At the Syro-Malabar Mass

 This morning I attended a Syro-Malabar Mass. Yesterday was the funeral of the eldest brother of TD John and today they had the Mass.

This is perhaps the fourth or fifth Mass that I'm attending of this Oriental rite. Although fairly awake of the differences between the Oriental and Latin rite celebration of the Eucharist, what I noticed today is that the prayer of the faithful does not begin with the intention for the Pope, Bishop and clergy. Rather it is one of the last intention. In a rite that's highly hierarchical, it is surprising to see this order of intentions. But I'm certainly not complaining!!!

Then there are the altar servers. I think that role is only for the boys - and I wish I am wrong. But, oh boy, unlike the Catholic Mass, the altar servers have to be attentive all through. They serve in a much more involved manner than the Latin rite Mass. In fact, they have more practical roles and responsibilities during Mass than a Catholic deacon at the altar.

The Church (old and new) at the monastery at Elthuruth, Thrissur

The living Eucharist

 Yesterday I came across two pieces of information and news that seemingly are unrelated, but to me appeared very VERY much connected.  

One was a letter written by a Bishop in Maharashtra, denouncing the desecration of a school chapel and that the miscreants had taken away the sacred host from the tabernacle.  He therefore appealed to the Catholic faithful to conduct an adoration service in order to restore the blessed Sacrament.  

The other incident that is still unfolding in a nearby state of the country is that of the death/murder of a teenager in Patna.  An 18 year old student was found dead in her hostel. Initially it was declared as suicide and now it is revealed that she was brutally raped and murdered!  

Is not the life of this teenager as sacred and worthy of respect as the Holy Communion?  ("You are the temple of the holy Spirit") I am right now struggling to come to terms with these incidents - more so, with our response to these incidents! I don't know... but I'm feeling very very disturbed and uncomfortable. 

Source, not exclusive container

 The first reading of the day where Ezekiel describes the temple, and the water flowing out of it, in different directions, with all length, depth, direction and final destination of the same. 

What struck me as I read this passage during Mass was that the Sanctuary - and I suppose, the Church, as a whole - is the source of life and growth.  It is not the container or the exclusive right over life and growth.  But that the power of the Church is such that whatever comes into its contact should be life-giving wherever it goes.  

In this instance he speaks of the water that flows from the sanctuary. But I'm sure, the sanctuary is not 'producing' the water! And by itself, water nourishes life.  But that water when it flows THROUGH the sanctuary is so blessed that wherever it flows, it brings abundant life.  

So, too should every wisp of breeze, every fly that glides through the Church, every person spending time 'in' the church, should actually be a blessing wherever it or he or she goes.  

A very naive and shallow interpretation would be to exalt the sacred space 'in' itself. No.  The beauty of the Church is in its empowerment, its giving-out, its life-giving power that flows OUT of it.  It would be very incestuous to believe that the power of the Church should be and is only within itself!  

The person, people as the Church

 The readings of the day, led me to a surprising twist at the end... much like a thriller movie with a very unexpected and unprepared twist to conclude with.  

The first and the second readings speak of the structure of the temple. The second one speaks of the waters from the sanctuary, flowing left, around, this way and that way... emphasising the life it spreads wherever it flows.  

The gospel of the day begins with Jesus in the temple; his rage at the commercialisation of the sacred space and his eventual chasing out of all the vendors. However, the concluding line of the gospel is a total surprise: He was talking of his body!  Rebuilding of the temple again! 

With all the emphasis all along on the structure of the temple, the building, the sanctuary, the edifice... the best is kept for the last - the person!  

The church as a person, the people!  While the physical structure of the church is part of the understanding, tradition and need of the living out of our faith, the highest form and integral part of the understanding, tradition and need of living out the same faith, is the person!! 

Personally for me, especially in my present role, this concept of the emphasis on the living person, much more than the physical infrastructure and all the amenities and functionality, is an endorsement of where our investment should most be!  

Of course, I don't think Jesus would differ in my subtle deviation when I say that the building up should be of the people of God, not myself!  I am not the temple - atleast not the most important or the best decorated or guarded.  Shouldn't.  

Sheep and the shepherd

 In the Christian tradition the imagery of the sheep and the shepherd dates back to Jesus himself. In the gospels we read the umpteen number of times Jesus speaks of these two characters while driving home a point.

While many exegeses and commentaries ha e been recorded, there is one quite common misinterpretation that I've not come across much. Of course, there are references quite close to it. It is about the character of the sheep. 

Shepherds today tend to look upon the sheep as dumb, naive and worth nothing but being bossed over. This is not the fault of the sheep. It is due to the prise and arrogance of the shepherd. Jesus' concern and action towards the sheep was purely out of love for the sheep; not out of pity for them, not out of a false sense of doling out charity just to boost his own ego, not out of looking down on them, not as a means of self-glorification. 

Jesus loved the sheep. Period. There was nothing about himself in any of his thoughts, plans, and actions.

A Pope in a Poncho: The Gospel of Fragility

by Johnson Kotaram 

It was not the papal cassock, the golden cross, or the solemn gaze from a palace balcony that marked April 10, 2025.

Instead, it was a fragile old man in a striped poncho, worn black trousers, and oxygen tubing, rolling quietly through the grandeur of St. Peter’s Basilica.

No proclamation, no camera crews, no ceremonial fanfare. Just a tired pilgrim in the skin of a pope, moving slowly toward the restored chair of Peter and the tomb of Saint Pius X.

To some, it was a scandal. To others, a shock. And to a few—perhaps not many—it was a moment of profound, unscripted holiness.

Because it was not the Vicar of Christ clothed in tradition but something far rarer: a leader without costume, a priest without performance, a man who dared to embody the Gospel in raw, human skin.

In an institution where clothing is language—the cassock, the skullcap, the ring—all speak of office, succession, and sacred continuity—Francis chose a language older than vestments: the language of presence.

In his beige Argentine poncho, he wasn't signalling authority; he was invoking memory—of his homeland, of the poor, of the Jesus who walked dusty roads with no sceptre, throne, or robe worth envying.

Some saw an older man too frail to dress appropriately. Others saw disrespect for ritual. But to those attuned to the undercurrent, it was something else entirely: a gesture of undoing, the kind that refuses to uphold a performance when the soul is calling for honesty.

He didn’t come to be venerated that day. He came to be.

And in doing so, he reminded the Church—perhaps unintentionally—that the robes, collar, rituals, and relics are only bridges. They are not the water beneath.

When we strip away the grandeur, what remains is a question the Church must confront more often: What happens when the sacred no longer looks impressive? When authority arrives in a wheelchair, with sunken eyes and no cross on its chest?

Whether deliberately or by accident, Francis exposed the quiet truth: the real scandal is not the poncho, but how much we’ve come to rely on appearances to sustain our reverence.

We want our popes upright, glowing, and draped in theology. We don’t want them too human, too frail, too much like us.

But isn’t that precisely the paradox at the heart of Christianity?

Today, when Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a colt, his official representative on earth is wheelchaired into the most ornate church on earth, dressed in an Argentinian poncho reminded us that fragility is not the opposite of faith—it may be its most honest form.

That perhaps, in a moment like this, the Church caught a glimpse of what Jesus meant when he knelt to wash feet instead of issuing commands.

This was not the Pope as prince or priest. This was the Pope as a person, as a pilgrim, as a reminder that grace may arrive not dressed in white but in weakness.

And maybe, just maybe, that is the Church we need to become.

The Church: Euro-centric?

 The Church is often viewed as European or Euro-centric.  Even among those who see Christianity as a 'foreign religion' they view it so because it is 'from Europe'.  The white man's religion! This is something quite taken for granted.  But we forget - very easily and comfortably - that Jesus and the early Christianity were all very much situated in the middle-East.  Jesus was born and later carried out his whole ministry in Israel. Though it is true that the apostles did cross national boundaries, it is actually with Constantine embracing Christianity and making it the state religion, that Christianity spread far and wide.  That Rome has played a central role in the development of Christianity as a popular universal religion can never be questioned.  But it all began in the middle-East - not in Europe!! 

The universality of the Church and of Christianity is not a quality of it being present in most of the world, and predominantly in Europe.  Universality is its virtue to be able to embrace the world - not the world embracing Christianity.  

Peter and Paul

Peter and Paul, the two great stalwarts of the early Church were not the best of men around those times.  They certainly were not the most capable and celebrated individuals in Israel of those days.  Evaluating others among the apostles, there was John who was of an impeccable character.  Someone who was also loved greatly by the Lord himself.  Or there was Mathew or Luke the educated ones.  But it was Peter, the illiterate, the fisherman, the mild, who was appointed as head of the apostles and ultimately given the keys of the Kingdom. 

Paul was no saint. He was a scholar, yes, but if his history were to be examined, he would have been the last one to be approached for standing for Christ.  Yet, he is the one who goes out to the non-Jews.  Together with Peter, he plants the seed of Christian faith in the heart of Roman empire.

None of them were given the mission because of their worthiness or talents.   They were entrusted with the mission and grace followed.  A good reminder for each one of us that it is God who has blessed us with all our talents and gifts, we only exercise them to the best of our capabilities.  

Secondly, there was no single hero doing all the work.  Something we see in Bollywood movies - all down to one man to do all the good!  The Church was a living example of work-in-communion.  Everyone, including God, did one's bit. Nothing greater or better.  Just what one could with the given-grace.  

Lenten fast

Only yesterday did I hear for the first time that many years ago, there was a stipulation as to how much to eat during Lent.  Though no one really counted, it was said that a person was to eat not more than 8 ounces for the full meal and two lighter meals not more than 6 ounces each. 

Just to get an idea of how much would 8 ounces weigh, we weighed an apple and it came to 7 ounces.  Two plantains together weighed 10 ounces!! 

Though this was not strictly measured, nonetheless it was a standard set out by the Church officials for meal quantities during Lent.  Then there were farmers and others who engaged in hard manual labour, who would approach the Parish priest for an exception to this limit rule! 

That certainly was some fasting! 

Salisbury Cathedral

Visited Salisbury cathedral today with the CathSoc from the University.  Amazed at the whole structure. Still more amazed at the thought of having to build one such thing in the 13th century!  Crazy! 

Some quick facts:

• The cathedral was built in just 38 years beginning in 1220.  
• It contains 60,000 tons of stone (that meant the same number of horse cart rides to transport the stone from the nearby quarry to the site of construction!). 
• 2,800 tons of oak wood from the forests and even from Ireland.  
• 420 tons of lead for the roofing.  
• It has a foundation of not more than 4 feet!  The whole structure sits - or rather floats - on a mix of gravel, sand, and water! That watery depth is about 27 feet!  That makes it the largest floating Cathedral.  None would even dare start a building of that sort. 
• It has the highest Church spire in the whole of Europe. There are about 300+ steps leading up to the foot of the spire!  A spectacular view of the whole city from up above.  
• The pillars supporting the whole structure are not more than 5 feet in diameter!  Built according to the early English Gothic architectural style, the Cathedral was primarily the work of a priest Elias of Dereham.  No monastery or convent existed around the Cathedral ever!  The height of it is really crazy.  If it were to be storied and each storey dedicated for some purpose I understand, but this is just the floor and the ceiling - way, way above!  
• A water font was added to the central part of the Cathedral.  It is beautiful, with water falling off from four corners.  Some great planning is behind it as there are no bubbles arising from the water being pumped from underneath.  The font, bigger than a table tennis board, appears like glass - water being so still and not a single bubble. Got to find out how they did that!  
• The Chapter house adjoining the Cathedral contains one of the four original (of the 40) Magna Carta's existing.  Surprisingly, it is very clear and legible - even though it was written in 1215 on animal hide!  The writing is so precise and beautiful it appears as though printed yesterday!  

  

  The world's oldest working clock!

  
  
  
  
  

  

  The statue 2 feet tall at the entrance to the Chapter house, which contains the Magna Carta

  
  

  

  The statue of Mother Mary and child Jesus.  Today it is used as a 'witness' to the induction of girl choir members - when girls pass their test and are selected for the girls choir, they kneel before this statue and are given three hits with a heavy Bible on their head!  

Widening and levelling piety

Within a span of a week there are two 'new' additions to the ordo - feasts that are being added.  Two days ago it was Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of the Church and tomorrow there is Jesus Christ the eternal high priest.  Wonder how relevant or meaningful are these additions in the present times. 

Honestly I know not and have not made any effort to find out the real rationale behind the institution of these two special days, but just out of a general feeling...

The first one, Mother Mary as the mother of the Church... well for us Catholics there never has been a doubt about that.  Most Christians and even non-Christians who have heard of Mother Mary have no problem in seeking her maternal protection and venerating her as 'mother'.  So then why exclusively title her as 'mother of the church'.   If any broaden the attitude to speak of her as mother of all!  Why so to speak monopolize her as to belonging and of the Church.  Why not be generous in stating that she is the mother of all.  That way those who want to approach her feel comfortable and not feel as though they are 'appropriating' someone else's family member. 

The second one, of Jesus the eternal high priest, appears very pessimistic.  In this age, especially in the West, where there is a real decline in the number of those joining priesthood and religious life, attributing the eternal priesthood to Jesus is like a consolation prize for those who do opt.  Moreover, why at all 'high priest'?  Sounds really hierarchical... exactly the opposite of the whole reality of incarnation and Jesus' own mission while on earth. 

More than mere additional special days of commemoration, we do need to widen our inclusive attitude and make our existing pieties more deep and social.  

Bats and baptism

What's the best way to get rid of the bats in the belfry?
Baptise and confirm them!  You'll never see them again in Church!

The situation here in the West is exactly this.  There is still quite a sizeable number approaching the sacrament of baptism and if the children are in a "faith" school, they also 'get' confirmed.  But that's it.  After that they are rarely seen anywhere near or in the Church.  Two years ago, I was helping at the communion and first confessions of large group of school children, nearly 60 of them.  All of them from the neighbouring Catholic primary school.  Of course, not all of them would be part of this parish.  Nonetheless, I haven't seen any of those children again! 

The fact that one does not inherit faith, but chooses one is very true of the present generation of young people.  One can view this very positively as a conscious choice rather than a blind following.  It actually spells a certain maturity that Catholic Church has attained.  But the issue of witness - or in this case, counter-witness - is at the heart of the whole process.  Young people do not find the 'Church', worthy of trust and respect - leave alone of faith and love.  In a sense, this is a logical outcome of the way 'Church' has been construed for centuries in the past - the clergy, and at the most the building!  In the East, things are not too different; even though the present situation is not as divided as the West is. 

For young people to see the Church in a more holistic and realistic light, will take time.  Unfortunately those still 'guarding' the Church are not ready to open the eyes - and heart - to this fresh inclusive and enlivening understanding.  Those willing are far too few and scattered to make a universal impact.  Those happy to stand and merely watch are plenty.  

Wolf as the shepherd

The other day Fr Pavol was mentioning of a particular diocese somewhere in central Europe which had its new bishop.  His surname was 'Wolf'.  The initial humour around  the diocese was the question: "Can Wolf be the shepherd?"

Amusing when it is only the play of words and names.  However, as I had a good laugh at this whole narration, it took me a while to also remember that perhaps not all places there is a real shepherd leading the flock.  The name may not be 'wolf' but much of everything else certainly is! In such circumstances the harm done not just to the people directly involved, but to whole community and that too for the lengthy duration - not only of the tenure of the bishopric or pastoral service but in the years to follow too.  How difficult it would be for the next person, however good and noble he may be, to recover lost confidence and trust - leave alone work for the advancement of the diocese or parish. 

Great is the harm done by people who appear and promise to do good, but with ulterior motives; much more than those who appear and openly threaten to harm.  In the case of the latter, one is at least aware that they are there to harm.  

The Church

For many centuries, especially since the Crusades, Christians have tried to 'restore' the Church to its former glory and supreme universal position.  Most efforts, even at the highest order, be that of bringing back the Latin Mass or emphasis on the Canon Law or fidelity to the practices of piety, have been to see the Church as what it was in the medieval times: glorious, resplendent, beacon of light for all and in all matters, be that of faith, liturgy, social or individual dilemmas, community squabbles; a universal point of reference or standard for matters concerning morality and justice.  This intention was indeed noble and in a sense justifiable.  However, there is one difficulty: That is not what Jesus wanted the Church to be! 

Jesus wanted the Church to be more like the yeast: invisible, yet effective; useful but not pompous;  felt but not standing out; communitarian, but not judgemental;  true, but not proud.  In the early days, the Church was rightly what Jesus wanted it to be.  That's how it achieved all the glory and credibility.  The challenge today is not to 'regain' that glory and credibility, but to be authentic.  The former will eventually follow.  And even if it does not, no big harm, because that is not what the Church is.  

Bishops and authenticity

In the first reading of the day Paul admonishes the Corinthians to be squabbling with one another and then approaching an 'outsider' to arbitrate justice, forgetting that within the believing community there are individuals who are capable of amicably resolving the issue with greater depth and insight.  But this lack of trust of the one (or some) within is also an indicator that either there isn't one at all or that people have divided up life into faith-related and other-related so neatly that one does not have a bearing on the other.

The first imagery that came to my mind as I read this passage was the scandal of sexual abuse and the Church, all over the world, especially involving Bishops who either were involved directly in the abuse or covered up cases for the sake of 'preserving' the image of the Church.  From that perspective, I found myself reading Paul admonishing the Bishops rather than the people.  I should say, my experience of the Bishops in my lifetime has not been a very happy one.  Only on rare occasions have I met or interacted with Bishops whom I've come across as genuinely human.  Most don't even deserve to be called Christians, leave alone be ordained!

However, Pope Francis' homily this morning about the same reading, sheds a slightly different light which perhaps I've not looked into.  Speaking almost on behalf of and to the Bishops he

invited them to remember three things in these troubled times: their strength lies in being men of prayer; they should have the humility to remember they were chosen by God; and they need to remain close to the people. 

The Bishops Pope Francis has in mind and is speaking about are those who truly feel the burden of being human, not the ones who've decided and live as though they are above everything. (More quotes from the sermon). 

Owning up... being the Church

The revelations about the abuse of minors by priests and religious has driven a knife into the heart of the Church.  There is no going back on this.  What has been done cannot be undone.  The church will have to live through this.  It cannot deny or escape this guilt. 

The direct consequence of this uncovering has significantly contributed to the departure of many a faithful from the church.  People no more feel safe in the church and prefer to stay away.  Vocations to priesthood and religious life had drastically fallen.  Many even prefer to be categorized as 'irreligious', if not atheists. 

Yet, it is interesting to note that the priests and religious are not the only sex-offenders to be exposed.  Football coaches, Hollywood bigwigs, famous politicians, too have been charged, and found guilty.  Yet parents have not stopped enrolling their sons for football training camps;  young women still try their hand at modelling and in the movie industry;  youngsters still aim and strive for a political career... there hasn't been a reduction of these (at least not significantly or recorded).  Why then is the whole church singled out for this treatment, unlike football, or movies or politics?

The basic difference is a matter of trust.  The Church was considered the moral conscience of the society and priests and religious the models of virtue.  This was something the Church leaders aimed for, took pride in and the lay faithful joyfully and sincerely endorsed.  However some took advantage of this trust and let their human tendencies prey on innocent believers.  Others instead of confronting it, covered it up.

So it is not the media coverage and the ensuing outrage that has wounded the church but the very act itself.  The church is betrayed by the ones most trusted.  Again, not the whole church but individuals. Yet the church will have to take the blame, if it still wishes to be true to its name.  The victim and the abuser, both are the church! 

Young people and the Church

Noteworthy signposts from the survey of young people with regard to vocational discernment, faith and Church (England and Wales)... I'm looking at these from the Indian scenario, for though the reality is slightly different, the situation back home will soon be the same as it is here.  The sooner we wake up and shape up, the better chance we stand at being relevant and meaningful.  Or else not only will young people be out of the church, the church will be out of their world as well!  In spite of the serious drawback that most of the 3,298 participants were mostly those who 'come to Church', the results offer some insights worth serious consideration:

• An accepting, non-judgemental environment is essential for young people to feel welcome in church settings.  So implicit, informal, friendly invitations are more effective than explicit stipulations that they should be present. 
• You have struck a chord with young people, if they invite their friends as well. 
• Church needs to move from being the conscience of the people to forming the conscience of the people. 
• The word 'vocation' has become toxic to some catholics as it seems too narrow in the way that it is used!  (As though only call to priestly and religious life are 'vocations' and the other life choices are not. And that the former are greater than the rest of vocations!). 

Clarity vs authenticity

A recent (2018) survey in England and Wales of the youth with regard to faith and vocational discernment, in view of the upcoming Synod has shed some insights into what young people feel about the Church.  Though the survey itself could have been broader in its reach, the available data does indicate a growing sense of divide within the Church, especially in the UK. 

The most significant of the findings that struck me was this particular insight that there are two distinct groups:  A small vocal and determined group looking back to an era they have been told was better and a much larger group who are embedded in the culture and want the Church to engage more.  The first group wants clarity and the second, authenticity. 

This is the case not just of the youth in England and Wales but of the whole Church and one of the principal reasons Pope Francis is being criticized.  There was a time when the Church offered clear and sure guidelines for everyone, including the civil society.  Its decisions were looked upto with respect and proved valuable.  However, this era is long gone!  Pope Francis too leaves things hanging!  But that's exactly how things are!  Things are no more pure black or white.  There are grey areas; ambiguous and unclear.  The Church does no good offering a 'permanent remedy'... certainly not from a position of authority and hierarchy.  The Church leaders need to journey with the whole world and seek for answers - not dictate them from the pulpit.  Answers or efforts to seek answers in such a collaborative mode are more appreciated and helpful than ready-made doctrinal replies. 

To use an imagery: There are those inside the Church waiting for your instructions.  Then there are those outside the Church happy to let you join them.  Where is the priest or the religious to go?  If he stays in, those outside are not going to wait for him for long.  They will gladly carry on their way and not ever bother about anything.  If he joins the group outside, those inside are not going to sit waiting for long.  They'll seek their answers elsewhere.  Stretched between these two groups, a priest/religious of today needs to find his mission. 

Joseph called Barsabbas

In the selection process for the replacement of Judas, Joseph and Matthias are the finalists.  Unable to decide upon which one, the apostles pray and cast lots (initially reminded me of the soldiers at the foot of the cross casting lots for the robe of Jesus).  The lot falls for Matthias and he is announced as one of the apostles. 

What became of Joseph called Barsabbas?  Simple: He carried on his life and ministry!  That's how I would like to remember him.  If among all the people they had to choose from, the apostles zeroed in on these two men, they surely must have been men of faith, men dedicated to the ministry and truly in love with Jesus.  So I don't think being granted the title of an 'apostle' would have made any big difference to their personal character.  All that happened was that one got an additional role and responsibilities, the other didn't get that role... but the ministry and life of faith continued.

How often in life, have we seen people give up everything for a particular goal or post?  And once they do get the post, life is totally different.   It happens all the time in politics and with politicians.  It happens also with priests, religious and bishops..., especially those whose aim is the post (religious politicians?).  I wish Luke the author of the Acts had enumerated the qualities of Joseph and Matthias and a bit more of the selection criteria.  But honestly speaking all that was needed is clearly mentioned:

...it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.

...been with Jesus and his people and a genuine witness of all that Jesus stood for... we get the role for being this, with the confidence that we would do better.  If those basic qualities for which we were granted the role and related responsibilities are compromised with, then one has no right to continue in that role or claim anything related to it.  That would be the story of Judas, not Joseph Barsabbas!

A matter of trust

The whole idea of fake news and alternative facts is coming round to haunt the very notion of news and truth. While some blame it on the proliferation of social media and communication channels, others to the failure of authority to be true to their call for universal representation and fairplay.  Some blame it on our own long standing demand for authenticity, transparency and freedom.  Some blame it on postmodern thinkers who ushered in this sort of 'fringe-thinking'. 

Mere pieces of information without any perspective is not news.  And there is no news that is not biased or 'from a particular angle'.  And even if one has merely pieces of information, but no context or plan or perspective, they are all useless entities.  Just like lego pieces to a rat.  A cat may atleast play with them. A dog may perhaps chew them.  Even a child who has no clue of what they are, or never seen them before, will merely use them for throwing around.  No such child in the first instance is going to build a house or plane with them! 

The call for transparency, authenticity, accountability cannot be blamed for generating conflict and confusion.  The plethora of social media cannot be blamed for generating stuff.  (The fault of fake news is not the crime of the media but of individuals lacking accountability and authenticity.)  The worth and value of social media arose for lack of credibility of erstwhile institutions which were once held in esteem for being authentic.  Institutions like the leading newspapers, court judges, experienced academia, religious authorities.... Social media needs to keep these on their toes, not usurp their roles.  When these established institutions continue to repeatedly fail to live up to the trust people have in them, the general population is left at the mercy of any and every media.  Authority is so distributed that everyone believes everyone or no one believes anyone (both the same!).