Betrayal

 The most intense battles are those with the closest. In Jesus' case too it was the same.  The very people whom he chose to assist, are the ones who rebelled the worst.  Even among the ones he himself choose to be his inner circle, deserted him when the time was the most challenging. 

Betrayal therefore takes different forms: the emotional betrayal of Peter when he denies him; the selfish monetary betrayal of Judas who 'sells' Jesus for thirty pieces of silver; the silent betrayal of the other apostles who stood by dumb or 'disappeared' without the slightest of protest; the mass betrayal of the population who followed Jesus and witnessed his personality and intent at close quarters for a considerable time... 

History often repeats itself. Good to observe what Jesus did! 

The 12 apostles - common folk

 The British judiciary has a style of functioning that whenever there is a trial, as part of the process 12 people are randomly chosen to be part of the jury.  Of course, not any 12 but those residential in the country (perhaps even the same county) and those who have been part of the British culture, or grown up in Britain since 13 years of age.  

Anyway, those criteria apart, there is no other qualification that decides whether they are part of the jury or not. They need not be holding prestigious positions in the society or specialists in law, leave alone be highly education. Mere common folk! 

The Jury, by John Morgan

In his essay "The Twelve Men", dealing with this British jury system, G. K. Chesterton wrote: "Whenever our civilization wants a library to be catalogued, or a solar system discovered, or any other trifle of this kind, it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing around… The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity!”

Jesus too chose 12 men, all 'ordinary men standing around'... but it is interesting also to note, that it was those men standing around HIM; not total strangers.  Those 12 were already his disciples. 

The smart sheep

There is the NT passage where the call is to have one shepherd and one flock (John 10).  We read that prior to our discussion about the GC 29.  

Jesus is talking about bringing the sheep into one fold. That there are some sheep who are already with him; that there are others which are not yet in his fold, but will eventually find their way to him... 

The fact that struck me was that the purpose of the sheep or the mission of the sheep is known and envisioned, not by the sheep, but by the shepherd!! What each sheep is meant for, what is to be achieved by the whole flock or some sheep, why the sheep need to do what they are told to do... all of this is the plan of the shepherd.  From deciding where to graze and when to sheer the wool, to which sheep to cull for the feast and when to vaccinate, it is all by the shepherd. 

So, what then are the sheep? Dumb sheep? Have they nothing to contribute to their own life and growth?  Far from being dumb, they are called to be smart; smart enough to know the shepherd!  And when they know him well enough, to be so attached to him that they let him decide what's best for them; because they know that he wants nothing but the best for them.  

This understanding is what makes Jesus, the good shepherd!  And us, the smart sheep! 

Peter and Paul

Today is the feast of two stalwarts of the early Church. Two totally different personalities, yet founding pillars of the Church. 

One totally uneducated and a daily wage fisherman; the other a highly educated scholar.  One who went more by the heart than the head; and the other who went more by the head than the heart; one an introvert and diffident person; the other, fearless and daring.  One had the opportunity to spend time with Jesus in person atleast for three years. The other, only encountered Jesus, after the latter's resurrection.  

Nonetheless, what saw them work together was the one person, Jesus.  

So I ask myself: Do I see Jesus in what I do? Or is it only the work that I see? 

Lord, help me see!

Jesus' team today

 If Jesus were to walk on this earth today and were to pick and choose his team of apostles from those living here and now, whom would he choose?  

I guess his criteria would be the same: common folk from everyday life... construction workers, teachers, journalists, nhs staff, delivery guys, social media users and so on. 

Surely there would be non-Christians as well.  Women, most certainly.  Members of the LGBT+ group. Among these would already be someone who has been or is a migrant or with a criminal record.  A politician, maybe (if not for any good reason, at least to replicate Judas!).  

Am sure that his choice would startle and shock quite a few Christians of today.  Even if he did choose any christians, he'd have to bear listening to them as to whom he should choose and why!  Given our fickle and narrow minds, Jesus' choice rather than open our minds to His Word and mindset, would lead us to question the authenticity and 'christian values' of Jesus himself!  

Wonder if he'd need the same number (12)?  Given the fact that women can bear witness more convincingly than men, and that there is the presence and use of social media... these would certainly cut down the work force needed.  But one never knows.  

All said and done, I don't think what one does and is capable of is of little value to Jesus here.  What matters is one's openness to the Kingdom.  

Choosing substitutes

In 2005 while studying Theology, there was a priest in our student community from one of the local congregations of my region.  He was a young priest with a couple of years of pastoral experience.  He was studying a Masters programme.  However, he was so odd and weird and eccentric, in a negative sense, that most of us in the community wondered how on earth did he ever pass through all those years of formation and get ordained!  If I were on his formation staff, he'd been out of the programme in a month! 

As if his antiques in the community were not enough of an embarrassment, he told us how he was ordained.  In his third and penultimate year of theology, which was in the year 2000, his congregation was looking forward to the ordination of 25 deacons to commemorate the special year.  Unfortunately sometime just before the day of ordination, one of them changed his mind.  The congregation was keen to retain the number and hence "promoted" one from the next batch to get ordained.  And who was it? Our friend! 

That day, the little respect we had for that congregation evaporated like mist disappears in the desert in summer!  That they were keen to maintain the numbers was bad enough, but then to rush one to ordination? Even then, we'd suppose they'd chose one most prepared or eligible.  This guy??  I'm still totally biased against that congregation! 

Luckily the apostles did not make such a blunder in choosing Mathias, to replace Judas.  Was it necessary?  Did it make a big difference?  Not sure.  Hopefully it didn't for Mathias himself.  He continued being and doing what he was upto as before. And the body of apostles had their selection criteria clear and sensible.

Simon of Cyrene, the epitome of (most) religious

Simon of Cyrene, who is roped in to help Jesus carry his cross, presents a glimpse of a particular personality type.  Most of us live this personality or this trait very often in our life - especially religious.

Simon is there on the scene by chance.  Or could be there by choice.  But him getting dragged in to assist Jesus is pure chance!  No way did he volunteer for it (doesn't look so).  The soldiers may have asked for volunteers to come forward.  Simon may have thought of volunteering.  Maybe he did.  Nonetheless, the point is this: He knew for certain that the cross was not his.  He was safe!  He only had a guest appearance!  Of this he was sure.  From the citadel of that certainty it is not very difficult to help Jesus!  With my securities in place, I lose nothing. So lending a helping hand to someone is fine. 

All he had to do was play the role for that intermediary period, till Golgotha or till the soldiers decide to let go of him.  No smart moves!  He didn't protest the persecution and the torture.  He wouldn't.  He was not seen or heard before.  He is not seen or heard after this event.  This is exactly the mission mode most religious happily engage in: doing good (occasionally or very often), but from within the comfort zones one wouldn't risk leaving.  But we are called - and we profess, in response - to be more than mere part-time charity doers or organisers.  We are meant to be the radicals.  We are called to be His disciples, all the time, everywhere, for all.  Even if it entails not being with Jesus on his way to Calvary - like John the Baptist - because, we have already walked that way!  

Impact of John the Baptist

Yesterday reflecting on John the Baptist and his role in the life of Jesus, it occured to me that by way of impact, there was hardly any great 'preparation' that JB did for Jesus.  So when Jesus began his ministry there was still opposition, criticism and ultimately his public trial and death.   If John had done a 'better' work surely Jesus should have had a bit more of support and ease in carrying out his mission.  So in terms of 'preparation' there was not much that John the Baptist did.  In comparison to his work, the apostles did a 'better job'. 

Well, that's an easy presumption.  The fact is that John did what he could to the best of his ability.  Jesus knew exactly what he was upto and how he was to carry out his mission.  The apostles so to say did not have to be 'creative' in their mission.  They just had to replicate what Jesus said and did.  However, in the case of John the Baptist, he did not have a clue of what exactly lay in the future. And he did not have a precedent to follow.  He had to literally and metaphorically 'make the way'. 

Besides this, in comparison to Jesus, no one on earth has ever had a greater impact - at least not so lasting and powerful.  But each one who came before and after him put in their best efforts.  Impact or no impact, they did not wait for it.  They just did what they were convinced was the right and best thing to do.  They were not showmen or artists who were keen to merely gather attention.  They had a message to convey, a task to carry out and that's all they did.  

Before the cock crows....

The prophecy of Jesus that Peter will deny him thrice within a few hours of the night and Peter's initial denial of it is one of the Lenten themes that comes up often, especially in the Holy Week.  We also read that Peter 'wept bitterly' when this prophecy does come true. 

We are all like St Peter.  Or Peter too was a mortal, simple human being just like any of us.  He was not even an educated man or an aristocrat.  He was a common man.  And like most people, when faced with a life-threatening situation, he chose the easiest and safest way out: denial and lies. 

Sometimes I wonder what if Peter had not lied about his identity and affiliation with Jesus that night.  Most probably the mob would surely have vented some of their anger towards him and in an extreme situation Peter would have met the same fate as did Jesus, right then and there along with Jesus on Calvary.  Who then would have become the 'leader'? 

Peter's denial of Jesus that night saved his life.  He goes on to become the anchor of the early Christian community.  Though not with faults and weaknesses, people look up to him and respect his decisions.  Even a learned man like Paul tries to help Peter see his point and abide by his decision, rather than declare rebellion and independence stating, 'I'm not going to follow an ignorant fisherman!'  Imagine if Paul were the first Pope! (My hunch is that it would have been catastrophic for the Church - then and now!) Jesus in His wisdom chose a down-to-earth, common man, with all the virtues - and vices - of an ordinary human being, to be the head of the Church... much like Pope Francis in our times!  

They followed him

The last line of the gospel this morning, left me wondering if the same call were to be given out today, how many would follow!  Leave alone, just drop everything, no goodbyes or settling affairs or  packing and what not... just follow.

The team fishing would have surely heard of Jesus.  They wouldn't have followed his instructions if he were not seen as someone whom they considered above normal.  Or else which fisherman would take instructions about fishing from a carpenter?  But this team did and when they realise for themselves, rather than the hearsay they relied on so far, that he was someone really special, they acknowledge him to be someone who is to be in better company than themselves.  Peter asks him to leave because they are not worthy to be in his presence.  Interestingly Jesus invites them to join him!  And when he invites, some of them follow him, right then and there! 

I wonder if we in our contemporary world have space for such a feeling of wonder, of being overwhelmed, of being called and promptly accepting.  We'd sit, reflect, consult, calculate, discuss, reason out, weigh the pros and cons, try to strike a bargain, ask a hundred and one questions... But Peter and company chose to follow him right away; all the above followed!  Of course, they did not at once leave their families and homes but they certainly did accept Jesus as master and were willing to do anything he asks of them, right after their first encounter with him.  

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.

Presence and Witness

Another angle from which the stress on witness was felt was that of Jesus' life. He spent 30 years of silence and three years of preaching.  But those three years were impact filled primarily because the apostles and disciples SAW Jesus live his life, in all transparency, simplicity and truthfullness.  That was the lesson in itself, besides what he said. The latter only made verbal what was already being lived out.

Sheep with the Shepherd

We often think that sheep without a shepherd is a very pitiable situation.  Something that really needs correction. Truly so.  However, I would like to throw light on the other side of the story: sheep with the shepherd.  Somehow we have a mental construct that once the shepherd is there, everything is fine. That all the sheep follow the shepherd. That all of them follow him in singular file!

Unfortunately they don't!  They wander about, of course not too far. But they do wander.  Some stick close to the shepherd, not all.  Some take a longer detour, some shorter. But they are all there, with the shepherd.  In such a case would it be right for those sheep following the shepherd closely that those 'wandering' about a little or more, are not following the shepherd???  Is it right for those 'wandering' to think that those walking in the shepherd's footsteps as 'slaves'???

It struck me that in the Salesian history, when in Don Bosco's times, the young Rua, Cagliero and team would be going out of the oratory for classes (theology?). Rua was the appointed leader who would never take a detour.  Cagliero, on the other hand, would run ahead, watch the street jugglers, wall posters and all that, but be in time, join the group, right in time.  I also remember reading that Rua complained about this to Don Bosco.  I only forget what was Don Bosco's reply.

Getting back to the sheep-shepherd, I think the right question for both the groups (those walking 'close' and those 'wandering') to ask is 'What does the shepherd say?'

The Vine and the Branches

For this morning's Lectio Divina we had the passage from the gospel of John... the one about vine and the branches.  The one that struck me most this morning, for the first time ever, was the following:

My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples (Jn 15: 8).

That means, to become a disciple it is not enough merely to be with the Lord. One of the earlier verses states

Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away... (Jn 15: 2)

This means that there are branches which do not bear fruit and are not yet cut... they may eventually be cut, but for now there are.  Not all the branches yield, or yield abundantly. So to be a disciple one has to not only be connected, in touch with the Lord, but also be fruitful.

Another caution: Being fruitful, not as in being successful.  The grape is fruitful not by 'doing' some things but by 'being' useful.  My fruitfulness, which is a consequence of being connected to the Lord, is of being useful and meaningful to others.

Situational Formation? (2)

I reproduce here something more tangible and sensible, as continuation of my previous post of Situational Formation?. The following is a response that came in from a good and well-intentioned friend of mine. 

... what you are saying in other words, is let them be lay people engaged in spiritual and religious study. It is fantastic but you may have 2 priests at the end of the entire process. Needless to say, those two will be priests you will be proud of (might turn out to be very individualistic and weird too by regular church standards), but you will only have that kind of numbers. 

Experience of daily practical stresses is also why some lay people can be much better at pastoral work than priests. They understand how hard it is to balance. And then too, you can see how hard it is to put the beatitudes into practice. Almost certain, that the quality of preaching will change. Then, the church will get into the business of justifying why, how, what, cost, so on and so forth, just to pump up those numbers and you will be back at square one. 

Take a middle path. Treat them like we would our kids who are studying who have to earn a scholarship. They need to work hard and/or be brilliant. If not, then they need to earn while studying to pay the fee (subsidised please..we need to give them a break). Once the course is done, they all work for a living like the rest of us. The church would need to pay them a living wage. (this would be like the apostles were- they worked for their living and preached the good news). I say church because if they had to perform regular jobs, they won't be able to do full-time priest jobs.

I'm posting this text for I see a great value behind the whole idea of formation and priesthood/religious life... and if anyone is not willing to attempt to see it, leave alone embark on this risky journey, will really need to clarify his or her concept and orientation towards consecrated life, primarily to God and also to His people. 

Thomas the seeker!

Fr Tom began his sermon during the Mass this morning, in honour of St Thomas, with a question: Is the title 'doubting Thomas' justified? His rationale was that the other apostles too did not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus till Jesus appeared to them.  Why then is Thomas singled out to be a doubter?

He then went on to classify those who doubt into two categories: those who ask or doubt for the heck of it. Such kind are never satisfied with any proofs or solutions.  They merely thrive on doubts.  The other kind are those who are sincerely in search of truth and therefore doubt.  Their attempt is sincere in as much as they seek to know and grow.  Thus Thomas was an honest doubter not a dishonest one or a pessimist.

Thomas was an honest man to acknowledge that he did not believe; and not be like very many in our classrooms who nod their head when asked if they understood the point just explained, while in fact, they understood nothing.  Thomas had the courage to acknowledge his disbelief and therefore was offered a chance to believe. And boy! What a conviction that follows!

The Emmaus lessons

I reproduce below the words of one Salesian whom I trust and revere very much... his message for me as I take up my next task of accompanying the Brothers at Karunapuram as Dean of Studies:

Be like the Risen Lord who walked along with the disciples on the way to Emmaus... lovingly and patiently accompanying those entrusted to your care... listening and responding to them in ways and idioms that they understand... at the same time always challenging them to go deeper... a pilgrimage of which the centre and focal point is the encounter with the Eucharistic Lord experienced around the table of fraternal fellowship... a profound experience which beckons them to the Beyond and radically transforms them ... an experience which becomes the springboard and launching pad for ministry even when it means hitting the road even in the dark of the night, but guided by the light of the Living Word within...

Chausible vs Towel

Fr Maliekal while animating this morning's meditation did bring to life something very profound.  He spoke of Jesus taking off his outer garment and putting on the apron to facilitate his washing the feet of his apostles.  So he challenged us to look at ourselves and take notice of the 'outer garments' that prevent us from bending down to wash the feet of the other.

As a symbolic act, he asked a Brother to get a chausible from the sacristy and then left it on the altar, in a crumble - as though it was taken off.  A towel, basin and a bucket of water were already before the altar.

It then struck me, how and why is it that this whole act of foot-washing totally vanished from the Holy Mass?  How come the Church retained only the bread and wine part and relegated this ceremony of foot-washing to Maundy Thursday alone - just once a year?  Was it too crude and not gelling in with the 'pious' and 'holy' Mass?

Why is the chausible - something taken off by Jesus to be replaced by the towel - sacred, while the towel isn't?  As a religious do I take shelter in the 'sacredness' of the chausible while leaving the 'dirty' towel for lay people, the 'others'? Why is it that we fail to recognize that discipleship entails shedding of all that prevents us from reaching out to those not so privileged?