Reframing Pope Francis

Here's an except offering a rather realistic and sensible picture of Pope Francis, as written by Michael Cook (editor of MercatorNet) in an article titled, 'Reframing Pope Francis'

Perhaps we need a fresh framework to understand him. Francis is not a conventional Bishop of Rome. After 150 years of Popes who have been mostly diplomats or intellectuals, in 2013 the cardinals elected a Latin American Jesuit, a bishop with a profoundly pastoral heart. In John Paul II, the Church had a strikingly original philosopher; in Benedict XVI, one of the world’s finest theologians; and in Francis, a distinguished spiritual director. 

The figure of the “spiritual director” is a familiar one in the Catholic Church and the Jesuits are famed for producing them. They are priests (usually) who “direct souls”, that is, give prayerful and practical advice to people one-by-one. 

Their role is to help each person reach the heights of Christian life, sometimes by comforting and consoling, sometimes by scolding and berating, always by helping people to be more prayerful and centred on Christ. It’s no accident that the Pope’s Christmas present to the members of the Roman Curia – the officials at the Vatican – was an Italian translation of stern textbook by a 17th Century Jesuit, Industriae ad curandos animae morbos (Curing illnesses of the soul). 

The harsh side of Francis as a spiritual director seems to have deeply offended some clergy. “We’ve stuck with the Church through thick and thin, we get paid peanuts, and this guy rips into us for not being holy enough! Just who does he think he is?” But this has always been the reaction of weary clergy in past eras of reform. Just read the lives of the 16th Century Counter-Reformation saints Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. It’s an understandable complaint, but it’s not holiness. 

Sadly, a bit of berating seems to be in order after the world-wide sex abuse scandals, profligacy in the Vatican, and, worst of all, a collapse in the number of church-goers. Francis seems to believe that if there had been more Padre Pios in the pulpits, there would be more Catholics in the pews. 

The important thing to remember about a spiritual director—unlike a philosopher or theologian -- is that his advice is imparted personally, soul by soul. It is not delivered in sermons, books, or Facebook groups. It is not an off-the-rack suit but bespoke spiritual tailoring. All of Francis’s advice in Amoris Laetitia is perfectly conventional if viewed through the prism of personal spiritual direction. He is showing the Church how to apply to prodigal sons and daughters the principles of Vatican II and of the two great Popes who implemented its spirit. 

There are risks, of course. Francis’s approach will only work if priests (all Catholics, actually) are willing to be shepherds with the smell of the sheep. If too many of them settle for being managers or “collectors of antiques or novelties”, it will fail. 

History will be the judge of how effective this will be, but Francis is taking for granted that John Paul II and Benedict XVI had already created a robust intellectual framework for evangelization by producing the Catholic Catechism and their brilliant encyclicals. Now it is time for action, for reaching out, for bringing the Gospel message to a secularized world.

So the critics’ view is topsy-turvy. Instead of contesting traditional Catholic notions like exceptionless moral norms, the indissolubility of marriage, or the possibility of living according to the moral law, Francis assumes them. OK, he is saying, we’ve spent the last 40 years updating the language of traditional moral theology. It’s time to roll this out on the battlefield and set up our field hospitals.

Read the whole article here.

Time permitting read also the comments that follow the article.  Most of them seem to feel offended to hear that there is more to Christian faith than doctrine.  They seem to be perfectly at home with the idea of a well-defined doctrine, near-perfect liturgy, pious sermons ... even if all of this is at the cost of a living and life-giving experience of God, in accordance with the Gospels.  

Theology or Anthropology?

As I was updating - or rather, reworking - my class notes for Modern Western Philosophy, I came across the dilemma of one of the writers, while speaking about some early philosophers.  He states that most of what is spoken of God is basically a human perception.  Philosophy of God actually offers a good insight into anthropology! 

What we actually perceive about God and all things related to God, is more about ourselves than about something supernatural.  Even in the movie, PK, if one focusses only on the God-talk or religion banter or about theology, one is certain to make a fool of oneself.  Instead if we focus our attention on what does the movie speak about us human beings, especially those who vehemently claim to be disciples or followers of a ´good and great´ God, then we stand to learn a lot.

Another thing that strikes me about the protests against the movie: when religious leaders speak of sacrifice, renunciation, brotherhood and all those virtues spoken of by true religion, there is hardly anyone paying attention, leave alone living up to those ideals.  But when there is something very fundamental and challenging that is posed about religion, every Tom, Dick and Harry becomes a ´religious´ person, a ´true devotee´.  

Study of philosophy

I had an interesting discussion yesterday with a section of the second course students as introduction to the subject, Modern Western Philosophy.  It was basically in the context of modern western thought declaring independence from religion and doctrine to chalk out a path or strategy for philosophy (as against the domination of Christian thought and doctrine during the medieval era). In that context, I stated that Philosophy till then was considered as a handmaid of theology and perhaps this led to the Canonical requirement that those aspiring to Priestly ordination ought to undergo philosophical training too.  So I asked the group, if they, either out of their own experience or what they gathered from the seniors, felt the relevance and importance of studying philosophy, especially in preparation for priestly ordination.  The group was divided.  Some were very convinced and clear as to how philosophy has opened up vistas for them hitherto not thought of.  Some stated that it has indeed strengthened their faith.  There were also some who frankly felt that perhaps three years was too long a duration. They were of the opinion that Philosophical studies could be of some shorter duration, perhaps a year.  The other two years (major portion of the available time) could be catered to studies on the Bible.  Their argument was that people are thirsting for the Word of God, not philosophy.  Furthermore they argued, that at times, those who do not study philosophy, reason out better and are more rational than those who undergo a systematic course on philosophy. And as it is, we naturally reason out, so why Philosophy?!

I fear the latter group considers philosophy as another course, another subject to be studied.  (I am sure, they consider studies related to the Bible too in the same manner!) However, they fail to see that study of philosophy basically offers them tools and skills that need to be imbibed, personalised, and then applied. Rather than a set of doctrines to be studied, Philosophy offers the skill to make the most of reason.

This is the same of even social communication or media.  That's the reason I am not very much for a separate department or commission for communication.  It is not an independent body or section that works by itself.  It is what facilitates and lubricates all our endeavours. It does not and cannot have an identity of its own, totally independent of the common mission.  Communication is for communion and not merely for communication! 

Grace vs Freedom/Wisdom

I've heard many a preacher state that God gives us the grace! It is not our choice to get one. It is solely God's gratuitous gift. Well, I'm not talking about the puritanic bent of this concept but the usual and the normal "balanced" perception of 'grace'.

Frankly, I try hard to recollect my theology classes on 'grace' but am yet to succeed!  However, I have a slightly different take on this idea.  I really don't think, God gives me graces! No, not ready-made packages of virtues or gifts.  Certainly not my God!  I believe and love my God who in turn gives me not such gifts but rather gives me the possibility of receiving such graces.... the ability to understand the grace and the skill to cherish it.  In short, He gifts me with freedom to make my own choices... with knowledge to sift the choices and the loving support to cherish the choices I make and the wisdom to know the wrong choices I make.

Oh my God

Yesterday I watched bit of the hindi movie Oh My God! Truly amazing and well made.  It basically contains the whole syllabus of the Philosophy of God (Theodicy) but in a neat comical package. None better than Paresh Rawal to essay the role of the atheist/protagonist!  The analogies offered generously all along are quite amusing and lead one to reflection.

Of the part that I was yesterday, the best I liked was when Paresh Rawal asks Akshay Kumar (Lord Krishna, in his modern avatar) to drop him at his house, the latter replies:

My job is to show you the way; reaching the goal is your responsibility. 

I wish to screen the movie for my third year students sometime this month. I'm currently enjoying my course on Philosophy of Religion with them. Though in Hindi, the subtitles should offer them something at least. 

Understanding evil

The evening conference of the preacher was on evil and suffering. I was pleasantly surprised to see him dwell on the positive side of it and never once did he try to make a pietistic mash of it all. He was very sensible and down to earth practical in speaking about evil in the context of a loving God... quite like that of my theodicy class (of course, it wasn't as rational as I would have spoken, if given a chance). Rightly so as he pointed out, there is no ready-made solution for evil. Worse still there isn't any fast-food style remedy for evil either. So in the precise moment of pain, suffering and faced with evil all that counts is the attitude that one has developed all along the way. No instant remedy will help in the long run (neither in the exact moment). The best way of encountering evil is to view it as part of life and certainly not take the blame straight to God. Most importantly are the lessons we draw from such experiences. For as the preacher began,

Mishaps are like knives that either serve us or cut as as we grasp them by the blade or the handle.

James Russel Lowell

Faith and Religion: the same?

During the last staff meeting, one of the points for discussion was the subjects for next year. When it came to Modern Western Philosophy, there were no takers at all... 'it is the most craziest of all subjects' was the final comment. I was the one who taught that last year and I will certainly love to teach it this year too. When it came to Medieval Western Philosophy, it was suggested that the Regent (Practical Trainee) could teach it. But then immediately it was rejected on grounds that someone with a clear Christian foundation and theology should teach the subject, since it is the 'real Philosophy'. I laughed out loud. Though the others were not amused, I had made my point clear.

Everytime we throw out Philosophy as a 'secular' undertaking or 'unholy', we go against the very grain of our 'Catholic' belief. Religion has done great good to humanity, but not always! Fundamentalism, an offshoot of religion, is perhaps the greatest terrorist in modern times. Why is it that we always end up having to choose between religion and philosophy (or for that matter anything). Why is it that we cannot see both as God's - or even human - creation for the betterment of humanity? Why then do we have to 'pick-and-choose'? Can we not gracefully blend these two?

I have my suspicion about the recent euphoria about the movie Cristiada. I do not say that it is bad (I haven't seen it at all), but when 'faith' is sacrificed at the round table of politics and religion, for upholding the latter, I have serious objections to it. One needs to see the movie Agora to only understand what havoc blind faith, puritanic belief and crazy religion can do!

All this makes me wonder if faith and religion are inseparable? For if not, then ...

May Christ show us the way!

On prayer (2)

Another aspect of prayer that struck me this evening as I tried to reflect on the question, Why do we pray, if God is not going to do anything by himself? I tried to see what and why is it that I pray? It then occurred to me that prayer is simply a conversation, a chat with someone I adore and esteem. So I just share my life, chat with him about the day, express my grievances, discuss, debate, argue, fight, console, ask for help and promise help, and above all, when I speak, he listens and when he speaks, I listen (though the latter does not happen often). I think that's prayer... a simple conversation at the heart and gut level with God.

It is just like talking to my parents and dear ones over the phone. Why do I talk to them? Is it just for some favours or help or to tell about my headaches and troubles? Certainly not. Our conversations are just about anything and everything. It is just a free talk, of course of matters close to our hearts. Any grave danger if I stop talking to my people? Most probably no... but I am bound to feel uneasy and anxious. It is because, I love them and would like to be in touch with them. Prayer too is just that, a loving conversation between two beings, one of whom happens to be God.

Of obediential potency...

I know not how and why on earth did the whole idea of 'obediential potency' and that too of St Thomas Aquinas (along with his Summa Theologica) land up in the metaphysical class syllabus. However, it happens to be the last of the chapters and in a way I'm glad it did. I got an excellent chance to shake and throw quite a few of the second years out of the slumber and lethargy of 'prayer'... so long understood as 'list of things God ought to do'. For the past three days, they are really squirming in their seats for having learnt without any further clarifications that God does nothing!! All that is to be done is left to us!

The argument is simple: God as the first cause of everything will not go around meddling, repairing, modifying, adjusting, recreating the nature that he has given to his creation. For if he does so, he would certainly be a capricious God who keeps changing his own creation and himself, according to his own whims and fancy. Or from another perspective, he would have to acknowledge that what he created in the first instance was faulty! Thus God, as the first cause, does nothing ... now. If there is anything to be done (ex. removal of all corrupt politicians) is to be done by the secondary causes (of which human being is one). Of course, the secondary causes, can appeal to the first cause for assistance (to help or not to, is again God's choice). Thus anything and everything that happens ought to take place in, with and through the secondary causes.

Of course, the concept of 'obediential potency' or in other words, openness of the creature to let God, the first cause, to work through oneself is quite understandable and logically possible. Furthermore the idea of creation as rationales seminales, creative principles, rather than as finished products makes things very clear: the onus is not on God, but on us who have the potency to ...

The NT from the beginning ...

I read a book about the transfiguration of the Lord today (not that it is one of my favourite topics, but for a review). Reading it I came across a theological debate that has as its starting point the doubt if this whole event of transfiguration is a chronologically misplaced post-resurrection event in the Galilean mission? We all know that the Bible (I mean the New Testament) was written from the perspective of the Resurrection. It was a 'recalling back' of the life and mission of Jesus from the moment of his Resurrection. I was wondering how would it have been, had the New Testament been written along the time of Jesus' life... not from the 'eyes' of the Resurrection? Well that's an interesting exercise that one could undertake... but this I am sure, it would certainly not be the same as we have it now.

Defending God against His believers

In class today, I had a tough time convincing the Brothers (I still didn't manage) that God will not interfere with my freedom. That free will is something God does not meddle with... even though He may be the one who grants each one that free will. They are hell bent on their belief that God knows me through and through and therefore he also knows what I will do next. Telling them that God gives us freedom and lets us be, even to the extent of letting us utilise the same freedom as a tool against Him, was all in vain. Perhaps all this stems from their blind belief in God as a provider. Literally a programmed giver. We pray and He provides, provided we all 'behave'. God is, in another sense, blackmailed!

Listening to their arguments and Biblical quotations (literal meanings drawn from some quotes their know by rote!) I had pity on God... I had to really defend Him from His own 'staunch' believers. Some of the recollection talks and sermons they hear too add to their 'madness' that it is enough to have faith, blind faith and no act or effort or struggle on our part, for God to work in and through us. I do not deny that God is capable of that too, but that should not be an excuse for our lethargy and lacklustre life.

Jesus' death and our salvation?

During the heated discussions during the Anthropology class, there was something I said... something akin to this: Jesus Christ would have been our saviour even without dying on the Cross. Later one of them came to me asking if it were really possible? I told him that, had Jesus any better option than the cross, He would have chosen it. His goal and mission was to redeem mankind, not merely dying on a cross.

I remember reading and discussing something like this in my theology classes in Shillong (if I am not mistaken with Fr Gomes). But now I forget what answer or 'way out' of this dilemma was given. Hope I'm not kicking off a heresy or some idiotic principle.

Whatever it be, if I'm able to get my fellows to think a little, leave alone think different, then I'm blessed!!!