Can Salesian Brothers be rectors

Can Salesian Brothers be rectors?

The question itself is wrongly posed. Rather than ask whether ‘Can SB be made rectors?, one should ask, ‘Who should be rectors?’ It is not about priests or brothers, but persons with charisma, with the passion of DB, with leadership skills who need to be appointed rectors! And in that list of qualities needed to be a rector, if priesthood is not a non-negotiable, then so be it. 

Let the holy ones among us, pray for us; the intelligent ones, teach us; and the prudent ones, lead us. (Fr Agilan)

What one needs to work on is the attitudinal change; a change about the perception of a leader.  In that sense I appreciate the GC 29 placing this question, under the structural proposals, rather than in the core topics of discussion. The argument of rectorship on the basis of priesthood and brotherhood, and whatever decision we arrive at on the basis of that criterion, is only doing a disservice to the congregation and the society at large. One direct negative outcome of it would be that the apprehensive and pessimistic attitude we live and exhibit towards the Salesian collaborators will continue! 

For example, if I’m genuinely interested in the welfare of the young people of a school, I’ll ensure that one who is best suited for them would be appointed as principal. Even if that person is a lay person, who is imbued with the spirit of DB. Why should we deny the young, the competence and spirit of a capable lay person; that too purely to give the ‘cassock’ or ‘my friend’ or ‘a titled SDB’ a chance? But if I have no objection to someone passionate about DB and academically competent, as the principal of a school, then what has changed is the attitude; not the role, not the position. My ‘position’ as an SDB, far from being ignored or denigrated, has only been enriched because I have acted in the best interest of the children. We need to strive for such an attitudinal change rather than engage ourselves in power games. 

To those who fear that tomorrow a Salesian collaborator will be proposed and appointed a rector, we need to educate him or her to see that only a Salesian is to be the rector of a house. Therefore, it is then to clarify the identity of a Salesian (as consecrated to God and committed to the young). A Salesian collaborator however committed to the young he or she may be, is not a consecrated religious. 

Again, as a Salesian what marks me out is not my priesthood or brotherhood but my CONSECRATION (something most of us Salesians ourselves either do not know, or understand or are unwilling to accept). So even without being a priest I can be a Salesian – this no one can dispute (and if someone does, then the Salesian Brothers are not Salesians at all; so no question of whether he can be a rector or not!). 

Last of all, I joined the congregation because I loved Don Bosco and wanted to live and work like him. I did not join the congregation to become a rector or principal or administrator or (least of all) the role that I'm now carrying out. Moreover, when I made my profession AS A BROTHER, I was very well aware that a brother is not appointed as the superior. So, the ongoing debate – amusing as it sounds – is something I’m the least bothered to break my head about! I only take this opportunity to see how the Brothers identity, and all the more, the Salesian identity, was, is and will be defined...! 

Power and authority

Took Thathi to Cambridge yesterday.  It was amusing to see him take in that whole structure as his vision of "Cambridge" crumbled! 

Anyway, spent time at King's College Chapel.   In one of the small displays was the following text, written in the context of King Henry VI (or written by him??):

The king's power came from heaven, 

but on earth it depended on the loyalty of his people.  

His authority was threefold:

it came down from heaven

and up from the people

it carried along on earthy by natural succession, 

and political achievement.  

Though the latter part is very hierarchical, I found the opening sentence very insightful.  However great a king may claim his power to be, it actually lay in the loyalty of his people. 

In the first reading of today, there is the whole list of virtues an elder and a deacon is expected to have had, as per St Paul in the days of early Christianity. The last of the expected qualities of an elder:

He should be a man of respect even among the non-believers.  

Genuine power and authority are endowments from those around you, not exercised over them!  

'Commanded' to love?

In the gospel we hear Jesus 'commanding' his disciples to love one another. 

This is my commandment: Love one another. 

Can anyone really command another to love?  If love is an emotion and a feeling that is spontaneous and cannot always be rationalized then how can one be commanded to love?  

Two aspects:  

1. Jesus always preached.  He never commanded or went about burdening others with his authority, certainly not those less fortunate than himself.  So it would be right to say that there are only two things he really 'commanded', in comparison to the rest of his teaching that he exhorted: Love God.  Love one another.  Perhaps it is to emphasize the core of what he was and wanted to communicate.  
2. Love is not primarily an emotion or a feeling or something that we can now have and later discard as per our convenience, the ambiance, or profit.  It is a decision.  A conscious choice we make to place the well-being of someone over and above our own.  It is a concrete move to ensure the welfare of the other.  Therefore it is possible that I can love someone even if I do not like the person.  Therefore when I love, I feel 'compelled'.  Furthermore what greater 'compulsion' to follow the 'command' of the one I love! 

An echo chamber

Read an interesting article on Aeon today: Why it is hard to escape an echo chamber?

As I read this article all I could think, at every instance or para of it was the present grip of Mr Modi on the Indian electorate.  The BJP that is presenting itself is very different from that of the BJP represented by Vajpayee or even Advani.  The former, was distinctly clear about its agenda, course of action and vision.  It made no veiled presentation of itself.  Everyone, not just members of the party, knew what its aims and objectives were.  Not so with the present BJP.  What it has succeeded indeed is turn the Indian mind into an echo chamber.  In doing so it has not blocked itself from 'other voices', merely branded them untrustworthy, corrupted and therefore not worth anything.  Far from doublespeak, or even momentary epistemic glimpses, the echo chamber sounds rational, interested in the truth, active throughout and resonates with voices; but merely endorsing its own principles.  Even the contrary voices somehow are so manipulated (not by changing their content, but by changing the mind of the listener), that they endorse the principles of the 'ghetto'. 

The solution out of this echo chamber?  Trust!  There are numerous voices that resonate in a society.  However we know not whom and what to trust.  Unless we begin to trust a voice and that voice proves itself trustworthy, we will only further entrench ourselves in the echo chamber. 

To be more fair to the reading of the article, I can even look at my own Catholic upbringing as a echo chamber.  However, as long as one is willing to look at, evaluate and even trust other contrary sources, is open minded about the authority of sources other than Catholic sources, am willing to be won over by the goodness I observe, acknowledge and appreciate in others, especially non-Christians... I would think I'm not an ostrich in an echo chamber.  

Post-truth and trust

For quite sometime now, this notion of post-truth has been in circulation.  Ever since Donald Trump took up the presidency of the US, it has gained all the more prominence.  Perhaps that's the only rational explanation one can offer to the otherwise seemingly bizarre and totally 'wrong' things one encounters or sees others hold as right. 

The age old debate between science and religion, as to which of them is right is now no more the central argument.  Why so?  Has it been resolved? Or is it that the issue is no more relevant?  Or is there is a sort of tiredness to keep getting at one another's throat that there is now a declared 'peace'? 

Perhaps the way science has reviewed itself over the past few decades has something to do with it.  Something religion is still shy of doing or at least some feeble attempts are being made in some parts.  In 1970 W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian in their book The Web of Belief made a strange argument:  that scientific statements are truths not because of their fidelity to external facts but due to their internal coherence and persuasiveness they share with other narratives and statements.  Our beliefs face the test of experience not as each individual compartmentalized fact but as a web or layered body.  Moreover our interaction of individual experience is only with the margins of our belief, not the core of what we hold as true.  So whenever there is something that contradicts or challenges our belief, we are prompted to restore consistency.  But in choosing what to revise or change, we are not guided by facts alone.  The central challenge is not fidelity to external facts but semblance of the entire web.  And in this process, we might end either changing one of the marginal beliefs or even the core of the web.  What plays a crucial role in this whole process is the authority we choose to trust. 

If this principle is right, then it does explain how one can have two seemingly and 'apparent' contradictory beliefs which for one person are totally opposite and for another perfectly compatible.  It is just that they both choose a different authority source.  What then of the external fact? Does that no more have a say in what holds as true or false?  It does but again, what guarantee that what you see is right?  After all, for centuries science believed in geo-centrism.  Technology experts could think of mega data storage only in terms of cabinet files and godowns. 

Well, if that is the case of observable external facts, what about non-material unperceivable realities of life?  Of values and principles?  Though the complications are multiplied, the basic argument of Quine and Ullian about a 'web of belief' still holds true. 

A call to responsibility

Reflection for April 22

"He reproached them..."

The years of formation or preparation we have before we take up a life-long calling is just the tip of the whole gamut. To think that the six to ten years leading to ordination or final profession are anything but enough for a lifetime of spirituality is immature! Jesus spent three years with the apostles, day in and day out. Yet after three days of His absence, they are back to square one. He appears to them and reproaches them for their incredulity and obstinacy in not believing those who had seen Him after he had risen. Perhaps they were thinking that if at all the resurrection was true, He would have appeared to them first. After all, they were His closest associates for the last three years! 

If at all, as priests and religious, we live under this great misunderstanding that the call to priestly or religious life is great vocation and thereby bestows on us great powers, then let us at least also have the complementary understanding that with great power come great responsibility. The Lord is always gracious enough to send us reminders, often through simple people and instances. Let us therefore be open to His reminders and not wait for His reproach.

Being vulnerable

Reflection for Palm Sunday (April 09, 2017)

We are at the threshold of the Holy Week. We now witness the vulnerability of Jesus. If He wanted, He could have opted out or chosen a different path. But by making Himself vulnerable, He touches our hearts. We often feel strong and secure when our weaknesses are not known to others. We feel powerful when our secrets are safe. However, very few have the courage to expose their weaknesses and vulnerabilities. It is certainly a risky affair. You never know what others would do with such an intimate knowledge of ourselves. In the gospel narration of today we come across several people who are conscious to keep their secrets safe. The apostles anxiety in the Upper room: “Is it I Lord?” Caiaphas and Pilate had their own demons to be hid. The chief priests and scribes felt powerful to see Jesus on the cross; their inadequacies will no more be challenged.

However in the crowd there is also Mary Magdalene. She had nothing to hide. She was well aware that the Lord knew her whole story. She was touched by Him because she did not hesitate to hide from Him her frailties. To be truly touched implies the courage to reveal our vulnerabilities. In His passion, Jesus reveals to us his weakness: love for humanity. This Palm Sunday as we walk with Jesus, in His penultimate journey, let us acknowledge and work on our vulnerabilities rather than devise plans and ways to cover and safeguard them. Let us risk 'being touched'. Let grace flow.

Introspection before accusation

Yesterday the gospel and the reading was about the woman accused of adultery.

If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her (Jn 8: 7).

Psychologists speak of 'projection' as a defense mechanism that we human beings use to cover up our defects or hidden thoughts. If we really analyse those things that irritate or annoy us most, we would realise that the cause is actually within us and since we do not want to acknowledge our defects, we project them on to others, point fingers at them and thereby justify ourselves. This is easier done on those who cannot question or defend themselves. Jesus reverts our attention back to ourselves, calls for an introspection prior to an accusation.

We judge ourselves by what we are capable of but judge others by what they've already done (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow).

Jesus and judgement

Reflection for April 3, 2017: Woman caught in adultery

With human authority comes the temptation of becoming judgemental. While Daniel at the end of his hearing reveals the plot of the two sinister men, he does not issue a final statement. He merely exposes the lie of the two men. Jesus at the end of all reports against the woman, does not condemn anyone, not even the men who were ready to stone the woman. He merely poses a soul-searching question. The verdict in both cases is self-imposed, not super-imposed. It is this non-judgemental character of Jesus that the Holy Father, Pope Francis, time and again calls our attention to. To judge someone is to place oneself above those being judged.

Jesus in the gospel passage of the woman caught in adultery, shows us that not all issues need to be judged with lengthy debates and arguments. When we truly love people and not become judges over them, no one feels small and humiliated; rather, everyone becomes humble and grateful.

Seeking confirmation

One of the virtues of a good leader is his ability to stand by principles and values.  While decisions are arrived at after consultation and discussion, there are times when this does not easily happen as such.  These are times when the mettle is tested.

Most often people crumble under the pressure of taking the right decisions and at the same time safeguarding their image or impression.  When the latter take upper hand, at the cost of values which need to be upheld, then one has lost his/her virtue as a leader - but retention of position is still possible!

He broke a new way -- because, only because, he had the courage to go farther without asking whether others followed, or even understood. He did not have the need for that protection against ridicule, which others seek in a divided responsibility, because he had a faith which abstained from seeking confirmation. 

Dag Hammarskjold, Markings

... of the Kingdom; not of a king

For n number of times I've witnessed Priests struggle to give a sermon on the feast of Christ the King.  In the process of justifying or exalting the 'kingship' of Christ in a modern world, they end up offering some pious thoughts which neither moves nor convinces anyone in the congregation, least of all the Priest himself (one might ask, which sermon ever does that!). Even in UK, which has the monarchic tradition, there seems to be the same difficulty. Strange!

However, it struck me during the Mass today that we are really missing the point.  My basic premise is that Jesus never claimed to be a King! He always preached about the Kingdom but never claimed to be the king of it.  And 'his' Kingdom was one where everyone had an equal place.  The need for a 'king' figure is that of us mortals.  The first reading clearly tells us that it was the people who anointed David king.  Biblical history tells us, Yahweh did not appoint the king, it was the people who was adamant to have one.

The gospel too affirms the focus on the Kingdom when Jesus' last words to the thief states: "You shall be in paradise with me."  He never said, "You shall be in my paradise." Jesus never exalted and made himself King, rather made himself as one among (with) all.  A sensible understanding of the second reading reiterates this fact. Jesus always preached the Kingdom, but not himself as the king.  This feast really calls our attention to the Kingdom.

Education and Clergy in Britain

One of the things of the British system that I'm still to make sense is the education system.  Not exactly the style of teaching but the mode of administration.  Very many here are highly appreciative of the Salesian school. Great! But there is no Salesian on the staff, except for the Chaplain.  The Rector is also the Chairman of the board, I'm told.  The head teacher (headmaster, in Indian terms) is a lay person and so are the 13 other board members.

This is basically the structure of every school, I'm told - at least that's what I understood.  Worse still are the diocesan schools: there is no priest, leave alone on the board, on the staff not even in the vicinity!  So where are they? There are none - at least not available for working in the schools.

I attended the inaugural Mass of the St Xavier Educational Trust of Catholic schools, a new initiative undertaken here, this evening.  There are nine Catholic schools which have willingly come forward to be part of this venture whereby they wish to collaborate and strengthen one another in the education process, especially on the common ground of offering Catholic values and principles.  So there were the board directors of each of these schools, the head teachers, the governors and some teachers as well, I was told.  And of these how many were priests or religious? Just two!!  Only the director of our Salesian school was a priest. The other priest was a guest invited to join this newly formed trust.  All the others, namely head teachers and directors were all lay people!!  Take that ratio of priests and lay persons in the decision making animation body: 1 in 18!

On the one hand I'm quite surprised. On the other, highly pleased and eager to see this replicated back in India!  Surprised that the number is so low.  Highly pleased because priests and religious stay out of the administration circles and more than delighted that only capable and qualified persons are in positions to call the shots in the school.  So what if they are lay persons. A far far better option than some priest who can barely speak one sentence in properly. And what's his qualification to occupy that post: ordination!!

No wonder then that young people, and I mean high school children, are very clear about what they want to become in life.  They see these qualified and competent individuals throwing open the doors of knowledge and values to them.  They opt for possibilities, inspired by those who make this possible.  Naturally if priests and religious are not in this group then, vocations to that life are not growing to fall out of the sky.  However gloomy a forecast that might be, personally it is a better option than young people wanting to become priests or religious merely to exercise power and hold position without going through the grind of earning, to be truly worthy of it.

More to come...

Religious life

After a heated discussion in the house assembly of a theologate, about the theme of the Rector reprimanding or not the young brothers, the Rector got up and thundered:

Religious life is not democracy where you all say and it will be so.  Neither is it autocracy because I said so. But it is theocracy; God rules.... And I speak on behalf of God!

Do not seek to be merciful… Act arbitrarily

Reflections on the Year of Mercy (4)
(courtesy: Fr T.D. John)

Do not seek to be merciful… Act arbitrarily, without accountability 

The talk of proper procedures is a big joke. Where is the thrill of being the boss if I am to be accountable? Why should I follow procedures when I am in charge? Did I reach this far to be bound by common rules and procedures? I have the right to do what I want. I am not accountable to anyone.

During this year of mercy, I will announce that I will take arbitrary decisions and not follow any procedures. I will be careful to be accountable for my dealings.

Statutory Warning: If you follow procedures, people will feel safe and take responsibility.

Do not seek to be merciful... be a narcissist

Reflections on the Year of Mercy (3)
(courtesy: Fr T.D. John)

Do not seek to be merciful… Be a Narcissist, an egoist! 

Eugenio Scalfari, a journalist once pointed out to Pope Francis that Jesus told us to love others as we love ourselves. So the love for one’s neighbour is equal to the love we have for ourselves. What many call narcissism is recognized as valid, positive.

The pope said that the word narcissism indicates an excessive love for oneself. The people most affected by this are those who have a lot of power. The narcissists abuse power and the abusers are always narcissists and suffering a kind of mental disorder.

During this Year of Mercy I will tell people that I am a narcissist and that I enjoy being one.

Statutory warning: Being a narcissist is injurious to mental health.

Do not seek to be merciful... seek positions

Reflections on the Year of Mercy (2)
(courtesy: Fr T.D. John)

Do not seek to be merciful… Seek positions, and not to be a Servant 

Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was offered once and for all, and would not need to be repeated like those by the other high priests. Likewise, Jesus has already been a servant to his disciples. Jesus has done it once and for all. We need not be servants anymore.

There are those who say that leadership should not be repeated, but rotated. I disagree. We are the rulers. Your job is to follow. We will rotate leadership positions among the privileged few.

During this year of mercy I will tell people the truth, namely, that I do not want to be a servant. But I will continue to preach to the people about their being servants. As for me, I want position, privileges and servants, the highest privilege I can get.

Statutory Warning: Falling from high places is injurious to health.

Do not seek to be merciful… Seek privileges

Reflections on the Year of Mercy (1)
(courtesy: Fr T.D. John)

Do not seek to be merciful… Seek privileges 

I will make a list privileges that I have or could have. I will speak about my privileges. I will privilege only those who are privileged.

During this Year of Mercy I will consciously serve those who are more privileged than me. I will ensure that I do not serve the needy. I will take every privilege that comes my way. I will even fight for them.

Statutory warning: When you give up privileges you are already merciful to the common people.

Priesthood as means; not as privilege

Reading (or at this stage, editing) the autobiography of Fr Lens, something that struck me very much was this: Fr Lens never made much of his ordination!  In fact in his writing of 25 chapters, he speaks much of his childhood and days in the concentration camps, but there is no chapter dedicated to his ordination.  There is years as a practical trainee, a student of theology and then ministry.  Ordination is merely a small mention.  Nothing is made much of it.

Some may say that perhaps the fact that none of his people were here and hence there was not much of an excitement.  However, knowing Fr Lens, I believe it is because of the fact that he did not really give great (undue) importance to the ceremony of ordination or for that matter, to Priesthood as a privilege.  For him it was a means of service - one involving great sacrifice and commitment, but a service nonetheless.  Certainly not a privilege!  I am almost sure, he never ever used his "priesthood" as a leverage for himself! If at he did, it was for the mission and that too he would have done it grudgingly or as a matter of fact rather than a special privilege.  

Priesthood and Service

I'm right now engaged in an interesting discussion or sharing of ideas with someone about Brotherhood and Priesthood.  It is more of a casual conversation. I then extended some bit of it to someone with similar ideas and he came up with this suggestion:

Abolish the laity! Priests will automatically be in the right place!

Basically it is about position, authority and posts.  In the words of this person...

Religious life has caught on to the evils connected with hierarchical priesthood. Hierarchy and the Gospels cannot go together. Privileges are part of hierarchy. The deacons were asked to help the apostles, to help in the service. This did not mean that the apostles stopped being servants and become masters!!!!! 

What an Irony that now all the laity are required to fulfil the role of reminding the priests of the secular reality! The priests can then live in a different world – of no responsibility and all the privileges! Double whammy! Neither service, nor work! Just enjoy power and pelf! Just today ------ told me, “I always thought priests were close to God!”

Being part of a larger discussion, this piece above may be misleading.  However, the point is that religious life and priesthood need to get back to Jesus' basic style of living.  The more institutionalized it gets, the more it will move away from the Kingdom.

Lay Collaboration

Last evening listening to the sharing of a couple of men who were invited as observers - who were also Salesian co-operators - I felt this strong message coming across. Amidst staff and collaborators, our Salesian presence is actually the life-giving presence.  Now I don't mean it positively!  It is actually a very detrimental and damaging presence and involvement.  The lay collaborators exist and function only at the push of the Salesians.

While on the one hand we have the famous Salesian quote that the Salesian community is the nucleus of the apostolate, but that does not mean that we should make the lay people or those involved with us purely dependent and alive only and only because of the Salesians...

... never helped to be independent and grow.... always dependent... we dominate... make them subservient...

...and everyone's happy!  That's the tragedy!