The Illusion to Impose Discipline in Formation

Light of Truth

Jose Thayil S.J.
Rector, Papal Seminary Pune

You have spent almost eight years as rector of a Papal Seminary. How was the experience?
The Papal Seminary is doing a great service to the Church. We have seminarians from all over India, and contributing to the future Church. Here we give emphasis to freedom with responsibility. We give the seminarians lots of freedom and accompany them in small groups. We feel that accompaniment will make them interiorise the values. Our advantage is that we get selected people here, and therefore the academics and maturity levels are better. That makes formation easier. We have a good number of dedicated staff too. As there is unity among the staff, we are able to implement the decisions effectively.

Why are you so interested in personal approach?
Because I feel that unless you personally touch people, no transformation will take place. Otherwise the formation will only have a temporary impact, no lasting effect. Values cannot be taught, they have to be caught by people. Which means students have to get impressed by some staff members, and I think all the staff members are making a special effort in that. Here we don’t make a big difference between staff and students. The staff and students follow the same time-table. It helps us to have an inspirational influence on the students.

Your students represent a great diversity, plurality in culture, regions, ethnicity and race. How do you think it influences formation?
Viewed negatively, diversity and plurality can be taken as things that segregate people. But they in fact broaden people’s outlook. For example, it helps someone from Kerala to escape the narrow thinking that Kerala’s cultures and languages are the best if he has a friend from the Northeast. When we have a personal friend from another culture, attitudes and viewpoints change. Students have opportunities here for showcasing the unique cultures of all the regions across the country – south, north, east, and west. We have special functions like Adivasi cultural function, Kerala’s Onam and Tamil Nadu’s Pongal. All these are celebrated in the community so that they get the mythology behind them. We also have all the three rites here, and once in a month we have Holy Mass in Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rites too. We promote broadmindedness.

In India, the national trend now is to impose uniformity, an aspect of fundamentalism. Doesn’t it pose a great threat to plurality and multiplicity?
To some extent that could be said of the Church also. I think we need to leave it behind us. The core message is the same, whether it is of Jesus Christ or of the human values that need to be upheld. For political reasons some try to promote uniformity like Hindutva. Actually people have been living here quite happily in a secular country with all its diversities. Now they want to have uniformity for enjoying political mileage. I think, whether from the political side or from the religious side, the motivation behind it is basically selfishness, not people’s welfare. People are unique; each one or each group has got its own speciality. We cannot sacrifice that for the sake of a particular ideology.

Within the Church people speak of identity. When the ritual identity is stressed, authorities become reluctant to send seminarians to multicultural training centres. Therefore now the tendency is for them to have their own seminary training within the ritual identity. Does it not hinder openness to otherness?
We should be rooted in our own culture, in our own identity. Unless you have your own identity, you cannot appreciate someone else’s identity. I am not saying that you should not have your own identity, whether it be ritual identity, cultural identity, language identity or even religious identity. All these are very essential. If we are fully aware of who we are, then we need not be afraid of appreciating other people. Often fear arises in people who are shallow-rooted in their own identity. You are afraid, thinking that when you mix with the other people, you may lose your identity. Lack of self-confidence and self-acceptance create a certain amount of fear.

For us, the Christian identity is the most important. Where are we rooted, in ethnicity, in religiosity, in tribalism, in language, in culture or in the gospel message?
Jesus is the core of our belief and the message of Jesus is our common identity. But then it also brings in a particular way of worshiping and a particular way of understanding the scripture and culture. Once I am comfortable with my own identity, that I am a tribal, a dalit or of a Latin rite, of a Syrian rite and am fully comfortable with that, then it becomes easy for me to be open to others. But often people are afraid that they may lose their identity through openness, which is not true.

The Papal Seminary is known for its freedom, its openness. Does the Church everywhere appreciate that freedom and openness?
I feel freedom is not appreciated by all the seminaries in the Church. Some feel that discipline can be somehow imposed. They think that if it is imposed for a few years in the seminary, it would be carried on. That is a kind of illusion actually. I find that if freedom a kind of restricted freedom, not unlimited freedom is given to seminarians, they will make mistakes and learn from them. If students do not make some mistakes while they are seminarians, then they will make big blunders afterwards. So I hold on to allowing them to make some small mistakes and learn from here at accompaniment and spiritual directions. They cannot make big blunders normally when they are in the seminary, because in the seminary they work under certain parameters. If freedom is not given during the seminary days, after the ordination, when they have plenty of money, and nobody to question, they could commit big blunders.

This seminary is known for its tradition of openness, which you also have maintained. But that is preventing some dioceses from sending seminarians here. Why?
No real formation can take place under duress. Real formation takes place when it is a self-formation, and a seminary can only provide some atmosphere for that, an atmosphere where this self-formation can take place. In the absence of freedom to make some mistakes, no formation can take place. I know that it is not appreciated by everyone. Those who say they do not like the formation here, like the products from here. After the formation here, they are given responsible positions, and most of them seem to be doing well. They are given responsible positions, because they have learnt here not to misuse freedom.

Now in your sixties, do you find a noticeable difference between the youngsters of your generation and the youngsters of today?
I can see a real difference between the two. The difference is due to mainly the influence of media have on today’s youngsters. They are always busy on their mobiles. They are not interested in relating with people who are closeby; they relate with people who are hundreds of kilometres away. This is happening all over, even in the families. They don’t give much importance to family relationships, because they find pleasure in other relationships. The same thing happens in a small community of priests or religious. Modern facilities help them to be by themselves; they don’t have to depend on others. I think we, the elderly, also have to share the blame for it. Our lifestyle often does not match the ideals we teach them. We find strong family ties among those whose parents insist on it. No strong emotional bonds exist in families where there is no common meal or common prayer. In such families, meals are taken in front of the TV. So I think seniors are equally responsible for what is happening to the youngsters today. Relationships can be built only through a continuous healthy dialogue.

As a result of the information explosion, most young seminarians and priests have practically quit reading. Do you see it as a serious problem?
Informations are easily available now. You only have to click Google to get general information on anything. But to research and arrive at the real truth regarding something, you need to read. Many people find reading too tedious. The internet has made access to information and knowledge much easier today. People are therefore moving from book reading to digital sourcing.

Information is different from knowledge and wisdom. Perhaps we have too much information, but too little intellectual formation, right?
In fact JDV also is trying to encourage people to reflect, find out their own answers rather than spoon feeding them. Many of the lectures are designed in that way. We give some kind of an introduction to the students, ask them to find out the materials, and they themselves search for it. We are organizing many discussions not only at the intellectual level of theology and philosophy but also at the level of formation, religious life, priesthood, Eucharist, celibacy, attitude towards woman…etc. Here I think people internalize things rather than just hear about them.

Any regrets? A feeling that something could have been done better?
Given the circumstances, I don’t think anything more could have been achieved. Not everything is perfect here. I could have imposed many things, but I don’t believe in doing so. My method is to let people slowly learn the values, and by that even if only 20% or 30% change happens, that’s a real change, better than pretending to achieve 80% change.

As rector of a great seminary in India, what future do you foresee for the Church in India?
We are not the only formators in India. We are forming only a small fraction of priests. I am optimistic about the future of the Church.

So far we had a very pleasant existence. Do you fear that the Church is going to face difficulties from outside, from the state and from imposed culture in the future?
I do not think that we will encounter serious difficulties. All that may happen is that we may be deprived of certain conveniences and privileges that we have been enjoying. For instance, we may eventually lose minority status. That will make it difficult for our schools and hospitals to function. But it may be a good thing in one way; we will be brought on par with others, having to pay the regular taxes to the government like them. It will help us become a little more mature by learning to live without the advantages that come with minority rights. I do not share the fear that we might become a Hindu rashtra in the near future. We have enough number of educated people who are well versed in human rights. I don’t think that these fears are going to come true.

Hailing from Vazhakulam, Muvattupuzha, how comfortable do you feel as a priest belonging to the Patna province?
I feel really satisfied. After joining priesthood, I never thought of leaving it. I was in Patna, and I love the people of Patna, especially the backward among them. We have been working with dalits and those who are on the periphery of the caste system. I have been working with them. We are very much interested in social work. Most of my life has been spent in the formation field. In fact, I feel that formation has a good future, because we need to train people in the right way, not just intellectually but also emotionally. I have no regrets. I am quite happy to be a priest. I think I have lived my life quite happily, contributing whatever I could.

Leave a Comment

*
*