Valiant effort

 Glancing through news bits of the day, I came across the following post on X, with news of Amul Cooperative congratulating Yamini Maurya, a medal winner at the Commonwealth 2026 games.  

Honestly, I knew nothing about her or her achievements.  Never heard about her.  But what struck me was the photo.  Not the people in it, but the location. It certainly seems her home.  Bedsheets and mat on the floor.   Trophies lined up on a ledge.  Extension box and charger wires.  And it has an asbestos roof!!  

In an age where most people live in pucca houses, with multi-storeyed luxury rooms, here is a young lady, who has brought fame to the nation through her hard work and effort, living under an asbestos roof! From that one fact alone, I gather how much of an effort would she and her family have made to rise up to the national level sports competitions.  

Kudos to the whole family for their sacrifices and valiant effort.  Appreciation and congratulations to Yamini herself - and the many more like her who make the most of their meagre resources, with an iron grit and a large heart.  

Dependence

 My recent reflection based on the FCRA cancellations and the upcoming concerns with foreign funding, brings back to the fore our reliance on projects, to the extent of crippling out initial passion to work by ourselves. The availability of funding actually makes us lazy!! 

Earlier our predecessors worked with a vision, firmly rooted in the context of the place. Their humble initiatives were not project-bound. They just did all they could. Their time, talents, will and available resources were the investment. Recognising this total and joyful commitment, donors offered their mite by way of financial resources. The focus of our early Salesians was not projects or funding; it was the apostolate. At no costs did they halt the apostolate, even when funding dwindled. God provided. 

Today we ride on the merit of their hard work. Our commitment levels are far lower than theirs. Riddled with personal agenda and selfishness, our apostolate is often a showcasing of ourselves rather than a genuine concern for the growth of the young people. In such a context, external funding only feeds our lethargy and selfishness. 

So I wonder, if my insistence on accountability is misplaced. The greater emphasis should be on discerning the real needs of the young, with a far sighted vision for their long term growth; earning by the sweat of one's brow; maximum utilisation of available resources rather than new resources - with a clear firm focus on the young and God, taking ones own wants out of the calculation. 

Salesian poverty

 An extract from the book titled Don Bosco Up Close, by Teresia Bosco (English translation) 2023 edition, p. 122. The following is a testimony shared by Fr Francis Dalmazzo, during the process of Don Bosco's canonization and who had the fortune of being one of Don Bosco's boys at the oratory.  

When he (Don Bosco) came to Rome once, when the Salesians were still living in Via degli Specchi, he found very poor lodgings, so poor that I (Francesco Dalmazzo) was obliged to give up my bed and sleep on the sofa, and when he looked at the table in the middle, made of ubleached wood, covered with a miserable spread, he was consoled and said to me: "Oh, this is what I like: here is a real Salesian house!" And he laughed heartily.  

As I read this passage for our spiritual reading, I could not but think if anyone today would have the courage to say such a thing at any of our Salesian houses.  First of all, there would be the totally opposite scenario: lavish dining hall, exquisite furniture, posh flooring, special cots and mattresses, costly electronic gadgets and a lavish spread at the table. 

Don Bosco grew up poor and knew the value and necessity of poverty for our apostolate.  He could have very well continued being a diocesan if he wished to become rich.  Working for the POOR and abandoned youth, and being materially rich are incompatible!  

No luxury to worry about the heat

 This year's summer has been extremely hot!  The worst prolonged hot days, ever!  Nonetheless, life goes on. We all adapt and carry on.  

Often I've thought and in the house spoken about the poor people who work, out in the open.  Being inside the building and barely stepping outside, we feel cooked. What about those poor people slogging it out, eking their living out in the open, under the direct sun. However, there too, life goes on.  We grin and bear (and burn!). 

The following quote from one poor lady in Madhya Pradesh, (as reported by the BBC website) about the Indian summer sums up the reality of Indian life, especially that of the poor: 

Poor people don't have the luxury of worrying about the heat.

Most of us Indians, have greater adaptation and endurance capacity than other world citizens.  We adapt.  More out of necessity than choice.  

Scarcity teaches us more

 One of the core lessons that I've come to learn, or rather, one of my beliefs that have been confirmed over the last couple of years is the fact that poverty teaches us more than abundance.  That in scarcity we find the true and deep meaning and value of anything, and life in general.  When we have something in abundance, we do not care for it.  We begin to realize the worth of it, only when that item or aspect diminishes or disappears.  

I've come to believe that most of us priests and religious have lost not just the value of money but of God himself.  We are exposed to both in abundance, hence the loss of esteem.  

In Delhi

 I arrived in Delhi for the second time this year. The metro was unusually free of congestion, perhaps because it is a Sunday. But I wasted quite a lot of time waiting for the buses. I then decided to walk to the school. 

More than being frustrated with no bus coming my way, I needed to repair my sandal and so thought I'd find atleast a hardware shop or a cobbler. 

Walking along the stretch from the metro to the school, all I found was dry-cleaners, ice-cream parlours and pharmacies. I was almost certain that finding a cobbler in such a locale would be practically impossible. 

Lo and behold, I actually did find one. In my brief conversation with him, as he bent over and mended my sandal, I came to know that he has been working as a cobbler at the same spot for the last 40 years! Looking at his tools and work style I could gather he was honest about the duration. 

Although there were quite a few restaurants and eateries along the way, I choose to sit by a father and son duo preparing parathas and bought lunch from them. Hot parathas made right then and there. 

It struck me then that the population living in that particular stretch was a very posh one. Nonetheless, it was so posh that the people working for them were mostly from outside the state and really poor. So naturally, there were the posh spots and the down-to-earth spots catering to the two different sets of people around. 

I certainly do not claim to authoritatively speak about Delhi, but unlike Mumbai or for that matter, Hyderabad, in Delhi the dividing lines are clear and sharp. 

Bourgeois Salesians

 From the General Chapter 29 document... (AGC 445 p. 20-21)

... it is true that there are numerous confreres with great sensitivity. But we are not all like that. (...) we take care of the poor, but we are not 'with the poor' nor 'are we poor', and with little capacity for personal and and institutional testimony.  And where - alongside holy Salesians - there are 'bourgeois' Salesians who desire more social life than missionary life, attracted by careerism and with superficial attitudes, with distractions and various comforts and - what's worse - everything is considered normal. 

This observation says it all!  

Getting out of poverty

 As part of the Poverty eradication plan of the Region, we had a discussion this morning.  I couldn't be part of it full time but for the first hour that I could be present, it was interesting to note what Palli brought our attention to.  Namely, that eradicating poverty is never a direct approach.  Tackling poverty headlong is going to take us nowhere except into desperation and discouragement. There is no magical formula to drive out poverty.  All we can do, and do so wisely, is to link processes that will eventually drive out poverty. 

Listening to him I was imagining the death pit where riders spiral and the only way they can get out of it is to spiral out, rather than attempt a steep climb.  That's exactly how needs to work out of the death trap of poverty. 

Very many confreres feel, the only sensible way to rid the society of poverty is to distribute money!  And they are convinced of it!  The former method is the only viable, but a long shot. For example, the governments scheme of scholarships to students.  Now that's one way of tackling poverty, indirectly.  By offering incentives to young people to study, they are offering a possibility to the young of gaining education, basing on which they can get a decent job and earn for themselves.  A dignified self-made person, living off his own livelihood, based on his hard work, with a bit of support from the government.  

Pope Francis: In death, as in life

The choice of Pope Francis to have a simple burial, without any fanfare or frills, an ordinary wooden coffin, to be kept on the ground rather than elevated above the floor, to be buried in a place where he spent his time in prayer and among a locale which is inhabited by the poor and migrants... he continues to be himself in death, as he was in his life. 

The secret according to me, of his simplicity, humility and balanced outlook towards everything, was that he never stopped being Jorge Maria Bergoglio.  His election as Pope only made his life and choices more radical as Jorge Bergoglio. What characterised his term as Pope was not the title of being the 'Pope' or the 'head of the Church' but the name he chose 'Francis'.  To the already existing nature of Jorge Bergoglio, he added the qualities of St Francis. 

I wish and pray that the Church continues to elect and appoint such leaders who live and lead by example, rather than doctrine alone or empty pulpit advice. 

Too much money

In 1871 Don Bosco sent professor Don Paolo Albera, who was later to become his second successor, to found the Morassi house in Genoa. 

Don Albera had accepted a few gifts of money from friends and acquaintances because he knew he would need funds to set up the new house. Before he departure, Don Bosco asked him if he needed anything. 

"No, thank you, Don Bosco! I already have five hundred lire." (500 lire then would be approximately INR 35 today!)

"But that is too much money," protested Don Bosco. "You will find Providence in Genoa as well as in Turin." 

The saint took a few lire from a drawer, handed them to Don Albera and took the five hundred lire bill. 

When this became known, everyone laughed, and Don Bosco chuckled: "It would be an insult to Providence to put away a fund for future needs." 

Such was Don Bosco's trust in Divine Providence.  While he struggled for funds all his life, even as a boy, he never doubted the maxim 'God provides', no matter how big or small his initiatives were. I think a major source of this confidence comes from the realisation that all he did was actually God's work, not his! 

When Don Bosco was being photographed (photography a rare novelty then) he chose to be photographed hearing confessions; and the boy making his confession is young Paul Albera.

Balancing

 Never came across this version of the text of St Paul... (to the 2nd Corinthians)

Remember how generous the Lord Jesus was: he was rich, but he became poor for your sake, to make you rich out of his poverty.  This does not mean that to give relief to others you ought to make things difficult for yourselves: it is a question of balancing what happens to be your surplus now against their present need, and one day they may have something to spare that will supply your own need. That is how we strike a balance: The man who gathered much had none too much, the man who gathered little did not go short. 

Parasite

Watched the movie Parasite the other day in with another confrere.  Cannot really say that I enjoyed it - not my favourite genre.  Not really.  But what I did like about the movie was the cinematography and direction.  There were no lose ends to any of the sub-plots in the movie.  All instances were well tied up and well connected too to the main plot.  Very well thought out and beautifully shot.  

The fact that one had to follow the english subtitles and at the same time keep an eye on the whole frame being screened was difficult.  But I guess one cannot help it if the movie is in another language.  Nonetheless I should say that there was great care to translate the movie well.  

One moral of the movie that came across strongly to me was the great risk of greed amidst poverty.  That poverty itself is no great curse is my firm belief.  Indeed it's a great opportunity.  However, when coupled with greed and ambition, it can lead one to a disastrous life. In contrast to the protagonist family, there is the couple in the rich man's house itself.  There is the woman working as a housekeeper and the husband living incognito in the basement.  They too were poor like the other family but did not seek the thrill of becoming rich.  They were content with what they had, even if it meant one of them living in the basement.  Contentment is indeed a very noble virtue.  

Religious poverty

The notion of living and working for the poor, as a religious who takes the vow of poverty, is always a very conveniently moulded construct.  We interpret poverty to mean detachment.  And then possess everything that a middle-class family or even the rich have!  

I still vividly remember having this discussion with Benji during my novitiate asking him what right or privilege do I have to stay in this newly built novitiate while the ones who built it are still living in huts, right in front of the house.  He then told me, "To work you need strength and energy.  That's why you have food that will nourish you and a bed that lets you have sufficient rest." I wasn't really convinced then, neither am I still!  

To work with and for the poor, one really has to be poor.  The concept that in order to help someone rise out of poverty we have to be above poverty ourselves, stems from a misplaced concept of helping those poor to get into the middle class and above.  Our primary job is not to help the poor transition to the upper levels of economic status.  Our job is to show and be God's love for them!  To show by word and deed that God loves, that he loves especially the poor.  This means to stand by them.  With them!  Not above or apart from them.  

Nothing to lose

When questioned by the religious elders, Peter and his company, boldly assert their source of strength and stand by their teaching of Jesus risen.  No mincing words, no ifs and buts.  Simple, plain, direct, acknowledgement of Christ risen and total allegiance to His life and works. 

Besides the Holy Spirit, it was also their freedom from any other aspect of life that helped them preach Jesus.  They literally had nothing to lose!  All that they had, they shared!  Even Jesus.  So no compromises, no calculations, no measuring pros and cons.  That's the power of detachment.  It gives one the freedom to choose ones path, without any fear of loss. 

It is exactly this freedom of detachment and choice that we religious have.  But we fail to make the most of it, because we fear risking the other elements and aspects we have 'gathered' in the process of living like Christ - all 'for' living like Christ.  

Zaccheus and the rich young man

Kevin offered an interesting insight into the reading of this day.  The passage is that of Zaccheus.  He said, he was wondering what new or different could he share about his passage from the Gospel that we have heard so many times. 

He then said that he noticed something in the structure of the Gospel itself.  The story of Zaccheus follows that of the rich young man and the poor blind man.  The curing of the blind beggar is so to say, sandwiched in between the stories of the two rich men. 

The young man and Zaccheus were both rich in wealth.  Both of them were keen to meet Jesus.  The young man had some idea of how to become better, but that he had already mastered.  He knew not what next.  Zaccheus, on the other hand, knew exactly what he had to do.  He was aware of his corrupt dealings and what needed to be done to shun that burden of guilt.  Once Jesus arrives on the scene, all that Jesus does is give that final push!  The young man, asks for further instructions.  However, on knowing what that entails, he is hesitant to go down that road.  Zaccheus, does not need further instructions.  All that he has is a self-invitation of Jesus to dine with him.  He then rattles off his next mode of living! 

At what stage of life am I?  Am I aware of what the Lord wants of me? If aware, am I willing to undertake that what He wants of me?  Am I conscious of what I need to give up, if I am to follow the Lord?  Am I ready for that? 

I suppose, the same questions arise in the intermediary context of poor blind man.  Another lesson, we can draw from these three stories together is that no matter what our financial situation is, we are always in need!  

Heaven and misconceived riches

Each of us has a different view of what heaven is.  Our basic catechism gives us an impression of it as a place, up above, where God lives.  Most often the idea is that is a place where all suffering ends and we enjoy unbounded peace.  Somehow as we imbibe the teachings of the Church, the 'carrot-stick' instructions of our parents and teachers, the fantasy of stories and movies, we come to think of heaven as a sort of magic land.  Once there, everything is possible and one need not slog anymore.  It is basically in total contrast to what we find around ourselves, here on earth. 

Take for instance the antiphon of today's prayers, on the occasion of memorial of St Martin of Tours:

Martin once poor and lowly, enters heaven with riches. 

It is as if Martin who had nothing, on reaching heaven gains everything that he lacked here on earth.  That somehow as he crossed the arch of heaven, all that he was denied here on earth, he is now blessed with.  Now that's quite an illusion.  Makes people live dual lives or be split in time - one totally different from the other; the latter making up all that we give up here on earth!  Martin gave up wealth here on earth.  Does that mean he had a thick purse or a fat bank account when he entered heaven?  Would he wanted that? Even if he did get it, would he have thought big about it? 

We don't enter heaven rich.  We are already rich.  Martin did not become rich when he reached heaven.  He was already rich in virtue of peace, joy and thanksgiving here on earth.  He had little but that he shared and what he did he did joyfully.  So he was happy here itself.  Heaven is not a place where one gains what one has given up; it is a state when one becomes conscious of and cherishes what one already is blessed with!  

Poverty or generosity?

Another interesting passage: this time from the letter to the second letter to the Corinthians (8: 1 & 9).

Here, brothers, is the news of the grace of God which was given in the churches of Macedonia; and of how, throughout great trials by suffering, their constant cheerfulness and their intense poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity.  

Note the seemingly contrasting facts about the same group of people: 'intense poverty' and 'overflowed in a wealth of generosity'.  It could be argued that the first is about material possessions and the second about a virtue.  Yet, how can one be generous with what one does not have.  Well, that brings to question the historical meaning assigned to 'poverty'.  Even if not the dictionary meaning, the one assigned to 'poverty' as is appears here; as inserted by the author; as understood by the reader. 

Another line of argument (the usual interpretation): they were poor, yet generous with the little they had.  So, there is no rivalry, both the phrases are compatible.  Yet, this compatibility is not the initial focus; it is only the intended derived focus!  This 'compatibility' would not have been that hitting and efficient, if not for the purposely contradicted phrases 'intense poverty' and 'wealth of generosity'. 

For a normal reader, the first point would be, which of these two is true? Both can't be, at the same time!  But for a Christian, I wonder how many ever thought of the two as incompatible?  Compare the meaning accorded to the words 'poor' and 'generosity' here with the intended meaning in the instance of the poor widow's contribution. Is one right in according the latter narration or the present text in discussion a 'great Christian writing'? Or is one right about saying that these are examples of illogical thinking and confused ideas? If criteria for judging are different then one ought to be ready to grant two different verdicts - even contradictory ones.  Then there is no common ground for further discussion.  If on the other hand, we seek for common ground, one might ask, then what's Christian about this? 

And with v. 9:

... he was rich, but he became poor for your sake, to make you rich out of his poverty! 

note the words rich used twice, don't mean the same, even though occurring in the same sentence.  And what if they did??  The same with 'poor' and 'poverty'.  

Of Divine providence and play

Initially when I joined the Salesians I was surprised to hear from the elderly Salesians that most of our benefactors were actually poor people - some much poorer than us Salesians whom they were helping!!  Only then the gospel of the widow putting in her two pence, her entire earnings, made profound meaning to me. 

The readings of the day from the book of the Kings, about Elijah the prophet and the widow, offer a similar insight.   Elijah is told by Yahweh that he has instructed a widow to cater to his food.  And who is this widow? A wealthy aristocrat? Not at all!  She is so poor that she has only one meal left and on the brink of starvation!  Yet she agrees to share the food, the only food she has, all that she has, with a total stranger. 

God continues to play tricks: initially by designating her to share her only meal with a stranger and then by never letting her jar of flour and jug of oil go empty!  And what's Elijay doing?  What he is designated to do!

Richness of poverty

While speaking of formation to the attitude of renunciation and living a life of poverty, Fr Jose Plascencia mentioned three good points, drawing lesson from the parable of the merchant and the precious pearl... he called it the 'phenomenology of renunciation'.

1. The pearls the merchant initially possessed are renounced (sold) not because they are false!  They were authentic and up till then made up the merchant's wealth.  Similarly when we make our profession we give up all that we live by not because it is bad or evil;  far from it, it is all that made up what we are and lead us to this point of taking a decision.  We do not renounce bad things but good things.  Renouncing 'bad things' hardly makes the cut to an authentic and complete renunciation.  
2. I renounce the good things because I've found something better!  The merchant sold all he had because he found the pearl of extreme value for which he was willing to forgo everything he had.  If our consecrated life, centred on following and the imitation of Jesus, is not fascinating, the renunciation it requires becomes unjust and dehumanizing.  
3. The joy of now possessing the precious pearl never eliminates the fear that maybe it is not authentic.  In religious life, that is the risk: faith.  If we become convinced that what we are living for and doing, is not the truth, then we become mere salesmen (not Salesian) who are in the art of selling the product to others but never trusting, never using it oneself.  The community becomes an institution; religious life, a mere service;  and my consecration a heavy burden that I (and others with me) unwilling grin and bear. 

Poverty and love

Our vows makes sense to our religious life only and only if we take them out of love and live them for love.  If they are an end in themselves then they cease to be anything virtuous or leading us any closer to God.  In no time they will become a burden under which we find ourselves being crushed instead of being of any help to others. 

But this love can be only for our fellow human beings, with no God-dimension in it!  Can it?  I don't think it can be possible to be so in love with human beings that God and any other life can be excluded from it.  However, I need to deepen this reasoning.

Coming back to the vows and love... in the context of poverty too, a poverty that does not stem from love is not a poverty to be desired nor does it get us any nearer to God.  Truly if our deeds and not mere words are a genuine test of love then a mere detachment from material possessions is not going to take us far.  Augustine has a very radical look on this aspect when he states

If you are still not yet disposed to die for your brother, be at least disposed to give some of your goods to your brother ... If you cannot give to your brother from what you have in excess, how can you give him your life?

That invariably either stems from or subsequently leads us to the Gospel quote

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends.