I wonder whether that bishop would say
the same thing, were his own sister or her minor daughter were raped. The real
explanation may come from what I recently heard a retreat preacher saying:
“Were a bishop to take strict action against erring priests, probably he would
be left with very few priests.” Our bishops seem to be more concerned about the
‘work’, less about the quality of the workers.
Some weeks ago the
German ‘luxurious bishop’ is in the news.[38]
Such bishops and priests are found also in the dioceses of the Third World,
where they constantly tell others: “We are a poor diocese.” Their going about
in air-conditioned cars, that too on pleasure trips, is quite common in India
now. Lot of money gathered on behalf of the poor and to support the ‘missions’
is appropriated by our clergy.[39]
Superiors have shared with me their
difficulty in getting proper accounts from their priests. Some are just not
transparent. They use church funds to furnish their rooms with the latest the
market offers, to get the drinks they desire, to silence their victims or keep
their partners happy—gifting them costly sarees, and even costly houses, etc.
Others divert church funds to their families. It is time our laity becomes more
assertive and demands greater transparency from the clergy.[40]
Many priests and
bishops, especially among the diocesan clergy, are very ambitious.[41]
They have recourse to questionable tactics to get their dreams fulfilled.[42]
Some malign those whom they consider a threat to themselves. Sycophancy is
another common sin among the clergy. The boss may claim that two and two make
five. Some will not only agree with him, but also find support in scripture and
canon law. The hunger for power can lead to violence. A priest was recently
murdered. People who are familiar with the history of the place are convinced
that some power-hungry priests and bishops are directly or indirectly involved
in this murder. It has become fashionable to see some political groups as
anti-Christian. These can at the most do violence to some Christians and damage
our institutions—that may well be a blessing in disguise. Christianity cannot
be destroyed from outside. But it can be severely damaged from inside. That is
exactly what some priests and bishops are doing.[43]
B4. Infectious
Institutionalisation
Wrong ideas about
faith, the foundation of our mission, lead us to faulty practice. This, I am
afraid, is by and large the picture that emerges as we look as the Church. We
have institutionalized faith: the acceptance of a set of dogmatic formulae. Our
clergy is comfortable with this, partly because it is easy to accept a set of
dogmas; partly because we do not need to think for ourselves. Everything is so
neatly laid out. Nobody raises questions, at least not difficult ones. A priest
who habitually womanizes can still celebrate the Eucharist; but a priest who
questions the ban on woman ordination is not only silenced, but also forbidden
to lead people in prayer and to break the Word for them. For the Church
dogmatic compliance is more important than moral rectitude. Hence such a Church
cannot share in the mission of Jesus for a very simple reason: Jesus did not
intend his community to follow this norm.
Our
‘apostolate’—that is, the Greek word for ‘mission’—too is institutionalized. We
are starting more and more especially English schools and colleges that cater
to the needs of the ‘normal’ people coming from upper middle class families.
Very few think of the differently enabled children: the deaf and the dumb, the
blind and lame, the mentally retarded and spastic kids. Even when we opt to
work for these, our approach tends to be institution-centred rather than
person-focussed.[44]
Today education is a lucrative business. Towards the end of the academic year
the local media carry advertisements trying to get more students to these
highly ‘successful’ institutions. The Church is not lagging behind in this
market race. Institutions, originally started for the poor, now cater to the
rich.
Our institutions
are protected by the minority constitutional rights. Honestly I am not sure a
religious group can expect special rights in a secular state. A religious
community that expects special protection from the state loses its prophetical
capacity and credibility. This clearly happened during the emergency imposed by
Indira Gandhi in 1975. Anybody who publicly criticized her or her policy was
arrested by the police and even subjected to physical violence. Some of her
loyalists went about forcing people to get sterilized. Our bishops watched all
this in silence. Only when some of our tribal converts were forcibly sterilized
they woke up and spoke out.
Institutionalization
is a very infectious disease. One day, while talking to a seminarian just
starting his M.A., I asked him what subject he had taken. “English literature!”
I was surprised, and so said to him: “But as you did not have English
literature for B.A, it will be very difficult for you.” He kept quiet, but I
noticed he was smiling. I understood. Our seminarians know that it is easy to
become principals of minority institutions. It has always been difficult for
seminaries to get good staff. Priests who are fit do not wish to come. But many
of our young priests and seminarians dream of becoming the principals of some
English medium school. That means a lot of money, power and prestige. The time
of admissions is a time to receive donations (read: bribes)—money that is not recorded
and goes into the pocket of the principal. In the north bishops are finding it
difficult to get priests to serve in some poor parish on in the villages. I
cannot fully fault those who are aspiring to be principals of English
educational institutions. Within the diocese they have more privileges and more
resources at their disposal. An institutionalized Church generates careerism
among its clergy.
Institutions by
their very structure tend to be centripetal. They promote themselves: showy
buildings and glamorized functions are part of their functioning. As earthly
success is crucial to maintain their reputation and to attract those who can
afford, institutions tend to become elitist. They need to report cent per cent
results and convince people to send their children to their school. Hence they
are very selective. The weaker students are left out. Institutional success
leads to competition. Competition generates tension, and even enmity. A highly
institutionalized Church cannot be a missionary Church. Mission is always a
centrifugal process. The mission of Jesus was a movement: to bring about the
Kingdom of God. Jesus wanted to bring peace on this earth: peace to all. Nobody
was left out by him. Movements by their very dynamic are centrifugal.
Today even sainthood has been instutionalized. The beatification and
canonization of people is serving political ends. The founder of Opus Dei, José
Escrivá de Balaguer died in 1975. He was beatified in 1992 and canonized in
2002. The Opus Dei offers unquestioned and comprehensive ‘support’ to the
Vatican. This also explains why John Paul II had a soft corner for it and its
founder, and why during his pontificate more members of Opus Dei were given
assignments in the Vatican. It was also part of Vatican politics to bring John
XXIII and Pius IX together for beatification,[45]
and now John XXIII and John Paul II together for canonization. John “disliked
the bureaucracy of the Roman Curia, demythologized the papacy and diminished
the cult of the pontifical personality.”[46]
Pius IX did just the opposite. He even used questionable tactics to get the
primacy and infallibility of the pope defined.[47]
John Paul II bulldozed collegiality.[48]
The beatification and canonization of people may not always do the
Church any good, but there are some to definitely stand to gain by it. Benedict
XVI’s
decision to allow his popular predecessor’s beatification cause to
begin in haste could well have been an effort to secure the loyalty and
assistance of John Paul’s supporters in carrying out his own fledgling
pontificate... By quickly beatifying his “beloved and revered” predecessor,
Pope Benedict clearly wanted to honour John Paul and garner internal support
from the world’s bishops (most of who were appointed by his predecessor).[49]
Once set in rolling, “the sainthood cause of the Polish Pope has
sped along at record pace since his death in 2005, thanks in no small measure
to help from some of the Church’s wealthiest and most influential people.”[50]
The message is clear: if you have enough money to give to the Vatican you can
get your candidate canonized faster.
Mission emerges
from the experience of Jesus, made possible by the community that struggles to
follow him. The Church as it functions
today is guided by a mistaken approach to mission. As a result, she comes
across to many (is) a distortion, and not the community Jesus had in mind. The
Church gives primacy to cult; tends to confine itself to its ghettoes; glories
in institutions radiating worldly pomp and show; and becomes the breeding ground
for criminal activity. How can such a Church prepare people for mission? We
shall now examine the system that claims to do this.
C. Distorting Dreams
To deal seriously with the malaise that is affecting the Church, we
must examine the system that prepares the workers it thinks it needs. Is the
process of training priests suitable to our times? Can it give the world not
ritualists but heralds of Good News? Can it help the society free itself from
its many evils? These questions were raised already before and during the
sessions of Vatican II. The Council came out with a document on priestly
formation, precisely because the theologians convinced the bishops that “that
the desired renewal of the whole Church depends to a great extent on the
ministry of its priests;”[51]
and that without a better formation of priests nothing will change.
C1. Lost Leaders
In October 1969,
about a hundred and thirty representatives of the teaching and formation staff
of the major seminaries in India came together to respond to the call of the
Council. We felt that with the fast changing society we needed to radically
rethink the formation of our priests. To be more effective we must have from
the start students with greater maturity and motivation. We suggested that our
candidates complete their graduation in a regular college before starting
philosophy. Ours was not an academic concern—the acquisition of a secular
degree—the human formation of our future candidates—the maturity they need to
enter a major seminary today. This was also the reason we emphatically stated
that the graduation be done in a regular college. We wanted the students to
experience the world more; take part in all the extra-curricular activities
that would bring out their talents and respond to their juvenile needs; meet
women of their age, be friendly with them, experience the beauty of loving a
woman and being loved by her. This proposal was voted and was accepted by a
hundred and fifteen. The others—about fifteen—either voted against it or
abstained.
This proposal was
presented to the bishops of India during a CBCI meeting in January 1970. They
failed to appreciate the concerns of the seminary staff. They were frightened
that were they to wait for people to complete their graduation before starting
their philosophy, they would not have many joining the major seminary. Hence
they came out with a very harmless but totally useless decision: “A first
university degree or some corresponding technical or professional qualification
is ordinarily required for priests in India.”[52]
Some seminaries started combining philosophical studies with secular
graduation. Most of their students were not giving adequate attention to
philosophy, and they were all forced to take arts, even if they were able to do
commerce or science. For the few brighter ones it was a frustrating experience.
Soon we realized
that we were still not adequate in our task. A national survey on priestly ministry
was conducted in the mid-eighties. The
survey also shows that
by and
large, the people who accept and respect the priests today are the uneducated,
not the educated... We cannot dismiss the educated laity’s disaffection with
the clergy simply as an expression of the disenchantment of the educated with
religion in general. The survey data does not support the popular perception
that the educated are generally less ‘religious’ than the uneducated.[53]
The findings of this survey were presented to the bishops of India
at the CBCI meeting in 1988. I was present for this meeting. A committee that
was asked to make proposals in the light of these findings suggested that after
philosophy, all our students should find a job outside and be at it for at
least a year and manage with their earnings—mandatory free regency. Again the
bishops got cold feet. They were afraid that many seminarians after getting a
job would discontinue.[54]
They accepted free regency as one possibility.[55]
The fact that the
bishops rejected the two most significant proposals of formation personnel,
i.e., to accept students for philosophy only after graduation (1969), and to
send all students after their philosophy for at least one year of free
regency—a job outside all church structures (1988), shows that deep down the
bishops do not really trust their young men. If so, why do they send them for
theology? Why do they accept them for ordination? These two experiences (1970
and 1988) convince me that for most of our bishops numbers are more important
than quality. They have inherited many institutions. These have to be kept
going—at least that is what they and many of their priests think. For this they
need men. It is much cheaper to have a priest as principal of a school than a
lay person. Priests are a source of cheap labour. I am also convinced that for
most of the bishops the formation of their priests is not really important. We
in the seminary have repeatedly appealed to our bishops to visit the
seminary—as required by canon 259§2—and meet the staff and their students. Our
bishops can make long journeys for the consecration, installation and burial of
a bishop which, as far as I can make out, really serve no purpose. But they
have no time to visit their seminarians and meet with their formators.[56]
Most of our bishops are leaders who seem to be confused. I am not surprised at
this because Rome has been appointing ‘safe’ candidates as bishops.[57]
These cannot give leadership today. Mission calls for creative thinking and
courageous action.
C2. Inadequate Instructors
Many of our
seminaries are under-staffed. Imagine a major seminary preparing people for
pastoral ministry with not even one person qualified to teach Bible. Some of
these seminaries try to make up by getting visiting staff. These do not wish to
be away from their own place for too long. The course is cramped. The material
is covered, but not really understood and assimilated. Formalities are
fulfilled but no good is achieved. Besides the numerical inadequacy, there is
also a qualitative inadequacy. The major seminaries are mostly inter-diocesan
undertakings. As days go by, we are getting less and less bright students
opting for the ministry. The bishops and provincials do not have much to choose
from. They need competent people to run their own institutions. As a result,
those chosen to teach in our seminaries are not always fit for their task. I
have known many seminary instructors who do not encourage questions from their
students. They do not feel confident to handle those questions. As a result, we
get priests who have not really asked questions. We are getting more and more
‘safe’ people.[58]
When an institution
has an inadequate teaching staff, the intellectual formation of the students
suffers. Aware of their own inadequacy, the staff cannot afford to antagonize
the students. Hence they become ‘student-friendly’ and ‘compassionate’: they
are generous in giving marks.[59]
This is possible because our seminaries are not involved in any kind of
professional competition. Whatever be the quality of their products, they will
be absorbed and accepted into the ministry.[60]
The question whether a person is fit for
the job, whether he is really employable, does not arise. Many of us live with
the illusion that ordination makes up for all the shortcomings! But then these
priests are more than satisfied with how things are. They are content with
keeping the status quo going, operating within the boundaries already clearly
demarcated. Mission is not their concern, because mission is the experience of
being sent towards the other, not simply to the others with whom we are
familiar and comfortable, but more to those with whom we are not familiar and
comfortable.
**** As our students get
exposed to other Christian denominations and peoples of other faith traditions,
they are faced with some very serious theological problems: the uniqueness of
Jesus, the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be the Church of Jesus, the papal dogmas of primacy and infallibility,
the Mariological dogmas of immaculate conception and assumption, etc. In like
manner, today many educated young Catholics are not as comfortable with
traditional devotions—breviary, rosary, daily Mass, holy hour, etc.—as their
elders. This is more the case with people who have done theology. I personally
understand their situation. There are some among the seminary staff who also
think along these lines. I have noticed that among diocesan priests who are on
the staff of major seminaries, and who have similar reservations about
traditional beliefs and piety, not all are prepared to honestly admit this and
walk with their seminarians. They are afraid they might be removed from the
seminary and be given a small job back in the diocese. Some even aspire to be
bishops. They play safe. The seminarians are perceptive and some of them learn
the art of duplicity. In the exams they say exactly what the teacher wishes to
hear. The seminary is thus inculcating criminal attitudes and behaviour: we can
do whatever helps us to survive and move upwards. With such attitudes we cannot
be missionaries of Jesus. Jesus invites us to be witnesses unto the truth. The
Church authorities, on the other hand, encourage sycophancy.
C3. Fragile Formators
Intellectual
formation is only one of the aspects of preparing people for mission. Mission
calls for integral development and maturity. Hence the formative staff of the
seminary plays a vital role. Here again, many seminaries do not have formative
staff in sufficient number. The teaching staff is expected to be part of the
formation team. A good teacher need not be a helpful formator. A critical
scholar need not be a dedicated Christian. This results in a conflict between
what the student hears in the class and what he picks up from the formator. The
professor may be very ‘modern’, while the formator may be very ‘conservative’.
What the professor describes as outdated and irrelevant is offered as part of
our revered tradition and therefore bound to be very relevant. Another source
of conflict is the gap between what the formation staff expect from the student
and what he sees them practising.
Another problematic
point is the fact that the staff and the students live under the same roof. The
staff can become—to some extent at least—emotionally dependent on the students.
This makes it difficult for the staff to be adequately objective in their
assessment of the students. Even when they do notice a serious shortcoming,
they may live with the hope—more often wishful thinking—that as the student
comes closer to the ordination he will improve. In many cases this just does
not happen and we end up by promoting candidates who become very problematic
once they are ordained. Even when a particular staff member musters enough
courage to make greater demands on the students, the students and sometimes
even the staff can ostracise him and ruin his reputation.
Though most of our
seminarians are not bright, they instinctively make sure that they survive. One
way is to choose a ‘kind’ person to be their spiritual guide. This guide will
not really confront them, and easily approve their wanting to become a priest.
Word goes round that he is very “understanding and supportive”. Another way is
to befriend a staff member who is particularly vulnerable. The student weeps
over his shoulder and he becomes his god-father. When the staff meets to
evaluate the students, this particular person will defend his client, claiming
that he knows him well, and that he is misunderstood, etc.
C4. Conditioned Candidates
On some occasions, when I tried to share with bishops, vocation
promoters and minor seminary staff my reservations about the quality of many of
the priests ordained in recent times and, consequently, the need to radically
rethink our recruitment process, they have hit back: “You have spent so many
years in the formation of priests. What have you been doing?” Well I have given
much thought to this question. I grant—as I have already stated—we need more
effective formation structures, but I am also convinced that however effective
the structures be, they will not help if we do not have suitable candidates.
Even the best trainer cannot prepare a lame horse for the races. We have to
honestly examine the process we follow to get young people to opt for the
ministry.
A survey, conducted from 1996 to 1998, involving 354 Jesuit juniors,
indicates that the last secular examination they attempted only thirty per cent
secured first class marks;[61]
even these are mostly from the arts (humanities) stream. This, I believe, was
also true of those joining the diocesan seminary or other congregations. Today
the number of bright students joining the seminary is even smaller. This survey
and other sources indicate that more and more of our seminarians are coming
from educationally backward and economically poorer backgrounds. Given the
policy followed by the bishops and provincials, they join rather early. This
has also been admitted even by them.
Fifty-two percent of the seminarians and thirty-seven percent of the
priests feel that they entered the seminary at too early an age. About
three-fourths of the priests and more than half of the seminarians report that
after joining the seminary they never seriously reconsidered their decision to
become a pries! One out of every eight students of theology today regrets his
decision to join the seminary.[62]
This is a very disturbing revelation: the vast majority of our
priests have come to ordination without proper discernment of their vocation.
This brings me to a
very serious problem we in the major seminaries face: Is real spiritual direction
possible in our seminaries? We in Pune made sure that we had two especially
trained persons to guide our students. Sad to say, nearly all those spiritual
directors, whom I knew during my thirty-two years there, were very disappointed
persons. They wanted to get back to their provinces as early as possible. They
felt they were wasting their time: the seminarians were not interested in
direction. “When it comes to
vocations, until recently ‘discernment’ had become something of an ugly word.”[63]
I myself have faced a lot of hostility from some
students. They passed a word around: “Do not go to him for direction. He will
ask you: ‘How do you know you have been called?’”
Some bishops do not encourage discernment among their students.[64]
Some, who believe that they ought not to continue, still remain in the
seminary: the priesthood is a very convenient alternative in a highly
competitive society. Once you are ordained, you will be taken care of till
death. Most of our seminarians come to the major seminary with one goal: to
become a priest by hook or by crook! Spiritual direction and discernment is
only possible when there is inner freedom. Most of our students are conditioned
by the instinct to survive.[65]
They have to become priests. As we study the lives of great missionaries we
realize that mission is a response to a call from God. Most of us are ‘born’
Christians. I am not sure we have really felt a call. There can be no mission without real discernment, simply because we
cannot really follow Jesus without discernment (Lk 14.25-33).[66]
The mission of Jesus calls for great generosity. This is intimately
linked with motivation.
There are students who join the seminary for worldly motives.
Whatever people say, priesthood carries with it a lot of prestige and power. If
asked about their motivation in joining seminaries, they will give all the
stereotyped answers, but if you probe deeper you will discover that some of
them might not even know why they decided to join the seminary.[67]
Many people think we in India have plenty of vocations. This is a
myth that needs to be done away with as early as possible.
Safety, security, glory, comfort, position are all attractive
factors in drawing a good percentage of people to priesthood. Since I have been
working in seminaries for a long time, I do know that most of the students join
with the wrong motivation. It is strange that people from poor families want
more of comforts than those coming from affluent families.[68]
When people with such motivation join the seminary, they will put in
as minimum work as possible when they do not personally stand to gain anything
from it. Malpractice during examinations is growing in our seminaries.[69]
When the staff takes a stand, we see a criminal reaction: anonymous letters are
circulated; telephone wires are cut; doors are blackened; dirt is dropped in
staff letter-boxes; seats of two-wheelers are slashed; etc. Many of our
seminarians do not really opt for celibacy. They just remain unmarried in order
to be ordained. This explains partly the widespread sexual abuses among
priests.
If we honestly look
at what is happening in the Church as a result of the existing structure, we
will admit that we are facing a
great
number of casualties. When I speak of casualties, I do not mean just those who
leave priesthood and get married [I really wish many more had left!]. But I
include in these casualties, all those priests who are spiritually not
maturing, those who are pastorally non-effective, those who go to any extent to
achieve their ambition, those who seriously misappropriate funds, and those who
seriously fail in celibacy while continuing to be in the active ministry.[70]
Many priests and bishops are managers, ritualists, entrepreneurs,
fund-raisers, etc.[71]
“‘Mere administration” can no longer be enough.’[72]
The question, however, is whether they are really engaged in the mission of
Jesus. It is very disturbing “that the
clergy of the mainline churches are responsible in several ways for the exodus
of the believers to the neo-pentecostal sects. This is particularly true of
the Catholic clergy.”[73] The Catholic Church invests
a lot of money, time and talents in the formation of future priests. The
pastors of no other church receive such a prolonged formation as do Catholic
priests. If our priests and bishops are failing in their pastoral ministry,
they just cannot be missionaries of Jesus.
The present seminary system is counter-productive: it is more
distorting than forming. The majority of our seminarians give the impression
that they were more prayerful and honest when they began their seminary studies
than when they were ordained. A good number of them get alienated from their
social and cultural roots and become elitists in their expectations and
life-style.[74] We
do get some young men who come with many dreams and a lot of enthusiasm. Slowly
the system infects them and succeeds in distorting their dreams. Most of them
become minimalists.[75]
The mission of Jesus is only for those who are prepared to put in their best,
always remembering what Jesus said: “A man's foes will be those of his own
household” (Mt 10.36).
D. Disturbing Dreams
Some of my readers
may say I have painted a very bleak
picture. Mission is a call to witness to the poor prophet of Nazareth, who
refused to be hemmed in by human boundaries. The Church is far from this ideal.
It does not have an image suitable to promote the mission of Jesus. It does not have the credibility mission demands.
This is bound to affect the training of future priests. The present seminaries
can only churn out ritualists, managers, entrepreneurs, and
fund-raisers. There will always be some who rise above the limitations of the
present system. In order to form priests for mission we need to dream anew.
These dreams are bound to disturb some. But then that is exactly what Jesus
did.
D1. Decultifying Priesthood
If priests are to
be missionaries, then we must decultify the priesthood. Cult, by its very
nature, creates boundaries: sacred time, sacred place, etc. Mission, on the
other hand, “takes the church beyond itself, into culture, into people’s lives,
beckoning it constantly to ‘cross frontiers’.”[76]
Hence “the church only emerges as the
church when it comes aware of its boundary-breaking mission not just to Judaism
but to all peoples, not just to Jerusalem and Judea but to ‘Samaria, and to the
ends of the earth’ (Acts 1.8).”[77]
In the course of history the presbyter, an elder known for wisdom and exemplary
life, becomes a priest, a ritualist—even without wisdom and exemplary life,
This happened because the Church became cultified. This was not a happy
development. Most of our bishops today are satisfied with ordained priests,
even though they may not be presbyters. Deep down they are afraid. Bishops may
not find many presbyters wanting to be ordained priests!
Vatican II states
that “the liturgy, through which the work of our redemption is accomplished,
most of all in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, is the outstanding means
whereby the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the
mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.”[78]
I am not comfortable with this claim for three reasons. Liturgy, if properly
understood, is the source of our mission. But very soon it deteriorates and
becomes cult. The greatest corruption of the Eucharist happens when its
prophetically symbolic function becomes secondary and is even forgotten and it
itself is seen as the supreme action of Christian life. Making cult the supreme
expression of our religion has another disastrous consequence. Unlike in many
parts of the First World, we in India see our places of worship frequented by
many devotees. Yet we have so much corruption. If an offering to God is the
highest expression of our religion, then it can exist side by side with rampant
corruption. Nay, when we indulge in corruption, we can get away by making an
offering to the gods on earth. Many Catholics feel that they are good just
because they attend Mass every Sunday. Only when ethical behaviour becomes the
primary expression of our religion will our society have some hope of
cleansing. This is exactly what mission as self-emptying is all about.
Second, I am sure
Jesus will refuse to accept the teaching of Vatican II. He sees the love we
have for one another as the sign that
we are his disciples (13.35). The communion that love generates is the best way to proclaim the Good News
(17.21, 23). The caring Samaritan who
belonged to “a heretical and schismatic group of spurious worshippers of
the God of Israel, who were detested even more than the pagans,”[79]
rendered God higher service than the
priest and the Levite (Lk 10.29-37). Even
for an atheist, the needy brother or sister whom he cares for becomes the sacrament of encountering the Risen
Lord (Mt 25.40). When we reach out to the needy we become for them the Ark of
the Covenant,[80]
mediating for them the saving presence of God. Through us God comes to meet
them. There can be no love without truth and justice. If there is so much
corruption in our society and the Church, it is a sure sign that we have lost
love.
Third, the New
Testament repeatedly calls us to love our neighbour. But we do not have a
single text inviting us to participate in any liturgy.[81]
No cult-related words in the New Testament
are used in a cultic sense either
about Jesus or about the Christians.[82] What is even more surprising
is the fact that the New Testament “never uses the technical word hiereus
[from which `hierarchy' is derived] for the Christian ministry. A fortiori
it never places hiereus in relationship with the eucharist.”[83] “Throughout the
development of ministry in the New Testament one striking fact is that ministry did not develop from and around the
eucharist or the liturgy, but from the apostolic building up of the
community through preaching, admonition and leadership.”[84]
The cult-related words are used
metaphorically to describe Christian life in is various aspects. There is no
foundation within the New Testament for cultic priesthood.[85] The praxis of discipleship
is the really authentic cult of the New Testament. Only true disciples of Jesus
can be his effective missionaries.
D2. Demythologizing Priesthood
Once, an elderly person returned home after consuming more liquor
than usual. He entered the sitting room and noticed the crucifix and the
statues of Mary and some other saints placed in a cave-like grotto in the wall.
He was not pleased with what he saw. He pushed a table against the wall;
climbed on it and removed the crucifix and the statues and went out and threw
them in a well. When he returned and saw the grotto empty he smiled. He climbed
the table again and he himself sat down in it. This is exactly what we priests
and bishops do when we give ourselves much more honour than we really deserve.
We generate and propagate myths to legitimize our claims: “The priesthood is
the greatest gift Jesus gave us.” “The priesthood is the greatest vocation.” As
far as my knowledge goes, these myths are not solidly grounded. Within the New
Testament “the only priesthood attributed to the members of the human community
is that of the symbolic priesthood of all the believers.”[86]
Down the years we have produced a theological discourse
rationalizing our myths, legitimizing our claims. Here it is important to note
that “none of his [Jesus’] immediate followers are priests and there is no
order of priesthood evident among the more structured types of ministry that
were beginning to emerge toward the end of the first century.”[87]
It was only from the 2nd cent. that the term ‘priest’ was used for the “bishop
because he presided over the eucharist, and with that term some of the OT
ideology of the Israelite priesthood was reinstated in Christianity.”[88]
This was a major disaster. The concept of cultic purity becomes basic: it
provides us a powerful tool to place ourselves above others. As a result we
convinced people that the cult can be performed only in an especially
consecrated place, and only by some especially consecrated persons. These
persons have been set apart. There are strict rules ensuring not only their
moral rectitude, but also their ritual purity. The Old Testament priest had to
abstain even from legitimate sex on the day he is expected to officiate in the
Temple.[89]
Hence the priest of the Latin Church is marked by his celibacy. He is expected
to be ritually pure always. Their being set apart is also the reason why they
are expected to wear a cassock. People must see them as special persons,
different from the rest. By his celibacy he is superior to others!
Our myths and our
ideology provide the justification for what we do.[90]
We have indecently expensive consecrations and installations of bishops.
Priestly ordinations, jubilees of ordinations, and sometimes even anniversaries
involve a lot of money. Such functions are increasing in number and in cost. We
are not willing to look at them critically. In what way do they make us better
disciples and credible missionaries of Jesus, more committed pastors of our
people? They only serve to put us on the pedestal. We want people believe we
are very important. Without demythologizing and demystifying the priesthood, we
cannot proclaim the poor prophet of Nazareth.
This notion of being set apart for the Lord makes us feel that we
are special people, with a right to some privileges. It generates clericalism,
the root of many of our problems. Francis, Bishop of Rome, “has complained more
than once about careerism, linking it to clericalism.”[91]
Victims of clericalism think they know what is best for their flock, and they
alone are competent to take decisions within the Church.[92]
They do not consult the laity. They defend their colleagues rather than
advocate truth and justice as was clear from the way child abuse by clergy was
handled by the Church leaders.[93]
The notion of being set apart for the Lord leads to centralization
not only in matters of administration, but even of sacramental life. We have
convinced the people they need a priest not only to celebrate the Eucharist and
to impart the sacramental absolution, but also for all the other sacraments and
sacramentals. This gives us a position of importance. People run to us every
time they need a blessing, not only for themselves but also for their
belongings. We have power over their lives. This centralization of sacraments
and sacramentals brings us a lot of money.
D3. Decolonializing Priesthood
One of the central
themes of Vatican II was the emergence of the local church as the goal of
evangelization:
Thus from the seed of the Word of God,
particular Churches founded all over the world shall grow. With their own vigour
and maturity, with their own hierarchy united to the faithful and the related
means for leading a full Christian life sufficiently established, these
Churches shall play their own useful part in the activity of the entire Church.[94]
The Council invites the local churches to decolonize themselves and
be more rooted in their own land, drawing upon its resources. Mission as
witness does not need foreign funds. It taps inner resources. This is also the
challenge of priestly formation.
Right now the programme
of studies in our major seminaries is controlled by Rome. As a result, our
seminarians spend many years in their studies. The tragedy is that their
companions out in the world acquire professional skills of high level within a
shorter span of time. Seminary staff members from all over the country have
repeatedly appealed to our bishops to give a serious thought to this, but we
seem to be hitting our heads against the walls. One bishop honestly told me:
“We must listen to Rome, because we need money!” He who pays the piper calls
the tune! Secondly, our formators and instructors must do their studies in
India. I have known persons who spent more than four years abroad to do their
Ph.D, and yet did not perform as well as others who completed their Ph.D. in
India and that too within three years. It is also my impression that many
persons who go abroad for their Ph.D. come back more Roman than the Romans.
They are not interested in inculturation or in austerity.
I believe the
formation of future priests is one of the basic tasks of the Church. Hence the
local church must find local funds for this undertaking. A great bit of the
irrelevance of our present seminary system stems from its dependence on foreign
funds. I am convinced the Church in India has lot of money, and a good bit of
it is wasted in useless ways. Here is one instance: “Decorations, construction,
remodelling and renovation of over 50 catholic churches at a cost of Rs. 100
crores in the last five years has angered the Archdiocese [Trissur], which had
directed the churches against it.”[95]
All this reflects less the piety of the devotees and their clergy, and more
their money power. Priests and bishops who are party to such waste believe that
the way of the world is more effective than the way of Jesus. Can they still be
missionaries of Jesus?
D4. Decommercializing
Priesthood
Compared to other
Churches in India and elsewhere in the world, the Roman Catholic Church has
plenty of priests, diocesans and religious. What are the priests in India
doing? Some are in direct pastoral ministry, while few are in preaching
ministry, a few in justice apostolate and very few in inter-religious and
ecumenical dialogue. This is the situation even though we have been asked to
broaden our outlooks. Paul VI told us
Peoples, as we know, are engaged with all their energy in the effort
and struggle to overcome everything which condemns them to remain on the margin
of life... The Church... has the duty to proclaim the liberation of millions of
human beings, many of whom are her own children—the duty of assisting the birth
of this liberation, of giving witness to it, of ensuring that it is complete.
This is not foreign to evangelization.[96]
John Paul II affirmed that “dialogue as a characteristic mode of the
Church's life in Asia.”[97]
Why is it that the concern for justice, inter-religious and ecumenical dialogue
is not a priority for our bishops? I see three reasons: first, very few priests
are able and willing to take up these ministries; second, these ministries do
not generate money; third, there is not much glamour about these ministries.
On the other hand,
many priests are longing to be in schools and colleges, especially in English
medium institutions. They do not mind being manager of some press, or director
of the diocesan social service commission. A lot of money is involved in all
this. There are bishops who regularly engage a priest as their driver. Some
priests do not mind it. They share in the attention and royal treatment the
bishop gets wherever he goes. They may not be promoted, but they are sure they
will not be posted in a difficult place. Here in Udaipur, where I reside, we
have an Orthodox parish with just one priest. He is married and has a family to
care. This parish runs an English higher secondary school with a Catholic lay
person as principal and a college with a Dawoodi Bohra (Muslim sect) as a
principal. They have no nuns, but are running a free dispensary for the poor.
Can we Catholic bishops and priests learn to trust our laity, and be less
concerned about saving money? As I already stated, priests are a source of
cheap labour. Once I was sharing with another priest, teaching in a major
seminary, some of my concerns about the formation of future priests. He
remarked: “As long as we are looking for cheap labour, we will not get good
priests.” I even believe that the need to save money is one of the reasons for
the insistence on mandatory celibacy for priests. Were our priests to be
married, they would expect a much higher remuneration. But they would be more
healthy in every way.
All the Synoptics
connect the call of the apostles to prayer. Before choosing his apostles Jesus
said: “The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; pray therefore the
Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest” (9.37-38). Mark
describes this event thus: “And he went up on the mountain, and called to him
those whom he desired; and they came to him” (3.13). Luke is the most explicit:
“In these days he went out to the mountain to pray; and all night he continued
in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from
them twelve, whom he named apostles” (6.12–13). I am certain that many priests
who are engaged in “promoting vocations” are not serious about their personal
prayer. They do not see anything wrong in this, because they are only
recruiting workers.
Young people who do not join the seminary have to compete with many,
and the job opportunities are limited. They have to equip themselves to face
this competition. Even when they are given a job, they have to constantly prove
themselves, update themselves. Today many companies and institutions take
workers on a contract basis. On the other hand, a seminarian, even if he
completes his seminary studies with just pass marks that too after a second or
third attempt, is sure to be ordained, provided he can project himself as a
‘nice’ guy. I have taught in two major seminaries as a resident staff for
thirty-five years and I have seen even absolute dummies being ordained.[98]
Once the seminarian is ordained, he is taken care of for the rest of his life,
even if he puts in the minimum amount of work. Mission is a treasure hidden
deep inside. It is precious pearl. Only those who are prepared to sell all else
can acquire this treasure, this pearl (Mt 13.44-46). Mission can be lived only by
those who are prepared to pay dearly for it. Many of our priests are out to get
as much as possible, and they know they can do it. This explains why we in
India continue to get so many ‘vocations’. If we really want future priests to
be more mission-conscious, it is time that we decommercialize the priesthood.
The commercialization of priesthood has shown
that it can lead the most horrible consequences. The death of Jesus one such
consequences. There were two plots to kill Jesus one in Galilee the other at
Jerusalem “in both cases the principal, and certainly the ultimate, guilt lay
with the representatives of the political establishment - Herod Antipas and his
supporters in Galilee, and the chief priests and Pilate in the capital.”
[99] This
is very clear because in “a
ll the Gospels the chief
priests are the most active opponents of Jesus... None of the Gospels mentions
here those who are simple priests. Therefore we must assume that it was not the
priestly activity of these opponents that makes them hostile to Jesus their
role as chief priests.”[100]
Earlier there was only one high priest, and he was for a lifetime. Foreign
rulers used the post of the high priest for political purposes. As a result,
high priests were appointed and deposed frequently.
Former high priests and other important temple officials constituted
the chief priests: “a Jerusalem
priestly aristocracy with positions of power over the Temple and its treasury.”[101]
Why was this group so much against Jesus?
In the postexilic era, the Israelite priesthood (especially the high
priesthood, an office for which there is no evidence prior to the Exile) became
increasingly linked to a small circle of conservative, wealthy, aristocratic
families who dominated politics and religion in Jerusalem. Such was certainly
the case by the time of Jesus. Indeed, in the first century CE, the economic
stability of Jerusalem depended upon the Temple with its regular pattern of
worship, its revenues, tithes and tax exemptions, and its prominence as a
pilgrimage centre.[102]
Imagine a temple generating enough income to guarantee the economic
stability of a city! What was originally a service of the community gradually
becomes a source of power, prestige and money. It is to be expected that the
people who stand to gain the most from this setup would resist all attempts to
enlighten the people, as that would be detrimental to their interests. Were
Jesus to return today, some of our priests and bishops would come together and
try to eliminate him.[103]
Let me conclude with two parables. The bishops organized a seminar
on forming priests for mission—as they have done so often. For the keynote
address they invited the Master. After entering the hall, the Master paused for
a moment, as if trying to collect his thoughts. After a while he looked up and
said: “Let me begin by sharing with you my feelings as I find myself standing
before you all. Honestly I feel horribly out of place. I anticipated this
feeling, and so begged the organizer of this meeting to leave me out. He smiled
in a very naughty way and replied: ‘Master, you may never get such an audience
again.’ How true. I have never had such an audience before. After what I say,
others may not take the risk of inviting me again. Well, I do not intending
wasting a wonderful opportunity.” He paused for a moment, looked down, as if in
deep thought.
Thee he looked up and said: “The formation of priests for mission
may be compared to a farmer who had very rare mango tree in front of his house.
Every year it yielded the most delicious mangoes, not found elsewhere in that
village. He had only one child, now a very pretty lady soon to get married. He
was determined to give every guest, who turned up for her wedding, one ripe
mango to take home. He called all his relatives from the city for a picnic, and
with their help plucked all the mangoes they could see on that tree and covered
them under a heap of straw. The great day arrived. The guests began to pour in.
The to-be father-in-law removed all the mangoes and his wife washed them
nicely. She then tasted one. It was sour. She tasted a second. It was sour. She
tasted a third. That too was sour. Horrified, she quietly called her husband
and told him about the situation. Their old maid over heard them. ‘I am afraid,
they were plucked much too early!’ she put in. ‘How can we give these sour
mangoes to our guests?’ the woman asked her husband. He came close to her and
whispered: ‘We shall give the mangoes only to the men. Once they have had
enough wine, they will not know the difference...’”
The Master paused for a moment, sipped a little water, and then
continued: “Listen now to another parable. The formation of priests for mission
may be compared to a rich landlord who started a poultry farm. He recruited
some highly trained assistants. He equipped his farm with the latest
incubators, bought a thousand eggs, and launched his farm. The local bishop had
graciously consented—as they usually do—to bless the site and switch on the
power supply to the incubators. Days went by, but nothing happened. Convinced
that the incubators were faulty, he called in expert electricians. They
examined the whole electric supply structure and told him that the current was
fluctuating frequently and sharply. Even after stabilizing the power supply
there was no change. The landlord was desperate. He told his parish priest that
he was heading for depression. The priest had deep rural roots and kept a few
hens in his back yard. He went over and had a careful look at the whole setup,
and then asked: ‘From where did you get the eggs?’ ‘From Minoroom
Seminarwalla.’ ‘Man,’ said the priest: ‘these eggs will never hatch. They are
not fertilized.’ ‘What can I do with them?’ asked the landlord. “You can do
nothing. By now they are all rotten.’”
The Master got up and walked towards the door. He paused for a
moment, then turned around, and said to the bishops: “Let those who are asleep,
wake up—they still can. Let those who have eyes to see, perceive the signs of
the time. Let those who have ears to hear, listen to the cries of the oppressed
and of those leaving the Church. Let those who have a mind to think, reflect
and understand why the Church is two hundred years behind time. Let those who
have a conscience to choose, discern, decide and ACT.”
End notes
[1] When speaking about
priests and bishops I do not intend to make any sweeping statement, though
sometimes I may give that impression.
[2] John P. MEIER, A
Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols. NY: Doubleday, 1991,
1994 and 2001.
[3] John R. DONAHUE & Daniel J. HARRINGTON, The Gospel of Mark, Sacra Pagina Series, Collegeville (Minn): Liturgical Press,
2002, pp. 462–463.
[4] I emailed to all the bishops of India to organize seminars for
their laity, religious and priests to celebrate the golden jubilee of Vatican
II. From what I can gather, most bishops did mighty little. Some made a special
prayer mandatory after Mass—a typical example of the usual clerical escapist
response.
[5] I was so put off by the discussion of the bishops during the 1988
CBCI meeting that I told Archbishop Casimir, S.J.: “The next time you have a CBCI
meeting, please organize a seminar for the bishops on the topic you plan to discuss
at the meeting.” He replied: “Subhash, the bishops who do not need that seminar
will come, but the bishops who really need it, will not turn up.”
[6] Church History provides us of many examples of highly respected
Asaram Bapus.
[7] See for instance C. J. BORGES, “Christian Life in Goa
during Colonial Times,” Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies,
1/2 (July 1998), pp. 34-41.
[8] George M. SOARES-PRABHU, Biblical Themes for a Contextual
Theology Today, ed. I. PADINJAREKUTTU (Collected Works of George M.
Soares Prabhu, S.J., vol. 1), Pune: Jnana-deepa Vidyapeeth, 1999, p. 17.
Emphasis added.
[9]
http://ionemiwok.org/?page_id=231; a.o 15-08-2013.
[10] Much against the sane advice of his loyal generals, David insists
on having a census of his people. He is punished God (2 Sam 24.1ff). Statistics
are a way of assuring ourselves that we are a success.
[11] PAUL VI,
Evangelii
Nuntiandi (
Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, 8 December 1975), no. 41,
[12] The existing minority rights make it possible for a lot of
malpractices to continue without any social auditing, e.g., incompetent people
at responsible posts, caste biases, financial irregularities, etc.
[13] See The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iii.ii.i
to xii.html; a.o 20-12-2011. This letter was written ca. 125–200. See William A.
JURGENS, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols., Bangalore:
Theological Publications in India,
rep. 2005, vol. 1, p. 40.
[14] I have argued this in “If Salt Has Lost Its Taste: Organized
Religion as a Source of Corruption”, Third Millennium, pt. 1: 15–3 (July—September 2012), pp. 33-50; pt. 2: 15-4 (Octo.—Dec. 2012), pp.
5-29.
[15] Speaking of the
faithful who need our care, Francis, Bishop of Rome, says: “
In this category we can also include those members of faithful who
preserve a deep and sincere faith, expressing it in different ways, but seldom
taking part in worship” (FRANCIS,
Bishop of Rome, Evangelii
Gaudium (Apostolic Exhortation: Proclamation Of The Gospel In
Today’s World, 24 November 2013), no. 14).
[16] CBCI Clergy Commission, Priestly
Ministry, 1971, p. 7. This is a summary of the answers priests (about 30%
of the more than 8000 diocesan priests in 1970) gave to a questionnaire on a
Roman Document ‘Priestly Ministry”.
[17] Commenting on “Regulations for Doctrinal Examination” issued by by the Congregation
for Doctrine of Faith, with Joseph Ratzinger as its Prefect, during the
pontificate of John Paul II, Ladislaus Örsy
says: “They have their roots in past ages, they were not born from the vision
of human dignity and the respect for honest conscience that is demanded the
world over today” (Receiving the
Council: Theological and Canonical Debates, p, 103). Örsy (1921‒) has
been professor of Canon Law at the Gregorian
University, Fordham
University, Catholic University of
America, and Gerogetown
University. Ratzinger was
responsible for “the Vatican’s
disgraceful treatment of the late Fr. Jacques Dupuis” (“Fostering Interfaith
Relations” (editorial),
The Tablet, 1 December 2012,
p. 2.
[18] Cardinal Carlo Maria
MARTINI, “Church is exhausted, it is 200 years behind”, JIVAN, October 2012, pp. 13-14, here p. 14c. If the Church is so
irrelevant to our times, then our priests and especially our bishops primarily
responsible for this sorry state of affairs.
[19] Years ago, the principal of a college and father of one of my
seminarians asked me: “Father, why is it that our [Catholic] priests depend on
books whenever they lead us in prayer? They need a book even for a simple
function like blessing a new house!” This answer is simple. We Catholic priests
need a book because we may not really know how to pray. At the most we can say
prayers.
[20] Paul PARATHAZHAM, “The
Challenge of Neo-Pentecostalism: An Empirical Study”, Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection, 61 (1997), pp.
307-320, here p. 312.
[21] Shaju PHILIP, “Now holy-day abroad with Kerala priests”, The Indian Express (New Delhi ed.), 5 August 2013, p. 1.
[23] FRANCIS, Evangelii
Gaudium, no. 2.
[24] “Growth of new movements prompts soul-searching”, The Tablet,
20 April 2013, p. 26.
[25] It is interesting to see how ‘profane’ is derived: pro (in front, outside) + fanum (sanctuary).
[26] Paul PARATHAZIIAM,
“Catholic Priests in India:
Reflections on a Survey”, Vidyajyoti
Journal of Theological Reflection, 52 (1988), pp.379-389, here p. 382.
[27]
http://www.cathnewsusa.com/2013/07/pope-francis-to-bishops-get-out-of-your-churches/;
a.o 30-10-2013. See also his Evangelli
Gaudium, no. 24.
[28] JOHN PAUL II, Ecclesia
in Oceania (Post-Synodal Apostolic
Exhortation, 22 November 2001), no. 19. Quoted by FRANCIS, Evangelii Gaudium, no. 27.
[29] In the seminary where I was teaching, a recently ordained deacon
was found guilty of cheating in a test. The students’ council president knew
what was actually going on among his companions. He told the rector that the
deacon’s behaviour was only the tip of the iceberg.
[30] “Reform dominates the agenda” (editorial), The Tablet, 2
March 2013, p. 2.
[31] Anthony Musaala, “Catholic Priests’ Celibacy Is
a Fallacy”, http://allafrica.com/stories/201303220272.html; a.o 30-10-2013. The
text is from an open letter which Fr. Anthony Musaala wrote to the bishops and
priests of Uganda
on 22 March 2013.
[32] Robert Mickens, “Two saints for a diverse
Church”, The Tablet, 13 July 2013,
pp. 6-7, here p. 7a.
[33] Here is one horrifying
instance: A priest had an affair with a former nun. He strangled their first
child to cover up the affair. When the second child arrived, there were
complications. The woman bled to death and her baby died. The priest then
buried their bodies in the compound of the major seminary, where he worked (http://www.ucanindia.in/news/expriest-sentenced-to-life-for-murders/21708/daily;
a.o 21-08-2013). The second concerns Cardinal John Cody of Chicago (1907–1982),
who had an affair with Helen Dolan Wilson, and diverted church funds in her
favour. During his tenure “approximately one million dollars of church funds
went missing, and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops lost more than
four million dollars in a single year while Cody was treasurer of that
organization.” See “John Cody”, www.starglimpse.com/celeb/john_cody; Linda Witt &
John McGuire, “A Deepening
Scandal over Church Funds Rocks a Cardinal and His Controversial Cousin [Wilson],”
People, September 28, 1981, Vol. 16, No. 13; cited in “John_Cody”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cody; both a.o 01–10–2010.
[34] There are many nuns
who joined too early, and now deep down they feel out of place, but do not have
a way out. They too are looking for some fun. Hence when two persons, who are
expected to be celibate, have sex by mutual consent, they are more likely to keep
it a secret.
[35] Colm O’GORMAN, “Silence is the sin”, The Tablet, 27 October
2012, p. 4-5.
[36] In India many nuns have complained of
being sexually exploited by the clergy (http://www.religiousindia.org/2011/10/12/huge-number-of-nuns-have-faced-sexual-harassment-sr-panikulam.
There are bishops who ‘fondle’ nuns whom they invite for a trip in their car
when they are on a pastoral visit. I have known at least three bishops who have
been seriously involved with women. In all three cases the bishops were asked
to step down. See also
http://rekindlingthereformation.com/AD-News-01.03.21-vatican-confirms-report-of-sexual-abuse-and-rape-of-nuns-by-priests-in-23-countries.html.
[37] Let me give two examples
from just one diocese. Two priests, principals of higher secondary schools,
known for womanizing and misappropriating of funds—money needed partly to
entertain their women and to win over ‘friends’—were transferred to other
schools as principals. In one case the police caught the priest red-handed for
taking a bribe. The bishop transferred him to another school. In the second
case the priest and his woman just disappeared when the police were informed
that he had hired somebody to kill the man complaining about his bad behaviour.
When the bishop was informed, he said: “Oh! He and his women.” A senior priest
told me: “The police is going slow. We have a friendly government.” The message
is clear: a priest can be a criminal, but still safe. We hush up crimes and
that encourages crimes.
[38] Bishop Franz-Peter
Tebartz-van Elst’s “behaviour has done a lot of harm: Growing numbers of
Catholics are leaving the Church in Germany in protest at the behaviour of the
Bishop of Limburg who has spent an estimated €31 million (£26m) on renovations
to his palace... Besides having spent an estimated €31m on his residence,
including €15,000 (£12,672) on his bathtub, Bishop Tebartz has also received
two court orders for perjury from a Hamburg
court and nine for breach of trust from a court in Limburg
(Christa Pongratz-Lippitt,
“Thousands leave Church as Limburg crisis escalates”, The Tablet, 19 October 2013 p. 24).
[39] Many religious do not have a foreign contribution bank account.
They need to approach the local bishop. There are others who have a foreign
contribution bank account. But when they write a project to make an appeal to
foreign funding agencies, it has to be endorsed by the local ordinary. There
are bishops who demand their pound of flesh from these helpless religious.
[40] Some priests are very elated with the collection they make on Mission Sunday. But those same priests waste more than
ten times that amount uselessly.
[41] Preaching at the priestly
ordination of the deacons of the diocese of Rome on 7 May 2006, Benedict XVI said: “‘To
climb’—here too we can also see the image of careerism, the attempt to ‘get
ahead’, to gain a position through the Church: to make use of and not to serve.
It is the image of a man who wants to make himself important, to become a
person of note through the priesthood; the image of someone who has as his aim
his own exaltation and not the humble service of Jesus Christ”
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060507_priestly-ordination_en.html;
a.o 31-07-2013).
[42] One of my brighter students was having a difficult experience as a
regent. He wrote me a letter to share his pain. “You always told us to love the
Church. I am sorry I just cannot do that. Here in my diocese I find politics
that are more dirty than the politics out in the world!” This is the
frustration many brighter and dedicated students experience when they see more
closely what is happening in their dioceses.
[43] A recent study reveals
that “the government in
India
attracts corrupt youngsters like a magnet.” I am afraid this is also in some
way the story of people opting to be priests in
India.See
“Study: Govt jobs attract corrupt youngsters”,
Times of India, (Jaipur edition), 21 November 2013, p. 1.
[44] During his visit to Brazil,
Francis, Bishop of Rome, cautioned us against making the community of Jesus an
NGO. See http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/francis-the-church-is-not-an-ngo; a.o
30-09-2013.
[45] According to some observers “it appears that Pius IX was a hasty
substitute for Pius XII, whose candidacy became increasingly troubled in the
revived controversies over his wartime role.” John CORNWELL, “Should he be santo a little less subito?”,
TT, 23 April 2011, pp. 22a–23a, here
p. 22b.
[47] Subhash Anand, May They All Be One: Towards an Ecumenical
Theology of the Church, Indore:
Satprakashan Kendra, 2012, pp. 105-118.
[48] Michael P. RICCARDS,
Vicars of Christ: Popes, Power, and Politics
in the Modern World,
New York:
Crossroad Pb., 1998, pp. 260-261.
[49] Robert Mickens, “This is what was pleasing to
the Lord”, The Tablet, 7 May 2013, pp. 8-9, here p. 8bc.
[50] Robert Mickens, “Two saints for a diverse
Church”, The Tablet, 13 July 2013,
pp. 6-7, here p. 6b.
[51] Optatam Totius
(Decree on Priestly Training), Introduction.
[52] The Commissio Technica for Seminaries set up by the CBCI, Programme of Priestly Formation for India
(a provisional draft), no publisher and date, no. 22, p. 14. This provisional
draft was revised in the light of the Apostolic Visitation (1997—1999), but no
change was made in this respect. See Charter
of Priestly Formation for India, no publisher, 2004, no. 2.4.7, p. 8.
[53] PARATHAZHAM, “Catholic
Priests in India:
Reflections on a Survey”, p. 388.
[54] Once I had a seminarian who spoke very good English, was pious and
handsome. But he could not make up his mind. I told him to take a break and
think it over, but he was not prepared for it. Eventually I told him that if he
needed a job I would help him. Then he readily agreed to leave. Within two
weeks one of my friends gave him some job. Soon he found his ‘vocation’, and
now is very happy with her. I am convinced many of our seminarians, perhaps the
majority, would leave were they to get a good job.
[55] See Charter of Priestly
Formation for India, no publisher, 2004, no. 3.2.4.(i).a, p. 25.
[56] During the thirty-two years I worked in Papal Seminary, Pune, only
three bishops visited us every year. Others did not come, unless for some other
reason they had to be in Pune.
[57] Brendan
McCarthy, “Against the dying of the light: Catholicism in Ireland”, The Tablet, 27 March, 2010, p. 4; Bishop Kevin DOWLING, CSsR (Rustenburg, South Africa),
“The Church and Ecclesiastical Authority”, The Tablet, 17 July 2010, p. 11. That
most of our bishops are ‘safe’ candidates is amply borne out by their uncritical
acceptance of the new English Missal—a colossal waste of human resources, and a
major pastoral disaster.
[58] It makes me sad to say that some bishops, themselves ‘safe’ candidates
in the eyes of Rome,
are only too happy to have ‘safe’ priests. These neither ask difficult
questions nor do they create any serious trouble. Once I was sharing with a
bishop my anxiety about the intellectually poor quality of my students. He
said: “If they know their catechism, it is enough!” I hope the
bishop knew his.
[59] This is an epidemic
affecting the whole nation. See John KURRIEN, “Marks Mask Incompetence”, The
Times of India, (Pune Ed.), July 22, 2008, p. 16; and Harini CALAMUR,
“Students show shocking ignorance in spite of getting excellent grades”, DNA (Ahmedabad ed.), 17 October 2013, p.
8.
[60] Years ago we had a student who failed in his theology comprehensive
exam. We cleared his ordination provided he returned to repeat the exam. He was
ordained, but did not turn up. We wrote to the bishop, but the bishop ignored
our letter.
[61] J. M. HEREDERO: “What are Jesuit Juniors like?”, Jivan, XX -
1 (Jan. 1999), p, 14c.
[63] Stephen Langridge,
“Hearing the call”, The Tablet, 25 June 2011, p. 15. Discernment
among seminarians continues to be an ugly word in India.
[64] Since due to my guidance
two regents decided to discontinue, their bishop publicly told me that I was
having a negative influence on people.
[65] As a result of
studying Modern and Contemporary Philosophy, a seminarian coming to me for
direction told me that he had lost faith in God. I was not surprised, as some
of our brighter students do have a similar experience. I advised him to take a
break and think it over. “If I leave I will be lost. My family cannot support
me. What will I do?” This is the predicament of many of our seminarians. We
need to remember that more and more of our seminarians are coming from
financially poor background. In our seminary, from day one every student gets a
private room. We have water and electricity supply twenty-four hours of the
day. The students get good food. We have a TV room and a computer laboratory
for them. Their bishops provide them pocket money. Hence many of them just
cannot think of going back to their homes, except for a holiday. I do not blame
them. They have been deeply alienated from their roots.
[66] It is important to
note that here Luke has two parables on discernment that are prefaced and
concluded with a call to follow Jesus.
[67] Victor MACHADO,
"Motivation: the cornerstone of priestly and religious vocations", Sathyadeepam, June 1-15, 2005, p. 1. Fr.
Machado was once the Rector of St. Joseph’s Seminary, Mangalore.
[68] Anthony PUTENANGADY, “A
trainer of trainers for years: The danger lies in the concern for numbers over
quality”, idem.
[69] On one occasion we had to dismiss a priest doing his post-graduate
studies for presenting the paper of one of his companions as his own work. That
priest was meant to be on the staff of a major seminary!
[70] John PONNORE, “Spiritual
Formation of the Diocesan Priest”, Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological
Reflection, 68 (2004), pp. 596-605, here p. 596.
[71] A recent letter to the
editor,
JIVAN (Willaim MACWAN,
“Administrators—not educationists”, November-December 2013, p. 29), we read:
when the Kothari commission was being formed
and there was no Church personnel selected on its membership, Fr. Tom Kunnukal,
SJ met the Commission’s chairman and complained to him saying “We have so many
educational institutions in the country and how is it that you have not
selected any Church personnel as a member of the commission?” The chairman‘s
reply was: “Father, you are administrators, not exducators.”
I must add, most of us are very
poor administrators. We tend to be penny wise, and pound foolish. We do not
hesitate to waste money on things that do not really matter, but have
difficulties in giving our lay staff a proper salary.
[72] FRANCIS, Evengelii Gaudium,
no. 25.
[73] PARATHAZHAM, “The
Challenge of Neo-Pentecostalism”, pp. 314-15.
[74] While travelling in the villages of Rajasthan, I have met tribal
Christians who told me that the foreign missionaries were more close to them
than their own local priests.
[75] In my travels I have met some of my former students who were very
zealous and generous while in the seminary, but now as priests are very different.
They have accommodated themselves to the system. When you live in Rome you live as the
Romans do, or be prepared to perish. They prefer not to perish.
[76] Stephen B. BEVANS & Roger P. SCHROEDER, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission
for Today, Bangalore:
Claretian Pbs., 2005, p. 8.
[78] Sacrosanctum Concilium
(Constitution
on Litrugy), no. 2.
[79] “Samaritans”,
in John L.
McKENZIE, Dictionary of the Bible, Bangalore: Asian Trading
Corp., 1998, pp. 765b-66b, here 765b.
[80] Subhash Anand, “Mary: The Ark of the Covenant”, Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection,
77 (2013), pp. 269-291.
[81] Even the words “Do
this in memory of me” are not a call to a cultic performance. There are good
reasons to think that these words do not even come from Jesus.
[82] The only exception appears to
be the word `thusia', which is used once to refer to some ritual
sacrifice in the life of a Christian in Heb 10.26.
[83] “Report of the Pontifical
Biblical Commission”, in Carroll STUHLMUELLER & Carol Francis JEGEN, Women
and Priesthood: Future Directions, Collegeville (Ma): Liturgical Press,
1978, pp. 226-235, here p. 226 (reprint from Origins 6, July 1, 1976,
pp. 92-96).
[84] E. SCHILLEBEECKX, The
Church with a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry, London: SCM, 1985, p. 119.
[85] I have argued this in “Cultic Priesthood: From New Testament to Trent”, Third Millennium,
13-1 (January—March, 2010), pp. 5-26.
[86] Elaine M. WAINWRIGHT, “Priest: New Testament”, STUHLMUELLER (ed.), Collegeville
Pastoral Dictionary of Bibiblical Theology, pp. 776a–779a, here p. 7791.
[88] R. E. BROWN, C. OSIEK,
& P. PERKINS, “Early Church”, in
Raymond E, BROWN et
alii, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Bangalore: Theological
Publications in India, 2005, pp. 1338–1353, here p. 1345b.
[89] The Jews calculate the
day from sunset to sunset.
[90] Authentic theology is
rooted in Scripture and Tradition—notice the
T. Hence it promotes the life of the whole community. An ideology
is the discourse generated by a group to serve its own purpose. By virtue of
its power position this group succeeds in projecting its ideology not only as
theology, but also as the faith of the Church.
[91] John BORELLI, “John and
Francis: two of a kind”, The Tablet, 15 June2013, pp. 4-5, here p. 5.
[92] Some priests and
bishops are so sure of themselves that they think that by virtue of their
ordination they can dispense with the services even of architects and civil
engineers.
[93] John
Michael Hanvey, “Victims of
clericalism” (letter to the editor), The Tablet, 28 May 2011, p. 17.
[94]. Ad Gentes, no. 6. See also no. 22.
[95] The Indian Express, New
Delhi ed., 15th July 2009, p. 5.
[96] PAUL VI,
Evangelii Nuntiandi, no. 30.
[97] John Paul II, Ecclesia in
Asia (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation,
6 November 1999), no. 3.
[98] Once our
Rector wrote to a bishop to recall one of his seminarians, totally unfit for
seminary studies. The bishop wrote back: “The Church needs John Vianneys!” The
tragedy is that too many “John Vianneys” are becoming bishops. In passing I
wish to say that John Vianney was a highly intelligent person, but he had difficulty with
Latin. His bishop gave him permanent authority to absolve reserved cases—a very
rare privilege in those days. So when I hear diocesan priests and bishops
saying: “John Mary Vianney was poor in studies, and yet God worked wonders
through him,” I have a very uncomfortable feeling. Is there a hidden agenda?
Are we saying: “We too are intellectually mediocre, but God can work wonders even
through us. So please accept us.” We will continue making such pleas as long as
our system continues to be what it is.
[99] Geza VERMES
1983, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, SCM Press,
(1973), p. 36.
[100] Raymond E. BROWN, The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on
the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, Bombay: St. Pauls, 1996, pp. 1631-1632;
emphasis in the original.
[102] Nathan D. MITCHELL,
“Ordination”,
Carroll STUHLMUELLER (ed.), Collegeville
Pastoral Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Collegeville (Minn): Liturgical
Press, 1996, pp. 684b–687b, here p. 685b.
[103] This is exactly what
happened to John Paul I. There are good reasons to think he was murdered.
