Beyond Formation: Priest or Lay Faithful? A Dialectic of Being and Action

When people hear the name “ex-student” meaning someone who once studied in a particular institution, this appellation often does not provoke critical analyses and it doesn’t matter whether the ex-student completed his studies and earned a certificate or was a school dropout. This is not the same experience with being a lay ex-seminarian. We all understand why this is so. It is because in the logic of a Seminary, seminaries are not created for the purpose of producing lay people but priests, although you would agree with me that sometimes a house of formation can tend to send out or produce more lay people than clerics. When people speak of “ex-seminarian” referring to a lay person who once studied in the Seminary but did not become a priest, the appellation itself begins to generate critical analyses and raise questions: Why did he leave? Was it of his own making or was it the fault of a formator or of fellow mates in formation or even of his family? Did he have an eye for juicy young women? Etc. In many cases, an affirmative answer to the last question often succeeds to be the convincing item in the mind-set of most people. People begin to delve into the anthropological and existential question of what kind of person you are. These questions are inescapable when one assumes the status of a lay ex-major seminarian and for as long as they haunt one, then can and do so often make or mar the destiny of some lay ex-seminarians. Being a lay ex seminarian is a challenge – it could be considered as being both a blessing and a curse, even a scandal and this results in part from the stereotyping of the concept of ex-seminarian in both ecclesiastical and secular circles. A good number of lay ex-seminarians working in ecclesiastical institutions as teachers, catechists, etc. have been stigmatized, labelled, traumatized and subjected to often underserved and unjustified harsh treatment and it is sad to say that this has often happened in the same ecclesiastical circles and institutions which they sought the priesthood to enable them serve. It is sad that some of the ex-seminarians who have suffered some of these inhumane treatments have suffered them in the hands of priests who were their contemporaries in the same house of formation. I personally believe that on the occasion of this jubilee, it would be a worthwhile best practice for the Seminary, and for the Church in the Province to reflect on the place of lay ex seminarians in the life of the local Church, the significant contributions made by different generations of lay ex-major seminarians to the growth of the local churches in this province and the relationship of the church to ex seminarians. It is time for us to ask and reflect on some hard questions: How can we improve the image of lay ex seminarians in the Church?  What can and should be done, in a spirit of fairness and solidarity, to boost the wellbeing and self-esteem of those lay ex-major seminarians who have dedicated their lives to serving the Church? How can we as a Church combat the negative stereotypes that define the perceptions of lay ex seminarians by both clergy, religious and lay faithful? This, I believe, is an incumbent task for the Church of today.    

Let me be quick to point out that this line of thinking does not exonerate those ex seminarians who have chosen the path of bearing grudges, and keeping malice against the Church for not having become priests. While I acknowledge that some of them did have their vocational journeys aborted unfairly, choosing to accept to slide down the path of bitterness is not a magnificent description of an ex seminarian of this house of formation. In some cases, such attitudes help to validate the possibility that if such an ex seminarian had actually become a priest, he wouldn’t have been a joyful, happy priest. It is not okay to have suffered injustices and treatments you didn’t merit; but even more, it is not okay to choose to live with those hurts for the rest of your life. It is a choice for which you alone can take responsibility. Dear brothers ex-seminarians who still harbour grudges against this formation house, both those present here physically and those present in spirit, I call upon each and everyone of you to exercise a spirit of unconditional forgiveness to this house of formation, to each and every person in this house of formation who in your era might have made your life here difficult and might have been among the reasons you did not make it to the altar. This will be a befitting gift to this house of formation as Mother STAMS turns 50. I believe that in extending an invitation to the lay alumni of this noble house of formation to be part of these jubilee celebrations the Rector and the formation team are extending open arms of embrace and sending the message that they recognize that it is time for you who remember with bitterness and regrets your experiences here in STAMS to receive from the Church a mea culpa for the wrongs you endured. Fifty is golden, and I wish a golden gesture of forgiveness from us to our past history in STAMS. Choose to put aside regret for those errors of the past and let the grace of this jubilee overflow to our hearts and flourish them with tranquillity.     

Many ex lay major seminarians of this house of formation out there are doing well, exceptionally well. Among them are individuals who chose to keep fighting positively, who choose to focus on the lessons learned rather than on the hurts, who choose to believe that life is always calling us to other, equally good opportunities when other opportunities are lost. They chose to keep believing in themselves, chose to keep hoping even in the face of apparent hopelessness, they have been able to build a vision for their lives and have been keen to pursuing it unrepentantly, sometimes taking some of the unimaginable risks and daring steps.  They are a testament that it is not an excuse for anyone who leaves this house of formation without becoming a priest to resign themselves to a life of regrets, bitterness, anger, resentment, and unforgiveness. And I say it again, this is no way to live as a lay ex seminarian-alumni of this house of formation. Often the difference is not in what opportunities we have, but in our determination, our readiness to make the difference, our commitment to flourishing in genuine ways, and making the right connections while exerting the required efforts.

The lesson for formation today is to critically reflect on the question: Where should discernment begin. This question, in my opinion is one which should be pursued with all rigour and open-mindedness. To put it clearly should discernment of a candidate’s vocation and suitability for ministry begin from faith or from doubt? There have been instances where discernment into a candidates calling has begun from the attitude of scepticism. The candidate’s claim to feeling called is subjected to doubt until the candidate provides reasonable and convincing proof in the course of formation that he truly feels called. I do not argue that there might be no merit in this perspective, but there is an inherent danger that can be disastrous if overlooked, namely that the one discerning the candidate’s vocation risks remaining locked up in scepticism about a candidate’s vocation. And it could then happen that an otherwise genuine vocation is sacrificed “for the good of the Church” because the one in whose hands the discernment of another’s calling is entrusted, is unable to heal from the syndrome of epileptic doubt. Moreover, adopting scepticism as the starting point of the discernment process runs the risk of encouraging and nourishing pretence in those who are subject to formation, with the risk being inconsistency between the life of an individual while in formation and the life of the same individual after he is ordained. In addition, formation from a standpoint of doubt of a candidate’s call raises the epistemic question that should be reflected upon and answered in all honesty: Does the formator know/see/perceive the candidate the way the candidate is or the way he (the formator) is? In a spirit of formation and discernment marked by doubts and uncertainty about the candidate’s calling, there is always the risk that the candidate is perceived, evaluated and judged through the lens of the doubt in the one charged with discerning his vocation. It creates an epistemic divide between the one who forms and the one who is formed since doubt itself and of its very nature means to withhold one’s assent about the vocational claims of the other. If discernment begins from faith, that is, giving the candidate the benefit of doubt, this creates openness, objectivity and a more positive environment in which individuals can freely express themselves and discern together with their formators if truly what they feel is a genuine call to priestly service or they are better suited to serve God in other equally wonderful paths in life.    

Discernment and priestly formation is indeed a sensitive and delicate task. It is a task that confronts the apparent with the real and the real with the apparent in pursuit of the truth. Among its ultimate tasks is to provide an answer to the questions of which candidate is truly called and which candidate is suitable for ministry. The task of discerning the suitability of candidate is quite challenging but a clear path to this is pointed out by Jesus himself in the parable of the two sons in the Gospel of Mathew (Mt. 21:28-32). The father of the two sons had requested of the two sons to go to the farm and work. The first said that he would not go but later on thought better of it and went. He disobeyed the father in his first impulse but later obeyed. The second son said to the father that he will go but later on refused to go. He professed to obey but actually and practically chose to disobey. In the logic of this parable, the suitable candidate is not necessarily the one who appears obedient and submissive but the one who has the capacity to reflect on what is good and is ready to align and realign his choices with what is the right thing to do. Put differently, the suitable candidate is the one who in spite of his human weaknesses has a conscience and is working hard to change and to make amends. This is critical for discernment of priestly vocations and for the discernment of candidates’ suitability for ministry. Not everyone who appears disobedient or appears not ready to align at the start of formation should be construed as lacking a vocation. Among them are those with a capacity to reflect on their choices and choose the truly good above their own personal ambitions. They are ready to let go of their ego, their self-ambitions and adopt humility; they are ready to do what it takes to please the one who calls and who is assigning them a mission of service in the Church. There are also those who, at the start of formation or who while in formation, externally appear to be good and obedient and submissive, ready to do everything that God wants and that the Church expects of them. But they have inherently corruptive tendencies in them that are so strong and so prioritized by them as to make them eventually lay aside the truly good in pursuit of their personal ambitions. And Jesus suggests in the passage just mentioned that the son who thought better and decided to do the father’s bidding is the better of the two.

And now, let me share some thoughts with you dear brother Seminarians of this noble house of formation, our beloved alma mater, STAMS Bambui.