In your recent issue, you have an item “Seminary Formation Always Draws Criticism: New JDV President”. True, as humans, we are always fallible. But we also learn from our failures. Hence, 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. I was part of this gathering. 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. JDV had twice taken the decision to demand graduation before philosophy. As far as I know, both the times, it went back.
Ours was not an academic concern—the acquisition of a secular degree—but 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. They would not have enough men to run the show. 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.”
But soon the bishops realized that our formation was not adequate. A national survey on priestly ministry was conducted in the mid-eighties. The survey also showed 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.”
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. They accepted free regency as one possibility.
The bishops think that their seminaries can work miracles. A horse-trainer, however qualified and experienced he may be, cannot train donkeys for the races. Most of our seminarians do not have the basic IQ and EQ needed for real pastoral ministry, which is different from rituals and administration. I am not saying that most of our seminarians are bad. They are good, but not every good young man can become a software engineer! If bishops keep on rejecting suggestions of people who have spent years in formation, and willing to accept only some cosmetic changes, we have no hopes.

Subhash Anand
St. Paul’s School, Bhupalpura, Udaipur, 313001