Move the chair

 

Women and India

In India we have a peculiar perspective of the feminine gender.  On the one hand, we revere them as goddesses and deities and on the other they are one of the most suppressed and marginalised in the society.  In classical Hinduism, there is the hierarchy of gods and while the male gods have their supremacy, it is their wives or consorts who wield a great amount of influence on their better halves.  So much so, these goddesses have their own temples and rites.  Moving away from the structured religion, even among the tribals and other castes, female gods supersede their male counterparts not just in influence but in numbers as well. 

But when it comes to actual living, women find themselves at the bottom of the hierarchical structure.  Worse if they belong to any of the already marginalised communities: tribals, dalits and other religions.  Double suppression.  In spite of having the most number of female gods across any country in the world, India also stands out for the number of rapes that are carried out in the country. 

On the one hand, the mother in the family is the one most loved and considered the backbone of the family, women in general are the least respected in society.  Prior to becoming a mother, a woman right since her birth is merely a burden, or a risk which constantly needs to be supervised, protected and 'preserved'. 

The feminine gender is revered but not respected; and this lacunae needs to be addressed not in the society as a whole but in the family.  No amount of laws and ordinances will change the scenario unless a girl - and a boy - is treated fairly at home by all the members of the family.  

Elliptical work structure

The past few days I have been visiting and interacting with different departments and sections of the university with regard to the admission, application of my visa, registration, submission of documents, application for the railcard and so on...

Looking at the number of people involved in the university, it feels like there are more staff than students (exaggerating it though). For each and every task there is a person, then a supervisor, then a head, then a coordinator, then a team and what not. However this structure is not really vertically hierarchical, rather elliptical and crisscrossing.  Compared to how we work in India, even in our Salesian circles, one-man army or at the most one-boss and just a couple of others who do everything else, this working style is just so complex. Besides everyone is very polite, willing to help or direct you to the proper person/place and efficient. No task is seen as high or low. Everyone is respected equally and no one is looked down upon. Coming from a very hierarchical structure and dominance, that's truly amazing to notice and appreciate.

Cultural roots

During my lengthy and exciting discussion with Vlastik today, it struck me that the whole hierarchical style of functioning in the Salesian world, as experienced and lived in India is not primarily of the Salesian heritage.  It is actually more of the Indian culture than the Salesian tradition.  That the Italian Salesian tradition which we inherited also happens to be a hierarchically based is an added reason, not the primary reason.

This fact dawned on me when I realised Vlastik's predicament as to how come Salesian religious life in some parts of the world is hierarchical.  However elaborately I explained to him, he found it baffling. Then it struck me that his European culture and upbringing has a different set of prioritized values wherein even children are consulted in families.  Naturally in a Salesian house, even the youngest confrere is respected and treated with the same privileges as a senior confrere.  He is not treated differently, as we do back in India.  Here in the UK, a temporarily professed has the same privileges as the one celebrating the diamond jubilee of his profession.

Back in India, our culture considers the father as the head of the family.  He makes all the prominent decisions.  The mother is at times consulted.  Children are rarely even informed.  Moving from such a a general ambiance into the seminary life with its superior-student dichotomy is not very difficult, unless one had a different upbringing or is a late vocation who has moved out of his parents shadow and learnt to make his own decisions for his life.  In this continued ambiance, no one has any 'problem': the rector and staff take decisions and the students follow.  Ask the students to get involved in the decision making and they're baffled or at a loss!  Because all along they've been told 'virtue lies in obedience'.  The rector is happy to make the decisions and the students is happy to follow!

From this perspective, I see the great difficulty of what Fr TD is trying to bring in, in our Salesian system: participation.  What he is fighting is not rooted merely in the Salesian religious tradition, but in our general cultural heritage.

Found this in an interesting article I happened to come across on the net... read here.

At Casa madre of SDBs

I returned yesterday afternoon from Turin along with Fr John.  We had been on a two day trip to Turin along with 7 collaborators from the various Salesian houses in Great Britain.  There was Laurence from Egham, Anne from Farnborough, Pauline from Bolton, Sophie from Liverpool, Sophie, Kate and Dave from Chertsey.  More than the places we visited and spent time at, it was the company of the group that I enjoyed most.

At the waterfont (the one surviving since Don's Bosco's time at the Pinardi shed) in Valdocco
L-R: Pauline, Anne, Sophie, Laurence, Kate, John, Sophie and Dave

On Friday we went to Colle Don Bosco and spent most of the afternoon there.  Had the opportunity to meet and speak with Kalyan for sometime.  Visited sections of Chieri and returned to Valdocco for the night.  On Saturday we took a walk around Valdocco, visiting most of the places related to Don Bosco's initial work with the boys in Turin.  In the afternoon we spend time in the mother house, casa madre of the Salesians!  The bascilica of MHC, Pinardi Chapel, Church of St Francis de Sales, Rooms of Don Bosco... We had Mass in the Pinardi Chapel and it was good.  Later in the night we had a long meal in one of the restaurants down the street.

There are many things that stand out of this quick but meaningful two day trip.  One certainly is the expertise and competence of Fr John in weaving history, context, meaning and prayer. If not for that it would have been a walk through buildings and places.  His ability to be able to present a picture of the whole scenario and try to seek relevance for us today, especially for our Salesian work in the UK, made a big difference.  For me, those names and places which were only in books came to life in a totally different perspective.

Fr John did not paint a very emotional or pious picture of Don Bosco and his works.  He sketched a very down to earth, critical portrait of Don Bosco, his formation, the educative method and the early stages of the Oratory.  Of the several insights I gained, what really hit me hard was the notion of 'seminary' for Don Bosco.  He was not very happy with the mode of seminary formation being 'doled out' in his days.  He resisted it and this is seen in his own valiant efforts not to put his own 'Salesians' through it.  The notion of being closed up within the seminary cut off from the rest of the world, the purely theoretical input without much of practical experience to ferment reflection, the strict adherence to practically all the diktats of ecclesial authorities...

It was interesting to note that an elderly ex-priest was sharing his experience of the rigid hierarchical structure that existed in his times. I thought he was speaking of the present times!! I had to acknowledge that in most cases, it still is the same.  Post-Vatican II's radical thoughts, did not really percolate the mindset and practical living of the Church and especially formation paradigms.  

Apostolic succession

A particular priest was so vexed with his Bishop that he finally exclaimed,

Now I firmly believe in the apostolic succession.  There is no other way of making sense of my Bishop, other than belonging to the lineage of Judas Iscariot!

I guess that could be said of quite a few bishops!

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.

Beginnings of ecclesial hierarchy

In the Acts of the Apostles we read, that the Apostles appoint/elect a committee to oversee the fair and equal distribution of resources to all the needy so that they could spend more time in prayer and preaching the Word of God. Now this could be the first unconscious step towards the establishment of hierarchy in the Catholic Church - besides that what we see in the Old Testament.

Not very sure though if the Apostles expected that the newly formed group cater to their needs too?  Even if they did, I'm sure it was out of reverence for the apostles and not something expected or demanded by the apostles.

We see this divisioning and sub-divisioning growing in the Church, but mostly done by the so-called Priests and Religious.  Strange: we observe this in the old testament and then in the later part of the new testament... the only exception to all of this is Jesus Himself!! 

Taking sides

During the PAR training programme, an interesting question that plagued my mind, as it did some others too, is this:

If we are to take sides with the weakest and be biased about our whole attitude (if not of our procedure), then there may come a point wherein the group which we have been standing for, becomes one of the groups on the forefront and another is now the last.  What then? 

Another form of asking the same question would be

Why not be impartial and strive for equal growth, especially of the marginalized?  Why should we take sides at all?  

Prof. Manti was clear and direct in his answer: The moment we see that there is someone who is marginalised we take his/her side! That's it... that's what PAR is all about.  To talk of equality for all, at all times is living in an utopia.

Another interesting extract from The Clowns of God...

The following is an extract from the novel that I just completed reading, The Clowns of God by Morris West. Here's the outburst of Carl Mendelius while with his friend Jean Marie Barette, the future Pope. A passionate outpouring of his pastoral zeal which somehow ignites in me a spark...
"...All idolatry springs from a desire for order. We want to be neat, like the animals. We mark out our territories with musk and feces. We make hierarchies like the bees and ethics like the ants. And we choose gods to set the stamp of approval on our creations... What we cannot cope with is the untidiness of the universe, the lunatic aspect of a cosmos with no known beginning , no visible end and no apparent meaning to all its bustling dynamics.... We cannot tolerate its monstrous indifference in the face of all our fears and agonies..... The prophets offer us hope; but only the man-god can make the paradox tolerable. This is why the coming of Jesus is a healing and a saving event. He is not what we should have created for ourselves. He is truly the sign of peace because He is the sign of contradiction. His career is a brief tragic failure. He dies in dishonour; but then most strangely, He lives. He is not only yesterday. He is today and tomorrow. He is as available to the humblest as to the highest...
"But look what we humans have done with Him. We have bloated His simple talk into a babble of philosophies. We have inflated the family of His believers into an imperial bureaucracy, justified only because it exists and cannot be dismantled without a cataclysm. The man who claims to be the custodian of His truth lives in a vast palace, surrounded by celibate males - like you and me, Jean!- who have never earned a crust by the labour of their hands, never dried a woman's tears or sat with a sick child until sunrise....
"If ever they make you Pope, Jean, keep one small part of yourself for a private loving. If you don't, they'll turn you into a Pharaoh, mummified and embalmed before you're dead..." (p. 256-257)