Addiction and responsibility

 Among the many vices some of us find ourselves making exceptional progress with, there is one who is an alcoholic.  He attended a 5-month deaddiction therapy at a reputed institution.  The person in discussion, was asked to stay on another month at the centre and was then assigned to a particular rural community, as teacher.  

From the de-addiction centre the staff accompanied him to his place of appointment.  The very next day, this particular confrere went into town and got drunk.  The very next day!  So much for a 6 month therapy.  This drinking binge continued for a couple of days and then he was 'air-lifted' to the centre because his body started to react badly and he needed to be hospitalised.  

Within two days after being discharged from the hospital, he is now getting ready to go to another therapy centre to take part in a three-month course!  

The travesty of this whole episode is that everyone, except the one in question, is keen to make a change!  And everyone thinks attending courses or therapy session will make him get rid of his addition.  He is barely given time to make that decision and LIVE IT! This is like sabbatical after sabbatical, with hospitalization sandwiched in. The confrere needs to take responsibility for himself. And if he isn't willing to, then he ought to bear the consequences of that refusal.  Pampering one for eternity is detrimental not just to the Province/Congregation, but worse for the individual himself. I fear we are making all the decisions for him and he is happily feeling guilty about it all, without making any serious efforts at change, relying neither on God, nor on self-control, nor out of righteous fear of any repercussions. 

Responsibility of lack of leadership

 Faced one hard truth today... 

In the last couple of years, I had come to moan the lack of truth worthy personnel who could  be entrusted responsibilities with a certain level of confidence, that they would take forward the legacy of our predecessors, of Don Bosco himself. That list of capable and clear-souled individuals who have matured over the years of formation, who could be relied upon. That diminishing list.  That rare species.  

Today, someone questioned me if that is not a systemic fault - of the present leadership? In a way no; but also yes, in a way! No, because those shoulders who are mature enough to take on responsibilities were trained in the previous generation, era, regime.  So, not really our fault. Not mine. But, then I asked myself, if the situation is bad now, have I made it better for the next generation to have sufficient and reliable personnel?  Or done nothing much, and eventually this trend is only going to get worse?  

Substitution

 Today we commemorate the feast of a man who wasn't the firsthand choice of Jesus as one among the 12 apostles. 

Mathias was a substitute or replacement of Judas. He was filling in the shoes of someone who had betrayed the very Master. Not a pleasant or exciting offer. 

He knew well what apostolate meant. Nor was he a first timer or random passerby who got dragged into the inner circle of the early apostles. I'm sure he was around when Jesus went about his mission. So when the slot fell vacant, the choice of Mathias was not surprising to those around. 

Being a substitute he could have acted as a spare wheel, rather than take on the full responsibility. But I'm sure that wasn't the case. In fact I'm almost certain, he would have continued being who he was and doing exactly what he was doing earlier. Even if he were not to have been chosen, he would still been the same and done the same amount of good. I guess the same is true of Barsabas, the alternative option who was considered for the substitution.

That's virtue. That's integrity. Valuing who I am and doing what I truly believe is good no matter the circumstances around me or the existence or non-existence of power, position and responsibility.

Job satisfaction and fulfilment

 Yesterday I had an interesting conversation with one of our former staff.  Although he had resigned, he was still on board for selected but scattered tasks that we asked him to come on board.  So far so good. 

The discussion began about our present work condition and I thought he was keen to know how things work within the organisation.  However, sooner than later he stopped me and said, I came to basically share with you my difficulties!  I didn't see that coming.  Nonetheless I listened to him and very soon realised he was looking for some challenging role and responsibility.  He wasn't asking. He wasn't demanding. He was placing himself before me and asking me to challenge him with a task.  He wanted that thrill of being felt useful and capable.  He wished to pour out his energies into something that others had failed at or feared handling or proved incapable of completing.  

Later in the night I discussed what I had in mind for this particular individual with the others in my organisation core team.  They were more than excited about how perfect a fit it was: the man, given his capacity and experience, and the task/role I proposed. 

I guess it is not always about money or fame.  At times and more than we like to think of it, a job is not merely a monetary source - it is a vital source of meaning and fulfilment in one's life.  And I hope and pray that more and more of us priests and religious see our life and service as meaningful and fulfilling rather than anything else. 

Guilt, courage and change

 When confronted by someone, abruptly out of the blues, with some serious lacuna or fault of ours, the most common and immediate reaction (besides shock) is denial.  One is too lost to see oneself 'naked', exposed.  Naturally the mind goes into overdrive to cover oneself up - with whatever one can think of!  In this process, one blurts out things which often end up doing more damage than good.  

While this immediate response or reaction is understandable, continuing to be in that same state of denial and attempting to cover things up, is a sign of a weakened conscience. Such a person will always find it hard to make any changes in one's own life, because he or she has not really accepted the truth about oneself.  Without primarily accepting one's own given situation, and acknowledging (at least to oneself) that it is not the best of oneself, how does one move to a better state of life or living?  

While guilt is a terrible burden, it can also move us to be courageous.  Courageous enough to accept the fault and seek ways to make up for it, all the while keen on making oneself a better person.  I also understand that it is easy for me to write this, as one not affected.  Nonetheless, I tell myself, if I do not have the honesty to admit my own mistakes, small ones to begin with, and in all sincerity, I will never have the courage needed to admit mistakes that I constantly bury without a funeral! 

Comfort in misery

 The incident we hear in the gospel today can also be interpreted differently, indicating to us that the Lord expects us to take responsibility for ourselves.  Not merely wait for help to arrive and do all the work.  We are expected to do the heavy lifting ourselves, for ourselves! 

The man at the pool of Bethesda, is shown as waiting for healing. Unfortunately there is always - always?- someone who enters into the stirred miraculous waters before he could.  Now this could be the case of a couple of days or months.  But it cannot be so for ages!  Unless, the man himself is not keen to get healed!  He is comfortable in his misery. Perhaps, he is used to earning a living 'showcasing' his physical condition of paralysis. 

To such a man shirking his responsibility, Jesus says: 'Pick up your bed!'  

While God's grace and peoples generosity requires no additional support or reason, one cannot escape one's own responsibility towards oneself. Healing, change, growth are matters - among many others - which require one's own consent and will.  

Trust

Trust is something that is earned. It is not merited purely because one is a priest or a religious. At times there is this tussle in some of our encounters where confreres ask, ‘Do you trust that lay person or his word over and above your own confreres?’ Unfortunately, there is no relation between trust and one’s responsibility or role in an institution. Just because one is a lay person, does not make his or her word less authentic than a priest or nun in the same institution. It is not about one’s state of life that determines whether one is trustworthy or not; rather it is the life lived and the work ethics followed that makes one trustworthy.

The young leading the way

When Don Bosco was writing the regulations for the oratory of St Francis de Sales and the rules for the fledgling Salesian congregation, he adopted varied tactics.  When it came to the oratory itself, he was no stickler for rules.  But he did write down 'guidelines' more as a reflection and help to others working with him, rather than as a formal code book.  That he had to greatly alter this style, he learnt it the hard way, while writing and submitting his Rules for the congregation to the Vatican. 

Another aspect that comes out more strikingly in his guidelines for the oratory (more than the boarding schools, which came under the jurisdiction of the State and needed formal approval) is the direct engagement of the young people themselves in the everyday running of the house.  While it is true that there were priests and teachers and Don Bosco himself, but it was the boys themselves who were actively involved in the running of the place.

Young people need to be trusted and given responsibilities, rather than shielded from them.  One of my own greatest learnings and joys at Navajeevan, Ramanthapur was this pedagogy of letting boys take charge of things. These boys (just like most of those with Don Bosco then) were already living their life out on the street - all on their own.  They certainly knew what decision-making means, especially the consequences of them.  Adding my trust to their abilities and giving them that freedom made a huge difference to the way things were carried out in the house. 

Mary our help

When we appoint someone at our house or in the institution as a domestic helper, we expect the person to do the duties entrusted or listed.  However, the work is actually ours.  It is our work that we should have otherwise done.  The helper appointed is actually assisting us in the task of doing our work.  Even when the one appointed does the work solely, it does not become her work.  If he or she does not do the work, either because the person is sick or has left the job, the one who employs has to find alternative hands or do it oneself.  It falls back to the one whose work it ultimately is. 

As we celebrate the feast of Mary our help, it is good to remind ourselves that the role of Mother Mary is that of a helper.  She is not the total answer to any and every of our question.  She isn't going to do all our work, taking it upon herself as if we had nothing to do with it.  Far from an employed or enslaved helper, she is one who volunteers to help.  In so much, as she offers her great courage and virtues as a support to our own efforts, she helps.  We need to take responsibility and be humble enough to seek her readily available intercession.

Happy feast!

Joseph called Barsabbas

In the selection process for the replacement of Judas, Joseph and Matthias are the finalists.  Unable to decide upon which one, the apostles pray and cast lots (initially reminded me of the soldiers at the foot of the cross casting lots for the robe of Jesus).  The lot falls for Matthias and he is announced as one of the apostles. 

What became of Joseph called Barsabbas?  Simple: He carried on his life and ministry!  That's how I would like to remember him.  If among all the people they had to choose from, the apostles zeroed in on these two men, they surely must have been men of faith, men dedicated to the ministry and truly in love with Jesus.  So I don't think being granted the title of an 'apostle' would have made any big difference to their personal character.  All that happened was that one got an additional role and responsibilities, the other didn't get that role... but the ministry and life of faith continued.

How often in life, have we seen people give up everything for a particular goal or post?  And once they do get the post, life is totally different.   It happens all the time in politics and with politicians.  It happens also with priests, religious and bishops..., especially those whose aim is the post (religious politicians?).  I wish Luke the author of the Acts had enumerated the qualities of Joseph and Matthias and a bit more of the selection criteria.  But honestly speaking all that was needed is clearly mentioned:

...it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.

...been with Jesus and his people and a genuine witness of all that Jesus stood for... we get the role for being this, with the confidence that we would do better.  If those basic qualities for which we were granted the role and related responsibilities are compromised with, then one has no right to continue in that role or claim anything related to it.  That would be the story of Judas, not Joseph Barsabbas!

Being privileged and contented

Speaking of being favourites and being favoured, I remember distinctly reading long time ago how the boys at the oratory fought with one another claiming to be the favourite of Don Bosco! 

At the oratory there were boys from different backgrounds, though mostly poor, and of different ages.  Some had only seen the worst of life.  Others had for sometime been loved and cared for.  Those experiencing love for the first time at the oratory, for that matter anyone at all showing some concern for them, surely would have felt great.  Of these some would have wanted 'more', failing to cherish what they already were experiencing.  Others would have felt great just to be loved.  They would not have bothered whether someone else is loved 'greater' than them.  For them to be loved was in itself a great experience. 

However, am sure only those who felt contented with the love they received, felt 'privilege'd in that sense, AND wished to share that privilege, made a difference in the lives of others.  The rest, simply drowned in the pool of 'privilege' - never thinking beyond themselves.  

To be with him...

The time is ripe now back in the Indian Salesian provinces to be talking about transfers and changes!  In the next couple of weeks the lists would be out, but till then, the gossip mills will be at their best.   Interesting time!! 

Everytime the Provincials sit for doing this jigsaw puzzle of moving confreres and distributing responsibilities, there is always these questions lurking in their heads and perhaps form the basis of the assignments listed: Will this confrere manage this job??  Will so and so be a trustworthy administrator?  Will this person manage the Parish?  Can this confrere handle the situation in the school or add to the existing confusion?  Will this person keep the community going as a rector?

However, this morning I was asking myself what was Jesus thinking when he chose the twelve? Or for that matter when he chose all those disciples and followers, later?  Saul, for example.  I don't think he chose Judas because he was a good administrator.  Nor did he choose Mathew so that he may chronicle their 'adventures'.  Luke was certainly not called because he would be a good infirmarian of the group.  Peter was not called so that he could fish and provide for the apostles.  He called them all to be primarily with him and then to bear witness to him before the world.  Well, once in the group, they took on roles and responsibilities that would further this purpose.  But they were not called to fulfill those responsibilities!

I wonder if that principle of 'being with him and becoming his witnesses' is still a worthy criteria for our transfers or new/continued responsibilities. 

Accepting responsibility

Mark Zuckerberg is under heavy fire these days for letting personal data be harvested from facebook users without their consent.  Well, it seems a bit odd to me to blame him alone for all that!  Just a few years ago, facebook was the buzzword.  Everyone had a facebook account.  One who didn't was frowned upon as if he or she were a dinosaur.  People posted anything and everything on facebook.  From group photos to selfies of oneself in the privacy of one's room;  from picnic photos to private parties; anything... just anything! 

A couple of months ago a thief in Karnataka was arrested for looting clean a house, while the owners were away on a holiday.  On interrogation, the thief revealed that he emptied the house bit by bit.  Not only that he practically lived in that house for the whole duration that the family was away.  Packing up things during the day, cooking for himself, sleeping the night and leaving early in the morning with all things he had packed.  On asking if he was not frightened of the arrival of the owners, he said, he wasn't... because the family was religiously updating its facebook account with photos and quips about their holidays.  He had nothing to fear since he knew when exactly they would be returning!! 

So when people feel free to post anything they want on a public platform like the internet, even if they do not join any groups, they are still making themselves public.  So if an intelligent analyst builds up a profile of the individual from all that has been posted online, then one can only appreciate the analyst and not cry wolf! 

Facebook, like every other media, is a communication network or channel.  It can be used for good or for bad.  To engage with it, expecting what you share to be used for publicity but not for harvesting information, that what you yourself have posted - with great joy and pride - is being an ostrich. Zuckerberg, is to be blamed, but not solely! What Zuckerberg is being accused of, not taking responsibility for the information harvesting, everyone who feels 'aggrieved' too is guilty of.  He (or any other) would not have had it, if you had not offered it, sometime or other other, in some way or the other. 

Those who enjoy meetings

The other day I received a set of quotes by Thomas Sowell.  Never heard of him before... however was amused very much by this particular one...

I laughed about the truth of this statement... but how impossible it is! 

Critical press

Compared to India, here in the UK, the press enjoys a much more free hand.  The freedom of the press sometimes borders vulgarity, direct insult and even outrageous comedy.  The following are some of the cartoons published in well known and reputed newspapers across the country.  They all take a shot at the none other than the Prime Minister, Theresa May, directly (for her role in the Brexit process).

Honestly I can't imagine such cartoons of our Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appearing in large colour print (and originals sold in auction!) in our daily papers.  Not only the cartoons, most likely the paper itself may never appear again!  Even if it did, it would be under a different editor or set of journalists. Even if none of this happens, the offices of the newspapers are sure to be vandalized and the offenders never caught.

That people have a right to know, is perhaps the most underlying principle journalists and editors here in the UK go by.  While some newspapers are full of gossip, there are papers worth their ink and even these do not spare some fun and chastisement of those in power.  However, I guess they also ought to be careful of the veracity of what they print, lest they be sued and end up paying through their nose.  Not only the public views and policies of these politicians but even their private lives are not spared from appearing on front pages.  Such high levels of scrutiny by the press of each and every word uttered by the political leaders, ensures that there is a wide range of views expressed and issues discussed in public domain.  

Eucharist and ourselves

Fr Hugh offered some reasons why we only have a small piece of bread and only a sip of bread, rather than a whole loaf of bread and a cup full of wine.  He gave two reasons:

1. That we are called to play a small role in the building of the Kingdom of God.  It is not that we are the sole builders or the total responsibility rests on our shoulders.  But in our capacity we do our bit.  The little that we partake of the bread and wine during the Eucharist is a symbol of that 'bit'. 
2. This Eucharistic meal is only a foretaste of the heavenly 'real' banquet awaiting us in heaven. 

Was all the time thinking, what if the Church had adopted the 'open field' Eucharist rather than the 'upper room' Eucharist?  Would these reasons still hold? 

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.

Judas, the non-anonymous

Reflection for April 12, 2017

Judas, often exemplified, as the devil incarnate or the evil one is just a mortal human being like you and me. That he was chosen as an apostle indicates that Jesus found something special in him. He certainly wasn't a criminal or a good for nothing guy.

Judas is neither a master of evil nor the figure of a demoniacal power of darkness but rather a sycophant who bows down before the anonymous power of changing moods and current fashion. But it is precisely this anonymous power that crucified Jesus, for it was anonymous voices that cried, 'Away with him! Crucify him!' [Pope Benedict XVI]

Thus Judas was not the only reason why Jesus was caught. He only happens to be the only one with a name among the crowd of the anonymous. While anonymous charity can be read as humility, anonymous plotting of evil is cowardice. Where do we wish to stand: among the anonymous crowd or as one with a voice and a face, willing to take responsibility?

God is dead (Nietzsche)

With his famous quote 'God is dead' Nietzsche acquired an immortal fame!  However, he was not the first to say it. Before him, Hegel states it and even F. Dostoevsky does so in his novel.  While Hegel replaces the God of religion with the 'spirit' in the context of history and progress, Nietzsche does so in the context of morality, without the metaphysical or epistemological frills of Hegel.  However the common feature in both these philosophers is the denouncing of an external guiding norm and thereby of all responsibility being offloaded onto this 'higher being'.

For the next lecture our professor had asked us to come thinking why is it that a madman goes about shouting this statement, according to Nietzsche? Why is not some academic professor or a politician? I've been trying to think why did Nietzsche put this in the mouth of a madman?

There are two things that are coming to my mind very strongly and I feel they're invariably connected but somehow cannot connect them. The first is that the mad man has nothing to lose when he makes this proclamation.  Even if a sane and all the more a man of repute were to state this, he would soon be labelled a 'madman' by the society.  A look at our modern tactics to silence whistle-blowers or activists will offer enough evidence of this.

Secondly, when a mad man goes about announcing this, people who listen to him are invariably going to disregard him - and his utterances.  Yet it will strike a cord somewhere, if not in all, at least in some. Of the latter group, some will sooner than later silence this voice within them offering some pious or religious antidote... but not without it pricking them.  Because once you begin to reflect, the itch is not going to go away.  Those who refuse to give in and go on reflecting, will eventually see the point Nietzsche is trying to make: there is no moral standard and authority residing out there, you need to take up that responsibility. No easy way of passing on the buck to someone higher up.  

Responsible excuse

Most of us who have traveled in India by train know that it is no big surprise when trains run late. Very often, whenever there is a delay, the announcement one gets to hear (if at all there is one) is that the train has been delayed.  Sometimes, there is also the duration of delay announced, but everyone hearing that knows all too well that the duration is much more than the one announced.

However, one thing I've observed here in UK while waiting for trains (which hardly run late). On the few occasions that I've traveled and there is a delay in the regular local trains, there is an announcement to that effect. Not only does it include the exact - and very exact - duration of delay, the revised time of arrival, but also the reason for the delay!

Now that's a step towards owning responsibility for one's deeds.

The London South-West train service that I use most often