In
a letter dated September 18, 1996 and addressed to John Corriveau, the Minister
General of the Capuchin Order, John Paul II emphasized that the call to the
Capuchin way of life, was a call to live the evangelical brotherhood:
This religious Order constitutes a fraternity, made up of clerics
and lay people who share the same religious vocation according to the Capuchin
Franciscan charism, described in its essential characteristics in its own
legislation approved by the Church.
Given
this reassertion of our identity and the thrust of the Order in recent years,
we need to recognize the way we do formation needs to change. When the Church
viewed itself as perfect in the pre-Vatican II era, “the Capuchin Order was
regarded as a clerical institute dedicated to the salvation of souls because it
was particularly through its clerical ministries that the Order fulfilled its
ecclesial mandate.” However,
since Vatican II the Order has shifted radically in its self-perception. We no
longer view ourselves as clerics, but rather as brothers. The question that we
need to reflect on is: Are we forming 'poojaris' or ministers for the Kingdom of God?
We
need to recognize that there is an unbalanced leaning towards the presbyterate
in the Province. The entire formation program seems geared towards the training
of priests and not towards the training of brothers. This is not to deny the
presence of Franciscan values in the program, but rather that the primary focus
seems to be the training of priests. In the changing environment of the Order
this emphasis surely needs to be revisited. If we want to be true to our
calling as Capuchins then the thrust of formation should be towards brotherhood
rather than the presbyterate. Fraternity should redefine how we do formation.
‘How do we form our young men for a new fraternal vision and ministry in the
Indian context?’ must be the question that engages our imagination.
In
connection with formation for the brotherhood in lieu of formation for the
priesthood, there is another question that needs to be examined. It is the
question of structure of formation. Is the traditional seminary structure
conducive to the formation of brothers for a fraternal economy? Does the
seminary offer adequate or appropriate structures to train brothers for the
Indian context?
In
my opinion, the Tridentine model of seminary that we have adopted as integral
to our formation structure is not able to adequately meet the formational
challenges envisaged by the Church and the Order in the present era. First of
all we need to recognize that the seminary model was not meant for the training
of brothers. It was exclusively for the training of priests. The Tridentine
model made it possible for priests to be formed intellectually by allowing them
to acquire standard knowledge regarding the sacred sciences and philosophy. But
this system also served other purposes. It sought to teach a monastic rather
than a fraternal identity through external signs, like the clerical dress, the
tonsure, and common hours of prayer. It was meant to shelter the men wanting to
be priests from a sinful world; the assumption being that the young person was
prone to the pleasures of the world. But in a very subtle way, the seminary
became a mechanism of control. The seminary demanded from its men total
submission to authority thus ensuring unquestioning obedience, passive
conformity with law and custom and rubrical exactness in the carrying out of
the liturgy. Failure to adhere to the demands of authority resulted in
expulsion from the seminary
The document on Priestly Formation describes the image of the priest as “continuing ‘the mission of Christ
combining in himself the roles of prophet of God’s Kingdom, animator and builder
of the community and servant of the worshiping community’ (2.1).Given the thrust of the Indian Church towards Small Christian Communities, this
role of prophet and animator and builder of community takes on new
meaning. I am not sure that the seminary
structure as it presently stands adequately prepares us for working with and in
Small Christian Communities. The academic preparation and the ministerial
preparation undertaken in the seminary may prove to be inadequate because it
has not provided the candidate with adequate experiential learning. D’Lima
observes:
But the seminary structure militates against the prophetic image;
its monastic spirituality distances those in the seminary from the community of
the believers outside it; and the liturgical norms which are cultivated are
those decreed and imposed by the centralized authority and not those which are
inspired by the local church.
Further if a “priest’s task (his office) is to
enable a believing community to celebrate its worship of God, he must prepare
for it by being part of that community, sharing its hopes and failures, its
triumphs and trails. He must also be convinced that God’s presence will be
discovered palpably in the lives of the members of that community. Such a
preparation demands a continual and in-depth insertion in the life of the
community and is something that the seminary and its structure do not allow.” D’Lima sounds prophetic when he asserts that “the seminary belongs to a
formation-paradigm that may have served the needs of a different age. To
continue with it now will probably bring us paradigm paralysis” and “make the future priest dysfunctional.” Do we dare to dream new structures that can respond to the clarion call for
communion and fraternal economy
No comments:
Post a Comment