Ten-Plus-One Questions On

NB This file contains answers to 11 questions on the ‘Diploma Course in Theology’ for the Salesian Brothers of South Asia, being offered at Sacred Heart Theological College, Shillong, India, since August 2005. 2

Ten-plus-one Questions on the Diploma Course in Theology for Salesian Brothers Br. Abraham M. Antony, SDB

Now that the Diploma Course in Theology [DCT] has been launched, some confreres are likely to have certain questions on its sufficiency to meet the Specific Formation [SF] requirements of Salesian Brothers [SBs] and on its continued relevance. I would like to anticipate some such questions and answer them in my own way. Since at present I am not one of those responsible for the implementation of the project, I am actually not the right person to do so. Nonetheless, I feel emboldened to make an attempt to do it because, together with several other confreres, I was deeply involved in the evolution of this programme of studies.

Question 1. Is the DCT the best we can offer the Brothers for their SF? If we consider the history1 of the efforts to evolve an adequate SF programme for SBs, we can easily see that the DCT is not the result of any haphazard decision, but the culmination of several attempts to meet their SF requirements.2 Notwithstanding this, I think we should not consider the DCT a once-and-for-all solution, the definitive answer to our search for a viable programme of SF studies for SBs. We have not yet found ‘the best solution’; but we believe we have come up with a viable/reasonable answer, and possibly a good solution. True, the programme has been approved by the Rector Major and by the academic authorities of UPS, but it must, I believe, be regularly evaluated and updated. It is certainly a significant point of arrival, but we must move on from there. For this, we must all actively and creatively dialogue and cooperate with those responsible at SHTC and at Mathias Institute. In particular, the Brother-students at Mathias Institute have a great contribution to make.  It goes without saying that the primary persons who must have a say in this matter are the Brothers themselves. In matters relating to our formation, we are to be taken seriously; that is, we are to be consulted, and our opinions must be given due weight (without prejudice to the Constitutions). I believe it has been so in the recent past. The South Asian Brothers’ Commission [SABC], in consultation with the South Asian Formation Commission [SAFC], has an important role to play in this regard.  In case someone feels that the DCT is an inadequate response to the SF requirements of Brothers, a word of caution is in place: we must think very seriously before we decide to discontinue what we have begun. All other options must be carefully weighed. Only then can we make drastic changes or adopt a new solution. Besides, since the Rector Major has approved the programme, it may not be substituted with another programme without his express consent.  Still it must be reiterated that we have not found a once-and-for-all solution. The words of Fr. F. Cereda may be noted: “We have a tradition for the specific formation of the Salesian priest, but not for that of the Salesian brother. It is important not to be satisfied with half measures, because it is a question of re-enforcing the vocational identity and of providing a high quality formation that is theological, spiritual, educative and pastoral.”3

1 See A. M. Antony, “The Specific Formation of the Salesian Brother in South Asia: Its Nature, History and Prospects”, P. Puthanangady, ed., Research Seminar on the Life and Mission of the Salesians in South Asia (Bangalore: KJC, 2006) 293-321, esp. 298-307. 2 If we examine FSDB-2000 (esp. §§ 449-455), we will come to the conclusion that the SF of the Brother does not consist only in studies in theology and human sciences. It has other aspects too. The DCT as such covers a part of these. 3 F. Cereda, “The Care and Promotion of the Vocation of the Salesian Brother”, AGC 382 (Sept 2004), § 3.3. 3

Question 2. How can the DCT be ‘specific’ to the SBs and at the same time ‘generic enough’ to appeal to other Religious? The practical difficulty in having a sizable number of Brothers regularly attending the DCT was a constant preoccupation for those who planned it.4 It continues to be a major issue because we have only a small number of prospective student-Brothers in South Asia. (This year we have 9 SBs. But next year will we have a similar group?) In the course of evolving this programme of studies, the only practicable solution seemed to be to open the course to other Religious and even to lay people. Fr. F. Cereda constantly insisted upon this. The adaptation of the Syllabus to suit also the non-Salesians would finally rest with the Coordinator, the President and the individual professor. True, the presence of non-Salesians will in some way make the course ‘less specific’ to the SF requirements of the SBs. But we do not seem to have other choices at present. Offering the course once every 3 or 4 years exclusively for SBs ensures the presence of a good number of students, but makes it an occasional event of little importance. Fr. Cereda insisted that the SF course should not be held as a once-in-a-while programme. He was of course sure that there would be students from outside India too. In the beginning, we were all quite certain that we would have a few students from other Asian countries. In fact, there was no lack of interest from their side. But several problems in obtaining visas (e.g., in the case of the Korean Brothers who were to be enrolled for the DCT) have smothered that possibility. We hope that the future will offer a consoling solution.  It is not unrealistic to say that studying with non-Salesian Religious can be an enriching experience for our Brothers. (After all we SBs are not some special species! We can profitably study along with other consecrated laypersons! The SBs on their part have to be ‘understanding enough’ too.)  A wise professor can give his lessons the necessary ‘lay slant’ that his students require and tailor his course to the needs of both the Salesians and the non-Salesians.

Question 3. What exactly do you mean by ‘lay slant’? I believe it is a very loose term. We are convinced that our SF should equip us with what we need as consecrated laymen who are sons of Don Bosco. We don’t need to study all that a Salesian candidate to the priesthood studies. We need to study certain topics/treatises/themes in greater depth than they do, and certain others not as much as they do. We need to see the relevance of such subjects to our life as Religious Brothers and Salesians. As consecrated laypersons we study all these in view of our mission in the Congregation and in the Church, not generically. There is a vision that we have of the secular and the spiritual that is permeated by our being lay.5 We need to correct our vision where necessary, creatively explore further what is uniquely our own, mould our outlook on reality in a peculiar way, etc. Therefore, there is a justification in saying that everything taught to us Brothers should have a certain lay slant, an orientation to our consecrated lay status and apostolate. For this, there must necessarily be

4 A related fact is that there were two or three professors who felt that a new SF course for Brothers at SHTC would not fare well. They were speaking on the basis of what they perceived as a lack of interest or cooperation on the part of some Brothers who did their studies at SHTC (i.e., those who attended the ITLR course or the later two-year course). We respect their opinions! 5 The ‘laicity’ that characterizes the Brother may be positively described as the totality of the values that characterize the Christian Layperson, qualified/crowned by his religious consecration as a Salesian. In choosing this status, he has responded to a personal call of God. We are speaking about the need to direct all our formative inputs to such a person, and not to ‘a generic Salesian’. The lay dimension of the SB is quite well explained in SGC, § 149; GC-21, § 178; E. Viganò, “La componente laicale della communità salesiana”, ACS 298 (1980) 3-50 (esp. 11, 16-18, 24-27). It is very useful to read P. Chávez Villanueva’s talk entitled “The Salesian Brother”, given at San Benigno Canavese on 19 March 2005. It is downloadable from the following website: http://www.bosconet.aust.com/Salesian%20Brother/The%20Salesian%20Brother.doc 4 among the professors Brothers (Salesian and non-Salesian) and Sisters and probably even qualified laypeople. Such a team may not be within our immediate possibilities, but we should aim at it.6 Const. Art. 116 speaks of offering the Brother an “adequate theological preparation appropriate to his consecrated lay status”. Effectively, it may comprise “those aspects of theology that serve to strengthen and illumine his Christian faith and consecrated life so that he can live them with joy and commitment; they enable him to carry out an effective work of evangelization and catechesis among the young – especially working youth – and in his relationship with the laity”.7 Besides, the possibilities for deepening in theology and related fields that the Brother should be offered should be “proportionate to the grade of culture attained in other branches of study and qualifications”.8

Question 4. Why did SHTC have to seek official recognition from UPS? What does this recognition effectively mean? We (esp. the Syllabus Committee members)9 were eager to have the course recognised by UPS, especially because a few Brothers had expressed the hope that their studies would lead to a diploma or degree. They had a point! Salesian candidates to the priesthood study philosophy for two/three years and most of them obtain a BPh from UPS; they study theology for three/four years and obtain a BTh from UPS. Salesian Brothers do two years’ philosophy and related studies plus two years’ theology and allied subjects. If these studies can be crowned with formal degree or diploma, it has a number of advantages. Several Brothers themselves are of the opinion that it would be an added incentive for the Brothers who come for the DCT. The original plan (initially suggested probably by Fr. F. Cereda) was to ask for an official recognition from UPS that would embrace the 2 years’ studies at Kalyani and the 2 years’ studies at SHTC. But this was seen to involve SHTC in a number of problems because of the non-Salesian students, who would have post-novitiate formation programmes different from that of the SBs. This meant that the request for approval by UPS had to be limited to the two years’ SF at SHTC.10  Nonetheless, it must be emphasized that obtaining a diploma or a degree is not the goal of this two-year period. The nature and purpose of this obligatory stage of formation are outlined in Constitutions art. 116 (cf. 106) and FSDB-2000, ch. 10. So I don’t need to repeat it here. It is good to remember that this is an essential phase that all young Brothers must now go through so as to complete their ‘initial formation’. It is a time to read, study, reflect, and pray – a time to grow in knowledge and wisdom, a privileged occasion to prepare for meaningful apostolate as Salesian religious educators.

Let me try to answer the second part of the question. A Diploma from UPS has certain value. Let’s suppose that someone with a DCT comes to UPS for further studies. I believe that the course credits he has earned will be accepted and that he will be exempted from certain courses of the cycle of studies he intends to undertake (e.g., a Bachelor’s or a Licence in Religious/Human Sciences). I suppose much will depend on the type of studies he intends to pursue. In any case, a Diploma from a Pontifical University like UPS has a value in itself!

6 Have a look at the abridged version of the Syllabus, where at least some of the synopses will indicate the lay slant to be given to the courses offered. 7 FSDB-2000, § 453. 8 SGC, § 688; FSDB-2000, § 453. 9 Fr. Cereda too had all along hinted at the usefulness of a diploma from UPS. 10 On the decision of the Academic Council concerning this issue, see Fr. J. Poonthuruthil’s Letter to me, dated 21 Nov 2004, in SFSB, Part II. 5

Question 5. Is SHTC the right place for this programme of studies? This question can involve any amount of discussion and debate. What I know for sure is this: SHTC has a certain advantage to its credit. Those at SHTC have the wisdom they have gathered from their ‘experiment’ with ITLR and the subsequent ‘experiment’ of offering to Brothers selected courses with BTh students. [KJC Bangalore, on the other hand, does not have these experiences.] One can certainly argue about the ‘wisdom’ that these ‘experiments’ have yielded. Some may feel that we should send our Brothers to the CRI Institute for Brothers, Bangalore, because there they can study for a Bachelor’s in Religious Studies (BRS). But does what is offered in that institute amount to what we envisage as SF? I don’t think so! It is true that Mawlai-Shillong has its share of problems (e.g., occasional bandhs; a certain degree of inaccessibility to the place in troubled times). But there are some advantages in being at SHTC and Mathias Institute (e.g., the accumulated wisdom gathered from previous experiments; the well-equipped SHTC Library as well as the DBCIC Library; the missionary ambiance; the closeness of Savio Juniorate, an aspirantate; etc). It is wise not to overlook these advantages. [A place like KJC certainly has other advantages (e.g., greater availability of scholars and specialists from nearby faculties; easier access for students, esp. those from outside India; opportunities for diverse apostolic experiences; etc).] Moreover, since the University of Madras has now recognized SHTC as a Study Centre, there is yet another advantage: a Brother with a graduate degree has the possibility of doing an MA in Christianity if he wants; if another has only Plus Two level of studies, he can do the BA degree in Christianity. So, if a Brother feels that his intense two-year engagement with religious and human sciences does not give him a worthwhile degree from UPS, he can work a bit harder and obtain simultaneously a Government-recognized MA in two years (or a BA in 3 years). This, I think, is an added incentive. So it is wise to respect the present arrangement till we clearly identify better prospects elsewhere.

Question 6. Is the DCT a self-contained course? Are there no common classes with the BTh students? Most of the Brothers who studied at SHTC from 2001 to 2003 had serious reservations about having classes with BTh students. It meant that nothing specific had been planned for them: they were merely attending selectively a few lessons from the BTh programme. The Fifth Congress of Salesian Brothers (2004) felt the need to heed and adequately respond to the grievances of the Brothers. The Syllabus Committee was constituted subsequently precisely for this purpose. Considering these facts and other related issues, the Syllabus Committee members in general vigorously insisted on avoiding common classes.11 The new course would have its own physiognomy; hence separate classes were the most adequate remedy that they could think of. Moreover, in all the discussions that followed the SPCSA’s favourable evaluation of the Syllabus, it was simply taken for granted that the DCT students would have separate classes. The Rector Major’s approval of the course too, I think, takes this for granted. The fact that SHTC got a separate hall/classroom ready for the DCT students itself speaks of the determination of the academic authorities to offer them separate classes. Nonetheless, in the case of some courses (e.g., Methodology) or a special seminar (e.g., on ‘Legal Aid’), where there is not the least incongruence even in the number of credits, having common classes can save time and money. It is noteworthy that in October 2005 some DCT students expressed satisfaction at having had a few classes in common with the BTh students.

11 In fact, during the Syllabus Committee meeting, I myself had raised a question concerning the wisdom of having common classes. And I remember well that the response of the rest of the members was decidedly negative: As far as possible, no common classes! 6

Question 7. Why can’t the Brothers be permitted to pursue the BTh programme and obtain, like the clerics, a BTh degree from UPS? Const. art. 106 says: “Lay Salesians, future priests and permanent deacons normally have the same initial formation and follow curricula of equivalent level, with the same phases and similar content and objectives”. Now, SF, which follows Practical Training [PT], completes the initial formation (Const. 116). So it is not to be seen as detached from initial formation. At the same time, it has to be specific to the requirements of the Brother or the candidate to the priesthood for whom it is meant. As the same article tells us, “[t]he necessary differences are determined by the specific vocation of each one, by his personal gifts and inclinations and the duties of our apostolate”. Similarity of content and objectives does not allow us to settle for the same curricula for all. Therefore, we need to stress the differences and respond adequately to them. Here we have a problem: How do we speak of “curricula of equivalent level” when candidates to the priesthood have a three or four-year period of SF while Brothers have a two- year period? Do we solve the problem by offering both Brothers and clerics the same basic course of theology (BTh)?12 The argument in favour of offering the BTh to all Brothers may run something like this: Unlike in the past, the educational background of Brothers is different today. All the young Brothers in our region have received [more than] enough initiation into the Humanities [including Philosophy] and have sufficient training in the technical-scientific or ‘academic’ field. Some have done their graduation (plus BEd); others have done even their postgraduation. This easily enables them to do justice to a corresponding period of preparation in theology and related subjects. They can easily do the minimum that their clerical confreres do, namely the BTh. This gives them a degree and the possibility of further qualification if needed. So why to go for something ‘less’ in the name of ‘specificity’? Let all – both clerics and Brothers – do the same basic course in theology! The specifics can be given to each group by means of special/separate courses. This saves us the trouble of having to find personnel and means to maintain a course (DCT) with a minimum number of students. Even if there are only two Brothers every year, there is no serious problem. In answer to this, the following may be said: To me this makes a lot of sense. (After all, some documents of the Congregation speak of curricula of equivalent level.13) I would have endorsed it willingly had it not been for the fact that not all the Brothers shared this view (esp. as we have heard them at the Brothers’ Congresses). Nonetheless, it could happen that in the future, some practical considerations will constrain us to rethink the viability of continuing with the DCT. It is not impossible that the Brothers themselves may insist on the BTh degree course. In that case, courses considered essential to the SF of the Brothers should be offered in addition to the regular BTh courses. While the clerics spend their time on pastoral courses and in their diaconal ministry, the Brothers can spend their time in attending their SF courses. This will, of course, prolong the period of SF to involve at least 7 semesters. I know that a few young Brothers have expressed their desire to do the BTh instead of a two- year programme of theological studies.14 Obtaining a BTh degree has certainly some advantages. However, as far as I know, it was not the mind of the majority at any of the Congresses of Brothers. Besides, some Brothers may not like to spend a prolonged period of studies in theology and allied subjects. Again, doing a BTh course without proceeding to a Master’s degree (a Licence), so that one can offer a specialized service, does not seem to be an

12 Useful: the Letter of Br. T. Puthur to Fr. J. Nedungatt, dated 8 April 1999, on the nature of the SF. See SFSB. 13 See the present Const. art. 106; cf. GC-19, § 72; GC-21, § 263, which cites old Const. art. 103. 14 I remember what a Brother said in a meeting with a group of young SBs in Shillong: “If I come to SHTC, it will be for the full BTh course, and not for anything less!” I respect such opinions. I can only say that it is up to him and his provincial to discern the right course of action. In all this, legitimate aspirations must, I think, be respected! 7 ideal choice for some. And how many SBs can be spared for both the BTh and the MTh (the Licentiate)? Many Brothers have been traditionally and rightly engaged in the technical sector, which requires a great deal of preparation and experience. To expect them to undergo a long period of theological studies may not be right or even necessary. More importantly, the BTh programme per se does not necessarily offer the Brother all that the FSDB envisages as his SF. While many BTh courses can be tailored to suit some of the SF requirements of the Brother, we can still ask whether that will suffice. The heart of the matter is not obtaining a degree, but offering a good programme of studies that meets the exigencies of our SF. Now, a word about the DCT: The DCT was planned as a compact course that meets the essential requirements of the SF of the SB. The purpose of the DCT is not to obtain a degree as such. It is, rather, to meet the theological, Salesian, pastoral, pedagogical/educative requirements of the SB (see Reg. 98) in such a way as to complete his initial formation. And so the DCT is not designed as a mini BTh programme, as a sort of pseudo-substitute for the BTh degree. Hopefully, it will offer the Brother “an adequate theological preparation appropriate to his consecrated lay status”. Hopefully again, this “completes his formation with a view to his subsequent apostolic work of education”.15

Reg. 98 says that SBs “should be engaged also, according to their talents, in studies aimed at their professional preparation in view of the apostolic work they will later carry out”. This preparation is not part of the SF as such: “Professional training is something distinct from the period of specific formation”.16 Now, one’s professional training can sometimes take a great deal of time. Think of a Brother spending 3-4 years in religious studies (BTh) after his PT and then spending another 3-4 years in professional preparation (e.g., technical, management, communications, computer, or other studies). In the case of some, 3-4 years’ theological studies may prove very useful; in the case of others, they may not. That is, if a Brother goes ahead with similar studies (theology, scripture, spirituality, educational sciences, etc), a longer period of theological studies makes much sense. Otherwise, a two-year course of studies may suffice. So it may not be a bad idea to accept the present two years’ studies in theology and human sciences as normal and obligatory for all young Brothers immediately before (or immediately after) their perpetual profession, and a longer period of studies (e.g. towards a BTh) for some as an exception.

Question 8. But what about those Brothers who should be prepared for certain specialized roles, e.g., in the formation sector, in the communications sector, or in other areas of animation?

We all know that this has been a deeply felt need. In fact, we are late in preparing Brothers in these and similar areas. But this requires long-term planning and much depends on individual provincials, although the SPCSA can and should play a greater role in this so that we have Brothers involved in various sectors. Models are important in any area of life. Monolithic models have too long dominated the service sectors of the SBs, and we know that such models will have a limited impact. So we need Brothers to branch out into other fields of apostolate and not be limited to the technical sector alone although it is one of our privileged/primary areas of apostolate. But how many Brothers are there? Can most Brothers just abandon the technical sector and take up non-technical specializations? Is that a need at all? What do the signs of the times tell us of our essential contributions in the technical and related sectors (the

15 Both the quotes are from Const. art. 116. 16 FSDB-2000, § 446. 8 so-called ‘world of work/labour’)? Many factors must be taken into consideration here. We ought to talk realistically too.

The introduction of the DCT, I think, does not rule out the possibility of some Brothers’ doing at least Licence-level studies in religious and human sciences. This was my point when I suggested the following in a meeting on 13 September 2002: “[…] that as a policy/norm, the Salesian Brothers’ theological formation course be of three years’ duration, and that for those who wish to pursue a shorter course, there should be the option of doing a two-year or even a one-year course of studies”. This was incorporated into the report on the same meeting and sent to the SPCSA. Those who do a BTh course – I thought – could be allowed to pursue higher studies in religious or human sciences if there need be!17

The SPCSA considered the above proposal and decided to consult the National Commission of Salesian Brothers [NCSB] and the SAFC before arriving at any decision. The letter from the SHTC President was accordingly passed on to Br. J. Das, Chairman of the NCSB. Br. Das subsequently presented the matter to the NCSB and to the SAFC. This is what the NCSB had to say finally: “(1) The Specific formation should be for a minimum of two years. [A] one-year course would be too short for any worthwhile learning. (2) [The] 3 years’ BTh course should be offered to those who wish to do it, as it would facilitate higher specialisations later …” This statement was made in December 2002. The SAFC made the following statement on 22 Jan 2003: “(1) The two-year theology course as held at present is to be the normal rule, obligatory for all the Brothers. (2) Those who wish to do a full 3-year BTh course will do so on an understanding with their provincial, who will decide according to the needs of the province and the future work of the Brothers concerned.” I hope that the SPCSA and the individual provincials will take seriously these important statements of the NCSB and the SAFC.18  Important: The following statement is to be found in the 15-page “Report” that I sent to the SPCSA on 12 March 2004 in the name of all the Syllabus Committee members: “The Brothers who may eventually do the full B. Th course19 in view of a particular need in the Province or the Region should be considered an exception. However, the ‘Two-year Diploma in Theology and Allied Subjects’ should be considered an essential part of the Specific Formation of the Brothers.” I believe that some Brothers will eventually pursue the BTh and MTh courses elsewhere or at SHTC itself with a view to offering some sort of specialized service, for instance in the

17 See the Letter of the President to Fr. J. D’Souza, dated 14 September 2002. I myself drafted this letter. It was subsequently modified with the help of at least 3 other members of the Staff. 18 See the full report by A. Lendakadavil, dated 22 Jan 2003, in SFSB. 19 [The following footnote was part of the “Report”:] In a recent meeting the SPCSA positively considered the possibility of some Brothers doing the three-and-a-half-year B. Th Course. See the report in A. Lendakadavil, “Specific Formation of the Salesian Brother, Hyderabad”, (22 February, 2003), paragraph 2, point 2; paragraph 3, point 2. Earlier, in February 1992, the SPCI had declared thus: “Brothers can do the three-year course with their cleric companions; they can even do the B. Th”. See the Minutes of the SPCI meeting, Dimapur, February, 1992, p. 6, as quoted in C. Saldanha, “The Specific Formation of the Salesian Brothers”, J. Das, ed., Acts of the National Meeting of the Salesian Brothers, October 20-27, 1992 (Madras, 1992) p. 93. 9 formation sector.20 (But these exceptional cases did not come under the purview of the Syllabus Committee.)  My case could be considered an example. I was at first in the technical sector and later on Assistant Headmaster in DB School Guwahati for over 3 years. I did my BTh studies in 1993-1996, and my Licentiate in Biblical Exegesis in 1998-2002.  At present, there is a Brother from INC at UPS who is doing the five-year Licentiate in Pedagogy. One Brother from INH holds an MPh. Others may do (or rather, I hope some will indeed do) similar studies with a view to being teachers or professors at DBV Kalyani or SHTC Shillong or assuming responsible roles in other formative stages. I feel that Brothers who feel cut out for this area of studies and service should express their desire to their legitimate superiors and constantly seek to discern what is best for them and their province (cf. Reg. 100). Besides, any confrere can recommend a worthy candidate to the superiors. My hope and prayer is that in the coming years we may be able to prepare more Brothers who can teach/train other Brothers. Honestly, I believe that the minimum the SPCSA can/should immediately do is to prepare at least two more Brothers in religious and human sciences: one in view of the formation at DBV Kalyani, and another in view of the DCT at SHTC, Shillong. 21 For those intending to begin such studies, it is necessary to have a good basic philosophical- theological preparation (e.g., Diploma in Philosophy + BTh). The formation/qualification of Brothers has been one of the priorities outlined in AGC 376 (in the RM’s Letter; the Orientations given by A. Domenech & G. Nicolussi). When a Brother takes the initiative to dialogue with his superiors on this matter, he is taking a major step towards actualizing such a priority. It is not a virtue for Brothers to shy away from such initiatives!

Question 9. How should one envisage the two years’ SF? A very good way to understand this time of formation is to read FSDB-2000, §§ 448-455. To it we may add the following: The two years of SF hopefully offers the Brother a formative ambiance, a context to learn and grow in. If one makes it a time of intense study and reflection, one will certainly benefit much from it. We could think of SHTC and Mathias Institute as a learning context. Here it is not just the classes that will enrich the Brothers; it is rather the confluence of a number of factors. What they imbibe in class, what they learn from their personal research in the library, what they interiorize by their interaction with the

20 This is not to say that unless one does some theological studies, one cannot be a formator, or that someone well versed in theology will necessarily prove himself a good formator! I suppose that being part of a formation team is not as simple as that. In the final analysis, it is God who forms a person, not himself or another human being. I suppose only well-formed persons can be efficacious instruments in God’s hands for His work of shaping others. Formation is about being available to God, who shapes us, even as we are inserted in a formative community. Formators are primarily men of God, profoundly humble, entirely pliable in God’s hands, and capable of teamwork. These dispositions enable them to be wise and discerning. Studies in religious and human sciences can equip them in more ways than one to be creatively at the service of the heart-forming, person-shaping, sanctifying God. (Let us also remember that theology is not about dabbling in some abstract concepts about the realm of the Divine. It is ultimately about grasping God’s ways with the heart and then giving systematic expression to it.) 21 In a paper on formation from the aspirantate to the immediate post-novitiate stage, presented at the Brothers’ Congress in Madras in 1992, I pleaded for qualifying a few SBs to be teachers in Kalyani. See the article in J. Das, ed., Acts of the National Meeting of the Salesian Brothers (St. Bede’s Madras), October 20-27, 1992 (Madras 1992). In the “Report” of the Syllabus Committee sent to the SPCSA on 12 March 2004, we find the following words: “Qualifying at least 2 more Brothers at the all-India level in religious studies (esp. in Systematic Theology and Catechetics) seems an imperative today. > Minimum: Licentiate level!” Since I would be leaving for my doctoral studies and could not continue being the Coordinator of the SF programme at SHTC, the following recommendation was added to the “Report” (at the prompting of the other members of the Committee): “We […] suggest that the SPCSA in the meantime seriously study the possibility of finding another Brother as part of the formation team at Mathias Institute.” 10

Salesian-missionary context of Shillong, etc, together will contribute a great deal to their formation. (The tribal context of Northeast India itself can be a good learning ground for those new to it.) What is important is for the students to bring to bear upon this learning context their reflective faculties. Reflection is ultimately a matter of the heart: it involves the wholehearted prayerful insertion of the total person into the learning context.

Question 10. But does this new SF programme have a future? (1) In the light of what Const. art. 116 says, there is no question as to whether there should be SF or not even if there is only one Brother in a particular province. So long as there are Brothers in our provinces, they must go on to complete their initial formation by means of the SF. The nature, duration, and quality of the SF as well as the institution where it is actualized will depend on the Congregation’s directives and also on how the Brothers and the SPCSA will subsequently evaluate the fruits of the present arrangement. (2) The future of the DCT itself, however, depends on whether there are students or not, be they Salesians or non-Salesians, and on whether the academic authorities at SHTC continue the project despite any eventual setbacks. Its relevance to the Salesian Brothers depends on how it serves their SF. If there are 5-7 students joining every year, I think the course will continue despite the financial and other difficulties that may eventually crop up. (3) The contents of the DCT itself will, I suppose, undergo some change as the authorities at SHTC and Mathias Institute learn from experience and as they creatively respond to the suggestions of students and professors. But I believe that any substantial changes will have to be subsequently approved by the legitimate authorities in Rome.

Question 11. Why should Salesian Brothers study Theology and related subjects? This question sounds curious in this century! Nonetheless, it is worth dwelling on the issue. There was a time when very little theoretical (‘academic’) preparation was offered to Brothers. The stress was on being ‘good Religious/Salesians’ and on technical, agricultural, or similar training, which enabled the Brothers to respond to the practical needs of the world of labour in particular. Once a senior Brother told me how in his novitiate days (in Italy), after the clerical candidates and candidates to the Brotherhood both had had a few classes together, the latter were expected ‘to practise their trade’ (exercise their technical knowledge: e.g., carpentry, tailoring, etc), while the former continued to study subjects that were more suited to the clerics! In other words, the candidates to the priesthood got more theoretical input, or a deeper initiation into religious subjects in general.22 On the other hand, the Brothers gradually became better prepared for their professional roles. This Brother’s only postnovitiate ‘religious preparation’ consisted in the so-called ‘Magistero’, a two-year course conducted at Colle Don Bosco (if I remember well what he told me!).

Now, such a situation continued in the congregation for long. The Brothers received much less than their clerical counterparts in terms of theory: philosophy, theology, spirituality, etc (or the Humanities in general).23 This was the spirit/mentality of that time. The novitiate situation, I suppose, changed eventually. All had the same formation at least in the novitiate. The aspirantate, of course, was different. When we were aspirants, for instance, we all learnt a trade (completing the ITI exams) and did not complete our pre-university studies like our ‘clerical’

22 In this context, it is useful to read Br. N. Valeri, “Equality of Initial Formation for all the SDB”, in SFSB. 23 Here it is important to remember that carefully graded Christian studies in Humanities in general can offer the Religious a great opportunity to build a profound personal culture for himself/herself (cf. SGC, § 688b; 689c). Did not some Brothers, then, miss something very important in their initial formation? I should think so! But it was not their fault! 11 counterparts.24 We did our university studies during/after our (longer) PT period. Up to 1987 – or even up to 1993 – all the postnovitiate ‘theoretical input’ that most Brothers in India received was the so-called Magistero or Juniorate formation at DBV-Kalyani (up to 1982 at Tengra, Calcutta). In those days, we did not hear of any serious SF. All subsequent ‘theoretical preparation’ depended either on us, or on the will of some thoughtful provincial.

Today the situation is different because experience has taught at least some in the Congregation that the more the Brothers are trained in philosophy, psychology, sociology and theology, the better it is for the Brothers in particular and for the Congregation in general. Today, our ecclesiology is different from that/those of the earlier days. Importantly, we believe in a theologically educated laity. In the Church, philosophical, biblical, and theological studies are not so much the monopoly of clerics as they once were. In fact, the Church itself has gradually come to accept the importance of theologically mature laity. In such a situation, how can Salesian Brothers lag behind in theological knowledge and consciousness? The study of theology (for which a sound philosophical basis is a must) gives the Brother the necessary ‘vocabulary’ to think, speak and write about matters pertaining to his religion and his own religious state with a certain amount of ‘authority’, to dialogue with others who possess a theological training within the Congregation itself and without.25 In many ways, theology must permeate their entire culture.26 Should Brothers run always to their priest-confreres with their catechism book in hand to get a clarification on this/that issue that concerns their cherished faith? If Brothers do their theological and related studies well, they don’t need to depend always on others for every simple ‘religious’ question that may nag them once in a while. I am not suggesting that they can ever dispense with specialists in any field (e.g., theology, canon law, biblical studies, etc), but I am merely hinting that they cannot afford to lack a certain minimum preparation in philosophy, theology, biblical spirituality, etc. To shy away from this responsibility would lead to a certain degree of culpable ignorance on their part.

Theology is, according to one traditional understanding, faith seeking understanding. This description is a valid one. My faith must seek deeper understanding; that is one way I can show that I am serious about my faith! If I never feel the need to deepen my comprehension of what I believe, if I never once question the presuppositions of my religious worldview, if I never feel certain doubts welling up within me, then, I should suspect that I am living my faith quite uncritically. Worse still, it could be a sign that I am beginning to stagnate in my Christian/religious life. Even people who have ascended to great heights of mysticism feel the thirst to know more, to grow further, etc. Moreover, even ‘ordinary Christians’ ask numerous ‘intelligent questions’ on matters related to their faith! It would be regrettable if a consecrated layperson never had and sought answers to similar questions.

Further, I don’t think that the young people we are training/teaching in different fields are unintelligent mules who cannot put to us a question or two about the religion we live. Some of them can stupefy us with their intelligent questions! We are not among them just to teach them some (secular) management principles, a trade, a lot of computer science, etc. We are there as Christian leaders, Salesian educators, consecrated laypersons, as persons who have given God primacy in life.27 We have to be capable of answering their religious questions too. In

24 The case of our group was different: we did our PUC studies, but for some reason could not go on to do the exams! 25 There is a language, a vocabulary that the Brother must gradually acquire in matters of God and religion, his identity and apostolate, etc, so that he can convincingly dialogue with or teach those to whom he is sent. 26 See the significant words of SGC, § 688b in this regard. 27 I once asked a religious who taught certain management principles whether he ever subjected the principles he taught to an intelligent Christian critique. His honest answer was ‘No!’ But he was a good, intelligent, and efficient religious. He was able to enter into a discussion with me. I could tell him respectfully yet honestly that he probably took the Christian applicability of all that he read and taught for granted. ‘Probably, it is not all that 12 this context, I dare say that it is not worth living our religion uncritically. Jesus himself had to grow in wisdom and knowledge (cf. Lk 2:52). Now, growing in wisdom and knowledge (of oneself, of the other, of the world in general, of God, of His Christ) today assumes numerous dimensions. It is a complex task, a formidable responsibility! In the final analysis, theology is about getting to know the One who loved us and the One whom we love and for whom we live.

The youth we serve do not really need us if we are mere computer teachers, professors of engineering or enigmatic literature, teachers of printing or painting, mere social workers, and so on. They need us as Christian educators, as consciously religious Christian leaders, and, above all, as deeply spiritual persons who can lead and guide, persons who can enter into profound dialogue with them. Otherwise, what is the difference between us and Prof. Mukherji or Prof. Sinha, between us and Prof. Stick or Prof. Stone, between us and Prof. Fox or Prof. Wood? (I am just using some names, of course!) They all teach something or other, but do they necessarily educate? To be “a witness to the God’s Kingdom in the world” (Const. art. 46), one needs to know more than his Catechism! Today, no one is impressed because one is able to quote the Catechism or Canon Law, or even the Bible. One ought to know why these texts say what they say. One needs enough background knowledge to be able to explain a little more and to contextualize what they say. And above all, one must live what one upholds as true values or valid principles.

Today many women religious and laypeople pursue theological studies. Why should SBs lag behind in this area? It can be very retarding to be theologically deficient! At times it can be an embarrassing handicap!

Put simply, we may say: the world has changed, and our vision of the world has changed. Correspondingly, our perspectives on our prophetic roles, our apostolic possibilities, etc too have changed. Whoever seeks to be a Christian/Religious Educator in the contemporary world should be better prepared to face its queries, its anxieties, its challenges, and its enigmas. While we learn from the past, the past is not always our model: we don’t draw criteria from some fossilized notions of a pristine past. So invoking the past to justify present inaction and consequent irrelevance amounts to folly. It is all a question of being prophetically relevant to today. The study of ‘religious and human sciences’ helps us to be better readers of the times. It is not a luxury but a necessity.

------Opera Salesiana Testaccio Via N. Zabaglia – 2 00153 Rome Italy 1 Dec 2005 [email protected]

This was prepared from earlier ‘material’ in view of the ‘question session’ after my ‘talk’ in Bangalore on 3 Jan 2006. Some minor corrections/additions were made on 1 Sept 2006. simple’, I said. The uncritical reading of some books probably led him to take much for granted. And I think I could make some headway with him. I am not saying I was right and he was wrong! When it comes to seeking the truth together, it is all a matter of an elasticity of the mind; and it requires a lot of humble search, a lot of honest questioning and answering, a great deal of deepening. It is a pleasant though laborious task. Apart from philosophy, theology and related subjects help the Brother to construct for himself a truly Christian framework for thinking/reflecting, speaking, writing, and so on.