Introduction

With gratitude for the countless men and women who have laboured in the vineyard of priestly formation, we also carry in our hearts the painful awareness that not all experiences within the seminary system have truly reflected the spirit of Christ.

Many priests and seminarians alike have spoken, some in hushed tones, others more publicly, about the reality that seminary formation in Nigeria has, in some instances, engendered a culture of fear, silence, and unhealthy power dynamics.

This reality, though often shrouded in reverent silence, calls for gentle but firm reflection, not in the spirit of accusation, but in fidelity to the truth of the Gospel.

  1. Formation as Communion and Freedom: A Theological Framework

The Second Vatican Council’s Optatam Totius (1965) offered a vision of priestly formation that is holistic, integrating human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral dimensions. It states clearly that, “The training of students should be so regulated that they will become accustomed to using their own powers of judgment” (OT, no. 11). Formation is not meant to suppress initiative, but to cultivate discernment.

Pastores Dabo Vobis (1992) expands this, grounding priestly formation in the image of Christ the Good Shepherd, with an emphasis on relational maturity, freedom, and a genuine configuration to Christ. The document insists: “Formation cannot be reduced to a mere external observance of rules or discipline. It must lead to an inner freedom and affective maturity” (PDV, no. 44).

Likewise, Presbyterorum Ordinis (1965) insists on pastoral charity and fraternity, urging that priests “should be united to one another by the bond of brotherhood” (PO, no. 8). Yet in many testimonies from Nigerian clergy—shared quietly in sacristies or anonymously on social media—we encounter stories of isolation, rivalry, and obedience born more of fear than love.

The Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (2016), updated to reflect Pope Francis’ pastoral vision, underscores “the art of accompaniment,” where formators must walk with seminarians as discerning companions, not authoritarian judges. In its words, “The Seminary must not be an isolated or self-referential institution… but a true ecclesial community, animated by the Holy Spirit” (Ratio, no. 97). When seminarians experience formation more as a battleground than a brotherhood, we must ask: have we truly implemented these documents, or only cited them?

  1. Naming the Problem Without Naming the Guilty

This piece is not about blame. No formator sets out to damage souls. Many are themselves products of systems that rewarded silence and punished vulnerability. But the danger of institutional inertia is that it perpetuates dysfunction. As Pope Francis often reminds us, clericalism is not only a problem of those in authority, but a culture in which power is used to protect systems rather than persons.

There is now growing discourse, especially among younger priests and seminarians, about the “trauma of formation.” Online platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and blogs, have become informal confessional spaces where some feel safe enough to voice long-suppressed wounds. While some posts may come across as bitter or reactive, they point to something deeper: a hunger for authenticity, transparency, and the rediscovery of Gospel freedom.

  1. Hierarchy as Service, Not Domination

The word “hierarchy” originates from the Greek word hierarkhia, meaning “rule of a high priest”. It combines the words hieros (“sacred”) and arkhos (“ruler”). This can also be translated to mean ‘sacred governance’. Historically, it referred to the angelic order and later extended to social and organizational structures.

Jesus Christ Himself instituted this Hierarchy when he chose men to be Apostles (cf. Matt.10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16), and later appointed Peter as head (cf. Matt. 16:13–19; Luke 22:31–32; John 21:15–17). Jesus would later perform some significant miracles in the presence of three Apostles – Peter, James and John (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51; Matt. 17:1; Mark 14:33).

So that his Apostles and Disciples may not get the ‘secular’ idea of what Hierarchy within the Church means, Jesus tells us in Matt. 20:25–28:

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

In John’s Gospel, 13:3–15, Jesus practically demonstrates what service means by washing the Feet of his Disciples. He then says,
“So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.” (v.14–15)

On May 20th, 2021, Most Rev. Godfrey I. Onah, Bishop of Nsukka Diocese, offered what may very well be one of the most prophetic questions of our digital age. At the 7th Convocation of Blessed Cyprian Iwene Tansi Major Seminary, Onitsha, he invited us to reflect on “the quality of communication within the Church in a digital era.” A simple statement that cuts deep.

Recently, when Fr. Prince Chidi Philip drew attention to the toxic undercurrents present in some of our seminaries; environments where fear, silence, and unhealthy power dynamics are sometimes cultivated, rather than openness, trust, and genuine formation, Bishop Onah’s call took on more urgency.

This isn’t some isolated critique. It’s a mirror many of us, if we’re being honest, are afraid to look into.

What’s most striking is that Bishop Onah didn’t stop at diagnosis, he pointed toward a path forward – understanding born of sincere communication. He essentially reminded us that where communication fails, communion suffers. And where communion is broken, the very credibility of our witness is weakened.

This is deeply consonant with the teaching of Presbyterorum Ordinis, which describes the bishop-priest relationship as one of “respectful obedience” rooted in shared pastoral charity, not fear. Bishops and rectors are called to be spiritual fathers, not distant administrators or feared supervisors.

Better communication involves creating spaces for listening and feedback. It means evaluating formators not only by the discipline they enforce, but by the human and spiritual fruit they cultivate. It requires the bishops’ conferences to provide ongoing formation and psychological accompaniment to both seminarians and formators, an investment in long-term healing and integrity.

  1. A Way Forward: Culture Change, Not Cosmetic Reform

We need more than updated curricula, we need cultural conversion. Here are a few modest proposals:

  • Create Safe Listening Spaces: Establish anonymous or confidential feedback mechanisms within seminaries, supervised by external ecclesial bodies, to assess the health of formation communities.
  • Accompaniment Training for Formators: Bishops should ensure that those selected as formators are not only doctrinally sound but also emotionally and relationally mature, with training in spiritual accompaniment, conflict resolution, and trauma-informed care. Before formators are sent to be seminaries, they should be consulted, so that only those who are willing to serve in this capacity are sent to do so.
  • Deconstruct Toxic Obedience: Teach obedience not as blind submission but as discerning availability to God’s will, mediated through human authority. As PDV notes, authentic obedience fosters interior freedom.
  • Encourage Synodality in Formation: Inspired by Pope Francis’ call to a synodal Church, we should explore more collaborative models of governance within seminaries, including input from seminarians, alumni, and laity.
  • Incorporate Psychological Assessment and Healing Ministries: Not as a means of gatekeeping but of pastoral care. Many seminarians bring wounds that must be healed, not hidden. Some of the areas to look at include but not limited to:
  1. Fear of Rejection and the Loss of Identity

From a Freudian and Eriksonian lens, the seminary is not just an educational institution, it’s a crucible of identity formation. Many seminarians, having invested years of emotional, social, and even financial commitment, see their identity as deeply tied to becoming a priest. Speaking out, especially against injustice or dysfunction, can feel like risking everything.

Psychoanalytic Insight:

  • The ego, caught between the id (the instinct for justice, expression) and the superego (internalized authority and moral demands of the Church), represses discomfort in order to preserve the fragile self-image: “I must survive here to become who I am called to be.”
  1. Internalized Clericalism and the Superego Ideal

Seminary formation in Nigeria can be steeped in clerical expectations: be quiet, be obedient, don’t rock the boat. Over time, these external expectations become internalized. The superego becomes overdeveloped, harsh, scrupulous, and moralistic, not so much in service of Gospel freedom, but as a survival tool.

Psychoanalytic Insight:

  • The overbearing superego in this context is shaped by institutional religiosity rather than mature spiritual conscience. Seminarians repress their concerns because they see resistance not just as wrong, but as sinful—even when their conscience says otherwise.
  1. Fear of Retaliation and Psychological Infantilization

Seminarians often depend on formators and bishops for ordination, sustenance, and validation. This power imbalance fosters a kind of learned helplessness. Seminarians begin to act like children in a dysfunctional parental system, afraid of punishment or abandonment.

Psychoanalytic Insight:

  • This is akin to the regression defense mechanism, seminarians may act younger than they are emotionally to avoid conflict. They avoid speaking out to stay “safe,” reinforcing a cycle of silence and fear.

Example from Social Media:

  • One anonymous priest on Facebook recalled being “called immature and proud” after simply raising a concern about another seminarian’s mistreatment. He wrote, “That day I learned that silence was safer than sincerity.”
  1. Trauma and Repetition Compulsion

For some seminarians, formation replicates earlier family or societal traumas, such as harsh discipline, emotional neglect, or even abuse. The seminary then becomes a space of repetition compulsion (Freud’s term)—a re-enactment of past trauma in a new setting, unconsciously hoping for a different outcome.

Psychoanalytic Insight:

  • This leads to emotional freezing—a trauma response where the seminarian shuts down. He cannot speak, not because he lacks thoughts, but because his nervous system has learned that speaking equals danger.
  1. The Illusion of Future Compensation

This is tied to the delayed gratification fallacy. Seminarians often console themselves with thoughts like: “Once I’m ordained, I’ll change things,” or “It’s just temporary.” This psychological trade-off dulls their present sense of moral urgency.

Psychoanalytic Insight:

  • This is similar to the defense of rationalization—justifying current dysfunction for the sake of an imagined future good. It fosters passivity now in the hope of future authority, an illusion, because patterns formed in silence tend to persist after ordination.
  1. Shame and the Fear of Being Perceived as Unfit

In tightly monitored systems, those who speak out may be labeled “proud” “emotionally unstable” or “spiritually immature.” This taps into deep fears of not being “man enough” or “holy enough” for priesthood.

Psychoanalytic Insight:

  • Shame is a powerful inhibitor of speech. The internalized gaze of authority figures becomes so strong that the seminarian feels watched even when alone. Speaking becomes not just difficult, but morally risky in his self-perception.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Joy of the Gospel

Our Lord did not found the Church as a fortress but as a family. Seminary formation should be the womb where future priests are gently and joyfully configured to Christ; not merely through external discipline, but through deep inner freedom and love. We owe it to Christ, to His people, and to one another to courageously reimagine a formation culture rooted in communion, not coercion.

Let us remember that the goal of this conversation is not to tear down, but to rebuild. Not to expose, but to heal. The reform of seminary culture in Nigeria is not only possible; it is already happening, in whispered prayers, honest conversations, and conversations like this one.

May the Holy Spirit continue to guide us toward truth, freedom, and pastoral joy. Amen.

© Oselumhense Anetor, 2025