Integrity and holiness of life - 2

 I glanced through the book The Dual Form of the Salesian Vocation by Andrea Bozzolo.  Read through the Theological interpretation of the dual form of the single Salesian vocation, as presented by Bozzolo.  Nonetheless, two aspects that stand out for me as serious lacuna which Bozzolo seems to have either missed out or misinterpreted.  

The first aspect is the emphasis and foundational character of our Salesian vocation: Consecration.  This dimension is something in common for ALL Salesians - irrespective of one's choice of brotherhood or priesthood. As Salesians, our identity is that of consecrated individuals, even prior to our identity as priests.  Now if this is not the case, then we are merely diocesans, wearing a different cloak and having a different abbreviation after our name, for the show of it. 

Now I thought I had heard this aspect of the CONSECRATION from Fr Ivo, who in turn heard it from Bozzolo.  Perhaps this book was an earlier interpretation or text from the pen of Bozzolo.  Or I am mixing up my sources! Nonetheless, this is one point that is certainly a very essential aspect missing in the book. 

The second aspect is that of the notion of integrity and holiness.  Somehow, it appears to me - not necessarily that it is what Bozzolo actually meant to say -  that Bozzolo isolates the Brother as the only one of whom integrity and holiness of life are expected.  Not necessarily of a priest!  Because in Bozzolo's understanding, the priest has the authority of the Holy Orders. And that seems to suffice!  Whereas a brother has to 'earn' his authority from the integrity and holiness of life and work that characterizes his life as a brother.  

I believe authority comes from integrity, no matter what state of life one is called to live.  Holiness is not a given grace that automatically transforms a person, without his or her own effort or attempts at being open to that grace!  If one does not live an integral life, no matter how many layers of Holy Orders one puts on or is bestowed with, one lacks depth, spirituality and holiness.  On the other hand, if living an integral life, no matter what 'lowly' work one does, one is holy.  In short, no one, not the priest, not the brother, not anyone, is exempted of this attempt at living a life of integrity.  

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 sense of entitlement

One of the many contagious sicknesses plaguing priests and religious is a sense of entitlement. Unfortunately, the sense of entitlement is not in any spiritual aspect (son of God)! The entitlement is purely on the basis of being a priest or religious… of wearing a cassock or habit. Not on the basis of one’s merit, hard work, depth of personality, confidence, or any other virtue, but just because ‘I am a priest/nun’. By itself, this sense of entitlement is bad; coupled with ignorance, incompetence, lethargy and power, it is lethal!

Pope Francis, the penitent

The year after Pope Francis was elected as the Pope, during the Lent of 2014, he was to preside over a penitential service. Everyone was keen to hear him, receive his blessings and participate in the service.  But no one was prepared for what actually happened. 

Rather than head to the assigned confessional, he went ahead to another confessional where there was already a Priest seated, knelt down and made his confession! Right there, in front of all people and all the participants, at that very hour when he was expected to hear the confessions of others.  Before all of that, he made his confession! 

A true living witness of what and who a Pastor should be... leading by example rather than mere words. 

Choosing ministers

In the first reading of the day, we hear the apostles asking the community to find replacement for them to carry on, responsibly and with diligence, the work they were doing - doing charity.  It is interesting to note that the apostles did not merely appoint people of their own accord.  They asked the community to choose. They merely approved and blessed them. 

One might argue that they themselves were picked up by the Lord - not proposed and chosen by the people.  And they considered prayer and preaching their main task.  But for doing charity, they request the community to elect persons. However, in an age when there is not much of a difference in prayer and charity, when one is called to do both, without being biased towards one or the other, do we also not ought to take into consideration the means of choosing/appointing disciples?  Should formation of priests and religious, and most importantly, promotion of them over the years, be the sole privilege of the priests and religious?  Should not the lay people whom priests and religious work for and with, not have a say in their formation? 

The most formidable reason I fully endorse the need for the approval of the people (formators and lay staff) in permitting priests and religious to the orders or vows is the criteria listed in the Acts: respectable people filled with the Spirit and with wisdom.  This will also go on to confirm the fact that every one is capable of discerning the Spirit and recognizing wisdom - not just the religious, or the educated! While it is God who offers us our vocation, it is our individual responsibility to make that vocation useful to others.  So why not ask the community - the whole community, and not just the religious or priests alone - to help in the discerning the worthiness of individuals for pastoral ministry?

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!  

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.  

Formation and knowledge

Reading this particular article on Aeon about walking and applying the philosophy of Gilbert Ryle to it, I was wondering if this can be applied to the whole process of formation and that particular phase of intellectual formation too.

Just a handful of us formators back in the province believe that a student discerning his vocation to priestly or religious life ought to have a rather meaningful and sensible intellectual capacity.  Lacking in which he or she will make things and life miserable for others and themselves - the exact opposite of what ministry seeks to do in service of the people! Most formators feel that intellectual capacity should not be a major factor to be considered when deciding whether a person continues being a religious or priest or not. 

Ryle seems to suggest that if self-teaching is activated, that would suffice for improving a skill. 

We can think about Ryle’s view as a middle way between the just-do-it view and intellectualism. Intellectualism claims that skilled action requires thought, and gives a picture of thought as deliberate, conscious internal activity. The just-do-it view observes that it is not plausible that skill requires this kind of conscious thinking, and concludes that thought is the enemy of skill. Ryle agrees with the just-do-it view that conscious thought is not a requirement of skill, but offers an alternative view of thinking as engaged problem solving, claiming that this kind of thought is a requirement of skilled action.

If I'm reading it right, Ryle would say that just because is a person is kind and considerate, does exempt him or her from engaging in a very intellectual exercise of thinking. Nonetheless, to actually continue being kind and considerate and develop it as a skill rather than blindly repeat certain kind actions and utterances, a particular kind of thought is essential. 

One need not be an expert in oceanography to be a priest or religious but if one is not competent to reflect on ones own ministry and willing to make sufficient effort to learn from it, even if already 'good' at it, then one certainly is not worthy of becoming a priest or religious. Openness and humility to learn, require a certain kind of thinking to actualize and bear fruit.  

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!  

Romero, a saint?

The other day someone expressed their doubt if Romero was actually a martyr or a case of political assassination. He was not contesting the canonization of the person but expressing a sentiment that one gets to see in quite some believers.  The point is that he did not 'die' for 'religious' reasons.  That the circumstances in which he was killed wasn't a question or threat to faith, rather a political turmoil. 

I for one, firmly believe that Romero is a saint - so is anyone who takes a stand for some value, especially not for himself but on behalf of others, especially those who cannot really take that step.  Romero is for me a saint who did not restrict himself to his office or Cathedral.  As a priest, a bishop, he stood with his people.  He stood against some of his own clergy who took up arms.  He was not hesitant to call what is wrong, wrong.  Even if it was the one's he was representing within the Church.  He stood for values, not compromises. 

Furthermore, he stood with his people, and distinctively with the poor.  And as a bishop and minister of God, he used the sacraments as a means of pointing to the values, not as belittling them, as some accuse him of, but of pointing to what is right, what is good and true.  Standing with his people, he upheld hope, and showed them, by example, what love truly entails - loving all, even those who cause harm.  The same love also entails courage, the courage to stand up to oppression, injustice and violence, but not out of hatred but for love.

Last of all, if Romero's death was a mere political assassination, so was Jesus' crucifixion.  The Romans did not sentence Jesus to death for any religious reasons - those accusations brought forth by the religious authorities meant nothing to the Romans.  He was sentenced in order to avoid social unrest and political chaos.  What marks out a martyr is not merely how he or she died, but how he or she lived as well.  In that sense, Romero is a saint, not merely in the death he died but in the life he lived.  

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). 

God loves everyone

The writing of Paul to the Corinthians about God choosing the weak, instead of the strong, the foolish instead of the wise can be interpreted as a 'privilege' by the clergy, the religious.  Unfortunately!

Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God.

I've heard many a priests and religious use this quote to praise God for having gifted them with a religious or priestly vocation, in spite of not being the most brightest or best in his or her age group or village or class.  However, the passage can be used for better purposes.  The one that I like is where it can be used to prove that God stands by the weak, the marginalised, those ostracised and abandoned.  He is there with them.  However I would prefer the other version that occurred to me this morning.  That God in choosing the weak and the foolish, is expressing his love for all!  In choosing those less humanly gifted he is balancing the equation among the human beings so that we may complement one another for the good of all.  Rather than see God as loving some more (either the chosen or the 'abandoned') than the others, God when seen from this perspective loves all - equally!  Those not chosen are not bad people! Neither are those chosen good people!  It is just that God wishes the best for each one and therefore offers a level platform where each one can contribute his or her might and thereby complement one another for the good of all. 

Deacons and Salesian Brothers

This morning at Mass when I heard and was reminded that St Laurence was a deacon and not a priest, and was someone who was greatly aware of his mission as a deacon of service, rather than sacramental ministry, the first thought that struck me was the reason why Don Bosco spoke of Brothers.  Don Bosco wanted Brothers to do works that a priest would not be able to find time and spare energy for, because he is involved in sacramental ministry.  The Brother therefore would be involved in works, other than sacramental ministry, but complimentary to that of the Priest in building the Kingdom.  Isn't that exactly the same motivation and need that drove the early Church to install the first deacons? 

'It's not appropriate for us to forsake the word of God and serve tables. Therefore brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom. Then we can appoint those men over this business, and we apostles will continue to devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.' (Acts 6: 1-4). 

So I guess the issue of distinguishing or mixing up roles in ministry dates long before our times, or even Don Bosco's times!  However, am sure, the apostles and Don Bosco would have a different take on today's scenario, different not only in time but in place (East or West) as well!  

Vocations to priestly and religious life

Vocations to priestly and religious life in the West are on the decline for decades.  Most congregations are either winding up or on the verge of closing down.  The same is the case for many Parishes.  Either merged or closed down altogether.  Here in this diocese of Arundel and Brighton, recently three parishes were merged or rather were being catered to by two priests.  And this is not a solitary case.

The Salesian province of Great Britain too has shrunk very much in numbers.  Naturally many would like to see more join the Salesians and continue the good work carried out by so many in former years.  However, the scenario at large has changed much.  So has the Church and the congregation too.  The recurrent questions one has to come face to face in the present times is: What next? How can we get vocations?  Very many ask and seek to find an answer to the question, 'Why are people not joining us anymore?'  However, I think prior to that question we Salesians need to ask ourselves, "Why is it that we want people to join us to become Salesians?"

If we have nothing distinctive or special or challenging to offer, why would any youngster want to join us?  If all that we presently do can be done without professing the vows or getting ordained, why then opt for priestly or religious life?  Where and how does God feature in our life, in our invitation to young people to join us?  If we have a relevant answer to that question then perhaps we can move to the next question of 'What more can we do to have young people join us?'

A proper understanding of 'consecration' will certainly do us a lot of good.  But am not sure if consecrated life is to be understood or interpreted as a counter-witness to the 'social' life. 

Unholy religion?

From The Times (Dec. 11, 2017) ... 

Religions have brought great things to civilization: schools, hospitals, learning, science, social organisation, art, altruism.  Yet they can also bring horrors, persecutions, and injustices, contemptuous exploitation of those they consider unsaved.  Religions still protect thousands of irrational and sometimes rules that have nothing to do with spirituality or even their own founding scriptures.  

Muhammad did not demand the burka or the suicide bomber.  Christ expressed no views on whether to eat meat on Friday, keep women out of the priesthood, give cardinals red hats or condemn same-sex love.  There is no evidence that the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, ordered uncut hair and turbans; that came over a century later, for social and distinctive reasons.  Buddha certainly did not recommend the murder of the Rohinghya in Burma.  

Human beings, self-seeking and irresistibly drawn to bureaucratic dogmatism, hung all that stuff on the hook of religion.  Some of it is harmless, some terrible.  Most of all, human like to seize on the mysterious sense of the "holy" that raises an echo in every heart and gleefully use it to shore up systems of unquestioned authority.  ... Human beings have weaponised holiness, made a sword and shield of it. 

The title of the article is "Putting priests on pedestals has abetted abuse" by Libby Purves

They understood...

The first reading of the Mass today is from the book of Nehemiah.  Reading it was as if it was a description of the Holy Mass, at least the first part of it.  Ezra, the priest and scribe, reading from the book of the Law.  The Levites explaining the text.  Nehemiah, presiding over the whole animation.  The people, listening to the whole reading with great reverence.  Conclusively the people are very moved by the whole reading, listening and understanding of it and are exhorted by the animators to go back home and rejoice... and share their food and drink with those who haven't anything to eat or drink.  The last sentence of the reading reads thus:

And all the people went off to eat and drink and give their shares away and begin to enjoy themselves since they had understood the meaning of what had been proclaimed to them. 

What struck me most was the last line... they understood the meaning of what had been explained to them... and I wish this could be said of every Mass and every sermon preached in every Church!

God is with you

The readings of the day and the responsorial psalm offer a very simple yet necessary challenge to all who claim to be close to God.  In the first reading we see people of other nation and places demand the Israelites to lead them to Jerusalem because they believe that God is up there.  They would have gone there themselves but they are aware that the Israelites are 'God-specialists'.

And that is what each one who believes in God is supposed to be: one who reflects God's presence in everyday life.  All the more applicable to priests and religious who claim that God has called us specifically for this purpose!  

Dating God can be a nightmare!

A couple of days ago, the incident of a group of priests being asked to leave the pub because the doorman assumed them to be members of a stag party, wearing clerical habit, hit the news and has since become quite a sensation.  However, what surprised me more than the event itself was the news article published in the Daily Mail a few days ago.  Now the Daily Mail is anything but serious news is known to everyone.  Most often it is sleaze and gossip.  But for it to run an article stating why these men chose to be priests was quite amazing and really stood out for me.  I only happened to by chance come upon the article for I rarely pick up this particular newspaper, except for the daily sudoku, crossword and scrabble.

Here are a few points that stood out for me, most significantly about the recruitment and formation of priests:

• The expense of training a young man to be a priest is enormous and lengthy.  Is the person we have after ordination, really worth the expense and time and energy spent all along?  For the time, money and energy invested, what sort of person should this be?  What quality and mettle would this person be made of by the time of his ordination?  
• These men are different but not totally ignorant of the world in which they live and work.  They are people totally immersed in its everyday life.  Now that includes movies, TV shows, popular celebrities, trending talks and videos, ... they may not be huge fans of any but they certainly know it all.  They are not ignorant 'saints' who live in some fantasy world.  They've seen the world - they continue to know the world.  
• The influence of inspirational models ... (in the case of most of these priests, the life and death of John Paul II) it is enormous.  They may not be perpetual models of inspiration, but the trigger they offer in knowing more of Christ and the Church is sufficient enough to 'seduce' them for life. 
• When scandal and mistakes of past haunt the present it is easy to become depressed or even totally avoid or even label the whole church as 'bad'.  The alternative, choose to become 'good'. 
• All of these young men had great opportunities for a career in the world.  They did have high-paying jobs.  Yet they gave it up for they truly felt called for something other than career and money.  Now as priests earning a pittance compared to what they earlier earned, they have no regrets about the money.  The contentment is evident in what you have at hand.  
• What we give up as priests and religious are essential elements of human nature.  But everyone makes sacrifices - even married people.  And are happy to do so.  So it is not what we give up that matters most, but with what attitude we give up what we sacrifice that counts. 
• Liked the comment of one of the priests: We are dating God, building a relationship.  And ...dating God can be a nightmare! 

Read the whole article here.

Hidden pitfalls of ministry

Moses as the leader of the Israelites, leading them from Egypt to the Promised land, is a typical pastor, the parish priest, the minister, the religious!  He feels called by the Lord, empowered by Him to take charge of the people, even though he is no better than any other of those who is being led by him, has his own cupboard full of skeletons and memories which he has to constantly battle, sandwiched between Yahweh and the people, at the receiving end of the people's ire and moaning... and of course, he is human.

However, he also typically suffers the same drawback that most of us priests and religious suffer from.  He feels the burden of being the leader.  He pleads Yahweh to let him go or let him die because he cannot take it anymore.  He feels crushed under the complaints of the people and feels that he has not done enough.  He thinks he has failed them.  He easily forgets that it is God who is in-charge.  He is called to lead the people, not to be their saviour.  Quite comfortably he gets into the saddle to think that he is the one who is to do everything and that if he didn't or couldn't, the whole work is going to fail.

In a pub

Imagine a priest in his cassock going to a bar or a even a restaurant in India...!  Any burglar can loot the whole place because everyone would be staring at the priest!  Not so in Europe.  Pubs are a place of socialising and even priests and religious visit it often, sometimes in their clerical dress.  And everyone is fine, beginning with the priests themselves.

I personally still find it odd.  That's certainly because I have a totally different image of pubs and drinking, even if it is 'just beer'.  So when I read this following trending news article on BBC, I almost fell off my chair laughing: Apology to Cardiff priests...