Redeeming all alone!

 As soon as the Israelites of the Old Testament start to grumble about the food (manna) that they are surviving on in the desert, on route to the Promised Land, Moses is upset.  He calls up to Yahweh and he moans and groans to the extent of telling Yahweh, to do something about it, or bump him off!! Now, that's a bit of an extreme.  

Nonetheless, I can understand his position.  He is in the same situation as they are. Although brought up in a royal palace, he is now facing the heat and harsh desert.  One could say that the Israelites by this time are used to hardships, but not Moses.  And so, his anguish is palpable.  

Moreover, it is the common attitude about food. Those of us living and working in the south of India know how much food matters in one's life.  So the notion doing the rounds in Moses head could be, 'After all, it is food. Can He not provide them some chicken and mutton? Surely He can, so why isn't he?'  

But I think there is a significant line in the first reading of today, towards the end, which persists throughout today's Gospel - although very very subtly! Moses petitions Yahweh saying, 'I cannot handle it ALONE anymore'.  For Moses to think that it is he who is actually leading the people of Israel out of Egypt, to Israel, is a great hallucination!  But I guess, it is in our human nature.  We always feel that whatever good is happening, is because of me!  So, Moses feels the burden, being ALONE!!  

This attitude of doing all the good ALONE is the inherent feeling of most of us - and perhaps one of most deadliest sin of us, priests and religious.  Leaving out God, is perhaps our biggest reason for failure.  It undermines our basic relevance and meaning as religious. Jesus first tells his apostles to feed the five thousand themselves!  And they give him what they have: five loaves and two fish. Jesus multiplies those.  He does not do magic or create ex nihilo. 

The OT floods then and the ecological crisis today

The story of Noah and the flood is an interesting insight into the mind of God and the early historians who wrote that part of the Bible.  There is God frustrated with the evil of man.  He is driven to such a point as to do a complete 'formatting' of his creation.  

What is interesting is that due to the evil of the human beings, even the rest of creation is wiped out!  The animals, and birds, and reptiles did no wrong.  They did not sin.  It was basically the humans who fell out with God and his initial plans.  So why destroy them? The humans deserved punishment and only they should have been eliminated.  

I think there is a parallel for this in the new testament when Jesus speaks of the parable of the wheat and the darnel.  The farmer realising that uprooting the weed would actually harm the wheat, lets them all grown and at harvest, everything is cut up.  There is no selective elimination.  God even if he wanted couldn't have wiped out the human race alone, without in some way affecting the rest of creation. 

The present ecological crisis of climate change that we are coming to terms with offers another perspective of the OT narrative. Perhaps it is not God who risked the lives of all the other creatures.  Perhaps it was actually the greed and sin of human beings that caused the extinction of the rest of creation.  God only tried to salvage what could be.  For one who created the world, from nothing in the first instance, it would not have been a great challenge to do it again.  But in spite of what humanity did to the rest of creation, God was keen to preserve as much as possible - two or seven pairs of creatures, not just one like that of the humankind! God didn't destroy the rest of creation - human beings had already done it by that point! 

Admission and denial

During the last lap of Jesus' journey on earth there are two people, both among his closest group, who deny him.  There is Judas who innocently asks, "Surely, not I Lord?" during the Last Supper to Jesus' statement of one betraying him.  Then there is Peter who denies Jesus thrice - after vehemently affirming his loyalty to Jesus.  At least Peter did not deny Jesus on his face. 

However, both repent.  Judas feels sorry and approaching the Jews, returns the 30 pieces of silver, in exchange for Jesus.  Peter repents and weeps bitterly. Both realise that what they did was not in conformity to what Jesus would have wanted them to do.  Both try to make amends.  The only difference is that Peter felt strong enough to live with his mistakes, in the hope that he would be accepted by his fellow companions - and most importantly, by Jesus.  Jesus knew that he would betray, but did not condemn him.  On the other hand, Judas did not have anyone to turn to.  He felt he had let down everyone and none would now accept him - not even the Lord.  He dies alone, or rather he dies a very pathetically lonely death.  He decided for himself that no one would give him a second chance.  And the ones whom he approached (the Jews) only mocked him.  Jesus, his main victim,  was beyond his reach now.

In that sense, his agony was greater than that of Peter.  His was an agony of loneliness.  The same loneliness that led to Jesus sweating blood in the garden of Gethsemane.  The same loneliness that made Jesus cry out 'God, my God, why have you abandoned me?'  If only were Judas to admit his guilt to someone, we'd have another excellent model of human weakness overcome! 

Be inspired or object

When a mighty tree falls, it falls heavily.  The news report of the abuse carried out by Jean Vanier, the founder of the L'Arche, has truly hurt very many who looked up to him as a modern saint. 

On the one hand, there is the importance and value we attach the person rather than the work one does.  In that sense, Vanier's personality and credibility was one of the chief reasons for substantiating the work carried out through the L'Arche movement.  On the other hand, there is the undeniable motivational impulse and ripple effect carried on through the works of L'Arche and its members.  Can these two be disengaged from one another?  Perhaps not! 

So what's the option left:  Reject and disassociate with everything related to Vanier? Or continue as before, discounting what Vanier actually did besides the good he initiated?  Extol public virtues vs condemn private vices? (The roots of the latter lie in the ancient Greek philosophers who spoke of the unity of virtues - if a person has one, he'd have it all!).

I personally have read some of Vanier's writings and honestly recommended the same to others some formators in our Salesian houses.  So I choose to look at the goodness, beauty and the truth of what is before me, rather than blot out everything out of anger and hatred for one, based purely on what he did to 6 people, in comparison to the thousands who did and continue to do amazing work, taking inspiration from the same source. 

I choose to be inspired by the good and beautiful, rather than resist doing anything at all, out of anger and hatred.  So what of Jean Vanier?  I think his name descends from the list of inspirers and saints to being an anonymous footnote to the great works carried out in his name.  

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?

Introspection before accusation

Yesterday the gospel and the reading was about the woman accused of adultery.

If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her (Jn 8: 7).

Psychologists speak of 'projection' as a defense mechanism that we human beings use to cover up our defects or hidden thoughts. If we really analyse those things that irritate or annoy us most, we would realise that the cause is actually within us and since we do not want to acknowledge our defects, we project them on to others, point fingers at them and thereby justify ourselves. This is easier done on those who cannot question or defend themselves. Jesus reverts our attention back to ourselves, calls for an introspection prior to an accusation.

We judge ourselves by what we are capable of but judge others by what they've already done (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow).

Daily commitment

No honourable feat is the result of a single spontaneous instant decision. It precedes many such small decisions for that one great act to appear spontaneous.  So is a grave mistake or mortal sin.  No one makes such a sin, without previously indulging oneself in petty mistakes and compromises, which eventually lead one to the 'big error'.

So how to achieve great merit or virtue?  Or how to avoid landing in the 'big error' or 'grave danger'? Mind the small, daily decisions and acts.  What you decide at each relaxed, calm and serene moment is what you will eventually decide later when under duress or strain.

Make hay while the sun shines!

Jesus and judgement

Reflection for April 3, 2017: Woman caught in adultery

With human authority comes the temptation of becoming judgemental. While Daniel at the end of his hearing reveals the plot of the two sinister men, he does not issue a final statement. He merely exposes the lie of the two men. Jesus at the end of all reports against the woman, does not condemn anyone, not even the men who were ready to stone the woman. He merely poses a soul-searching question. The verdict in both cases is self-imposed, not super-imposed. It is this non-judgemental character of Jesus that the Holy Father, Pope Francis, time and again calls our attention to. To judge someone is to place oneself above those being judged.

Jesus in the gospel passage of the woman caught in adultery, shows us that not all issues need to be judged with lengthy debates and arguments. When we truly love people and not become judges over them, no one feels small and humiliated; rather, everyone becomes humble and grateful.

The tale of two trees

It is interesting to note that in the book of Genesis, especially in the creation narrative, God mentions of two trees in the garden of Eden.  There is the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Both are in the middle of the garden. However, while informing Adam of his new residence, God forbids him from eating the fruit only of one tree: the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  He does not exclude the fruit of the tree of life from his menu.

Why would that be?  Is it because Adam already had life and therefore didn't need that?  But then that would mean that Adam didn't have knowledge.  Or is it that he did have some knowledge but not the one needed to distinguish good from evil?  But then it is exactly that 'ignorance' of distinguishing good from evil that did him in.  For if he knew that what the serpent was telling him was 'not good' then he would not have tried it.  In his innocence he listens to the serpent.  Even to say that he was ambitious - and therefore wanted to be equal to God - would not be right, because he did not have the knowledge of good and evil.  So why knowledge?

Most importantly why not the tree of life?  Or could there be a story about how a monkey tricked him into climbing the tree and gulping the fruit before Adam could eat it?  And Adam never got to eat of that tree before he was expelled from the garden?

Or that he did eat from the tree and nothing happened, because God did not forbid him from eating of that fruit?  But then why did God mention it, if it did not matter? God certainly did not speak of a tree of freedom in the middle of Eden - at least it is not mentioned in the Genesis.

Relationship

A couple of days ago I posted a reflection on sin and love. The basic idea being that when we hurt those we love most we readily ask pardon because we prefer to love them rather than bear the guilt and shame.

The analogy of abusing one's own mother hurts me much because I love her. However it is not so much that I love her but I believe it is because of the knowledge that she loves me!!

The beauty of a relationship is not in the fact that you love the other but in the truth that you are loved by the other.

Defining sin/love

While at Karunapuram, Puma one day approached me asked, "Does God get offended by our sins?" I immediately replied, "That's up to Him. If He wants to, He will. If not, He won't."  His next question was ready. "Then why confess?" As I reflected, an analogy came to my mind, especially in the context of that day's reading where Jesus meets and praises the woman at Peter's home.

One day I scold and say bad words to ...

1. a drunkard on the road
2. my good friend.
3. my own mother. 

Am I then comfortable or does my conscience prick?  If the latter then in which instance haunts me?  It all depends on my relationship with that person. Naturally, I'll feel more guilty and ashamed of raising my voice against my mother, than in the other two instances.  The more I love, the more I feel... It is also because somewhere deep within us we prefer to love than harbor guilt, shame, fear, hatred or envy.  I therefore ask forgiveness from God because I love him and wish to savour that love better.

"Her many sins are forgiven, because she has loved much!"

When your brother has something against you...

"When you know that your brother has something against you, go first, get reconciled and then offer your gifts at the altar."

Going by this dictum of Jesus, He Himself would have never been eligible to offer gifts at the altar. Certainly He did have his share of 'offended brothers', the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Jewish elders, the tax collectors and so on.  Yet He offered Himself as the sacrifice.

In our times, if this is the case, no parent can genuinely come anywhere near the communion line!  How many times do children get 'offended' and sulk.  Do that mean, parents have to ask pardon of their children for preventing them from putting their fingers into the electrical sockets of the house? Or has the mother to seek pardon for forcibly feeding her child, in spite of and through the river of tears flowing from her eyes?  

Judas' sin

It did not strike me before but today during the Mass in the morning, it struck me that Judas' did repent for his crime of handing over Jesus to the Jews.  Frankly speaking, being the political clout that the Jewish religious leaders wielded they could have just barged their way into Jesus' company and arrested him.  That they needed someone to 'sell' Jesus to them was merely a sham.

Anyway, coming to the point, I realized that Judas was indeed sad for what he did and wished to undo it.  He therefore goes back to the elders and even offers them the money he received for 'betraying' Jesus. I suppose if he had more money, he'd have willingly given that too just to get things back to as it were before his 'handing' Jesus over.  But then why is it that Judas always is portrayed in the negative.  For that matter, Peter also betrayed Jesus when he denounced him not once but thrice!  Going by that count, there are more heinous ways that we have 'betrayed' the Lord than Judas did!

His sin, I guess, is to believe that God would not forgive him!  Neither did he forgive himself!  These two facts coupled together saw him hang himself.  Certainly the society then - and now - would always have blacklisted Judas, had he lived on.  But he would have lived with that scar and through his life transformed it into a blessing for himself and others.  However, he was too miserly in his outlook of God... he never brought himself to believe that his crime would be forgiven - not by God and not even by himself!  

Evil: Silence of the 'good'

1 Sm 18: 6-9; 19: 1-7/ Ps 56: 2-3. 9-10a. 10b-11. 12-13/ Mk 3: 7-12

… why then sin against David...? (1 Sam 19: 5)

The vast amount of evil in the world is not because of the deeds of bad people but due to the appalling silence and indifference of the good people. Few are the brave hearts like Jonathan who dare question the wrong and attempt to make a difference. After the wrong has been done, it is easy to preach or condemn a sinner, but it requires great courage and sincere affection to challenge someone before the act.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing (Edmund Burke)

Saint vs Sinner

Thomas Merton's distinction between a saint and a sinner is interesting. It basically sums up the whole inner attitude and dilemma within an individual and provides one with a clear idea of where one stands with regard to one's sinful state or state of grace. 

He says a saint is like the son before the father and a sinner is like a slave before a master.  The saint who enjoys the presence of his father has no fear or anxiety.  He actually does not have to satisfy his father or 'bribe' him.  He just is himself. He is his son and therefore free from within.  Nothing to fear nothing to hide. He is 'at home'!

Focus on love; not on preventing sin

Recently Pope Francis, stated that the Church should not be obsessed with gays, abortion and... In fact, what he left unsaid was that is should rather be obsessed with God's love and an intimate relationship with Him.

In my moments of clarity I do realize that when my focus is on His love, I barely have the time or the thought of straying away from it.  However when my focus is to be away from sin, I am wasting my whole effort and energy. In my effort, I may succeed too, that I remain spotless but I remain so 'dead'.  I am sinless is not the same as I am happy!

My experience with the Brothers too has been very formative for me in this perspective.  From the time I shifted my emphasis from telling them not to waste time during the evening study to giving them enough to do during study; from repeatedly telling them not to talk in the study hall or library, to helping them savour the joy of reading, of knowing, of learning more, the results have been great. In the process of achieving the latter the former is automatically done.  But as long as I was focussed on the latter alone, I realised that I wasn't giving them anything positive.  I only wanted them to be away from the negative.

Similarly the focus is not on reducing evil, but on being good.  The focus is not on preventing sin, but on cherishing love!  

Reform and responsibility

Something that Ratna said during his recollection talk that he preached to the Community this evening...

The world is full of sin, but no one knows who the sinner is! 

Interesting to note, how all of us square the blame on someone else or something else when it comes to taking responsibility of things that are not as they are supposed to be.  Even if we do acknowledge - which itself is something positive - we do not do anything to reform the state, or make better than what it is.  So the status quo continues and each one talks about it, argues about it, blames someone for it, is agitated by it, but does nothing much about it. 

One shot devotion

Many who come to such pilgrimage centres as Kondadaba, often doing lot of sacrifices or undergoing lots of inconveniences do so for a particular reason. Some walk to the Shrine, a distance of about 35 to 70 kms. Others make their way up the hill on their knees (even one of our Brothers did it last night - had I know it I'd have made him do it again!). Some travel long distances and endure the extreme cold that we're having these days. Their faith that Mother Mary does much for and on their behalf is really unshakeable.

However, for most of these simple believers this once a year 'sacrifice' or 'trip' to the Shrine, so to say, scrubs clean all their sins and mistakes. The rest of the year they are free to live any way contrary to this singular act of 'devotion' and 'repentance'.

Of course, it all boils down to simple, daily faith (bit-by-bit belief) vs a sustained integrity (communion of life/living and spirituality).

Take away the stone

The morning session today was on reconciliation and regeneration. This was perhaps the most challenging one for me to comprehend. I need to ask the preacher for clarification about the first stage of this whole process where he outlined the movement thus: reconciliation to repentance; repentance to reception and reception to regeneration.

However, what fascinated me most was the analogy which the preacher used, another Biblical character: Mary Magdelene. Her life has always been intriguing. The preacher pointed out that perhaps the three Gospel instances citing the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8:1-11), the one who anoints Jesus with the costly perfume (Mt. 26: 6-13) and the one to whom the Risen Lord sends out as His first messenger (Jn. 20:11-18), refer to the same woman.

In his notes, the animator drew parallels between the two commands of Jesus: “Sin no more” and “Take away the stone.” When Jesus commanded, “Take away the stone” it echoes “Sin no more.” Probably we are not ready to take away the stone, for we find comfort in those stones, as we have grown familiar with them. We will have many justifications for not taking away the stones.

Compromises and/in Consecrated life

When a mighty big tree or building falls for apparently no reason, the ensuing dust cloud raises quite a lot of questions and surprises many. The same is true when a man of repute falls from grace all of a sudden. Well, most often it is not a one moment decision or act that brings about this downfall. It is a long and steady process that leads to this sort of a downfall. Just like white-ants which gnaw away at things from the inside till the mighty tree or building collapses like a pack of cards, so too do the little compromises we make right since our younger days that take its toll 'one fine day'.

With regard to our religious vocation these compromises commence soon after our joining the Seminary or after the first profession. If not adequately addressed and tackled then, they continue growing - and gnawing - within. However another danger that now lurks very large with regard to consecrated life is that young people join the religious house or seminary as a compromise for hard work and challenge! In that sense, God save Himself!