Pastoral service!

 Yesterday a youngster wanting to make his confession was directed to my office by one of our staff members (who did not know what exactly he was asking for!).  I was more than neck-deep in some urgent and complicated stuff, juggling more than a couple of them delicately.  Nonetheless, I tried to locate a Priest to hear his confession. That's when he said he wanted to confess in Malayalam.  So the search was narrowed down still further.  Unfortunately no one was immediately available and I asked the young man if he could come a little while later - more than for him, I was making time for myself. To my surprise, he returned exactly at the specified time. 

This time I walked up, with the young man in tow, to the neighbouring community in search of a priest.  I didn't find any - at least none who could speak Malayalam. So I again asked him for some more time.  I got back to my office.  And again, at the agreed time, there appears the young man at my door.  Looking at the fervour of this youngster, this time I was more than eager to assist.  

Ultimately I approached Fr AR Jose. He was in bed, unable to get up, due to his illness and was merely covered in a bedsheet.  Initially he wanted to get into his wheel chair but I thought that would be asking too much of him. So I convinced him to stay in bed, got him a stole and led the young man to his bedside. And returned to my office! 

My greatest joy in this whole episode was to be able to facilitate the reception of the sacrament for a young man so greatly desirous of it.  Greater joy was when the young man, after making his confession, joyfully came looking for me to thank me.  This act of mine may not be counted as a sacramental service, but is certainly pastoral!  And who says, Brothers cannot do pastoral work!! 

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. 

Medieval weddings

Only yesterday did I learn that in medieval times the weddings were conducted not inside the church but at the Church doorstep!  Among the other reasons I'm yet to discover, the main reason I'm told that this was the case was because marriage in those times was still a social contract.  The notion of it being a sacrament was not yet formulated or thought about. (Only baptism and holy Eucharist were considered as sacraments).  So it was basically the couple making the vow to one another, in public, with the priest merely as a witness.  

Another reason was that there be not any malpractice.  So the weddings were held in broad daylight, out in the open.  Even later when weddings were conducted inside the Church, they were meant to be done with doors open.  Not behind closed doors!  Even today, here in England, weddings are not conducted at night!!  Just so that there is no 'substitute' bride or bridegroom!  

Though the wordings, rituals and the position of the bride and groom (according to the altar) remain the same from the medieval times, the deeper sacramental theology of it has developed much.  Also interesting to know that then - as in some parts of the world, even today - marriage was basically a formal consent.  What mattered most and important was that the couple live a married life - even if without the formal rite!  Am told that for long in Scotland, if a couple lived a good married life, they were as good as married, even if they did not have a formal ceremony or public rite.  The fact that they were living together as good people was sufficient for them to claim any benefits of a married couple (for example succession or name rights for children, widows...).  It was only when the European Union asked for its formal wording in the constitution or public policy did people realise that there wasn't any!  It was by common consent practiced and never formally written!  

Jesus was Italian!

A couple whom the parish priest had never seen in Church before, approached him asking him to baptise their child.  The Parish priest in all politeness asked which Church do they normally go to.  When told that they've never been to Church, he asked them for the reason they wish to baptise their child.  They explained, "We're Italians and we have a strong Christian tradition.  We want our child too to grow up in that tradition.  Moreover Jesus also was Italian!" 

Well, logically speaking Israel was under Roman authority then and so it could be said that Jesus was Italian... But not sure if the Parish priest was convinced of the reason for the child to be baptised! 

Love at the heart of forgiveness

At the heart of the sacrament of reconciliation is not forgiveness, but love.  The graces of forgiveness, mercy and transformation are essential and integral to the sacrament of reconciliation but if love does not form the central aspect of it, then the whole procedure turns out to be no better than a vending machine!  You put your sins in and out comes forgiveness!  What actually makes the whole process alive and relevant is love.  Love that God has for us.  Love that we have for God!  Our repentance is primarily because we have consciously offended someone we love.  God forgives is always available because he loves us.  

Sacred and supernatural

According to Prof. Tim Crane, one of the elements that links "religious impulse" and "identification" - the two essential characteristics of religion, according to him overlooked by new atheists - is the sacred.  The notion of sacred forms one of the key elements of the characteristics of religion, any religion.  He said that anything could be sacred... a person, a thing, a text, an object... anything!  But this means that there is a distinction between the sacred and the profane. 

The sacred in so far as it represents the 'transcendence' aspect and is a point of unification among the people who agree upon its being distinct from other things, especially profane things, serves as a connecting factor.  So from what I understand, a thing to be sacred has to fulfill both these criterion: represent transcendence and be a source of unity.  That broadly gives us a vague criterion of judging something as sacred or not.  So there could be something that actually reflects the transcendence but not noticed or accepted by us OR something that is socially projected but not actually sharing in the transcendence aspect of reality.  Neither of these can be called sacred(?)

But there is one thing he mentioned in passing: "...the sacred need not be the supernatural."

That set me thinking. Then I remembered the whole distinction between the sign and the symbol, especially made by Paul Ricoeur.  Am not sure if that fits in with Prof. Tim Crane's understanding of the sacred.  However, I don't think Paul Ricoeur would have serious objections to the sacred not being the supernatural.  In as much as what is considered sacred shares the 'immanent' aspect with us human beings while being the representation of the 'transcendent', that what eludes material quantification, the sacred does not become the supernatural.  And if it does turn supernatural, then it loses its immanent character.  I'm thinking of all that we consider 'sacred' within the Catholic tradition: relics, the altar, consecrated statues, churches... all are basically still natural objects or things.  Even the person of Mother Mary, as long as she was here on earth she was a human being, immanent; but now we treat her as supernatural, but she is no more with us in that immanent form as she once did.  (The only exception I can think of is the Holy Communion. Can it be classified under this: representing the sacred but not the sacred itself?)

On the other hand, there is this dilemma as to whether we need this distinction of sacred and profane at all.  After all, if we are true to our Christian tradition, there is nothing that is 'not sacred'.  Everything, however mundane it appears, is sacred.  So perhaps we can at the most speak of 'degrees of sacredness', in so far as it is ascribed to a thing by us collectively and not merely in itself being a representation of the 'trascendence'.  

Don Bosco and the sacrament of reconciliation

In my reading in preparation for the talk on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I came across this book by Gianni Asti (translated by Fr Ian Doulton) titled Don Bosco the Confessor of his boys.  It is an interesting book chronicling the dynamics that showed the bond of Don Bosco and his boys, especially around the confessional. 

As part of my reading also realised that of the three lives that Don Bosco wrote during his lifetime, that of Dominic Savio, Mickey Magone and Francis Besucco, one common feature in all those biographies was a chapter dedicated to Confession and the sacrament of Reconciliation. 

The most striking thing among all these narrations from the life of Don Bosco is the familiarity that the boys felt with Don Bosco.  For most of these boys there was no one in the world.  For some they were far away and most often not in good terms with. Just like those in our navajeevans, the home for street children.  Yet in Don Bosco, they found one whom they could trust.  They were at home with him.  That feeling of having someone in whom one can fully trust, can confide, be oneself, is truly empowering.  No wonder, Mother Teresa used to refer to loneliness as the worst disease.  

The Father knows!

Last night I was asked to give a talk to the Salesian Cooperators of Chertsey.  They were about 20 of them present.  I was asked to speak about Don Bosco and the Sacrament of reconciliation.  I shared of how my personal insight changed my understanding of Don Bosco's notion of confession. 

The sacrament of reconciliation was always a kind of obligation that I felt needed to be fulfilled, earlier as a baptised member of the Church and then much more later as a professed Salesian.  However, it was only a few years ago that I began to really appreciate the sacrament for its great value.  And it was mostly the person of the confessor that made a whole difference in this aspect.  Have seen ample confessors who were so strict and abiding by the rule that confession was a real act of pain and suffering.  After the confession it a sense of relief that a 'job' is done, rather than savouring the grace of being blessed! 

What changed for me was the simple insight that the "Father knows!" So it was not something new that I was speaking to him about. There was nothing that would surprise Him, given the fact that I'm living in His presence.  So what's the whole confession about if He already knows? It is basically an acknowledgement of my present state of life, coupled with a genuine desire to be better.  This realisation helped me change my attitude towards confession and I really began to cherish this sacrament. 

Don Bosco's own writings and goodnights are rife with hell, sin, death, and all that stuff usually related to the sacrament of reconciliation, as was the trend of his times.  However, from my reading of his teachings, he never advocated confession to his boys as a fulfilment of an ecclesial obligation. He always recommended it as a means of personal experience, for growth and progress.  Boys loved going to confession to him. He personally gained and learned much about this sacrament from his own confessor, Joseph Cafasso.  It was from all that reading and especially observing the following photo of Don Bosco (one of the earliest original photos of DB) that it struck me that the boys not only were convinced of the fact that the "Father knows", but also felt greatly reassured by the knowledge that even "Don Bosco knows!" So it was a double, "Father knows!"

Notice the faces of the boys.  They are so serene.
No one's distracted or curious about the photograph itself - given this is the earliest history of photography
(at least in the oratory)

Confession was not restricted to the confessional anymore.  It was a continued relationship. It is in this light that Don Bosco's quote made great sense to me:

Want to be saints?  Here's the secret: Confession is the lock; the confidence in the confessor is the key.  This is how you open heaven's gates. 

Confession is the lock.  Confidence in the confessor is the key!  My earliest experience of shame and fear and guilt were replaced by a sense of love and comfort.  Mostly thanks to some of my confessors, especially Fr Lens. With him, I was at home. I did not have to be different.  I did not have to sift and mince words.  There was no fear or shame.  He knew me well enough that there was no need of a confession at all; but me confessing was me taking responsibility for my growth and him assuring his - and God's - continued support! 

As I was putting down these thoughts for the talk, it then occurred to me why Don Rua felt greatly pained when in 1908, the Vatican forbid the Rector to be the regular confessor of inmates.  I always thought he should have felt happy that he could focus more on being with the boys rather than being confined to the confessional.  But like Don Bosco, he had grown so intimately with his boys that not being with them in the confessional was like cutting out one important portion of their lives.  I realized how difficult it would have been for his boys!  That is not recorded anywhere!  In my years in the formation commission, I had neatly collapsed the distinct roles of the rector, as best non-compatible.  But I also understood my predicament why there should be such a fuss about Rector also being the confessor (and final authority on voting).  If I've been open to him, in and out of the confessional, I should have nothing to fear.  And if it in confidence that I have opened up to him, then I am also convinced that what he says and does is for my own good - even if it meant him asking me to pack up and go home!  Of course, in all of this the person of the rector or confessor does make a huge difference!  

First of the Last

Today for the first time I received the sacrament of the anointing of the sick.  Well, not that I am sick or gravely ill but that it is the custom of the house here, (meant for the elderly confreres) to have the sacrament of healing during the retreat.  So in the evening before the service the preacher, Fr Hugh Preston asked me, "Surely, Vincent you would not like to be receiving this sacrament?"  I replied, "Why not? If everyone is, then I'd be happy to receive the blessing too!"  So it was... and hope it will do me good to get rid of some illnesses!

On the same note, am reminded of the little boy in the catechism class who was asked by the teacher, as to how many sacraments are there, and he replied, 'None'.  The teacher said, "What?" The boy was quick to explain, "My grandma had the last one!" 

Called to love and serve

Reflection for Maundy Thursday (April 13, 2017)

By washing the feet of his apostles, Jesus offers them one of his last practical lessons in apostleship: service. As this particular act goes hand in hand with the institution of the Eucharist, it also gets endorsed by the command, 'Do this in my memory'. The tradition of washing the feet of 12 persons on this day is more than a dramatization of what Jesus did at the last supper. It is to be a response to the command of humble service.

Priesthood, then is seen not merely as means of sharing love and the sacrament, but that of service too. A priest, by his very consecration, is called to love and serve. He is called to do it with and for a divine purpose, much higher than mere human respect and feelings. Unless this divine dimension is perceived by those whom we serve, we fail in our mission as apostles.

To be true to one's vocation of priesthood is to be true men of prayer and service. These two dimensions are not to be seen as different or one following the other. They are so intertwined that one flows into the other. Jesus, even in his last moments on earth, shows how deeply these two aspects are inter-related while in the Upper room.

Sacred body

Today morning's meditation was on the real presence of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist.  As Fr Samala narrated all the possible miracles of the sacred host transforming in to visible flesh and blood of the Lord, I was wondering to myself: What of the many bodies broken and shattered all for the greed of some?  Surely it would be more painful and hurting the Lord than when we are talking of particles of his sacred host falling to the ground or drops of sacred wine/blood falling on the altar.

How we can be so 'sensitive' to the dust particles of the Host and not to the visible body of a suffering human being...

Baptism and the Kingdom of God

This evening Fr Tom shared an amusing anecdote - could very well be a satirical one - about three pastors, all of whom were perturbed by their churches being infested with cats. The first one a Lutheran, stated that he tried catching them in a sack and throwing them in a river nearby.  But soon they somehow all returned. The second one, a Pentecostal, said that he caught them and left them in a far off place, but by the time he returned to his Church they were all there.  The third, a Catholic Priest, was perhaps the only exception.  He stated he did not have any cats in his church anymore. The other two were curious as to how did he manage to get them off his back.  The Priest merely declared: I baptised them all.

As we commemorate the feast of the baptism of the Lord, and thereby recall our own baptism, it is interesting to ask ourselves as to how we view this sacrament.  I certainly have absolutely no memory of my own baptism. But how does one view this sacrament?  Often we consider and treat baptism as a sort of gate key of a mansion with single entry point.  And somehow are convinced that unless and until every one enters the mansion, they are all doomed to die.  I would rather view baptism as an open ticket to participate in a grand fair being held in an open ground.  Everyone is welcome to walk into the open ground.  There are absolutely no restrictions on looking around, walking about, talking, chatting... then one may ask why the ticket?  Well that's for the thrill of participating in the games being conducted.

My analogy may be a bit weird or wonky.  However, my vision of the Church is much wider than a closed up and well guarded mansion. Certainly I prefer the 'Kingdom of God' to the 'Church'!  For some it may mean the same, not for everyone!