Tuesday, 14 February 2023

Diocese of Kohima - Golden Jubilee Prayer

 

DIOCESE OF KOHIMA – GOLDEN JUBILEE YEAR

(16 October 2022 - 29 October 2023)

 

Jubilee Prayer

 

O Most Holy Trinity—Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, we adore and thank you for the gift of life and faith, by which we are your children and disciples. We thank you and praise you for the love you manifested in a special way to the people of Nagaland through the creation of the diocese of Kohima-Imphal fifty years ago, that the joy of the Gospel and true faith in your Son may be proclaimed to everyone. We thank you for the gift of valiant missionaries – men and women.

As we prepare to celebrate the Golden Jubilee of the diocese of Kohima empower us to be your true witnesses and proclaimers of the Gospel through our life and witness so that we may live for Christ and His Church. Give eternal happiness to all the bishops, priests, religious and laity who have, in one way or the other, helped the growth of the diocese, and have preceded us.

O Mary, our beloved Mother, Help of Christians and patroness of our diocese, intercede for us that we may open ourselves to the working of the Spirit. Teach us to ponder the Word, to live the Word and to take the Word to the hearts and places still unreached. Dear Mother, walk with us in our pilgrimage with your beloved spouse St Joseph, so that we will together face to face praise, honour and worship the most Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who live and reign for ever and ever. Amen.

Mary Help of Christians, Pray for us.

Tuesday, 30 August 2022

Identity Theory

The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain. Strictly speaking, it need not hold that the mind is identical to the brain. Idiomatically we do use ‘She has a good mind’ and ‘She has a good brain’ interchangeably but we would hardly say ‘Her mind weighs fifty ounces’. Here I take identifying mind and brain as being a matter of identifying processes and perhaps states of the mind and brain. Consider an experience of pain, or of seeing something, or of having a mental image. The identity theory of mind is to the effect that these experiences just are brain processes, not merely correlated with brain processes.

Some philosophers hold that though experiences are brain processes they nevertheless have fundamentally non-physical, psychical, properties, sometimes called ‘qualia’. Here I shall take the identity theory as denying the existence of such irreducible non-physical properties. Some identity theorists give a behaviouristic analysis of mental states, such as beliefs and desires, but others say that mental states are actual brain states. Identity theorists often describe themselves as ‘materialists’, but ‘physicalists’ may be a better word.

The identity theory (in its various forms) may be considered as an ontological physicalism. A physicalist could say that trees are complicated physical mechanisms.

In other words, the simplest proposal for explaining how the mental is nothing but the physical is the identity theory. In his classic paper “Materialism” (1963), the Australian philosopher J.J.C. Smart proposed that every mental state is identical to a physical state in the same way as the episodes of lightning are identical to episodes of electrical discharge, for instance. The primary argument for this view is that it enables a kind of economy in one’s account of the different kinds of things in the world, as well as a unification of causal claims: mental events enter into causal relations with physical ones because in the end they are physical events themselves. This view is also called reductionism, which conveys the suggestion that the mental phenomenon is “made less” or reduced to being physical phenomenon.

In very simplified terms: a mental state M is nothing other than brain state B. The mental state desire for a cup of coffee would thus be nothing more than the firing of certain neurons in certain brain regions. On such a view, it would turn out that any two people with a desire for a cup of coffee would have a similar type of neuronal firing pattern in similar regions of the brain.

Summary of Identity Theory

Click here for more notes on Identity Theory

Wednesday, 10 August 2022

Goodnight Talk: Love heals the foundations of suffering

James Finley says, “In the light of eternity, we’re here for a very short time, really. We’re here for one thing, ultimately: to learn how to love, because God is love. Love is our origin, love is our ground, and love is our destiny. From the reciprocity of love, destiny is fulfilled, and the foundations of suffering are healed. Love and love alone has the authority to name who we are.”

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. However we view suffering and pain, it is necessary to accept them. The more we accept them, the better and more mature we will be.

Testimony of James Finley:

We cannot attain spiritual maturity if we are not able to integrate our pains and sufferings with our spiritual life. We must be even able to integrate the trauma and the abuses that we have experienced in our past.

I was raised in a home with a lot of trauma—physical, sexual, and emotional abuse—and I was very fragmented by all of it. I graduated from high school, ran away from home, joined a monastery, and became a monk.

When I entered the monastery, I thought I had left the trauma behind me. I was in this silent cloister, with Thomas Merton for my spiritual director. I was walking around reading the works of St John of the Cross, and I felt like I had reached my goal, really. And then I was sexually abused by one of the monks, my confessor. It completely shattered me. I never thought it was possible. I didn’t see it coming. I was not able to cope with the stress, and was very much disturbed: I was split in two. Now what was left of me were feelings of fear and confusion over which I didn’t have much control. There was no refuge for me. I didn’t tell anyone what had happened. I just left. I started a new life as a way to bury all the pain and move on.

Years later, I found myself in therapy and all hell broke loose. But with prayer and gentle pacing, I learned to see, feel, accept, and find my way through the long-term internalized effects of the trauma I had to endure in my childhood and adolescence. It was in this process that I came upon an intimate experience of who I am. By becoming vulnerable, by re-visiting the pain that I endured, I discovered the loving presence of God. The healing that I received by opening the wounds, was simultaneous with the discovery of God’s intimate presence, loving presence. When we risk sharing what hurts the most in the presence of someone who will not invade us or abandon us, we unexpectedly come upon within ourselves what Jesus calls the pearl of great price: the invincible preciousness of our self.

In the act of admitting what we are so afraid to admit—especially if admitting means admitting it in our body, where we feel it in painful waves—in that scary moment of feeling and sharing what we thought would destroy us, we unexpectedly discover within ourselves this invincible love that sustains us unexplainably in the midst of the painful situation we are in.

As we learn to trust in this paradoxical way God sustains us in our suffering, we are learning to connect our heart to God, who protects us from nothing. He protects us from nothing, rather exposes us to everything. But at the same time, He unexplainably and mysteriously sustains us in all things. As this process of transformation continues, we find within ourselves the gifts of courage, patience, and tenderness to deal with our hurts, pains, abuses, sufferings, trauma. To deal with them with love. To integrate them into love, so that they too become love. In this way, we can become a gift and miracle to the world with our very presence.

Sunday, 7 August 2022

Cartesian Dualism

Descartes’ Dualism and the Problem of the Bridge

Dualism, simply put, is the belief that something is composed of two fundamentally different components. Descartes believed that a human person consisted of:

Matter/Body: The physical stuff that walks, talks, and lives a life.

Mind: The non-physical substance (sometimes equated with the soul) that thinks, doubts, and remembers things.

He introduced a division between mind and body in order to refute scepticism, using the method of universal doubt.

Descartes believed in a mechanistic view of the material world—that matter goes about its business and follows its own laws, except when it is interfered with by the mind. Human mind, then, simply makes the body act (like a machine). Exactly how the non-physical mind interacts with the physical body is a point of contention. Descartes believed that the pineal gland in the brain was the locus of interaction between the mind and body because he believed that this gland was the only part of the brain that wasn’t a duplicate.

It’s important to remember that, for Descartes, the brain and the mind are not the same thing. The brain serves, in part, as a connection between the mind and the body, but because it is a physical, changeable thing, it is not the actual mind. Our mind is whole and indivisible, whereas our body can be changed. You can cut your hair, remove your appendix, or even lose a limb, but that loss in no way reduces your mind.

Descartes also believed that human were the only dualistic creatures. He placed animals in the realm of the purely physical, mechanistic world, acting purely on instinct and on the laws of nature.

Descartes was led to his dualistic theories in part from his most famous philosophical endeavour—to place into doubt all that could be doubted in the hope of arriving at a basic, undeniable truth. That resulted in his famous Cogito ergo sum—I think, therefore I am. Descartes could doubt the existence of the physical world and that even his own body actually existed, but he could not doubt the idea that his mind existed because doubting is a thought process. The very act of doubting one’s existence proves that one actually exists; otherwise, who is doing the doubting?

Through his process of doubting, he recognized that, regardless of what the changeable physical world was really like, his mind was still whole and unchanged, and therefore somehow separate from that physical world.

For Descartes, mind has evident awareness of all its actions. This he calls the perfect transparency of the mind. A thought, for him, in the wide sense is defined as that of which I am immediately aware. He also analysed the content of his mind and discovered it contained certain innate ideas such as self, God, and substance.

Clear and Distinct Ideas

Descartes claimed that one cannot derive the idea of substance from observation precisely because perception can only generate qualities. Hence he had to posit the idea of substance as an innate idea. Such ideas are called innate because they have been implanted in us before our birth.

Moreover, clarity and distinctness are the marks of truth, the distinguishing characteristics by which we can tell the true from the false. Hence whatever is clearly and distinctly conceived is true. An experience or thought is clear and distinct if it is so forceful that we cannot avoid being aware of it.

As regards ideas that are not clear or distinct, we have no guarantee that what we believe is true. The faculty of judgement functions reliably in relation to the clear and distinct ideas that God has implanted in us. We make mistakes when we misuse our faculties. But we cannot make mistakes when we use them as God intends us to do.

The human mind can achieve systematic and certain knowledge by starting with knowing what is self-evident. God wanted us to direct our thoughts in an orderly manner, beginning with the simplest and most easily known objects and ascend little by little, step by step, to knowledge of the most complex.

Cogito Ergo Sum

Descartes held that I can be absolutely certain only of me as a mental substance that thinks. I have a clear and distinct idea about it.

According to him, even in our sleep we can observe that it is because of our thinking that we exist. We may dismiss the many things that come into our mind as dreams or illusions, but one thing is sure and necessary is that I whom am thinking is something. Without my existence, I cannot think. Therefore, observing this truth, we can say: “I am thinking, therefore I exist.” Descartes decided that he could accept this statement without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy that he was seeking.

Descartes finally concluded that the proposition, I am/I exist is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. I am certain about this because I can clearly and distinctly see or understand what is being said.

Existence of God and World

One of the innate ideas we have is of a perfect being, God. We are merely finite, temporal creatures, and yet we have the idea of a substance that is infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient and almighty. Descartes concluded that this idea can only be caused by something that possesses these perfections. Hence there must be a God who is perfect has implanted in me the idea of the perfect being. Now Descartes is certain of two truths: that he exists and God exists. He continued to search for further certainties and realized that if God is a perfect being, then He won’t deceive human beings because fraud and deception are imperfections and hence cannot be characteristics of a perfect being. If God is not a deceiver, then a great deal of the information that had earlier been considered suspect can now be considered reliable. All that is needed is to find out what God wants us to believe as true. Since he cannot deceive us we can place complete faith in the knowledge He gives us.

God has given us clear and distinct mathematical ideas like two plus two make four. Since God has forced this belief upon us, and since He cannot be a deceiver it must be true. We have divine guarantee here. “Every clear and distinct conception is certainly something, and therefore cannot come from nothing, but must necessarily come from God who is supremely perfect and cannot be the cause of any error.” Thus he concludes that the entire realm of mathematical knowledge is true.

But mathematical knowledge only gives me truths about concepts in my mind. Is it possible that I can also be certain that there is an external world? We cannot rely on their existence through our senses for they deceive us. However, in general it is quite clear and distinct to us and we have a strong inclination to believe that there is an external world of material bodies. Since the belief in the external world is a natural one, God would be deceiving us unless it is true. As God is not a deceiver there must be an external physical world. The properties that we can safely attribute it are the primary qualities which are clear and distinct; but we cannot know with certainty the indistinct or unclear features of the world, namely secondary qualities.

Critical Appraisal

Descartes’ picture of the world is hopelessly divided into substances that were defined in ways that mutually exclude each other. How could the mental world – a non-spatial, purely spiritual sphere – have any effect on the physical world of crass matter, and vice versa, in this radically dualistic scheme of things? He assigned all perceivable qualities to the mind and left only mathematically measurable quantities to the external world. Descartes replaced the commonsense view of the direct relation between self and the world with a most circuitous route of relating to the world through the mind.

Philosophy of Mind and Psychology

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy, being love of wisdom, is a quest for fundamental and ultimate answers with regard to reality (God, the human person and the world). Its scope is everything, all reality. Philosophy is the result of a personal struggle to understand the mystery of human existence, the endeavour to unravel the secrets of nature, to make sense out of the complicated business of life. The first knowledge of the world gained in childhood and adolescence becomes inadequate as the years go by.

This sets out to a search that is unending, a search that is never satisfied until truth is claimed as our possession. We may never understand fully the riddle of existence, but we can always make an effort to discover, to understand, as much as our human faculties are capable of. And that is what distinguishes a human being from animals. That is why s/he is the crown of creation.

To philosophise is to explore life. It means breaking free to ask questions. It means resisting easy answers. To philosophise is to seek in oneself the courage to ask painful questions.

Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy of mind is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties and consciousness, and their relationship to the physical body. The mind-body problem, namely, the question of how the mind relates to the body, is commonly seen as the central issue in philosophy of mind.

Philosophy of mind is specifically concerned with quite general questions about the nature of mental phenomena: for example, What is the nature of thought, feeling, perception, consciousness, and sensory experience?

Philosophy of mind also asks the following questions: Could a computer have a mind? What would it take to create a computer that could have a specific thought, emotion, or experience? Is Artifical Intelligence (AI) the same as human intelligence?

Mind

With the above in mind, let us ask ourselves what we mean by the term mind. We need to contrast it with other terms like matter, form, body, soul and consciousness.

Aristotle says that every physical object is a compound of matter and form. This doctrine is called “hylomorphism”. The terms form and matter describe a basic duality in all existence, between the essence or “whatness” of a thing (form) and the stuff that the thing is made of (matter). The set of soul and body is a special case of form and matter.

Soul is the principle of life in a living thing. It’s everything that makes you alive rather than dead. So if you look at a living body and compare it to a dead body, the difference is the soul. It’s a principle of organization, a principle of function. (Dead body means that body is dead… and soul is absent, though the soul is not dead. The dead body or cadaver is just a bunch of chemicals, waiting to decompose themselves sooner than later.)

And the spirit, in the Thomistic viewpoint, is the aspects of the soul that are not material. And that would be particularly the intellect, the rationality and the will. Loosely speaking, the soul is the principle of life in a body, and the spirit refers more to the immaterial aspects of the soul, which are the ability to understand, the ability to reason, and the ability to make decisions based on reason.

The ability to understand and the ability to reason are the mind. It is the knowing aspect in us. We experience, understand and judge things… this is the process of knowing. The spirit directed towards knowing is called the mind.

Mind is not the physical brain alone; though it has got some connection to the cerebral function. But mind in philosophy is the immaterial aspect of the soul, a dimension/part of the spirit, as directed towards knowing.

The mind colours everything that comes to us. We don’t see things as they are; we see things as we are. There is nothing called pure knowledge, or a pure mind. No mind is a tabula rasa. Our mind rather is an active agent that colours, shapes and interprets the world. It is not a passive receptor of its experience. The mind possesses innate powers.

According to Kant, the human mind does not passively receive sense data, but it actively structures them. A human person, therefore, knows objective reality to the extent that reality conforms to the fundamental structures of the mind. All human knowledge of the world is channelled through the mind’s own categories. The mind does not conform to objects; rather, objects conform to the mind.

We will also study dreams, emotions and feelings. They hinder or enhance the workings of the mind; they do colour our dealings with the world.

Consciousness

What is consciousness? Is it the same as mind? Consciousness is a self-presence that accompanies knowing, willing, loving and acting… a self-presence that accompanies every act, thought, reflection and will of the doer. Only when we are in deep sleep or in coma there is no consciousness. Even while we are dreaming, we are conscious, even if our consciousness is fragmentary. Though it is closely related to the mind, consciousness is not the same as mind.

Dreams

Dreams are the expression of our sub-conscious or unconscious mind while we are asleep. They are the royal road to unconscious. Our dreams bring things out of our unconscious. Many things come out: fear, loneliness, loss, repugnance, peace, satisfaction, happiness, emptiness, grandeur, narrow-mindedness, emotions, grief, guilt, etc.

The meaning of the dream is its function. A dream has various functions: digestion of food, digestion of other appetites, digestion of emotions, feelings. It has the effect of catharsis on us, and balances our mind and body. Whatever is unexpressed or suppressed or repressed during our conscious moments, may find expression in a dream.

Philosophy of Mind and Empirical Psychology

The philosophical questions need to be distinguished from purely empirical investigations, like experimental psychology. Empirical psychologists are, by and large, concerned with discovering contingent facts about people and animals. The difference between empirical psychology and philosophy of mind is a difference between their methods: empirical psychology will use an empirical method that is based on observation, experimentation and verification. Philosophy would us a generalized empirical method, involving human consciousness, where its focus would be ultimate and fundamental questions.

What is psychology? It is the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context.

Sensations, for instance, seem essentially private and subjective, not open to the kind of public, objective inspection required of the subject matter of serious science. How would it be possible to find out what someone else’s private thoughts and feelings really are?

Could a computer have a mind? What would it take to create a computer that could have a specific thought, emotion, or experience?

Perhaps a computer could have a mind only if it were made up of the same kinds of neurons and chemicals of which human brains are composed. But this suggestion may seem crudely chauvinistic, rather like saying that a human being can have mental states only if his eyes are a certain colour. On the other hand, surely not just any computing device has a mind. Whether or not in the near future machines will be created that come close to being serious candidates for having mental states, focusing on this increasingly serious possibility is a good way to begin to understand the kinds of questions addressed in the philosophy of mind.

Monday, 18 July 2022

Experiencing the Sacred

There is no secret formula to experiencing the sacred in our lives. It just takes practice and practicality. The deep truth of our lives and the fullness we are striving for don’t happen with someone giving us the code to deep knowledge. Meaning and faith are not secret things. Sometimes what we need most is to remind one another of how the divine is all around us, calling us to see and taste it for ourselves. (Becca Stevens)

Sunday, 12 June 2022

God is Trinity

Our images of God become more fluid as we grow in spiritual maturity. Imagination is more important than knowledge.—Einstein. We may have to abandon some images that are unhelpful. (stern judge, far-away king, policeman ready to catch us, male, old man with a beard; God is the one who punishes me.)

We will have to accept new images, we will have to discover other helpful images: God is our Mother. God is our Grandmother. God is our Lover. God is our Friend. We may have to change the way we think about God, the way we imagine God, if we have to grow spiritually. Why do I say this? Because: God comes to each of us in unique ways throughout our lives.

Our experience of God is utterly personal. God speaks to our heart. He speaks to the depth of our being. Deep speaks to deep. Heart speaks to heart.

We can give a thousand names and more to God. Today the Church gives us this image: God is Trinity. = God is Love. God is a flow of relationships among the three persons. God is Relationship. (and a perfect relationship is love!) Father. Son. Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is the loving relationship between the Father and the Son. Unconditional Love. Unconditional Forgiveness. Unconditional Presence. God-for-us. God-with-us. God-within-us.

 The Greek church fathers: God is a circle dance. Perichoresis. Flow of relationships… St Augustine: They are each in each and all in each, and each in all, and all in all, and all are one. Names are interchangeable.

Let us make the human person in our own image.... Dynamism is seen here already.

In the second reading, Paul tells us: God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us (Rom 5:5).

You see, God is not a concept, not an idea. He is a Person. We need to fall in love with this Person. Who has dynamism*within: eternal flow of love. = Circle dance.

God is the Being whose centre is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere.—St Bonaventure.

We have to break through our ideas about God to find out who God really is. All we have to lose are the *false images* of God that do not serve us and are too small.

God loves you 100%. You are mixture of good and bad, light and darkness: but God still totally loves you. You are not perfectly a loving person, but God still totally loves you. God’s loves is given to us freely. We can never merit God’s love. We can never earn God’s love.

The foundational good news is that all of creation and all of humanity have been drawn into this loving flow (no exceptions)! 

There is a fourth person of the Trinity. Do you know who? The Creation. We all. We are not outsiders or spectators but inherently part of the divine dance.

God is a mystery. Mystery is something that can be understood endlessly. God cannot be known with our intellect and mind. But with our heart. He refuses to reveal himself to our mind, to our learnedness… But He can be only known through our love.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Comforter and Helper to be with you forever, the Spirit of Truth. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides within you, and he will be in you. —Jn 14:16–17.

Monday, 13 April 2020

The pandemic is a portal (Arundhati Roy)

Arundhati Roy: ‘The pandemic is a portal’

April 3, 2020 by Arundhati Roy

Who can use the term “gone viral” now without shuddering a little? Who can look at anything any more — a door handle, a cardboard carton, a bag of vegetables — without imagining it swarming with those unseeable, undead, unliving blobs dotted with suction pads waiting to fasten themselves on to our lungs?

Who can think of kissing a stranger, jumping on to a bus or sending their child to school without feeling real fear? Who can think of ordinary pleasure and not assess its risk? Who among us is not a quack epidemiologist, virologist, statistician and prophet? Which scientist or doctor is not secretly praying for a miracle? Which priest is not — secretly, at least — submitting to science?

And even while the virus proliferates, who could not be thrilled by the swell of birdsong in cities, peacocks dancing at traffic crossings and the silence in the skies?

The number of cases worldwide this week crept over a million. More than 50,000 people have died already. Projections suggest that number will swell to hundreds of thousands, perhaps more. The virus has moved freely along the pathways of trade and international capital, and the terrible illness it has brought in its wake has locked humans down in their countries, their cities and their homes.

But unlike the flow of capital, this virus seeks proliferation, not profit, and has, therefore, inadvertently, to some extent, reversed the direction of the flow. It has mocked immigration controls, biometrics, digital surveillance and every other kind of data analytics, and struck hardest — thus far — in the richest, most powerful nations of the world, bringing the engine of capitalism to a juddering halt. Temporarily perhaps, but at least long enough for us to examine its parts, make an assessment and decide whether we want to help fix it, or look for a better engine.

The mandarins who are managing this pandemic are fond of speaking of war. They don’t even use war as a metaphor, they use it literally. But if it really were a war, then who would be better prepared than the US? If it were not masks and gloves that its frontline soldiers needed, but guns, smart bombs, bunker busters, submarines, fighter jets and nuclear bombs, would there be a shortage

Night after night, from halfway across the world, some of us watch the New York governor’s press briefings with a fascination that is hard to explain. We follow the statistics, and hear the stories of overwhelmed hospitals in the US, of underpaid, overworked nurses having to make masks out of garbage bin liners and old raincoats, risking everything to bring succour to the sick. About states being forced to bid against each other for ventilators, about doctors’ dilemmas over which patient should get one and which left to die. And we think to ourselves, “My God! This is America!”

The tragedy is immediate, real, epic and unfolding before our eyes. But it isn’t new. It is the wreckage of a train that has been careening down the track for years. Who doesn’t remember the videos of “patient dumping” — sick people, still in their hospital gowns, butt naked, being surreptitiously dumped on street corners? Hospital doors have too often been closed to the less fortunate citizens of the US. It hasn’t mattered how sick they’ve been, or how much they’ve suffered.

At least not until now — because now, in the era of the virus, a poor person’s sickness can affect a wealthy society’s health. And yet, even now, Bernie Sanders, the senator who has relentlessly campaigned for healthcare for all, is considered an outlier in his bid for the White House, even by his own party.

And what of my country, my poor-rich country, India, suspended somewhere between feudalism and religious fundamentalism, caste and capitalism, ruled by far-right Hindu nationalists?

In December, while China was fighting the outbreak of the virus in Wuhan, the government of India was dealing with a mass uprising by hundreds of thousands of its citizens protesting against the brazenly discriminatory anti-Muslim citizenship law it had just passed in parliament.

The first case of Covid-19 was reported in India on January 30, only days after the honourable chief guest of our Republic Day Parade, Amazon forest-eater and Covid-denier Jair Bolsonaro, had left Delhi. But there was too much to do in February for the virus to be accommodated in the ruling party’s timetable. There was the official visit of President Donald Trump scheduled for the last week of the month. He had been lured by the promise of an audience of 1m people in a sports stadium in the state of Gujarat. All that took money, and a great deal of time.

Then there were the Delhi Assembly elections that the Bharatiya Janata Party was slated to lose unless it upped its game, which it did, unleashing a vicious, no-holds-barred Hindu nationalist campaign, replete with threats of physical violence and the shooting of “traitors”.

It lost anyway. So then there was punishment to be meted out to Delhi’s Muslims, who were blamed for the humiliation. Armed mobs of Hindu vigilantes, backed by the police, attacked Muslims in the working-class neighbourhoods of north-east Delhi. Houses, shops, mosques and schools were burnt. Muslims who had been expecting the attack fought back. More than 50 people, Muslims and some Hindus, were killed.

Thousands moved into refugee camps in local graveyards. Mutilated bodies were still being pulled out of the network of filthy, stinking drains when government officials had their first meeting about Covid-19 and most Indians first began to hear about the existence of something called hand sanitizer.

March was busy too. The first two weeks were devoted to toppling the Congress government in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh and installing a BJP government in its place. On March 11 the World Health Organization declared that Covid-19 was a pandemic. Two days later, on March 13, the health ministry said that corona “is not a health emergency”.

Finally, on March 19, the Indian prime minister addressed the nation. He hadn’t done much homework. He borrowed the playbook from France and Italy. He told us of the need for “social distancing” (easy to understand for a society so steeped in the practice of caste) and called for a day of “people’s curfew” on March 22. He said nothing about what his government was going to do in the crisis, but he asked people to come out on their balconies, and ring bells and bang their pots and pans to salute health workers.

He didn’t mention that, until that very moment, India had been exporting protective gear and respiratory equipment, instead of keeping it for Indian health workers and hospitals.

Not surprisingly, Narendra Modi’s request was met with great enthusiasm. There were pot-banging marches, community dances and processions. Not much social distancing. In the days that followed, men jumped into barrels of sacred cow dung, and BJP supporters threw cow-urine drinking parties. Not to be outdone, many Muslim organisations declared that the Almighty was the answer to the virus and called for the faithful to gather in mosques in numbers.

On March 24, at 8pm, Modi appeared on TV again to announce that, from midnight onwards, all of India would be under lockdown. Markets would be closed. All transport, public as well as private, would be disallowed.

He said he was taking this decision not just as a prime minister, but as our family elder. Who else can decide, without consulting the state governments that would have to deal with the fallout of this decision, that a nation of 1.38bn people should be locked down with zero preparation and with four hours’ notice? His methods definitely give the impression that India’s prime minister thinks of citizens as a hostile force that needs to be ambushed, taken by surprise, but never trusted.

Locked down we were. Many health professionals and epidemiologists have applauded this move. Perhaps they are right in theory. But surely none of them can support the calamitous lack of planning or preparedness that turned the world’s biggest, most punitive lockdown into the exact opposite of what it was meant to achieve.

The man who loves spectacles created the mother of all spectacles.

As an appalled world watched, India revealed herself in all her shame — her brutal, structural, social and economic inequality, her callous indifference to suffering.

The lockdown worked like a chemical experiment that suddenly illuminated hidden things. As shops, restaurants, factories and the construction industry shut down, as the wealthy and the middle classes enclosed themselves in gated colonies, our towns and megacities began to extrude their working-class citizens — their migrant workers — like so much unwanted accrual.

Many driven out by their employers and landlords, millions of impoverished, hungry, thirsty people, young and old, men, women, children, sick people, blind people, disabled people, with nowhere else to go, with no public transport in sight, began a long march home to their villages. They walked for days, towards Badaun, Agra, Azamgarh, Aligarh, Lucknow, Gorakhpur — hundreds of kilometres away. Some died on the way.

Our towns and megacities began to extrude their working-class citizens like so much unwanted accrual

They knew they were going home potentially to slow starvation. Perhaps they even knew they could be carrying the virus with them, and would infect their families, their parents and grandparents back home, but they desperately needed a shred of familiarity, shelter and dignity, as well as food, if not love.

As they walked, some were beaten brutally and humiliated by the police, who were charged with strictly enforcing the curfew. Young men were made to crouch and frog jump down the highway. Outside the town of Bareilly, one group was herded together and hosed down with chemical spray.

A few days later, worried that the fleeing population would spread the virus to villages, the government sealed state borders even for walkers. People who had been walking for days were stopped and forced to return to camps in the cities they had just been forced to leave.

Among older people it evoked memories of the population transfer of 1947, when India was divided and Pakistan was born. Except that this current exodus was driven by class divisions, not religion. Even still, these were not India’s poorest people. These were people who had (at least until now) work in the city and homes to return to. The jobless, the homeless and the despairing remained where they were, in the cities as well as the countryside, where deep distress was growing long before this tragedy occurred. All through these horrible days, the home affairs minister Amit Shah remained absent from public view.

When the walking began in Delhi, I used a press pass from a magazine I frequently write for to drive to Ghazipur, on the border between Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.

The scene was biblical. Or perhaps not. The Bible could not have known numbers such as these. The lockdown to enforce physical distancing had resulted in the opposite — physical compression on an unthinkable scale. This is true even within India’s towns and cities. The main roads might be empty, but the poor are sealed into cramped quarters in slums and shanties.

Every one of the walking people I spoke to was worried about the virus. But it was less real, less present in their lives than looming unemployment, starvation and the violence of the police. Of all the people I spoke to that day, including a group of Muslim tailors who had only weeks ago survived the anti-Muslim attacks, one man’s words especially troubled me. He was a carpenter called Ramjeet, who planned to walk all the way to Gorakhpur near the Nepal border.

“Maybe when Modiji decided to do this, nobody told him about us. Maybe he doesn’t know about us”, he said.

“Us” means approximately 460m people.

State governments in India (as in the US) have showed more heart and understanding in the crisis. Trade unions, private citizens and other collectives are distributing food and emergency rations. The central government has been slow to respond to their desperate appeals for funds. It turns out that the prime minister’s National Relief Fund has no ready cash available. Instead, money from well-wishers is pouring into the somewhat mysterious new PM-CARES fund. Pre-packaged meals with Modi’s face on them have begun to appear.

In addition to this, the prime minister has shared his yoga nidra videos, in which a morphed, animated Modi with a dream body demonstrates yoga asanas to help people deal with the stress of self-isolation.

The narcissism is deeply troubling. Perhaps one of the asanas could be a request-asana in which Modi requests the French prime minister to allow us to renege on the very troublesome Rafale fighter jet deal and use that €7.8bn for desperately needed emergency measures to support a few million hungry people. Surely the French will understand.

As the lockdown enters its second week, supply chains have broken, medicines and essential supplies are running low. Thousands of truck drivers are still marooned on the highways, with little food and water. Standing crops, ready to be harvested, are slowly rotting.

The economic crisis is here. The political crisis is ongoing. The mainstream media has incorporated the Covid story into its 24/7 toxic anti-Muslim campaign. An organisation called the Tablighi Jamaat, which held a meeting in Delhi before the lockdown was announced, has turned out to be a “super spreader”. That is being used to stigmatise and demonise Muslims. The overall tone suggests that Muslims invented the virus and have deliberately spread it as a form of jihad.

The Covid crisis is still to come. Or not. We don’t know. If and when it does, we can be sure it will be dealt with, with all the prevailing prejudices of religion, caste and class completely in place.

Today (April 2) in India, there are almost 2,000 confirmed cases and 58 deaths. These are surely unreliable numbers, based on woefully few tests. Expert opinion varies wildly. Some predict millions of cases. Others think the toll will be far less. We may never know the real contours of the crisis, even when it hits us. All we know is that the run on hospitals has not yet begun.

India’s public hospitals and clinics — which are unable to cope with the almost 1m children who die of diarrhoea, malnutrition and other health issues every year, with the hundreds of thousands of tuberculosis patients (a quarter of the world’s cases), with a vast anaemic and malnourished population vulnerable to any number of minor illnesses that prove fatal for them — will not be able to cope with a crisis that is like what Europe and the US are dealing with now.

All healthcare is more or less on hold as hospitals have been turned over to the service of the virus. The trauma centre of the legendary All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Delhi is closed, the hundreds of cancer patients known as cancer refugees who live on the roads outside that huge hospital driven away like cattle.

People will fall sick and die at home. We may never know their stories. They may not even become statistics. We can only hope that the studies that say the virus likes cold weather are correct (though other researchers have cast doubt on this). Never have a people longed so irrationally and so much for a burning, punishing Indian summer.

What is this thing that has happened to us? It’s a virus, yes. In and of itself it holds no moral brief. But it is definitely more than a virus. Some believe it’s God’s way of bringing us to our senses. Others that it’s a Chinese conspiracy to take over the world.

Whatever it is, coronavirus has made the mighty kneel and brought the world to a halt like nothing else could. Our minds are still racing back and forth, longing for a return to “normality”, trying to stitch our future to our past and refusing to acknowledge the rupture. But the rupture exists. And in the midst of this terrible despair, it offers us a chance to rethink the doomsday machine we have built for ourselves. Nothing could be worse than a return to normality.

Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.

We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.

Transvaluation of Values (Keith D'Souza, SJ)

The present crisis has served to transvalue the jaded values of our world:

Personally:
o   We have been compelled to slow down and to change our lifestyles
o   We realize how we have taken our many freedoms for granted
o   In a situation of scarce resources, we become more aware of, and grateful for the otherwise insignificant aspects and graces of life
Domestically:
o   There has never been as much time and opportunity to relate with our loved ones
o   The young have a better chance to express their playfulness and curiosity, and the old to offer their wisdom and care
Intellectually and academically:
o   Home-schooling and domestic value education may soon become the new normal
o   The development of personal skillsets may gradually supersede the need for a long, laborious, and often unfocused formal education
o   Educational and entertainment resources are shared more willingly, calling into question the notion of “intellectual property rights”
Economically:
o   We recognize how we have taken our services for granted: especially the hidden and underpaid services of manual, monotonous, “unskilled” and unorganized labour
o   We live in two intertwined nations: India and Bharat. We have overvalued and overpaid India, while exploiting Bharat to the utmost
Politically:
o   Geo-political boundaries and turf wars don’t make sense anymore: we are more interrelated and co-dependent than we think
o   Power lies at the peripheries, where local leaders and communities are better able to decide how to live life fully and in harmony with others
o   We are better able to distinguish between leaders who unite versus those who thrive on suspicion and division
Organizationally:
o   We can lighten our travel-based carbon footprint enormously, by hosting national and international meetings online
o   We could do more work from home, causing less local pollution and reducing unnecessary intensity, stress and hype related to work
Ethically:
o   Our new heroes are not those who have money, power, fame or educational degrees, but those who are willing to reach out and help
o   Our true character and values emerge in such crises, and are reflected in the choices we make, as persons and as communities
Environmentally:
o   The earth is slowly beginning to heal and rejuvenate itself
o   We are more able to recognize the presence and beauty of other life forms
Existentially:
o   We are obliged to consider the purpose and value of life, without being able to escape into our usual distractions and addictions
o   Perhaps the most important learning of all is our vulnerability: life is fragile and mysterious, and we are not entirely in control of it

We are neither masters of our destiny nor slaves of harsh natural forces: we have before us a chance to co-create a new set of values, lifestyles and relationships, based on our new learnings.

Wednesday, 11 December 2019

Burdens

“Come to me, all you who labour and are overburdened, and I will give you rest.”

In today’s gospel passage (Mt 11:28-30), Jesus invites us to go to him with our burdens and sorrows. So we should go to him and, indeed, we will find our rest. These are some of the most comforting and consoling words of the gospel. And Jesus means it.

Having met Jesus, people found new meaning in life and new ways of living. He restored their human dignity, helped them to overcome their obstacles, healed them, and forgave them. In short, Jesus freed them from their burdensome pasts, their troublesome lives.

All of us have our share of worries and anxieties. We even feel weighed down by our life at times. What about the sleepless nights that we have endured? What about the restlessness and the tensions that we may carry around? There might be times we carry our burdens without having time even to share them with our family members or close friends. We know life is beautiful, but at the same time life is difficult. The moment we are able to accept both these sides of life, we are able to live in relative peace and joy.

This is what Jesus offers us when he invites us to him. He doesn’t promise the removal of the yoke or of the burden. He rather tells us, “My yoke is easy and my burden light.” This is the effect of Jesus in our lives; he helps us to carry on with our lives joyfully. Amidst our sorrows, we will find joy and happiness.

Tensions are necessary for our growth. But we need to learn to hold them creatively. It seems that so very little is really resolved or solved, settled or answered. We live in the in-between, holding the tensions, discovering and even loving the paradoxes, realizing we ourselves are the contradictions. We ourselves really are the contradictions! The more we accept our condition the better and joyful our lives will be.

In other words, paradoxically, we need some tensions and problems to keep us going. A problem-free life is an illusion. Jesus helps us precisely to accept ourselves, and everything that may come our way—including our sufferings.

We too can have a Jesus-like effect on others who are suffering. If anyone starts to tell you of her worries, what do you do? Do you take time to listen to people in distress? Do you lighten the burdens of others? Do you give them comfort and consolation? Let us shoulder Christ’s yoke, and learn from him. Let us above all learn his gentleness and humility. Let us learn to live in exquisite, terrible humility before reality. How hard, but how sweet and beautiful!

“You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”

Wednesday, 6 November 2019

Love and Detachment

In the first reading, St Paul instructs his readers that the only debt they need to be in, is the debt of mutual love. Love is the summary of all the commandments. By loving our neighbours, we can fulfil the Law. In fact, when you give central place to love, many problems get settled. Love seems to be the only solution for all our problems—personal and social. To fight greed in oneself, one has to increase one's love. To deal with war and violence, we have to certainly use love. To be joyful, we have to open our hearts to love. To be fully human then is to be as loving as possible.

We do receive love, but at times we expect it from all the wrong places. There are few lies that we tell ourselves (and others too perhaps):

People should love me.
People should care for me.
People should not criticize me.
People should help me, support me.
People should respect me.
People should not hate me.
People should not misunderstand me.
People should appreciate me.
People should not judge me.

When you believe the myth that people should care for you, you’re too needy for their love. (This is not love, this is “co-dependency.”) The experience of love can’t come from outside; it can come only from inside you. When people truly love you, you know that they reflect something divine, which is actually inside you.

The only truth that we can be certain about is: God is good. God is love. God cares. God loves me.

Should others love me? Should people care for me? They are not proper questions. I should love myself. I should care for myself. If I receive love from others, that’s good, that’s not merely bonus, but the reflection of God’s love itself. The source of all love is God himself. Human love is only a reflection—though a poor, imperfect reflection—of divine love. So why should I overdepend on human love? I need only to depend on the Lord and His love.

This makes me responsible to give love to others. As I receive love day in and day out, minute after minute, so I need to pass this love to others.

If ever you come across any of the above lies in yourself, for instance, that people should love me. You could turn it around to give at least two true statements: I should love myself. I should love people.

St Paul’s advice in today’s reading is not empty, or haphazard. It comes in the context where he wants our love to be genuine and sincere, without any utilitarian or ulterior motives. And, moreover, we know that mutual love is not co-dependency. Reflecting on Paul’s words, we too could say the same: I realise that I am not loving very well. I am meeting only my needs, which is nothing but “co-dependency.” This kind of love is impure and self-seeking. Perhaps a lot of what we call love today is not love at all.

In the gospel reading, Jesus is even more radical. You need to give first place to God and to loving God. You can’t give that place any human person or thing. As disciple, you have to “deny” yourself and even “hate” your loved ones. Strong words! But they mean you can’t love anything or any person more than God, your Creator.

Also, poverty or detachment is at the very heart of the Gospel. Jesus asks his disciples to carry their cross if they want to follow him. He also says, “None of you can be my disciple unless you give up all your possessions.” God has to be the only treasure of a disciple; any attachment—to material possessions or persons—won’t make you a true or full disciple.

Saturday, 21 September 2019

Sinners

"I did not come to call the virtuous, but sinners."

As we celebrate the feast of St Matthew, tax collector turned apostle of Jesus, we could reflect on our Lord's attraction and attachment to sinners. In the Jewish religion at the time of Jesus, either one wasn't a sinner or was a sinner. It might have had a moral connotation, but it certainly signified a social category.

The majority of the people in Palestine of Jesus' time belonged to the lower class, who were poor. All sorts of people belonged to this class, such as orphans and widows, the blind, the crippled, and the mentally ill. Having no other means of livelihood, people with physical and mental handicaps became beggars. To this class also belonged outcasts. One can be an outcast without necessarily being poor economically. Such were tax collectors and sinners. The tax collectors were Jews who collected taxes from fellow Jews for the Roman Empire. They made their living by charging an extra amount. They were considered traitors who became wealthy by collaborating with Roman authorities at the expense of their own people. The sinners who are grouped with the tax collectors were not ordinary sinners. These were people who deliberately and persistently transgressed the requirements of the law. Included in this group would be money-lenders who charged interest on loans advanced to fellow Jews. Also in this group of sinners were prostitutes.

Yet, Jesus apparently associated with such people at dinner parties. The Pharisees charged that Jesus was "a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Luke 7:34). It's not hard to see why the Pharisees and others were upset that Jesus had table fellowship with people who were morally questionable. These individuals were profiting by disobeying the command of God and betraying their own people. They were what the Old Testament calls the wicked, unworthy to be part of the people of God.

What infuriated the Pharisees was that Jesus had accepted this category of the wicked as they were, and was freely having dinner with them without requiring that they first clean up their lives. Jesus' message was not, "Straighten up your life and keep the law." Rather, his message was, "The kingdom of God is yours; you are included." By eating with them, he was extending to them the kingdom of God.

When we read about the protest of the Pharisees, we are quick to condemn them and to side with Jesus. But if Jesus were physically present in our world today, would we as church people be comfortable if he spent his time with cheats and swindlers, thieves and 420-s, LGBTQIA+? Would we be okay if he rejoiced and danced at the Supreme Court's decriminalization of same-sex? Would we not be infuriated if he constantly went to their dinner parties and just occasionally turning up at ours? Jesus seems completely fit for an excommunication case! But that is whom we follow. A man who shattered all boundaries, who loved without boundaries, who broke all possible rules just to befriend a person, just to express God's boundless love and forgiveness!

When we pray the second part of the "Hail Mary": Pray for us "sinners," do we really mean it? Before participating in the Holy Communion we say "I am unworthy." Do we really mean this? Or do we add mental footnotes to our unworthiness: But I am not like that murderer, or that rapist, or that criminal. I am a sinner, but not like "that" sinner.

Pope Francis when asked in his first interview after being elected Pontiff, "Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?" he told us: “I am a sinner. This is the most accurate definition. It is not a figure of speech.” Before hearing confessions in St Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis kneels in confession himself—because one cannot accompany a suffering world without acknowledging one’s own faults.

We are part of the evil that we are fighting against. We are part of the sin that we condemn. There is a certain amount of projection on my part when I am able to see sin outside of me. If we don’t own our own evil, we will always project it elsewhere and attack it there. Our Lord by "eating with sinners" is inviting us to a greater integration and also integrity, which is often a willingness to hold the dark side of things instead of reacting against them, denying them, or anxiously projecting them elsewhere.

Welcome to the communion of sinners!

Sunday, 21 July 2019

Staying Close to Jesus

Every three years on this Sunday we hear this brief story of Martha and Mary. We hear it every year in the daily celebration at Mass and usually during the first full week of October.

Maybe we find this event in the lives of Martha and Mary a little confusing. Are we supposed to spend our lives as followers of the Lord sitting at the feet of Jesus? That sounds like the advice we get. Set aside your work and sit down with Jesus. It sounds like a beautiful invitation, and it is. But it’s not the only invitation and example we have.

Abraham and Sarah served the Lord in service and hospitality. The meal was carefully prepared, and the hosts attended to the visitors’ comfort. That was our first reading today. Moses led the people from the slavery in Egypt and gave them the law of God. David was a warrior and a king. Jeremiah spoke words of truth to the powerful and words of hope to the faithful. Paul served the Lord in preaching, prayer, travel, suffering, and writing. We have lots of examples of people of faith who were active in the service of the Lord in the Scriptures. We have lots of examples of great saints in our history who were active is so many things. We have lots of examples of people in our community who share their lives and share their faith serving the poor, teaching those who want to learn, caring for the sick, and welcoming the stranger. With the great examples from the Scriptures, the saints, and our own community, we could be still a little confused about the story of Martha and Mary. What are we supposed to do?

Maybe we can look at it differently. Maybe we can look at Martha and Mary and focus not on what they are doing, but simply on where they are. Martha and Mary are close to Jesus. Serving and sitting, they are close to Jesus. Sitting and serving, Mary and Martha are near the Lord. And whether we are sitting or serving, whether we are busy about many things or focused on only one thing, we are near the Lord Jesus.

In the celebration of the Eucharist, we are close to Jesus. We admit our faults and meet his mercy. We listen to his Word and we offer our prayers. We bring the sacrifice of our lives, the offering of the many things we are busy about, and we unite them to sacrifice of Jesus. And the Lord Jesus gives us the gift of himself. He feeds us with his Body and Blood and strengthens us to sit with him and to serve him. Sitting or serving, we will stay close to Jesus.

There is no comparison between Martha and Mary here. We should not play out Martha against Mary, or Mary against Martha, neither when judging the lives of others nor our own life. The ideal is to combine the two attitudes Mary and Martha symbolize. “Ora et Labora” is the old saying you often see in monasteries and convents: “Pray and Work.”

We need both Martha and Mary; both action and contemplation. The most important word in this is neither action nor even contemplation, but “and.” There is no apostleship (sending out) without discipleship (being with Jesus).

Even in our dynamism, we need to keep a listening or contemplative heart. Jesus never asked Martha to come and sit down with Mary and himself. But only one thing was missing in Martha. She was most likely not present to herself, she was not present to her own feelings of resentment, perhaps her own martyr complex, her complaining attitude. If she was not present to herself, Martha could not be present to her guests in any healing way, and spiritually speaking, she could not even be present to God. Presence is of one piece. How you are present to anything is how you are present to everything. How you are present to anything is how you are present to God, loved ones, strangers, those who are suffering. To repeat, unless you are present to yourself, you can’t be present to others, or to God.

Aren’t we many times like Martha “distracted” with all our serving? We are serving the Lord, but we are distracted. Martha is doing the reasonable, hospitable thing—rushing around, fixing, preparing, and as the text brilliantly says, “distracted with all the serving.”

Jesus doesn’t lose the occasion to affirm Mary, “who sat at his feet listening to him speak.” Mary knows how to be present to him and, presumably, to herself. She understands the one thing that makes all other things happen at a deeper and healing level. Prayer is not one of the ten thousand things, but it is the one thing necessary to see all those ten thousand things. It is the presence that is needed to live those ten thousand things in a healing way.

There should be a balance between word and deed, between talk and action, between prayer and work. Both are important. The two belong together; they are interwoven. Yet, let us not lose sight of the priority of prayer or contemplation. Our actions should rather be an overflow of our contemplation, our communion with God and the world. The quality of our lives should define the quantitative activities of our lives. Otherwise it may be mere restlessness or impatience, and a presence that may not be healing.

Without a Mary’s attitude we can land into an idolatry of words and actions. Without a Mary’s attitude we can be serving ourselves instead of serving Jesus.

That is the one thing necessary! To have a listening heart even in our active moments. To stay close to Jesus. To stay close to Jesus we need both serving and sitting. And let them be done in a healing way.

Saturday, 20 July 2019

Faith Journey


Today’s first reading describes the beginning of the long journey out of Egypt to the Promised Land by way of Mount Sinai. The journey began in the city of Rameses in the very north of Egypt, where the Hebrews had been employed virtually as slaves in the Pharaoh’s great construction works. They set off for Succoth which lay to the south-east about half way between Rameses and the Sea of Reeds.

However, they had left in such a rush that the flour they had with them had no time to be leavened, so they made bread with the unleavened flour. They left in such a rush that they did not even have time to prepare any proper food for their journey.

It was the end of a long sojourn in Egypt – estimated by the Bible as 430 years – from the time Joseph had first invited his family to settle there. It was seen as the greatest event in the history of Israel. They had also started on their journey by night so future celebrations of the event were forever more to be observed by a vigil. “This was a night vigil for the Lord, as he led them out of the land of Egypt; so on this same night all the Israelites must keep a vigil for the Lord throughout their generations.”

And, as we have seen, it will be the foreshadowing of a much greater Passover, a more significant vigil to come – the Christian Easter Vigil.

In the gospel reading we see that Jesus has become a figure of controversy. We saw yesterday how he was accused by Pharisees of condoning the breaking of the sabbath on the part of his disciples. Far from apologising, Jesus defended his followers and implied that he himself was greater than the Law. Immediately afterwards he went to a synagogue and, in spite of a challenge about healing on the sabbath, went ahead and cured a physically handicapped man.

At the end of this story, Matthew says, “The Pharisees went out and began to plot against him, discussing how to destroy him.” He was seen as a severe threat to their authority. And that is where our reading begins today.

Jesus was fully aware of their plotting and so he disappeared from sight for a while. We should be clear that Jesus did not go out of his way to confront and attack people. Still less was his behaviour deliberately designed to create trouble for himself. There are people like that; they go out of their way to make trouble for others and for themselves. Jesus never behaved in such a way. He did not want to attack or be attacked by certain people. He did not deliberately engineer his own sufferings and death; quite the contrary. So now, as things get hot for him, he withdraws for a while.

At this point, Matthew, who, we remember is writing for a Jewish audience, shows how Jesus’ behaviour corresponds to a prophecy in the Old Testament. This is something he does a number of times.

The passage is from the prophet Isaiah (42:1-4) and it shows Jesus as full of the Spirit of God campaigning for justice for peoples everywhere. He is the servant whom God has chosen, “my beloved in whom I delight. He will not contend or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets.” He moves around quietly and, at the same time, is tolerant and understanding of the weak. His behaviour is described beautifully as, “The bruised reed he will not crush; the smouldering wick he will not quench.”

We, too, are called to live and proclaim the Gospel without compromise but to do so without any taint of arrogance or bullying and, at the same time, with patience and understanding for those who are not yet ready to answer Jesus’ call. As the Israelites started their journey towards the promised land with faith, may we also start/continue our faith journey with gentleness, patience and compassion.

Friday, 19 July 2019

The Passover

For today’s first reading we have the passage of the institution of the Passover. We have skipped several chapters of Exodus to come to today’s reading.

The sufferings of the Hebrews became intolerable and eventually God sent what we call the Ten Plagues on Egypt in order to persuade the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews leave. After each one, his heart hardened and he refused to the let God’s people go.

With these plagues we are coming to the great finale and the high point of the Exodus story. Nine plagues inflicted on Egypt have not softened Pharaoh’s heart and “he would not let the Israelites leave his land”.

The Hebrews are now told to prepare for the final catastrophe with which God will strike the Egyptians. The passage consists of formal instructions to a later generation on how to celebrate the great event that is about to take place. The instructions are presented as coming from God to Moses and Aaron.

First, the month in which it is taking place is from now on to be regarded as the first month of the year.  On the 10th day of that month each family is to procure for itself a lamb. If a family is too small to finish one lamb, then it can join with another family and they can share the lamb between them, including perhaps the cost of purchasing it. The lamb must be male, one-year old and free from any blemish. It may be a sheep or a goat.

The animal is to be kept until the 14th day of the month, then it is to be slaughtered in the presence of all the assembled Hebrews. In every house where the lamb is to be eaten, its blood is to be applied on the doorposts and lintel of the house. This, in a way, was the most important requirement.

On the night of the 14th day of the month, the same evening on which it had been slaughtered, the roasted flesh of the lamb will be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The animal is to be roasted, not to be eaten raw or boiled, and the whole animal, including head, limbs and internal organs is to be roasted as one.

Nothing must be kept over till the following morning. Anything that is uneaten is to be burnt. It is to be eaten standing, with loins girt (that is, with clothes belted), wearing sandals and with a walking staff in one hand. In other words, the meal is to be taken like people preparing to make a hasty departure.

And it is to be called the Passover of the Lord. On this very night, the Lord would go through Egypt and strike down every first-born in the land, humans and animals alike, and thus pass judgement on all the gods of Egypt. But, because the blood of the lambs has been smeared on all the houses of the Hebrews, when the Lord sees the blood, he will pass over, or skip over, those houses and no harm will come to them. Hence the name of the feast.

Then comes the final instruction to Hebrews of every future generation: “This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the Lord, as a perpetual institution.” An instruction which Jews continue to observe to this day.

For us Christians all this has great meaning because we see in it a foreshadowing of another Passover which Jesus celebrated with his disciples. It took place at the same time as the celebration of the traditional Jewish Passover but, because of what immediately followed, it was seen as the sacramental anticipation of the new Passover in which Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb whose blood poured out becomes the instrument of our salvation and liberation.

It is significant that, in the descriptions of the Last Supper, no gospel mentions the lamb as the main dish. There is now a New Passover Lamb – Jesus himself. And in the eating of the Bread and the drinking of the Wine, those present had ‘eaten’ and ‘drunk’ of the Lamb.