In a certain poor place in the core of Brazil’s bush areas, a place where vocations to the priesthood began going up in numbers, the local people say: “I was really dumb not to go to the seminary. They all have pretty good food and clothes there, they don’t pay for anything there, and they can even do some pretty good flirting with girls too…”
In a seminary situated in the suburbs of a big metropolis, they began giving a monthly sum of money to the seminarians for their personal expenses, and this because of the miserable economic conditions of many seminarians. They afterwards extended this privilege to the ones who were not miserably poor at all. Now they all have their allowance. The seminarians deem it their sacred right to receive this allowance. And may disgrace upon disgrace fall upon any formator who would dare defy such practice!…
There are benefactors who help seminarians, sometimes even without the knowledge of the superiors. These seminarians abound in nice clothes, electronic gadgets; they go on tourist trips. All this ruins their sense of vocation, and none of this has any pedagogical or pastoral sense.
There are seminarians who work like animals when they are in their own homes. When they find some kind of little work that will bring in a little remuneration, they get up early in the morning to go to work, they do not waste any time. But when they are in the seminary, wow, they get everything free of charge, and any manual work that they have to do, they do reluctantly and have you know it! Sure, I do not want to sound like a critic of liberalism, God forbid! But I think that in our own Church institutions there is the temptation to get more interested in the “private money-making sector” than in the “heavy public sector”.
The phenomenon of those who persevere in the seminary as the only means of access to doing some studies, without having any speck of priestly or religious vocation…, such phenomenon cannot be quantified statistically. Oh, maybe these instances have diminished, but, no, such phenomenon is not gone for keeps yet.
When they are finally assigned to parishes, these just-ordained priests demand, and immediately, a beautiful rectory, a new car and a good stereo. And then there was this one who even bought a cellular phone, even though his parish was in an area that had no cellular phone coverage. But, man, he had it!

Now, about us, formators.
There was this formator who had a lot of experience, and I mean a lot. Well, he said that in his times, some eight years ago, there was in the seminary only one Kombi and the rector’s car. Today there are eight automobiles which, I must tell you, do not belong to the seminarians.
I beg your pardon, dear seminarians and my colleague formators. The examples I mentioned are not to be taken as generalizations, or as moral accusations. I give them as an introduction that provokes reflection, which is always helpful, a reflection on the usage of goods in seminaries and houses of religious formation.
Don’t you think that seminaries are becoming bourgeois-styled? Is this a form of accomodation of those who no longer care about social questions? Or is it an accomodation of those who no longer care to dialogue about poverty?
Or is my observation an exageration by someone who uselessly criticizes the legitimate progress which evolution and the needs of society render very legitimate indeed? For example,
someone might criticize the admission of computers into our houses. Bah! Where don’t we find computers nowadays! After all, they are in the ‘90s what the poor old typewriters were in the ‘50s, aren’t they? We could say the same about certain forms of criticism that could be thrown at seminaries and houses of formation concerning the enlargement of the minimal spaces where one studies, sleeps, prays, holds meetings etc. After all, we cannot pack five seminarians in a little room and demand that they study hard, can we, could we, should we?
Besides, the priests who easily apply the term bourgeois to seminarians, well, we might ask them how is austerity faring in their rectories. If austerity thrives there, fine. Otherwise we must remind them that they cannot ask seminarians to live in poverty if what awaits them in the future is a high class house, full of all immaginable comforts. It would be like saying to them: Bear today’s poverty, my sons, and you’ll enjoy tomorrows’s abundance.
The problem, let’s say it clearly, is much ampler than this. It’s not only question of seminarians going bourgeois. Not even the fact that seminaries are becoming bourgeois. The real question is: How are we Christians reacting to the wave of consumerism proposed by the society we live in?
We cannot run away from what touches our own life. We must confront this problem in all liberty and sincerety. I do not want to express a general criticism of the whole country, it wouldn’t be prudent. Also because I know personally that there are seminaries in which both the formators and the seminarians live in austere fashion. Notwithstanding this truth, I invite you all to do an evaluation of the situation, an evaluation that must be done in the evangelical spirit proposed by Christ.

Pedagogically, how should we behave?
First of all, our preoccupation must lie in the area of the attitudes. Let’s call it, the old binomial Spirit—Law. This is one of those instances in which rules and norms help avoiding worse problems, but do not guarantee a pedagogical project. First of all, we must see to it that people in the seminaries accept and make their own those attitudes that are born from their meeting Christ, poor, happy, servant.

Here is a list of concrete pedagogical means and ways:
Through concrete gestures, the formators must express their economic communion: Common purse, giving aid to special situations of difficulty, retreats, courses, etc. Good example must flow from on high.
The seminarians should be invited to participate responsibly in preparing budgets, in buying whatever the seminary needs, and in the accounting . This will help them see the economic dimension as something that is part of their lives, and not as something worthy of hatred.
Instances of sharing among the seminarians should be promoted, even if very small, such as helping to finance some special course of another seminarian, a retreat, a meeting, the representation of the community in some event, buying and paying themselves for some item that is useful to everybody.
We must encourage the research and promotion of the means of sustenance, without always having to depend on the alms of benefactors and other people.
It would good for seminarians to work during their holidays: as servants, waiters, house painters, farmers: and this to help pay the expenses of the seminary.
Even when seminarians cannot pay for their education in the seminary, it would be good to ask them for a small financial contribution. The young man should keep in mind that he is receiving from others, and therefore should also contribute something.
The idea of some kind of professional work is controversial. It was tried in some seminaries and congregations, during the philosophical years only. On the one hand, it can help develop maturity and help pay the expenses of the seminaries. On the other hand it may help the young man to build his own world and weaken his communitarian dimension. If any of you has a systematic experience of this kind to share, please send us your reflections of the subject.

These suggestions are meant only to foster the reflection of the agents of the formative process. I am sure that formators will find the means to deepen this theme. Forgive me for the provocative tone. I am sure that we will have the right and sound resources to adequately form the priests of the new millenium -- and all this in tune with the attitudes of The One to Whom we must configure ourselves, even before the Sacrament itself will configure us as His ministers: Jesus Christ.