Stages of growth and accompaniment

Last month we had a session on accompaniment, wherein Fr Raja spoke quite lucidly about the four different stages or levels of spiritual growth and the type of recommended accompaniment at each stage. The first stage is a very shallow level where individuals are basically self-centred and selfish.  Those at this stage need to be supported and encouraged to engage in an honest self-appraisal, rather than be endorsed or consoled! 

The next level of faith, is institutional.  Most of us fall under that category.  God is seen as external, formal, rigorous, legalistic and dogmatic. Accompaniment at this level is gentle, with a slight nudge towards internalisation and the next level. 

The third level is a more mature level, but hardly follows any order. This is perhaps the most unsettling stage for young people who find it difficult to balance the traditional faith inherited from their parents (second level) and the disconnect they feel within themselves to accepting this faith.  Hence the inner turmoil.  This is a stage where people tend to explore, not with the intent of rebellion but a genuine interest in deepening one's idea of God, spirituality and religion.  People herein seek logical answers to their queries; rather than magical rites. They tend to take ownership of their own faith. Accompanying them, one shouldn't push them to engage in traditional religious practices, which they often rebel against. They do not reject faith as such, but inherited faith. 

We keep shuffling between these three levels, never stuck at any one particular. Maturity lies in moving towards the third stage; and touching the fourth stage (mystical). 

The last stage is mystical, where interconnectedness is emphasised, community is valued greater than individuals, lack of answers and logic does not perturb much, and is perhaps a mix of the second (dogmatic) and the third (rational) stages. 

Listening to him, I asked myself: Are we as a Province (confreres put together) at the third stage of religious consciousness/spirituality; whereas the orientation of the accompaniment offered by the leadership is of the second stage!?? … our emphasis on the routines, rituals, dogmas, whereas individuals are undergoing a phase of faith-loss, and in the process of search for truth. That said, there are some clearly very much in stage one (self-centred and even anti-social).

Baby shower

Re-watched the hindi movie Hum aapke hain koun... the first time I watched it was with a classmate of mine, Rajeev.  We went to a theatre in Secunderabad.  That was the first time we, my brother and I, watched a movie in a theatre, with anyone other than our parents. I still remember Willy and I went to Rajeev's house and when we arrived there, he was still sleeping.  His sister who answered the door was quite surprised to see us and her spontaneous statement was "They are so small!" Indeed compared to Rajeev, we were pygmies!!  

Anyhow, what caught my attention in the movie as I sat through it was the grant celebrations of the wedding and baby shower.  Then there is the tradition of the baby shower being attended by only the ladies!  When I was in the provincial house, Sheeba, was one of the consistent members of the DB Digits office. When she was carrying Grace, her first child, in all her ignorance, she invited me for her own baby shower ceremony.  Later I asked Rani (the Economer's secretary) as to when the house staff plan to go, so that I can join them and she replied with a hearty laugh, "Brother, it's meant only for ladies!!" 

It all came back to me when I came across this particular amusing cartoon of the nativity scene... no wonder why men are not allowed! 

Roots and ashes

Never came across a better analogy than this one to explain and understand tradition...
Thanks to Pope Francis...

Speaking to a group of journalists he spoke of tradition and the need to look at it as roots that nourish life rather than ashes to be carefully preserved!

An extract from the news report on National Catholic Reporter:

Pope Francis has criticized traditionalist Catholics who seek to "safeguard the ashes" of the past, saying the global church's centuries of tradition are not akin to a container for preserved objects but instead like roots to be drawn on for future growth. 

In a press conference aboard the papal flight back to Rome after his three-day visit to Romania, he singled out Catholic "fundamentalists," who he said have a nostalgia for "returning to the ashes." 

Tradition is the guarantee of the future and not the container of the ashes. Tradition is like roots [of a tree], which give us nutrition to grow.  You will not become like the roots. You will flower, grow, give fruit. And the seeds become roots for other people. The tradition of the church is always in movement. The tradition does not safeguard the ashes.

Pre-nuptial tradition

Know not what led me this thought but it suddenly occurred to me this afternoon that the Telugu 'ritual' of pellichoopulu wherein a young man intending to get married, visits the girls' house, with his parents and elders.  This procedure is indeed a very social and respectable one - when taken in the right sense.  If it is taken as a sort of window-shopping for a bride, wherein the girl is one 'shown' as an object of 'purchase', then it certainly loses all its merits but otherwise, the procedure is worth understanding. 

The first thing that occurred to me was that marriage is not just between two individuals.  It is also a union of two families.  Hence it makes sense for one to know the other, just as much as the boy and girl need to know each other.  This makes great sense, especially in our Indian context wherein couples who get married often do not leave their parents side and continue living under the same roof.  However the present form of the boys' family visiting the girls' is only a partial process.  The girls' family too needs to visit the boys' house and family - after all, in most cases it is the bride who moves in with the bridegroom into his house.  That alone is enough reason for the girls' family to come and see where and with whom is their daughter going to spend the rest of her life, her new family! 

Secondly, it is a great 'official' moment of socialization.  Even when we have a tradition of welcoming and receiving strangers as our guests, it is good to welcome a rather unknown family into our home, with the intention of extending one's family. 

Finally, even in modern times when boys and girls often 'select' their life partners (rather than the earlier times when parents decide their partners), the tradition only cements this union of families.  This tradition does not lose its value or can never be outdated in its intended purpose.  Only hope that the other half of the girls' family visiting the boys' house too gets an equal share in this procedure!  

Christianity - an earthy living

The scriptures and liturgy of the past few weeks make clear how deep a connection Christianity has with food.  We have Jesus eating the 'last supper' with his apostles, the symbolism of the bread and wine as his body and blood, Jesus asking for and eating fish to quell the apostles fear that he is a ghost, the readings of yesterday and today referring to Jesus as the 'bread of life', the two disciples of Emmaus recognizing Jesus at the 'breaking of the bread'...

Given these records and events, one sees the indepth connection our liturgy, our faith and tradition have with food.  It is interesting to note that the food spoke of or referred to in all these instances is not some rare delicacy but ordinary common meal stuff - bread, wine, fish.  Once again a reiteration that Christianity is not a religion of the hi-fi but the hoi polloi, of the most mundane; it is not a fashion statement or trending fad among the rich, but a very grounded and day-to-day affair. 

Furthermore our tradition and rites all have a very mundane and common day to day connection - something we need to rediscover and live.  Rather than elevate these very rites to the heights and apart from everyday living, we need to guauge the depth of our faith on the basis of our existential living rather than a ceremonial grandeur. 

Hannah and childlessness

In the readings of the day, we see Hannah re-visiting the temple to offer Samson to the Lord.  She meets Eli, and reminds him that it she was the same woman whom he found desperately praying for a child not so long ago.  She thanks him and offers her son for service of the Lord at the temple.

The clock has come a full circle today, when we hear parents not wanting to have children at all or having them aborted. In most early civilizations barrenness was conceived as a sin or a punishment from the gods.  Any woman not having children was often looked down upon and being cursed.  For the woman herself it was a big social stigma.  Times have so drastically changed that women today no longer want to bear children.  Couples who do not want to have children.  Women undergoing abortion merely to ascertain that their body is theirs and they have the right to decide what best to do with it.  Couples deciding to bring home a puppy instead of starting a family with children!  Woman bearing more than three children are seen as 'supermoms'!

Today's prayer: for all aborted children and the women who live with the adverse consequences of abortion.

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

Short skirts?

It has been brought to my notice that in Kerala, a bishop, exhorting his faithful to a spiritual life, through his pastoral newsletter recommended (among others) that girls should not wear short dresses to Church.  While certainly he has the good of his people and their spiritual growth at heart, he is perhaps focussing on some non-essentials.

That youngsters come to Church is itself a great sign of the growing faith.  To state that one should be dressed neatly and look dignified is one thing.  But the length of one's dress need not always be the standard measurement of one's character or spirituality.

While I do agree that many of the traditional practices have been a great help in building the Church and spreading the faith, I also believe that they need not be practiced merely because 'it has been so'. Rather those practices need to be explained in terms of contemporary context and made meaningful for today.

Moreover, would like to really know, whose problem is it if girls come with short skirts?  Of the girls themselves? Of boys? Of elders? Or of the parish priest himself?  I'm sure it is not of the girls themselves.  Well then, whose-so-ever else is the problem, they need to ask themselves what exactly is their problem?  The newsletter would do good to balance its statement on skirts with this issue too.  

Why swear?

There are several reasons for justifying swearing (not the 'taking oath' swearing!).  Most common and acceptable among them is that it expresses best what one feels.  They rather than tell, manifest very forcefully what one is actually feeling.  That indeed is true.  However an argument can be made to the effect that we could coin a sound which would convey this, perhaps even with the same effect.  Say 'yuck' in contrast to 'shit'.

That and several other reasons put together brings me to fact that most swear words are taboo words.  They find their meaning and connection with things that are not considered 'good' or 'pure'.  So using a swear word is like a double attack.  Defy a broken rule!

I think that the whole notion of swear words and their rationale lie in the human conscious (or sub-conscious) need for polarity or duality. Our very thinking is dualistic.  We need 'bad', to show what is 'good'.  We want the 'impure' to retain the notion of 'purity'.  So however consciously we abhor 'evil' or 'bad' or 'impurity' we still need it to prove its counterpart.

So can a 'civilized' society totally do away with swear words? Never. It may not have the ones that we are used to hearing, but it certainly will have its own version.  If 'shit' isn't, 'yuck' would be!

Manners and morals

Initially I thought that manners are offshoots of morals.  That manners and etiquette are byproducts of morals.  Therefore they serve the same purpose as morals, albeit on a less grievous or serious tone. Both are needed for the smooth running of society.

However, I'm beginning to doubt if that's true.  That manners and morals are related, is true. But does being well-mannered mean one is morally sound too - or the vice-versa.  If one has his morals right, would he or she be well-mannered automatically?  I don't think so. 

One could be well behaved and polite and courteous in society, but in reality be an immoral person. Take for instance, the politician (one can practically include every politician, anywhere in the world). On the other hand, take a tribal or one belonging to the indigenous population. Or even a simple person from a rural setting.  Most often they have their morality or ethical practices very sound.  They are not really corrupted by the malicious mind of civilization and technology.  However, his 'manners' may appear crude or unpolished.  

From another viewpoint, would it be right to call someone who goes about swearing (not at anyone in particular, though) and behaving in an uncouth manner, immoral?  Or would it be right to say that his moral compass is skewed?  Manners are contextual while morals are universal (or are they?).  Manners change as per place, time, persons, occasions.  Morals don't (at least not as fluidly as manners).  

While both manners and morals are rooted in society, culture, tradition, and history, they may not always be on the same side.  

Education ... freedom and authenticity

A quote from the presentation of Mr Kurian during one of the Strategic Planning sessions.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Paulo Freire) and Deschooling Society (Ivan Illich) have discussed at length the politics of education.  True formation must decolonize the mind. There is nothing more damning than the illusion of a unique, singular, uncritical and choiceless identity.  "If traditionalism were proper, the prophets would merely have followed their own leaders and not come with new messages" (Akbar and his India). 

Along with Oscar Wilde, we could remember from time to time, that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.  Provided, of course, the freedom to think is at the service of the freedom to authenticity. 

Situational Formation? (2)

I reproduce here something more tangible and sensible, as continuation of my previous post of Situational Formation?. The following is a response that came in from a good and well-intentioned friend of mine. 

... what you are saying in other words, is let them be lay people engaged in spiritual and religious study. It is fantastic but you may have 2 priests at the end of the entire process. Needless to say, those two will be priests you will be proud of (might turn out to be very individualistic and weird too by regular church standards), but you will only have that kind of numbers. 

Experience of daily practical stresses is also why some lay people can be much better at pastoral work than priests. They understand how hard it is to balance. And then too, you can see how hard it is to put the beatitudes into practice. Almost certain, that the quality of preaching will change. Then, the church will get into the business of justifying why, how, what, cost, so on and so forth, just to pump up those numbers and you will be back at square one. 

Take a middle path. Treat them like we would our kids who are studying who have to earn a scholarship. They need to work hard and/or be brilliant. If not, then they need to earn while studying to pay the fee (subsidised please..we need to give them a break). Once the course is done, they all work for a living like the rest of us. The church would need to pay them a living wage. (this would be like the apostles were- they worked for their living and preached the good news). I say church because if they had to perform regular jobs, they won't be able to do full-time priest jobs.

I'm posting this text for I see a great value behind the whole idea of formation and priesthood/religious life... and if anyone is not willing to attempt to see it, leave alone embark on this risky journey, will really need to clarify his or her concept and orientation towards consecrated life, primarily to God and also to His people. 

Spiritual Worldliness

Pope Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, speaks of the danger of 'Spiritual Worldliness' His words are quite disturbing: 

This worldliness can be fueled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction to gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is ... trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.  ... In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. (EG 94)

I think the last line sums up the yardstick of measuring the depth of our devotion, piety and spirituality. 

Hurting and dirty Church

I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security... I dream of a missionary option  capable of transforming everything, so that the Church's customs, way of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channelled for the evangelisation of today's world rather than for her self-preservation. 

Pope Francis [Evangelii Gaudium nos 49. 27]

Life inside and outside the upper room

This morning we had an interesting round of meditation.  He's what was playing on my mind and heart all the while.  We were meditating upon the theme of today's Maundy Thursday service.

What Jesus did in the upper room was merely a representation of his entire life, outside it.  It was mere symbolic of what he did that far and intended to fulfill in the days to come.  However, in our Catholic tradition, that upper room meeting has been really blown to gigantic proportions, often at the risk of losing sight of the real life of Jesus.  This dramatization of Jesus has been polished and painted and greased with tons of cosmetics and made to appear the most important aspect of Catholic tradition.  What we often forget and conveniently shelve is the fact that life was one whole for Jesus.  His action outside the upper room was not a disconnect from the action inside the room.  The latter was a mere 're-enactment' of the real.

Somehow very many of us Christians have clearly divided the whole of our life: inside and outside!  Inside the 'upper room' - the Church - we are all pious and 'holy'; when out of the 'upper room' - the world - what we do is not counted as holy or sacred.  It is profane!  

Foot-washing: Drama vs Response

I was quite amused by the last line of a piece of news/article about the rite of foot-washing, that I read here... It was about the involvement - or rather, the absence of involvement - of women in the foot-washing ceremony of Maundy Thursday.  Besides the fact that women were not excluded from the list of 12 people whose feet are washed, until 1955, what touched me most was the last line of the write-up:

The tradition was not to have it be a dramatization of what Jesus did at the last Supper but to be a response to the command to humble service. 

... well, another example of how, religiosity is not necessarily the same as spirituality, or even close to it!
[More about the rite itself, read here]

Temperance in Work

Just today I received a mail from a very good spiritual guide and friend of mine.  He reminded me to take care of my health and not to over-work.  On a lighter note he reminded me that I should perhaps take seriously the modern reinterpretation of the traditional idea of work and temperance in the Salesian Constitution: Not 'Work and Temperance' but 'Temperance in work'!

That was really amusing.  I'm sure most traditional novice masters would cringe at that reinterpretation!  

Demystifying 'community'

On February 12, 2013 The Hindu carried an interesting article by Sanjay Srivastava on it Op-Ed page, titled "Pathology of the hurt sentiment".  It shed some interesting light and presented some refreshing facts about community and feelings. As I read the article then, something struck me but I couldn't figure out what.  So I preserved that page and it has been rolling on my table (which is often clean of any papers except my planner) since then.  I picked it up again today and it occurred to me that perhaps there is some lesson for me about our Salesian or religious community in this article. So here are the excepts that led me to this insight:

A community is not a monolithic object and not all members of a community enjoy equal rights and privileges.  In fact, very frequently, the idea of not hurting public sentiments only serves to mask the fact that it is the attitudes of the most privileged that are being protected from criticism.  There are, actually, not only communities, but also individuals with different interests, and relationship to power and privilege.  

A note about the past, history... tradition:

When public commentators are urged not to hurt public sentiments, it is an an implicit plea to allow past practices and beliefs to dictate contemporary life. 

Continual glorification of the past is, in fact, a frequent indicator of contemporary cultural nervousness. 

Demands for respecting public sentiments are not only premised on the idea that there is a homogenous public out there, but that sentiments and beliefs are themselves unchanging.  Further, that the slightest questioning of an established way of thinking will lead to civilizational chaos, disharmony and social disarray. 

The idea of 'community' is, in the final analysis, both an objective reality as well as fiction.  For, we might, for instance, pray in a similar manner to many others (and the act forms an actual religious community), but to think that all members of a community must continue to believe in ideas that might have been prevalent a hundred years ago is to present a fairytale version of what community life should be about.  

Some bells about radical life of witness, community life, upholding tradition, preserving our heritage, identity, and the upcoming Salesian Brothers' Congress are ringing in my ears! 

Who can be radical?

I was very happy to hear that Fr Stan was preaching the inaugural recollection talk for the Chapter.  His talk was truly inspirational.  It took me back to the years 1996 - 1998 when I was a student of Philosophy at Yercaud and he was my Principal. As then, his talk raised more questions that offered easy solutions!

He began his talk asking who can be radical?  Right away he ruled out the Church, the Congregation, the Province and even the Community from possible answers to that question.  He stated that according to him, only individuals with a deep faith commitment can be radicals.  Of course, no radical is easily understood, appreciated least of all supported!

His basic challenge to all the members was to basically accept the practical atheism of Consecrated life today - that of having faith, but not living it;  of having moral codes, but of different standards for different people (softer ones for ourselves and harsher ones for others); justification of privacy and individuality which are actually individualism.  More on it later.

Listening to him I realised one thing: we are collectively trying to think of ways to break the mould, all the while living inside an iron cast mould which we ourselves voluntarily entered! Perhaps we need reconsider the whole and not just a part, and that too from within the whole. But who'd take the onus: 'we' or 'I'?

Marriage woes, even otherwise

Being the first of the month, I distributed the salaries for the staff and did spend quite some time talking to them just about anything.  One of the main points for discussion or you might call it a debate was the point of dowry, marriages and caste system.  I was surprised to hear from the kitchen staff that not only is dowry given away when a daughter is married off, the parents of the girl have also to give a portion of the dowry for the boys' sister, if any!  That would be to say that the bride's family has to pay not only money for the bride but also for her new sister-in-law!  Gosh!

And if there are a couple of marriages in the villages, everyone - literally, everyone! - in the village, and more especially those closely related to the families are all bankrupt that month.  Reason: the gift they OUGHT to offer at the wedding function.  This is kept record of and when there is a marriage in the visitors family, the one now receiving has to pay something MORE than what was given to them!  And so if there are more than 4 wedding functions that a family has to attend in a month, the 'gift' would drain their whole month's salary! And if there is a fifth one, they'll borrow and 'gift' the amount!  While the staff resented this whole procedure, none would try to break this vicious circle - all for fear of what 'they would say'.  ... the same rationale is given for all matters concerning inter-caste marriages, dowry, girl-child atrocities.

Having heard, spoken and debated with them at length, I only said aloud, "Thank God, I was not born in Gollalapalem (their village), and not as a female!"