Theories of Reality

What is epistemology? What is metaphysics? These two questions can be simplified by asking, What is truth? and What is real (reality)? Knowing is a complex process of experiencing, understanding, and judging through which we attain truth. Through our knowing we attain the known, i.e., being (= reality). (It is more proper to say that we know by what we are.) But what is the nature of being that is known? There are many theories of reality that answer this question, we shall deal with a few of them.

(a) Monism, Dualism, and Pluralism

Monism
Monism comes from the Greek term monos meaning one, oneness, single, or without division. It is the metaphysical or theological view that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions, and a unified set of laws underlie all of nature. That is, the universe at the deepest level of analysis is one or composed of one fundamental kind of stuff. Monism is against the views of dualism (that reality is two) and pluralism (that reality is many).

Monism is also based on the concept of monad, derived from monos. The pre-Socratic philosophers describe reality as monistic, i.e., consisting of a monad, or one substance. For Thales reality is made of water; for Anaximander reality is made of apeiron (the undefined infinite); for Anaximenes reality is composed of air; for Heraclitus fire; and for Parmenides the reality consists of One (an unmoving perfect sphere, unchanging and undivided).

There are many types of monism. One way to divide monism is into (1) abstract monism and (2) concrete monism. Another way to divide is into (1) substantial monism [one thing], (2) attributive monism [one category], and (3) absolute monism [one being]. Yet another way to classify monism is into (1) idealistic monism or mentalistic monism [mind is all that exists], (2) materialistic monism [one reality is matter], (3) neutral monism [one primal substance is neither mental nor physical], and (4) reflexive monism [one basic stuff manifests both physically and as conscious experience].

Abstract Monism
Benedict (or Baruch) Spinoza (1632-1677) is a typical exponent of abstract monism. For him the One Substance is God. In other words, God is the only reality according to Spinoza. Spinoza accepts Descartes’ definition of substance “as that which exists in itself and is conceived by itself.” God is the only being that exists in Himself and is conceived by Himself. Therefore, God is the only substance.

Though Spinoza accepts Descartes’ definition of substance, he does not recognise matter and mind as substances, because they do not exist in themselves.

God or substance is an absolute indeterminate being. Determination implies negation and limitation. To ascribe some some qualities is to deny other qualities of it. God is infinite, absolute, unqualified, attributeless. He is both unqualified substance, and also infinitely qualified substance. (This is how the human intellect understands this, as having an infinite number of attributes.)

God, according to Spinoza, has infinite thought and infinite extension. In Him modes are infinite: motion, intellect, and will are without beginning or end. Moreover, God is the causal chain or process, the law and structure of the world, the underlying condition of all things. He is the immanent cause of all things, not extraneous. “All is God; all lives and moves in God.”

In our evaluation, Spinoza lands into pantheism which in turn leads to acosmism and illusionism. Such a thought denies human freedom and saps the very foundation of morality. Furthermore, religion thus becomes a myth because God is just Substance without knowledge or will or purpose, or love or grace.

Spinoza’s monism is right insofar as it recognises the reality of one substance or God. It is wrong insofar as it denies the reality of many objects and minds.

Concrete Monism
G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) is a typical exponent of concrete monism, which regards both One and many as real. He identifies God with the Absolute Mind. God is an identity-in-difference, unity-in-diversity, one-in-many.

Hegel considers Nature, Finite minds, and God to be all real. According to him, Nature or the world is the externalization of the Absolute Mind. There is no world without God, and no God without the world. God is both immanent in and transcendent of the world.

Secondly, Finite minds are the finite reproduction of the Absoulte Mind through the medium of human organisms. They share in the thought and freedom of the Absolute Mind; they have relative and limited freedom but genuine. This entails spontaneity and creativity. The human person, moreover, can have communion with God. So prayer and worship become possible.

Thirdly, God is the Supreme Person. He is not an impersonal force. He is the Absolute Spirit, the source and goal of finite minds and nature. He is not an abstract One, but a concrete unity which is expressed in different objects and minds.

According to Hegel, matter is the lowest degree of God’s manifestation. We can see an increase in gradation with regard to the manifestation of the Absolute Spirit. If matter forms the lowest rung of such an evolutionary stage, life, animal mind and human mind form the successive stages.

Individual mind is the subjective mind; society is the objective mind; God is the absolute mind.

Hegel, in our evaluation, is right when he considers God as real, and also many as real. Finite minds and nature (as many) are real. We need to appreciate Hegel in explaining the relative freedom of the finite minds, their morality and religion. Other positive points are evolution, teleology of nature, transcendence and immanence of God in relation to the universe and finite minds.

However, an overemphasis of the immanence of God in nature and history minimizes the relative freedom of finite spirits and seems to regard them merely as His puppets in the world drama.

The elements of chance, contingency, freedom, creativity, disorder, evil, change, progress, and values all need to be explained better in Hegel’s thought.

Dualism
Now, let us move on to our second topic: dualism. Dualism implies there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles. If monism talks of “one,” dualism talks of “two.”

Plato advocated dualism and believed in two fundamental realities, viz., God and matter (hyle). The Creator, or God, creates the world according to the Idea as the pattern which He follows. The God of Plato is the Idea of the Good, the highest in the hierarchy of Ideas. The Idea of the Good is the absolute Idea, the One, the Lord of the spiritual world, as the sun is the lord of the visible world. So it is identical with God. He is the most real, because the Idea is supremely real. God, or the Idea of the Good, is the absolute Idea, pure reason free from matter and evil. He is supreme wisdom beyond human understanding. He is eternal source of truth, good, and beauty. He is the supreme good. God therefore cannot create evil; He is the highest law, supreme law-giver, supreme justice. Thus the Idea becomes the formative principle, a creative being.

Matter or hyle, in comparison to the Idea, is non-being. In fact, out of the matter the Idea forms the sensible, material world. Matter is the primal, original matter but it is not corporeal. It is capable of becoming corporeal through the action of the Idea. It is indeterminate, unlimited, qualified. It is indefinable, formless, imperceptible matrix of sensible objects through the plastic action of the Idea of the Good or God, the Creator.

Critical Evaluation of Dualism
If there are two co-eternal realities of equal strength, conflicting with each other, one will ultimately overpower the other and rule over the universe. If God overpowers matter, then evil and imperfection will be eliminated, and good will prevail. If, on the other hand, matter overpowers God, then good, truth, and beauty will be eliminated; and moral evil, error, and ugliness will prevail. But both these contingencies appear to be improbable. Therefore, we cannot accept dualism as a theory of reality. Dualism, ditheism, or dualistic theism is an unsatisfactory metaphysical position.

Pluralism
Pluralism is the anti-thesis of monism. It is a theory that states reality is manifold, plural, many. Monism starts with One, and derives many from it. But pluralism starts with many, and derives unity from them. In other words, monism derives plurality from unity, whereas pluralism derives unity from plurality. Pluralism, therefore, stresses on the individuals and their functions in the organisation of the world. It stresses its manifoldness and variety, its infinite diversities and novelties. Pluralism formerly took two forms: materialistic and spiritualistic. Materialistic pluralism regards the individual entities as material; spiritualistic pluralism regards them as spiritualism. Atomism is materialistic pluralism; monadism is spiritualistic pluralism.

Greek Atomism
Democritus, an ancient Greek philosopher and disciple of Leucippus, propounds the theory that the world is composed of material atoms. These atoms are endowed with perpetual motion; motion is their essence. They do not receive motion from any external agent; they move about, combine with others, and form physical objects as a result of the combination. They have no design or purpose. Democritus also states that the atoms are eternal. The world was not created by God. Rather, the atoms combined to form the world. Mind and soul are made of finest, smoothest, nimblest atoms. Brain is the seat of thought; liver is the seat of desires; and heart is the seat of feelings and emotions.

Another exponent of atomism is Epicurus. According to him, the world is neither created nor destroyed; it is composed of atoms moving in empty space, which have weight. Mechanical causes explain the world. Final causes are not necessary to account for its unity. The soul is material and composed of exceedingly fine matter. It is destroyed with the body.

Monadism
Leibnitz is the father of spiritualistic pluralism which assumes the form of monadism. According to him, the ultimate units of the reality are are spiritual atoms or forces called "monads." Monads are unextended, immaterial substances, spiritual atoms, which are essentially self-active in nature: they are metaphysical points as opposed to physical and mathematical points. Monads are self-active and develop from within. They are self-existent and self-centred entities. They are "windowless": no influence can come into them and no influence can pass out of them. They were created by God, the Monad of monads, and pre-adjusted to one another. This pre-established harmony accounts for correspondence among them and correspondence between body and mind.

(b) Realism and Idealism
There are various types of realism that answer the questions: What do we know? What is the nature of the being that is known? Do we know external objects or subjective ideas? Let us now discuss a few types of realism and idealism.

Realism
Realism is the doctrine which recognizes the reality of the external world independent of minds. We shall here discuss two types of realism: naive or popular realism and scientific or critical realism.

Naive or Popular Realism
According to naive realism, our ideas are exact copies of the external real things and their qualities. All the qualities of matter are real and objective existences in nature; they exist in things themselves. Thus colour, taste, smell, heat and cold are as much absolute and objective qualities of things as extension, impenetrability, motion, rest, solidity and the like are. Extension, solidity, etc., are called primary qualities, while colour, taste, etc., are called secondary qualities.

Primary qualities are thought to be properties of objects that are independent of any observer, such as solidity, extension, motion, number and figure. These characteristics convey facts. They exist in the thing itself, can be determined with certainty, and do not rely on subjective judgments. For example, if a ball is spherical, no one can reasonably argue that it is triangular.

Secondary qualities are thought to be properties that produce sensations in observers, such as color, taste, smell, and sound. They can be described as the effect things have on certain people. Knowledge that comes from secondary qualities does not provide objective facts about things.

Primary qualities are measurable aspects of physical reality. Secondary qualities are subjective.

Scientific or Critical Realism
John Locke advocates scientific or critical realism, which draws a distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities of matter. He regards the former as real and objective qualities of matter, whereas he regards the latter as only subjective states or ideas of our mind. For example, what is sweet to one is bitter to another. Heat and cold are very subjective. Therefore, secondary qualities are not objective qualities, rather they are subjective modes of our sensibility. Colours, sound, odours, tastes, temperatures, etc., cannot exist apart from our sensibility. They are sensations. They do not belong to the objects themselves. But, on the other hand, primary qualities of motion, solidity, etc., belong to the physical objects themselves. They are universal and permanent. Therefore, according to scientific realism (also called empiricism by some) our ideas are representations of actual realities only in respect to secondary qualities of matter.

Idealism
According to idealism, the ideal is the real and the real is the ideal. Idealism denies the reality of external objects independent of the knowing minds. The mind is the primary reality. According to idealism, reality is the projection of our ideas / our mind.

Subjective Idealism
George Berkeley is the advocate of subjective idealism (also considered by some a type of empiricism). According to him, esse est percipi (Existence is perception). Berkeley states matter is a cluster of qualities (primary and secondary). Both primary and secondary qualities, for him, are subjective ideas of the mind. Thus the world is just a projection of our ideas or perceptions. Now,  according to Berkeley, these ideas or perceptions are not created by ourselves, but are communicated to us by God. God is the cause of our sensations. Berkeley, moreover, denies the existence of the external world. But is he a solipsist? (Solipsism means: I don't know anything beyond myself and my ideas. Each person is shut up to herself alone, souls ipse.) Since Berkeley at least maintains that it is God who creates the sensations in us, we can say that he does not deny the possibility of objects or being outside one's own mind. Thus Berkeley is not to be considered a solipsist.

Critical Idealism
Here we shall discuss the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. He divides reality into phenomena (things-as-perceived) and noumena (things-in-themselves). According to him, we can only know phenomena. Though noumena exist outside and are independent of the mind, they are unknown, they cannot be known. We know only phenomena or appearances, through pure reason or theoretical reason.

According to Kant's critical idealism (also called transcendental idealism), our mind has categories of understanding. Category for him does not mean a classificatory division, but a pure concept of understanding, it is a condition of possibility of objects (knowing them). Therefore our mind is not a tabula rasa (blank slate). It has categories like substance, causality, number, reality, sensation, etc., within a framework of space and time. Hence we can only know impressions and sensations (phenomena), not reality in itself.

Moreover, it also implies that there is no mind-independent world. The order we see, the world we experience are all dependent on our mind. There is not order out there, but it is I who give order. For example, if I talk of planetary "system," such an order or system is imposed by my mind onto reality. Co-existence, succession, substance, quality, cause, effect, unity, plurality: all these do not exist in things themselves, they are contributions of the mind. (Two people meet with an accident in the same place and at the same time. One becomes bitter about that experience, the other becomes better, positive, etc., as a result of the same accident which has made the first one bitter. How is this possible?)

Idealism of Absolute Identity
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775–1854) is, along with J.G. Fichte and G.W.F. Hegel, one of the three most influential thinkers in the tradition of ‘German Idealism’. Schelling was born in Leonberg near Stuttgart on 27 January 1775. He attended a Protestant seminary in Tübingen from 1790 to 1795. For some time, he was a close friend of Hegel. He changed his thinking so often, that it is difficult to attribute one specific philosophic conception to him.

Though influenced by Fichte, Schelling was more interested in Nature than Fichte himself. Schelling therefore propounded a theory of Absolute Identity of Subject and Object (Nature). On the one hand, the Absolute as Subject gives rise to finite subjects with human consciousness. On the other hand, the Absolute as Object gives rise to finite objects which in human consciousness move towards the Spirit.

Schelling’s standpoint is more pantheistic than Fichte’s, since he upheld the ultimate Identity of subjects in a Subject, of objects in an Object, and of Subject and Object in an Absolute Identity. And more importantly, he landed into an eclecticism: he tried too many disparate views, that not even the mysticism of St. John could provide him with the platform to realise his eclectic dream. Hegel’s criticism is that Schelling’s Absolute is like a dark night in which all the cows look black. Hegel in his turn will try to show clearly all the distinctions within the Absolute.

Objective or Absolute Idealism
The thought of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)  can be termed as objective idealism or absolute idealism. Hegel can be considered as “The German Philosopher.” The greatest German philosopher since Kant. The most systematic of the post-Kantian idealists, Hegel attempted, throughout his published writings as well as in his lectures, to elaborate a comprehensive and systematic ontology from a “logical” starting point. He is perhaps most well-known for his teleological account of history, an account which was later taken over by Marx and “inverted” into a materialist theory of an historical development culminating in communism.

Born in 1770 in Stuttgart, Hegel spent the years 1788–1793 as a theology student in nearby Tübingen, forming friendships there with fellow students, the future great romantic poet Friedrich Hölderlin (1770–1843) and Friedrich von Schelling (1775–1854), who, like Hegel, would become one of the major figures of the German philosophical scene in the first half of the nineteenth century. First, he was a journalist, then a principal of High School, finally a Professor of Philosophy and Rector of the University of Berlin. Some of his works are: The Phenomenology of the Mind (1807), The Science of Logic (1812-1816), The Philosophy of Right (1821), The Philosophy of History (posthumous).

His Triadic Division of Philosophy
Hegel divides philosophy into: Logic, the Philosophy of Spirit and the Philosophy of Nature. His vision of reality envisages an Absolute (Logos or Idea) which manifests itself in a triadic process of dialectic: Nature (the World) and the Finite mind or spirit (in effect, the human spirit) are the fields in which this Absolute unfolds or realises itself. We need to realise that all these divisions are for unity and unification. “Philosophy is concerned with the whole and the true is the whole.”

Consequently, Hegel criticises Kant for having encouraged too many divisions in philosophy: phenomenon and noumenon, sensibility and understanding, and so on. Moreover, Hegel envisaged the Absolute not as the vanishing-point of all differences, not even an impenetrable something existing above and beyond all differences but something constructed out of the reconciliation of them all: identity-in-difference.

His Philosophy of God
Hegel does not hesitate to speak of the Absolute as God. The Absolute, according to him, is “self-thinking thought.” These are the words of Aristotle for God. This Absolute is dynamic: it is being (thesis), non-being (antithesis), and also becoming (synthesis). That is, it is in a process of self-development. “The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.” Reality is dynamic. If Absolute is God, then Nature is Creation.

For Hegel, Christianity is the highest level of religious awakening. The first stage of religious awakening is the moment of “natural” religion, where the divine is seen in the sensible things of nature - in plants, trees, stones, and animals. In the second stage, the divine is seen in anthropomorphic statues, as in Greek religion. Finally, in Christianity, the “absolute religion,” the Absolute Spirit is seen and recognised as the pure Spirit. Religion, even Christianity, is in the second stage. Christianity must shed its pictorial language and be elevated into the still higher sphere of philosophy.

The Absolute is Spirit. Hegel states this is the highest definition of the Absolute. All religion and science have striven to reach this point. Now, Nature in itself is divine but its being does not correspond with its concept. It is self-alienated spirit, or God in his otherness.

Hegel often writes of the State in the most exalted terms. More than once he explicitly hails it as God. It is the highest manifestation of the objective spirit, also expressed in the two inferior movements of the family and civil society. But this is the State in its ideal essence and is in no way ever immune from error. At the same time, private freedom was important for Hegel.

His Philosophy of the World
Though there are texts in Hegel to suggest that Nature is the free creation of a personal God, we must claim that according to Hegel the Absolute manifests itself in Nature necessarily, not freely. There are three stages of Nature, of which one proceeds necessarily from the other. They are: Mathematics/Mechanics, Physics, and Organics (Organic Physics). As we move from mathematics through physics to organics, we move from space to organism. In animal organisms, the subjectivity is not yet self-consciousness.

His Philosophy of the Human Person
Hegel makes a distinction between the following: subjective spirit, objective spirit, and absolute spirit. The first two are finite, the last is the Absolute Spirit. (“Geist” can be translated as either “mind” or “spirit.”)

The emergence of freedom is of key importance for the philosophy of Hegel. In fact, the basic difference between Nature and Spirit is that while necessity reigns over the former, Spirit is the sphere of freedom. As the Absolute Spirit objectifies or expresses itself in Nature, so also the human spirit expresses itself in the world--again, in three stages. First, there emerges the notion of right, whereby the individual expresses her awareness of freedom with regard to material things. Second, is the notion of contract, whereby an individual can enter into an agreement with others to buy or sell property.  Third, there emerges the notion of wrong (or crime), for free beings can dishonour or break contracts that they have made.

Next, Hegel makes a distinction between morality and ethics. He looks into the interior of the human person and asks which actions of hers are to be considered morally imputable to her. There are three aspects here again: past purpose and intention and conscience. This last stage leads us to ethics. And ethical substance is made up of three concrete moments: family, civil society, and the state.

With regard to Hegel’s political thought, we can reiterate again his deification (divinisation) of the State, which is the highest expression of objective spirit. But even this must be interpreted within the context of his metaphysics. Moreover, the State is the objectification of a people’s culture and values--in short, its spirit. Hegel also saw war as a justifiable and necessary means, when treaties (contracts) between states have been broken. War, for Hegel, was also an inevitable moment in the dialectic of history: a necessary means to rejuvenate the spirit of a people and to remove dead systems.

Another important point here is Hegel’s conception of history. Perhaps no contemporary thinker has done so much to advance the cause of the philosophy of history as Hegel. He recognises three basic ways of writing history: original history (first-hand account of events), reflective history (presentation of events outside historian’s experience), and philosophical history (thoughtful consideration of history). Hegel’s philosophy of history, in sum, bears out the truth that world-history is but the self-unfolding of Spirit.

The divine Spirit is manifested in history as World-Spirit (Weltgeist). And the encounter with the World-Spirit must be sought through an examination of the spirt of a people (Volkgeist). Hegel’s philosophy of art is part of the last stage in the dialectic of the spirit.

Social and Political Ideas

In this unit we shall deal with the following topics:
(a) Liberty and Equality
(b) Fraternity
(c) Justice

The four concepts given above are democratic ideals. With the French revolution (1789) arose the idea of a people's reign (a democracy) with the triad "liberty, equality, and fraternity." This revolution meant an end to monarchy and the birth of a democracy (though it took many years to establish the same in practice). And we need to remember that democracy is still a work in progress. The Preamble of the Indian Constitutions the above four democratic ideals, besides others. These four seem to be fundamental values that have become the political constructs of many a nation, but also they have become essential social movements throughout history.

The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains the democratic ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another is a spirit of brotherhood."

(a) Liberty and Equality

Liberty
The rule of monarchs (kings and queens) and emperors sometimes meant the sacrifice of personal freedoms. To correct this democracy as system was ushered in to bring about order in society where personal freedoms are preserved. Liberty is the first democratic ideal. Other terms for liberty are freedom, independence, liberation. Liberty or freedom means freedom for all, not just for an individual.  It does not mean licentiousness, or doing whatever one wishes to do. It is not an encouragement of laissez-faire attitude. (Or one may say that social and political freedom is greater to individual freedom.) Freedom therefore entails responsibility; they should go hand in hand as rights and duties should go hand in hand to ensure order; otherwise there will be only chaos. The individual and the society (state) are mutually interdependent on each other, they help each other; otherwise the relationship will be parasitic. A wrong understanding of liberty may lead to liberalism and individualism.

Now freedom regards both the external and internal aspects of the human person. External freedom signifies giving freedom to people, and not keeping them under the yoke of slavery or oppression. For instance, giving freedom to scientists would mean that they have their freedom of research; similarly with teachers, universities, etc. Internal freedom, on the other hand, concerns the free will of the human person. Atoms, animals, plants don't have this freedom. Only humans can talk of a free will, where s/he can choose what she wants, s/he has the capacity to opt in or opt out when faced with two or more alternatives.

Similarly, we can speak of a freedom from and a freedom for. Freedom from would signify freedom from slavery, oppression, torture, unjust treatment, etc. Freedom for indicates a freedom for making oneself; it is self-constitution, self-determination. Freedom is for achieving one's dreams, to grow, to develop, to progress, to decide for oneself, to actualize oneself -- it is for one's free development of capacity and talents, self-actualization.

Equality
Remember the humorous statement of the pigs in George Orwell's The Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal." Equality is one ideal that needs a lot of our understanding. Some say that equality is the most controversial of all the political ideals. Let us try to grasp the basic meaning of equality.

Equality is the state or quality of being equal. Social equality, in particular, would imply that all people have the same status. In the context of the Indian constitutions, technically there is no difference between the President of India and the last man on the street with regard to their rights; both are equal. "Equality" signifies, as in the name itself suggest, a "quality"; it signifies a qualitative relationship.

Therefore, it should not be confused with identity. When I say "All are equal" it does not mean that "All are identical" or "All are same." Equality entails similarity and not sameness. If I say the morning star is equal to the evening star, it means (and I'd better say that) they are identical to each other; it is the planet Venus that I will be talking about. Here it is a case of identity, not equality. The social and political idea of equality rather implies that there are differences (cultural, social, religious, etc.). The idea here is not descriptive but prescriptive. Descriptive use of equality is when one says, "You are thin; she too is thin" or "Two people weigh the same." The example of a prescriptive use of equality is "People are equal or have equal rights before the law." Finally, our idea of equality also involves a proportional equality. For instance, the rich are taxed more than the poor according to their incomes. Here equality doesn't mean that the rich and the poor pay taxes alike, but each according to this income. That is the idea of equality, being proportional; not a blind application of principles to achieve uniformity.

Liberty vs Equality
So can we say that complete liberty logically leads to inequality? Are these two values opposed to each other? As pointed out earlier, as freedom go hand in hand with responsibility, in the same way liberty and equality need to go hand in hand. They do complement each other. As the individual and the state/society are mutually interdependent, in the same way liberty (or freedom) and equality balance each other.

In fact, in the absence of political liberty, equality cannot be established. It is impossible to make a reasonable statement of the meaning of equality except in terms of freedom. Both are complementary to each other. Liberty thus implies equality; they are not in conflict nor even separate but are different facts of the same ideal. All individual liberties are related to the basic equality of all people.

(b) Fraternity
The battle cry of “liberté, egalité, fraternité” represented for the French revolutionaries a break from the existing political order. For some of the revolutionaries, the words represented a complete rejection of the existing Christian-dominated culture. For still others, the word “fraternity” was simply a means of expressing solidarity. Over time, fraternity has meant many things to many people. Some have thought fraternity to be subsumed into concepts of communalism or socialism. Others have interpreted fraternity to represent an expression of Christian values—to love one’s neighbour. Rawls thought fraternity to encompass the “difference principle” that one should not have greater advantages unless this is to the benefit of the less advantaged. Still others find fraternity to be subsumed within the concepts of liberty and equality. [Charles D. Gonthier, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: The Forgotten Leg of the Trilogy, or Fraternity: The Unspoken Third Pillar of Democracy,” McGill Law Journal / Revue de droit de McGill 45 (2000) 567-589 at 572.]

The other terms for fraternity, the third political ideal of democracy, are brotherhood, sisterhood, and solidarity. Fraternity speaks of unity, and not uniformity. It proclaims that “All human beings are sisters and brothers. We all belong to one human family.” In social terms it is not enough to allow a person to be free and have equal rights with others, but it is necessary to help the person to develop herself/himself. For example, when slavery was abolished in Brazil, the former slaves were free but did have jobs or food to feed themselves, they didn’t have a place to stay. As Hobbes says, “What good is freedom to a starving person? S/he cannot eat freedom or drink it.” Therefore, fraternity or solidarity means helping those in need.

Fraternity presupposes the democratic values of freedom (liberty) and equality. It implies respect, dignity, and compassion. (Compassion means feeling with others, suffering with others.) Even though we may always talk of liberty and equality in a democracy, the third essential pillar of fraternity may be forgotten. When a society forgets this important value of solidarity of fraternity, we may see an increase in indifference, greed, selfishness, misery, utilitarianism or profit-making, and also a widening gap between the rich and the poor. In order to avoid all these social evils, we need to recognise and practise the value of fraternity.

The full spirit of fraternity acknowledges the just pride of others and anticipates other’s self-respect. It entails the values of empathy, cooperation, commitment, responsibility, fairness, trust, and equity. Though fraternity is not about friendship or intimacy, it certainly advances the values of courtesy, fair-mindedness, and admission of one’s own limitations. It must be extended to the broader and less personal relations of fellow citizenship and fellow humanity. Such a spirit is vital to a democratic community.

If the ideals of liberty and equality concern the individual directly (and the society indirectly), the ideal of fraternity concerns the community directly. It emphasizes the rights of the community, by advancing the goals of commitment and responsibility. Thus, fraternity is essential to the well-being of liberty and equality, because only with shared trust and civic commitment can one advance these goals of liberty and equality.

Another aspect of fraternity is cooperation. The difference between liberty and equality, on the one hand, and fraternity on the other, is that the former values promote the free association of individuals, whereas the latter promotes the cooperation of individuals in the community. Cooperation is inspired by the commonality of interests and gives rise to the pooling of resources in pursuit of a common goal. Association per se connotes a simple fact: people are connected with one another. Cooperation connotes something more: people who are connected can work together to advance common interests. [Gonthier 574.]

(c) Justice
Human rights is the minimum, but all need to get justice. What is justice? It is nothing but giving someone her/his due. The word comes from the Latin "jus," meaning right or law.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines the “just” person as one who typically “does what is morally right” and is disposed to “giving everyone his or her due.”

The 18th century architecture of Lady Justice at Castellania (Italy), built during the Order of St John, stands as a symbol of justice. There are three symbolic items: 1) sword - coercive power of a court/institution, 2) scales - competing claims are weighed, and 3) blindfold - justice should be impartial, objective, without fear or favour or bias, regardless of money, power, and identity.

Justice is fairness (John Rawls and Amartya Sen). It can thus be defined as a legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered. An ancient theory of justice can be got from Plato's The Republic. A just person, according to Plato's discussion, is one who does his/her best wherever he/she is; such a person gives the precise equivalent of what he/she has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level.

In his A Theory of Justice, Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls also says that justice is the first virtue of social institutions.

The concept of justice differs in every culture. Besides the above-mentioned theories, there are others who deal with this concept. Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice issues from God. In the 17th century, theorists like John Locke argued for the theory of natural law. Thinkers in the social contract tradition argued that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned. In the 19th century, utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill argued that justice is what has the best consequences. Theories of distributive justice concern what is distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians argued that justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. Property rights theorists (like Robert Nozick) take a deontological view of distributive justice and argue that property rights-based justice maximises the overall wealth of an economic system. Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing. Restorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders.

Matthew Robinson states: Social justice is defined as "promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity." It exists when "all people share a common humanity and therefore have a right to equitable treatment, support for their human rights, and a fair allocation of community resources." In conditions of social justice, people are "not be discriminated against, nor their welfare and well-being constrained or prejudiced on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, political affiliations, age, race, belief, disability, location, social class, socioeconomic circumstances, or other characteristic of background or group membership" (Toowoomba Catholic Education, 2006).

To Rawls, social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to liberties, rights, and opportunities, as well as taking care of the least advantaged members of society. Thus, whether something is just or unjust depends on whether it promotes or hinders equality of access to civil liberties, human rights, opportunities for healthy and fulfilling lives, as well as whether it allocates a fair share of benefits to the least advantaged members of society.

Consecration Prayer

Here is the traditional consecration prayer after meditation (used by SDBs), slightly edited:

L: Blessed are those who listen to God’s word.

A: And live by it day after day.

L: Mindful that God has consecrated us, let us renew our commitment to Him and our dedication to our mission on behalf of youth, let us ask Our Lady for the gift of fidelity.

A: Most holy and Immaculate Virgin,

Help of Christians, Mother of the Church,

foundress and support of our Congregation,

we place ourselves under your motherly protection,

and faithful to our Salesian vocation,

we promise to work always for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of souls.

With trust in your intercession,

we pray for the Church,

for our Congregation and the Salesian Family,

for the young, especially those most in need,

and for all people redeemed by Christ.

You were Don Bosco’s teacher;

show us how to imitate his virtues,

especially his union with God, his purity, humility and poverty,

his love for work and for temperance,

his kindness and his whole-hearted service of others,

his loyalty to the Pope and to the bishops of the Church.

Grant, O Mary Help of Christians,

that we may serve God with fidelity and generosity until death.

Help us to come at last

to the endless joy of life together

in our Father’s home in heaven. Amen.

Selfishness in Different Forms

These days "selfishness" or egoism seems to come in different forms: self-glory, self-promotion, self-seeking, self-righteousness; being self-willed, self-centred; and not to forget the many ego-clashes that we may be involved in.The age of narcissism, or so it seems. Jesus calls us to do (be) precisely the contrary: self-denial, self-abnegation, self-love leading to love God and others.

San Giuseppe, insegnami!

San Giuseppe, maestro della vita interiore, insegnami a pregare, soffrire, tacere. (St Joseph, master of interiority [inner/spiritual life], teach me to pray, to suffer, to keep quiet.) -- Joan Maria Vernet SDB, quoted by Ivo Coelho in his introduction to Joaquim's Fetschrift, Keeping the Faith 7 n. 4.

It is nice....

It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice, to be gentle, to be kind.

In Don Bosco College, Tura

Today I reached Don Bosco College with bag and baggage on a temporary transfer.

Fr Tony's Christmas Homily

Here is the Christmas homily of Fr Tony D'Souza, preached at the Night Mass at Don Bosco Parish, Nashik.

Notwithstanding the growing commercialization of Christmas with sinister efforts to reduce it to a secular holiday or to replace it with Good Governance Day; and despite the increasing hostility towards Christ and Christians, in several countries, you and I are here tonight to confirm our Faith and proclaim with joy to the world that mankind will live for evermore because of that First Christmas, in Bethlehem.

The First Christmas was not a ‘bedtime story’ that lulls us to sleep in the silence of a holy night and wakes us up with Jingle bells and Santa’s stockings;
- the First Christmas was not an expensive birthday party with colorful dresses and delicious dishes, celebrated under star-studded skies;
- the First Christmas was not even a musical extravaganza of ‘red-nosed reindeer songs’ and dancing melodies.

Lest we get trapped in such distorted festivities, and abandon the sacred mystery of Salvation and the deeper message of Forgiveness, let us tonight revise our Bible history and renew our Christian faith in the greatest story ever told – Christmas,

Far from being a philosophical myth or theological dogma, the First Christmas, as the Holy Bible states, marks the History of a Lifetime Mystery – God with us – Emmanuel!

For the last 2015 years, Christmas commemorates the greatness and the dignity of the human person, created by God in His own image.

At this time, we are celebrating God who loved the world so much that in the fullness of time, He sent his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, born of a woman, to redeem His sacred image, distorted by Original Sin. It is because of this redeemed image of God imprinted in every human person that any offence against the human person is an offence against God and every denial of God ends up being a denial of the greatness and the dignity of the human person. In order to teach us what it means to be truly human, and to save us from further abuse of humanity, God became man in Jesus the Christ, fully human and always divine. Christmas must impress upon us, the sacred worth and sublime dignity of every human life from the first instant until natural death.

Christmas, as the angels sang, is a feast of Joy to the world. giving glory to God in the highest and bringing peace to people of good will. Christmas is a family feast of Christ the Light who enlightens our homes and brightens our universe as proclaimed by the Prophet Isaiah: The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; on those who live in the land of deep shadow a light has shone. You have made their gladness greater, you have made their joy increase; they rejoice in your presence as people rejoice at harvest time. For there is a child born for us, a son given to us and dominion is laid on his shoulders; and this is the name they give him: Wonder-Counselor, Mighty-God, Eternal-Word, Promoter-of-Peace

However, while we celebrate Christmas 2015, we are sadly aware that Life, particularly, Human life is murdered and destroyed by the merciless culture of death. Today, our faith in Christmas as a celebration of pardon and peace is challenged.

We witness Human Life not as a dignified triumph, but a degrading tragedy marred by beastly Terrorism and Bomb blasts; Communal Violence and mini wars; Abortion and Euthanasia; murders and Suicides; Caste conflicts and Honor Killings. Called by God to be stewards of his creation, we are recklessly destroying our “Common Home” by exploiting Nature and poisoning the environment. Global warming and “climate change” are sharp warnings that our world is hurtling down to Doom’s Day. What we are seeing today is the entrenching of the ‘Culture of Death and Darkness’ in the world at large and even infiltrating into the hearts and minds of our non-violent and peace-loving people of India..

In this scenario, we disciples of Jesus Christ must not be prophets of doom and disaster. Not at Christmas time! Rather, inspired by the encouraging assurance of Jesus, “Do not be afraid, I am with you till the end of times” and guided by the Holy Spirit through the upfront prophetic and pastoral leadership of our Holy Father, Pope Francis, we Christians must firmly believe and proclaim that God still loves the world; We await in Hope and believe that Mankind will live for ever more, because Christmas celebrates the fact that God full of mercy in Jesus Christ will come again in power and glory to establish a counter culture of Peace over Violence, Light over Darkness, and Life over Death.

By the solemn opening of Cathedral doors, the world over, and announcing The Extraordinary Holy Year, Pope Francis urges us, the Church to boldly confront the merciless and meaningless destructive forces of Evil by upholding the banner of God’s Mercy.

In his papal letter, entitled ‘Misericordiae vultus’, the Face of Mercy, Pope Francis chalks out a very practical Peace plan of action for us to follow. He reminds us that Mercy is not an abstract concept but rather, a face to recognize, a truth to contemplate and a recipe to serve through corporal and spiritual works of Mercy. Jesus by His own example has given us a Gospel of Mercy, so full of simple parables, compassionate images and forgiving episodes.

This Holy Year is Mercy time, and Christmas heralds an extraordinary campaign which states that the only answer to satanic evil and cruel violence, is not destructive retaliation but rather, better Communication and patient Dialogue to obtain Peaceful justice and genuine Communion in our lives, in our families, among nations and throughout the universe.

To us Christians, Christmas is Divine Mercy Incarnate urging us to welcome the God of forgiveness through the sacrament of Confession and reconciliation and nourished by the Holy Eucharist, to be forgiving and merciful ourselves. Yes, Christmas is a Gospel Imperative to love and protect all forms of life , but especially to defend Human Rights against abortion, euthanasia, female infanticide, caste and honor killings.

Christmas is infact, a missionary mandate. Jesus Christ, sent by our merciful Father, has chosen us and sends us to share in his missionof Forgiveness. As partners with Jesus, the Prince of Peace, let us make Christmas 2015 a season of reconciliation , love and joyful peace, within our own families and communities; our neighborhood and work places.

May Mary of Nazareth, whom we devoutly address: Hail Holy Queen, Mother of mercy strengthen our Faith in Jesus, the Divine Mercy and sustain our Hope as we journey through this vale of trials and tears.

Empowered by the Holy Spirit and nourished by the transforming Bread of Life at this Holy Eucharist let us go out to celebrate not only a merciful Christmas Day 2015, but a Holy Year 2016 of Reconciliation, Justice and Peace.

Table Fellowship

Today, in his homily, Felix Fernandes spoke about the table fellowship of Jesus. All the three readings of today (Wednesday, first week of Advent) deal with the topic of eating and drinking. And Jesus was deeply involved with the basic activity of being human, and he was called a glutton and a drunkard. He established his memory the Sacrament of the Eucharist at table, while eating and drinking. He makes himself present in a tangible way while we eat the bread and drink the cup. Can we become bread to others, can we become Jesus to others? This is the challenge of Christianity.

Formation of Formators

Here are some impressions of mine with regard to the Formation of Formators course at Don Bosco Renewal Centre, Bangalore, 21 October to 18 November, 2015.

The individual courses were all theologically sound. Especially Marcel Lincoln being a theologian, gave a good understanding of our formative efforts in terms of the person of Jesus – both theologically and biblically. Many participants appreciated K.M. Jose’s sessions on Human Development and on Psycho-Sexual Maturity. Some of them attended such a course for the first time in their lives. Even for me, a course like this was long overdue. In almost ten years of my priestly life, this is was the first time I attended a month long course. (First four years – I was in three different settings, the next four years in Rome, now the ninth and tenth years at Divyadaan, Nashik.) To encourage people to go for these ongoing formation courses would be praiseworthy.

In the course, there was a lot importance given to spiritual direction. There was a one day animation on this topic. That could be extended for at least one day more, I'd think. A separate course on spiritual direction may not find enough takers, but a formators’ course like this will appreciate these topics.

Loddy’s animation on Holistic Formation, Assessment of Candidates and Vocational Discernment was very good, especially by way of his various examples. His life experiences make his content very good. His insistence that you discern the formee’s vocation not just in terms of her suitability into a congregation, that’s being selfish, Loddy says, but the important thing is to guide her to find God’s design in her life, and discern her vocation. Suitability into a congregation is just part of this big discernment. Loddy’s content was solid, helpful, very clear.

Edison Fernandes’ course on Psycho-cultural Aspects in Formation gave me a beautiful perspective, and some new vocabulary in order to understand the various formees coming from varied backgrounds and cultures. There are individualistic cultures (guilt) and collectivistic cultures (shame). For collectivistic cultures, gossip too may be a way of communicating a truth, they don’t communicate directly; they don’t offend people by giving direct opinions. Eye contact and asking questions are considered to be forms of disrespect in some of these collectivistic cultures. In collectivistic cultures, passive aggression is considered better than expressing direct anger. For instance, there are cultures that give importance to event time and there are others that give importance to clock time. The tribal cultures are examples of the former, they talk about monsoons, seasons, and harvests as events, not dependent on calendar-clock timings. Their life too is intertwined with these events; their punctuality is with regard to events, not the chronological timings of a clock. They don’t appear to be smart when compared to those who are trained with clock-time. These differences are perspectives, not matters of right or wrong. Similarly, to understand the differences between high-context and low-context cultures, between high authority distance and low authority distance, etc. (In low context cultures, you can find your way: there are signs everywhere, e.g., road signs.)

The community building animation by Marcel Lincoln was praiseworthy. His content was good, his games hilarious, and above all his radicality for Christ makes these sessions beautiful. He made us think, and even reflect.

The group therapy was a deep experience for me. It was a healing experience for me, I should say. To acknowledge my feelings, my emotions, that was great. I dealt with fear and irritation and other emotions, and even some compulsions. I feel the joy of having undergone another group therapy. The previous one was when I was preparing for my perpetuals, I think.

The participants [22 in all: one from Poland, one from Thailand, five from Sri Lanka, and the rest from India] were serious in their participation but relaxed too.

We had two panel discussions: a panel of formators and a panel of formees on two different days. This is a beautiful idea. Both brought forth deep discussions and sharing. Edison happened to be around for the panel of formators, he gave a beautiful talk. I think he should publish that. A wonderful talk, a deep sharing of his impressions. He insisted that we should not be desperate for numbers, not lower the standard while recruiting for one’s congregation. (Some others too had insisted on this point.) Edison also mentioned let our vocation promotion be the fruit of our apostolate, not an apostolate itself. He also asked our caution in employing psychological tests. Not an exercise of photocopying a few sheets and arriving at results, when there are no experts around. He made us aware of the ecological validity of psychological tests; and to check also if there are time limits attached to the tests, etc. He asked us to give up on negative narratives and defeatism in our congregations (whether it be formation or vocation promotion). He questioned us why we are not at ease with ambiguity, why do we want only clarities or even finished products in our formation who don’t need formation in that sense. Edison also reiterated the fact that our formation should go hand in hand with our mission, including the summer/periodical exposure programmes. I remember Marcel’s comment that the real formation takes place not in our formation houses, but outside of them in the mission communities. Edison also said that there is a lot of depression in our formees, or at least there isn’t deep joy in many of our formees -- seen in their sleeping during meditation, or no effort taken for personal prayer or meditating.

All the animators were of one mind that our formation should be transformation of the person of the formee, which only happens with a lot of freedom and responsibility, and proper guidance or facilitation.

Some points of improvement, which I had communicated to the community during our general evaluation was to cut the overdependence on the powerpoint presentations -- they were becoming too linear. More faith sharing or lectio divina moments during course itself would have been extra beneficial. To digest some heavy stuff, more group discussions might be needed.

The participants were all happy with the staff -- especially their presence with us throughout the course. And also their availability for spiritual direction.

In short, the course was a joyful, refreshing, and a beneficial experience. It was also a moment of healing for me.

The following was my personal evaluation (during the course itself) – not a summary but a short account of the different “learnings” that happened in me.

First and foremost, this course FoF was a blessing where I could meet various people from different countries and cultures. It has been an occasion of deepening my personal convictions and my vocation too.

One of the first things that I learnt is about corrections: correct others in love, and also appreciate them more [than you correct]. John XXIII’s maxim was helpful: “Observe everything, overlook many things, and correct just a few.”

The reflections on psycho-cultural aspects of formation made me think on the various insenstivities that have been part of our formation structures. To understand a person would mean also to understand her cultural background, uniqueness, and all her specialities.

In group therapy and a few other exercises I had an occasion to enter deeply into my emotions and feelings. Unless I get in touch with my feelings I cannot feel with the other. If I need to understand the formee I need to go deep into my own self and be integrated head and heart. My usual tendency is to use my head rather than the heart while dealing with the other. What is more important is the formation of the heart.

The question whether our formees are becoming brighter or ‘duller’ made me reflect on the importance given to freedom and personal responsibility, trust and confidence. I’ve sometimes not given the formees the space and time for their own growth. I need to tell myself time and again that the formee herself along with the Holy Spirit is the primary one responsible for her formation, I’m only an instrument, a facilitator. I’d rather be a guru, one who eats the darkness of ignorance and sin.

For this, I think, I need greater patience and compassion. I need to suffer with the other. Compassion is not just for calamities, but for always, all occasions. If I have to live my community life as a covenantal relationship, then I need to have a compassionate, ever-forgiving heart.

One more thing that I learnt is the importance of wisdom, God’s own gift, that is needed for my pastoral ministry. Not my human efforts, not my human intelligence that should be given the priority, but allowing God’s infinite wisdom to deal with concrete situations.

Significantly, to understand that to be human is to be beautifully flawed gives me a sense of relief and even faith that I need not be perturbed by every single thing that happens around me. God is in control, all is well with the world, I don’t have to take control of things, He is the Lord of history, He is our Master. I on my part will have to be open to His Spirit, discern His will, and be a help to those around me.

I thank all those who have made this DBRC experience an enriching one. As I become deeper in my convictions that I’m the beloved of God, I resolve that I’ll communicate with my life this core identity of "belovedness" to all my formees.

Back in Action

For two months, I was missing in action... Here I am back, after a home visit and a course in Bangalore - Formation of Formators.

Being Centred

Being centred is more important than being efficiently managing multiple tasks. Being centred is not being self-centred; it is not being dissipated in our multi-tasking. Being centred allows you to do many things, not just jumping from one activity to another but doing things effectively (as contrasted to mere efficiency). It means having a servant mentality, not just being service providers or service deliverers. It allows us to be open to persons, not just concentrate on principles. Sometimes I could bulldoze people, hurt them just for the sake of fulfilling the laws. Persons first, principles then. This is not the same as saying: “Toss your principles out of the window.” No. This means standing for your principles while you put others, the human persons at the centre of your attention. This is avoiding legalism. The sabbath for the person, not vice-versa. Henri Nouwen puts it beautifully: “You have so many options that you are constantly overwhelmed by the question ‘What should I do and what should I not do?’ You are asked to respond to many concrete needs. [...] But what of all this truly deserves your time? [...] You have to keep going back to the source: God’s love for you. [...] Try to give your agenda to God. [...] Give every part of your heart and your time to God and let God tell you what to do, where to go, when and how to respond.” (The Inner Voice of Love 121-122.) Being centred, ultimately, means being centred on God.

Pipes and Dirges

To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.' For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is proved right by all her children. (Luke 7:31-35)

Never be childish, but always be childlike in your faith. As I see, Jesus asks us to grow and mature in our faith, to be able to read the signs of the times. God reveals himself in various ways: surprising and shocking ways. Gallagher writes: “Balthasar and Sequeri insist particularly on the shocking differentness of Christian revelation. It is interruption, rupture, excess. Its climax in Cross and Resurrection takes us beyond all human logic.” (Faith Maps 154.) Some Pharisees and leaders at the time of Jesus were not able to understand or see God’s hand in the extremities of a John the Baptist or a Jesus of Nazareth. God reveals to us and speaks to us in strange ways. Whether in a drunkard or a glutton or a person out of his mind. God’s ways are unfathomable. To conclude, as Sathish writes in his gospeltoons (reflections-cum-cartoons on the day’s gospel passage): “Don’t be arrogant or ignorant,” unless we are open to the divine strangeness around us, we may land up being arrogant or proud or childishly ignorant, or just plainly immature.

Letter of a pregnant nun who was raped

Here is an extraordinary letter written by a young nun, Sister Lucy Vertrusc, to her mother superior. Sister Vertrusc became pregnant after she was raped in 1995 during the war in the former Yugoslavia. The letter appeared in an Italian newspaper at the behest of her Mother Superior. (After a long search I was able to lay hands on this beautiful and moving letter... thanks to iamproudtobecatholic.com.)

I am Lucy, one of the young nuns raped by the Serbian soldiers. I am writing to you, Mother, after what happened to my sisters Tatiana, Sandria, and me.

Allow me not to go into the details of the act. There are some experiences in life so atrocious that you cannot tell them to anyone but God, in whose service I had consecrated my life nearly a year ago.

My drama is not so much the humiliation that I suffered as a woman, not the incurable offense committed against my vocation as a religious, but the difficulty of having to incorporate into my faith an event that certainly forms part of the mysterious will of Him whom I have always considered my Divine Spouse.

Only a few days before, I had read “Dialogues of Carmelites” and spontaneously I asked our Lord to grant me the grace of joining the ranks of those who died a martyr of Him. God took me at my word, but in such a horrid way! Now I find myself lost in the anguish of internal darkness. He has destroyed the plans of my life, which I considered definitive and uplifting for me, and He has set me all of a sudden in this design of His that I feel incapable of grasping.

When I was a teenager, I wrote in my Diary: Nothing is mine, I belong to no one, and no one belongs to me. Someone, instead grabbed me one night, a night I wish never to remember, tore me off from myself, and tried to make me his own . . .

It was already daytime when I awoke and my first thought was the agony of Christ in the Garden. Inside of me a terrible battle unleashed. I asked myself why God had permitted me to be rent, destroyed precisely in what had been the meaning of my life, but also I asked to what new vocation He was calling me.

I strained to get up, and helped by Sister Josefina, I managed to straighten myself out. Then the sound of the bell of the Augustinian convent, which was right next to ours, reached my ears. It was time for nine o’clock matins.

I made the sign of the cross and began reciting in my head the liturgical hymn. At this hour upon Golgotha’s heights,/ Christ, the true Paschal Lamb,/ paid the price of our salvation.

What is my suffering, Mother, and the offense I received compared to the suffering and the offense of the One for whom I had a thousand times sworn to give my life. I spoke these words slowly, very slowly: May your will be done, above all now that I have nowhere to go and that I can only be sure of one thing: You are with me.

Mother, I am writing not in search of consolation, but so that you can help me give thanks to God for having associated me with the thousands of my fellow compatriots whose honour has been violated, and who are compelled to accept a maternity not wanted. My humiliation is added to theirs, and since I have nothing else to offer in expiation for the sin committed by those unnamed violators and for the reconciliation of the two embittered peoples, I accept this dishonour that I suffered and I entrust it to the mercy of God.

Do not be surprised, Mother, when I ask you to share with me my “thank you” that can seem absurd.

In these last months I have been crying a sea of tears for my two brothers who were assassinated by the same aggressors who go around terrorizing our towns, and I was thinking that it was not possible for me to suffer anything worse, so far from my imagination had been what was about to take place.

Every day hundreds of hungering creatures used to knock at the doors of our convent, shivering from the cold, with despair in their eyes. Some weeks ago, a young boy about eighteen years old said to me: How lucky you are to have chosen a refuge where no evil can reach you. The boy carried in his hands a rosary of praises for the Prophet. Then he added: You will never know what it means to be dishonoured.

I pondered his words at length and convinced myself that there had been a hidden element to the sufferings of my people that had escaped me as I was almost ashamed to be so excluded. Now I am one of them, one of the many unknown women of my people, whose bodies have been devastated and hearts seared. The Lord had admitted me into his mystery of shame. What is more, for me, a religious, He has accorded me the privilege of being acquainted with evil in the depths of its diabolical force.

I know that from now on the words of encouragement and consolation that I can offer from my poor heart will be all the more credible, because my story is their story, and my resignation, sustained in faith, at least a reference, if not example for their moral and emotional responses.

All it takes is a sign, a little voice, a fraternal gesture to set in motion the hopes of so many undiscovered creatures.

God has chosen me—may He forgive my presumption—to guide the most humble of my people towards the dawn of redemption and freedom. They can no longer doubt the sincerity of my words, because I come, as they do, from the outskirts of revilement and profanation.

I remember the time when I used to attend the university at Rome in order to get my masters in Literature, an ancient Slavic woman, the professor of Literature, used to recite to me these verses from the poet Alexej Mislovic: You must not die/ because you have been chosen/ to be a part of the day.

That night, in which I was terrorized by the Serbs for hours and hours, I repeated to myself these verses, which I felt as balm for my soul, nearly mad with despair.

And now, with everything having passed and looking back, I get the impression of having been made to swallow a terrible pill.

Everything has passed, Mother, but everything begins. In your telephone call, after your words of encouragement, for which I am grateful with all my life, you posed me a very direct question: What will you do with the life that has been forced into your womb? I heard your voice tremble as you asked me the question, a question I felt needed no immediate response; not because I had not yet considered the road I would have to follow, but so as not to disturb the plans you would eventually have to unveil before me. I had already decided. I will be a mother. The child will be mine and no one else’s. I know that I could entrust him to other people, but he—though I neither asked for him nor expected him—he has a right to my love as his mother. A plant should never be torn from its roots. The grain of wheat fallen in the furrow has to grow there, where the mysterious, though iniquitous sower threw it.

I will fulfill my religious vocation in another way. I will ask nothing of my congregation, which has already given me everything. I am very grateful for the fraternal solidarity of the Sisters, who in these times have treated me with the utmost delicacy and kindness, especially for never having asked any uncareful questions.

I will go with my child. I do not know where, but God, who broke all of a sudden my greatest joy, will indicate the path I must tread in order to do His will.

I will be poor again, I will return to the old aprons and the wooden shoes that the women in the country use for working, and I will accompany my mother into the forest to collect the resin from the slits in the trees.

Someone has to begin to break the chain of hatred that has always destroyed our countries. And so, I will teach my child only one thing: love. This child, born of violence, will be a witness along with me that the only greatness that gives honour to a human being is forgiveness.

Through the Kingdom of Christ for the Glory of God.

(Slightly edited.)

Suffering

For the world: Death, illness, human brokenness, ugliness, failures, sinfulness,... all have to be hidden from our sight because they keep us from the happiness for which we strive. They are obstructions on our way to the goal of life.

Eugenics strives towards a better life, a better quality of life, but by eliminating undesirable traits in our genes. Disorders and disabilities, aging, and all are seen as undesirable. Eugenics and more broadly genetic engineering strives to do away with suffering.

However, we humans suffer a lot. Much, if not most, of our deep suffering comes from our relationships with those who love us. Not from the terrible events I read about in the newspapers or those that I see on television, but from the relationships with the people with whom I share my daily life.

Community life can be painful. Besides the joys, there can be many pains and demands attached to our day to day living out of our common life.

Our pain, deep as it is, is connected with specific circumstances. We do not suffer in the abstract. We suffer because someone hurts us at a specific time and in a specific place. Our feelings of rejection, abandonment, and uselessness are rooted in the most concrete events.

Still, as long as we keep pointing to the specifics, we will miss the full meaning of our pain. We will deceive ourselves into believing that if the people, circumstances, and events had been different, our pain would not exist. “My suffering would have been less, if there were a different catechist, a different prefect, a different staff member, different companions, and so on.” This might be partly true, but the deeper truth is that the situation which brought about our pain was simply the form in which we came in touch with the human condition of suffering. Our pain is the concrete way in which we participate in the pain of humanity.

Paradoxically, therefore, healing means moving from our pain to the pain. When we keep focusing on the specific circumstances of our pain, we easily become angry, resentful, and even vindictive – even seek revenge. We can learn from Mary: healing means moving from our pain to the pain. She stands at the foot of the cross, she stands in communion with Jesus’ suffering. But she is not alone, she stands along with Mary Magdalene, other women, also the beloved disciple of Jesus. She stands in communion with other humans too. She takes her suffering out of isolation, and places it in the context of the cross, Jesus’ cross. She takes her pain out of isolation, and shares it with her fellow-sufferers, fellow-believers.

May we too have the same courage and wisdom like Mary, let us imitate her and find new strength and hope in our suffering, because suffering is salvific. I repeat, suffering is salvific.

References: Henri Nouwen, Here and Now, and Inner Voice of Love.

(Homily of 15 September, Memoria of Our Lady of Sorrows)

Proverbs to Verbs

Every culture has its own set of proverbs, pithy sayings, catchy idioms, maxims and words of wisdom. The Gospel too offers us varied statements, beautiful verses exactly like proverbs in a culture. Love your enemies, be compassionate, treat others as you would like others to treat you, and many such beautiful verses. The danger is that these sayings can remain as beautiful decorations on our walls and in our living rooms rather than inspirations for our actions. May we remove these mere decorative verses and proverbs from our walls and put them into the centre of our living, into our actions. May the proverbs become verbs. (Inspired by a reflection from the CD material, Entering the Lectionary on today's gospel reading.)

Chebath's Surgeries

When I was young I always wanted to do medicine, that desire of mine was fulfilled a bit especially the last two weeks. Chebath, one of our students here at Divyadaan, underwent a major surgery on 8th September. He had a tumour on his neck – but it needs to be called a brain tumor because he had a vagal schwannoma. “Vagal Schwannomas are considered a Brain Tumour.  They are ‘usually’ rare, slow-growing tumours and reported to occur in patients between 30 and 50 years of age.  VAGAL refers to the vagus nerve which is the 10th cranial nerve.  This nerve is the only nerve that runs from the brain all the way down through the body. The vagus nerve controls the working order of all the organs of our bodies and how the skeletal muscles work.  Also controls the heart, espophagus and pulmonary functions.  The ability to swallow and the affected vagus nerve side will affect the vocal cord on that side.” (http://www.vagalschwannoma.com/what-is-it.html)

Chebath’s tumour was discovered during what was thought to be or supposed to be a minor surgical procedure of removing a lymph node on the operation table. Then the doctors asked us to go for an immediate MRI, which confirmed that it was a vagal schwannoma. Chebath agreed to undergo the surgery, knowing fully well that he will lose his voice. Perhaps, two months later he will have to undergo another surgery to correct his voice – to make the vocal chords vibrate again. That was what was planned. But miraculously, the surgeon said that the tumour had not affected the vagus nerve, and he will be able to have his voice, though not as before. It was the 8th September, the feast of Our Lady of Health, and it is her intercession that Chebath had a miraculous intervention. Though his ability to swallow as well as his vocal cords are weakened, he may not have to undergo a voice correction surgery. I thank God for his miraculous intervention through Mother Mary. I admire Chebath’s calm and tranquility, and his strength to undergo this suffering; and I also appreciate his mature decision of undergoing the surgery and accepting the consequences of a major surgery like this. This too is grace.

Incidentally, he has to undergo another operation to repair one of his damaged ear drums. He needs our support and prayers. May God give him strength and endurance.

Relaxing into the Reality of Being Loved

Gallagher, Faith Maps 151-152:

Prayer is the key expression of faith.
Think of the gamut of emotions found the psalms – from confusion to gratitude, from rage to tenderness, and from painful questioning to being filled with hope again.
Christian prayer means relaxing into the reality of being loved by God, in order to rise, each day, into the gritty realism of loving.

"What things?"

After the Resurrection, the Stranger (walking along) asks the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, “What things?” Jesus Christ, most often as a Stranger, stands at the crossroads of our life to ask, “What things?”

He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” “What things?” he asked. (Lk 24:17-19, New International Version)

Like those two disciples, I’m asked to repeat the story. “What things?” In my discouragement, in my hopelessness perhaps, I’m asked to repeat the story. The story is ours, the story is mine, the story is his too. “What things?” I could easily blurt out a response, almost in irritation to the Stranger who makes me pause, who makes me even think. “What things?” I repeat the story. I’m in no mood to do so, but still I repeat the story: it’s mine, it’s his, it’s the story. That there was hope, that there was the promise, that the things were better, that there were allegedly even miracles. But I did not see, I did not experience. “What things?” The story is over. The conclusion, a blind alley. But the Stranger is not satisfied. Not just that. He scolds me, he calls me foolish. Am I foolish? Am I slow to understand? I’ve taken great care to narrate my story, to narrate the story. He repeats the story now. The same story, but from the beginning. Greater depth, greater comprehension. It’s not boring, though the same details. It’s not even new. But there’s something about the narration. I recognize this only later: “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” (Lk 24:32) Wasn’t my heart burning within me during the narration? Wasn’t the flame within me enkindled as he talked? He repeats the story. His narration makes me understand. His breaking of the bread makes me grasp everything of that moment. The lightning. Come and gone. It is he. I asked him to stay. I asked the Stranger to stay. He did. Surprisingly, he takes the centre place. One who pretended to go away, who seemed to have no interest, now has taken the main place at the table. He presides over the event. The Stranger knows. He knows my need for hope. He distributes the bread in a thanksgiving mode. He says take this and eat, take this and drink. Oh, that’s my bread and my drink I thought. He takes and shares that with me. I was the host, howzat he has become the host and I a guest. It is he. He is no more a Stranger. He reveals himself. He hides himself. The lightning. Come and gone. By revealing himself, he disappears. “What things?” Things of hopelessness turned into hope. The Stranger becomes the hope-giver, he is the one whom I have known from before. He reveals. But again, he hides, he disappears. I recognize. I recognize him, I recognize the things. It is he. No more a Stranger. He reveals, and my heart burns. I realize that my heart has been enkindled already. He has done that on the way. Even before I reached home. Even before I asked him to stay. Even before I prayed him to stay the evening. He has repeated my story, his story, our story and enkindled my heart. My heart is burning. My heart has been burning. I took his scolding, I listened to him. He has explained, has explained everything. All things are in place now. No more hopelessness, only hope. There is hope. There is joy and strength and courage, and even light at that dark moment. I am encouraged to leave myself, my plans, my home in order to go out into the dark. Because this Stranger has given me light and hope and courage and strength. The lightning has ocurred. Come and gone. My heart burns in love, my heart burns out of love. It is he who has made my heart burn in love.

Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him. He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” “What things?” he asked. (Lk 24:13-19)

I was going away from Jerusalem, away from life, away from resurrection. I was going away from the centre, away from hope, away from the life, from the resurrection. Now that he has met me, asked me to repeat the story, narrated the story himself, broke the bread... he is here. He is the way, the truth, the life, the resurrection. The Stranger becomes the way and the truth, he becomes everything. I return. I return to Jerusalem, to the centre. I meet him again and again and again. I meet him on the way, in the breaking of the bread, in my return, in my peace, in my troubles, in my hopelessness. I meet him again and again and again. It is he. I recognize him. I repeat the things. He repeats his words again and again and again. He comes to me again and again and again. He comes, he ever comes. He is present. He is ever present. I recognize. Like a lightning, I recognize him again and again and again. I go and I come. I return again. I return again and again and again. It is he. I know now it is he. He the Stranger, the guest who became the host. He is everything.

“What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.” (Lk 24:19-24)

Is it about Jesus of Nazareth? Or is it about the Messiah? ‘He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”’ (Lk 24:25-26) This is about Jesus, but this is about the Messiah. Jesus the Messiah. Jesus the Christ. It is he. I know it’s he. I recognize again it is he. “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” (Lk 24:34) It is he. It is the Lord, who is the life, the hope, the resurrection.

My story is embedded in his. My life and hope is embedded and intrinsically tied with his life, his resurrection. My story is his, his story mine. He has become me, I him. Isn’t this grace? Isn’t this the Eucharist? Isn’t this the Incarnation?

Eros of Our Spirit

Michael Paul Gallagher writes in his book Faith Maps: Ten Religious Explorers from Newman to Joseph Ratzinger (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2011) 151: "Quite recently close friends of mine remarked that their small daughter had become a 'specialist in the interrogative'! She had discovered 'What' as in 'what is that?' before moving on to her current favourite word, 'Why?' Such simple words open a whole universe. Questioning expresses, as Lonergan liked to say, the eros of our spirit, our innate drive to know. Concerning faith there are hosts of important questions and a long inheritance of spiritually nourishing answers. Above all enjoy and embrace your questions. You have to let them come alive before the answers can make sense."

Compassionate Presence

According to Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil, the strongest tool is a "compassionate presence." (See my blog of 23 August.) He says, "Our presence itself must have a message. You will have to keep cool even if during the discussions a man jumps and shouts: 'for every one of us that they killed, I will shoot ten of them!' Even in such occasions what I must try to do is to understand his inner pain than sit in judgement on his aggressive emotion." Salesian presence, I am convinced, is such kind of a compassionate and encouraging presence. It is a non-judgmental and non-threatening presence. It is easy to be present as a police-man or spy or judge. But it is a difficult thing to be present as one who suffers with the other, as one who endures the pain and also be patient... not be pushy expecting immediate or efficient results.

Dialogue is Between Persons

Dialogue is between persons, not between ideologies or factions or religions. This is another conviction driven home by Stephanie Saldaña's article, "On Teachers as Angels" (see my blog of 24 July). She says, "dialogue can only really exist between people; not between faiths." Even if we talk about a dialogue of cultures or of faiths, ultimately it has to be personal. It has to be one that involves the whole person. This is very beautiful.

I think of Msgr. Thomas Menamparampil's peace mediations and peace missions -- peace dialogues -- in the North-East of India. Michael Gleich,  in the website Peace Counts, reports of his interview with Bishop Thomas entitled "God's Rapid Response Team," http://www.peace-counts.org/gods-rapid-response-team/. In it, Bishop Thomas insists on an awareness of one's own shortcomings and strengths. His conviction is that listening to the others without judging has a healing power. This is wonderful. Listening (h)as healing. It is the basic skill that a peace-worker should have. Listening is the best art (and the most difficult one too). How true! The basic attitude on non-judgmental listening also points towards hope. Saldaña says: "To have hope in the midst of conflict is also to believe that every small action will bear fruit in eternity." To deal with conflict situations, one needs hope and a non-judgmental openness, and of course one has to be aware of one's own weaknesses and one's own fragility.

In this encounter of persons, another necessary condition would be a context of friendship. Without friendship, a true dialogue cannot be achieved. Bishop Thomas says that after having given time for expressing anger and other emotions in a conflict-resolving dialogue, the persons should talk and share about on those that we agree. Start with agreements, not the differences. The differences can be a topic of dialogue, but that has to come only later. Stephanie Saldaña's interesting affirmation that her Christian faith was saved precisely because of Muslims made me think a lot. She says, "It would not be an overstatement to say that I discovered my faith, my Christianity, in the midst of Islam—that I was inspired to see that the Sermon on the Mount, and the radical compassion asked for in the gospels, might actually be possible. For the first time, I saw that I had cut myself off from other people, and I realized that to be Christian is only possible in communion with others, something I had lost in the midst of my busy life in America. I experienced my faith profoundly by being a guest in the homes of others, mostly Muslims but also Christians, who took care of me without even knowing who I was, who recognized me and claimed me as their own." God's plans are indeed marvellous, unfathomable.

The lightning guides everything

I love this statement of Heraclitus, "The lightning guides everything." Here are Jean Grondin's words quoted in Ivo's notes on Hermeneutics: "Gadamer recalls the maxim of Heraclitus, ‘The lightning guides everything,’ which was scratched over the doorway of Heidegger’s hut. Lightning here means ‘the suddenness of lightning-like illumination that makes everything visible with one strike, and yet is immediately swallowed up in darkness again.’ To that extent the truth of understanding means more something like participation than ceaseless, irremediable appropriation." [Grondin, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics 136. The Gadamer reference is from GW 6:232 and 241.]

DBBISFFI

DBBISFFI - A drab name for a lovely venture: Don Bosco Bicentenary International Short Film Festival of India. But really a beautiful idea... Simultaneously held at 55 cities across India. I participated in it to watch some of the already selected films at Don Bosco Bhavan, Nashik, yesterday. Thanks to Jude, Goyal, and Christopher, and the other local and national organizers.

Reynold reports on his blog (slightly edited): "On the evening of 8 August 2015, I together with my community members had an opportunity to attend the film festival DBBISFFI at Don Bosco Parish conducted by BOSCOM - the department of Salesian Social Communications in India/South Asia. I had a good time. I enjoyed all the short films that were shown to us, but the best ones for me were “Love at First Sight” and “Kurtha”.

This film festival was conducted in honour of Don Bosco the father and founder of the Salesian congregation to mark the conclusion of his birth bicentenary 1815 -2015, and only the best videos were shown."

Ivo reports about the Mumbai (Matunga) event: "The DBBISFFI (Don Bosco Bicentenary International Short Film Festival of India) was held at 55 locations in 18 different states in India today. I happened to be in Don Bosco Matunga, and saw a couple of films: a bit of "Not Anymore", on the situation in Syria; "Devil in the Black Stone", a snippet from the life of a dirt poor Muslim family of 3 widows and a boy; "The Journey," which is Thathi Reddy's movie on the vocation journey of a young salesian; "Rage," which is about road rage and the disorder that leads to it; "Final Cut," from Poland; "Amoortha," shot in Kannada; "Fulwanti and Slim-C," an animated movie; "I 4 U," a 2 min. movie encouraging people to donate their eyes and other organs. Excellent choices. The Rector Major will give away the awards when he comes to Delhi later this year."

Respect for Creation

Jurgen Möltmann is a great theologian who took the lead on many theological issues. He wrote one of the first books on the theology of creation that speaks of the spirituality of care for the earth in contemporary terms. His approach is simple. He believes that what we have to do is consider the old life laws as found in the first book of the Bible. One law he would like to see restored is the Sabbath law, not only to guarantee every human being, every animal, and every plant a seventh day of rest, but also to guarantee such a rest to the land every seventh year.

We desperately need that kind of respect for ourselves, for others, for all that is alive and gives life, to begin to offset the ecological disasters we have allowed. A seventh day of rest, a simpler life, another order of priorities.

Another theologian who stressed this point not so long ago is Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Centesimus Annus. He writes that every worker has a right to that rest, not only to obtain the leisure it provides, but also because it gives us the time to reflect on who we are, on how we relate to the world and to God, the source of it all. John Paul wonders whether that human right is sufficiently respected in our industrialized societies.

Maybe it is through our ever-growing respect for animals and plants, the water and the sky, that we might rediscover a greater respect for ourselves, for our own human environment.

Wasn’t it said and written that we should learn from the creation around us?

(From the CD material, Entering the Lectionary.)

The Other is My Blessing

I read a very beautiful and inspiring article “On Teachers as Angels: A Reflection on a Life in the Middle East,” Divyadaan 26/1-2 (2015) 111-126, by Stephanie Saldaña. I want to read the article once again. There are so many things I could write after having read it once. For the time being, I want to just say that Saldaña shares about her life-experiences, nay, her wisdom with regard to inter-religious dialogue. The article is nothing but a mature and profound reflection on her life spent as a Christian living among Muslims in the Middle East. Thanks to Ivo who had mentioned about her (and the idea that I'll talk about shortly) in the Lonergan conference at the Greg a couple of years ago. One of the inspiring moments for me was to understand that during the Visitation it is Mary who carries Christ, but it is Elizabeth who gives the blessing. Similarly, as Christians we carry the message of Christ within us, but it is the Other who gives us the blessing of God.

I want connect this to what Jean Vanier says. He remarks that Jesus did not say, "Blessed are those who care for the poor," but "Blessed are the poor." Henri Nouwen deepens this reflection by saying that it is nothing wrong with the desire to help and care for the poor. "But unless I realize that God's blessing is coming to me from those I want to serve, my help will be short-lived, and soon I will be burned out." [Henri Nouwen, Here and Now: Living in the Spirit (Mumbai: St Pauls, 2011) 81.] The Other is my blessing.

Four Criteria of Inculturation

Maurice Schepers in his article, “St Thomas and the Project of Enculturation: Christianity in East Africa in the Twenty-First Century,” African Christian Studies 12/3 (1996) 42-47, gives a fourfold criteria of genuine inculturation - four D's: distinction, development, dialectic, and discernment. Moreover, he states that the idea of inculturation is neither a novelty nor nonsense. He is also of the opinion that St. Thomas Aquinas' example of inculturation, i.e., the incarnation of the gospel in the culture of medieval western Europe, is valid and inspirational even today.

Now coming to the four D's, the first criterion of inculturation is the real distinction between gospel message (grace) and culture (nature). For Schepers culture is an instance of development "from below upwards," and gospel is the source of another kind of development "from above downwards." For me such a distinction seems simplistic. Culture is not merely an achievement of developmet from below upwards; the primary development even with regard to culture is the way above downwards. While Schepers takes the two ways of development from Bernard Lonergan, he explicitly quotes from Lonergan's Method in Theology only in the next paragraph. According to Lonergan, when one preaches the gospel, one also preaches one's own culture. Here is where we need to abandon a classicist notion of culture, and embrace an empirical understanding that affirms and acknowledges a multiplicity of cultural traditions. Furthermore, in a tight-compartment distinction between culture-as-nature and gospel-as-grace, we might miss the idea that the plurality of cultures are nothing but expressions not only of the human spirit but also of the divine Spirit. The second criterion talks of the essential integrity of the Christian religion implying a development. When we understand St. Thomas' theology, we also grasp the development of tradition (Paul, John Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine). Therefore, in inculturation we are invited to integrate not only the thoughts of Catholic theologians but also of others like Luther, Calvin, et al., inasmuch as they have something positive to contribute to the tradition. In connection with this, Schepers ascertains the fact that the authority of Sacred Scripture is both proper and necessary, whereas the authority of other teachers in the Church is proper, but probable. Thirdly, there is a dialectic between pluralism and unity. St. Thomas was the pope's theologian, this is a lesson in the delicate balance, or the dialectical interaction, between pluralism and unity. Particularly interesting is the author's question in the final endnote: "Is it the Bishop of Rome's prerogative to direct the development of the church's Creed?" And the final criterion is the discernment that every human culture is somewhat faulted, and is incapable of sustained development. In other words, this is a call to exercise a prophetic discernment regarding the culture we are called to integrate and transform.

Woman, why do you cry?

Jesus' words to Mary Magdalene are still resounding in my mind: "Woman, why are you weeping?" I want to apply this to the general situation. The woman, first of all, she cries because she is strong... We, men, think we are strong and think we don't need to cry or shed tears. But it is she who is the strength of the family, the society, and the church. Moreover, the Indian situation is deplorable. She is shouted at, abused, raped, ridiculed, hurt, victimized in sexual and physical violence, ill-treated, a dowry victim, not respected, not given equal status with men, and even unwanted at birth. Has she become a mere object to others? The woman today is weeping, she has been strong, she is still strong - giving strength to others... But can I do something to allievate her pain, her situation today? Lord, have mercy on us for the times we have disrespected her and ignored her and victimized her in various ways.

The Lord will fight our battle

Yesterday's first reading from Exodus gave this beautiful verse for our reflection: "The Lord will fight for you, what you have to do is to keep calm." How perturbed we can be... we want to show our strengths, our abilities, our talents... Antony Christy too in his blog today has reflected on God's mighty action, "The Lord fights... provided we allow!"

From Antony Christy's blog, Thots and Lots, http://thots-n-lots.blogspot.in/2015/07/word-2day-21st-july-2015.html: "Between the devil and the deep sea... that was literally where Moses found himself. What could he do caught between an army that was like a sea and the sea that was swarming like a devouring army! Moses knew just what he had to do. .. Do what the Lord tells him! Because it was the Lord's battle. The Lord was fighting for them; they had to allow it and Moses did just that. The Lord said walk and he walked, the Lord said stretch and he stretched, the Lord said be still and he stood still drinking in the majesty and the power of God.

"Listen to the words of Father and carry it out exactly as said, and you will see the glory of the Lord unfold right in front of yours eyes, declares Jesus. Are we alright with the Lord fighting or battle? Or do we want to fight it ourselves? When the Lord fights the victory is certain but it may involve some challenging moments when we do not make sense of anything that would be happening. But it is the Lord who fights and we will surely triumph.

"The Lord is ready and willing; yes the Lord will fight our battle, provided we allow it."

Overlooked God's Signs?

“Master,” they said, “we should like to see a sign from you.” Their question was silly. Jesus called them “an evil and unfaithful generation.” (See the gospel reading of 16^th Monday, Ordinary Time – Matthew 12:38-42.) How could they ask him for a sign while they were surrounded by the signs he gave them? How strange to miss the greatest sign of all. Wasn’t he God’s sign to them? Have we overlooked God’s signs around us, especially the greatest sign Christ Jesus himself?

Since the Second Vatican Council we have been accustomed to the expression “signs of the times.” It proved to be a term that spoke to the mind of many a theologian. Pope John Paul II has mentioned it in many of his documents. The Salesian Congregation too has used it in many of its official communications.

One of those signs is the situation of poverty and of underdevelopment in which millions of human beings live. This is one of the signs wherein we can find Jesus. He identifies himself with the hungry and naked around us. He gives us that sign.

Are we sensitive to the signs of our times, especially the signs of grief and anxiety around us? All of us should make that grief and anxiety our own, because it is Jesus who identifies with the poor and the downtrodden. Or are we, too, asking for another sign from him? Are the poor the overlooked God's signs?

(Modified from the CD material, Entering the Lectionary.)

Dr. Patil Visits Divyadaan

Dr. Prakash Patil, a general physician, to whom we take our confreres from the community came here to treat Fr. Tony and a few other brothers. I like his calm and ever-smiling composure. He is a man for the poor, for the simple folk. An experienced man himself, he could have gone abroad (recently his son went to Sydney for studies) or taken long holidays thinking that he needs a rest from all the busydom of a medical profession. But his heart for service is that which is expressed clearly in all his dealings. No irritation, no hurry, no showing-off.... A wonderful example for me.

Don Bosco, teach us to pray

Thanks to Fr. Ian Doulton for his beautiful recollection talk on "Don Bosco, teach us to pray." It was basically a summary of the text that he has translated from the Italian Don Bosco, insegnaci a pregare written by Claudio Russo, a Salesian Cooperator from Colle Don Bosco. (A small book, but with thirteen chapters!) Particularly, I liked the questions that Fr. Ian posed for our reflection at the end of each chapter. For instance, Am I convinced of praying? What is my way of praying? Am I eager to go for prayers?

Another inspiring thing was about Don Bosco's prayer life itself. It is said that Don Bosco prayed in silence more often than by using words. But how do we know he prayed in silence? And this is what I liked: We know that Don Bosco prayed because of what happened immediately after that. A gentle touch, a healing word, an encouraging smile, a prodigious initiative, an insightful advice... these are the things that point towards the prayerful recollectedness, the practical living of the union with God... An unperturbed calm and serenity despite the heavy schedule of work. A word said not to hurt, but to heal. Beautiful. Isn't that beautiful? Prayer like sleep is seen only by its effects. Don Bosco's life bears this testimony.

FAW is the greatest foe

FAW -- standing for fears, anxieties, and worries -- is the greatest foe. (Thanks to Fr. Kulam for this formulation.) They can make us blind or lame. They can hinder our growth. Fears may be related to the present, anxieties to the future, and worries are about the past. Some may talk of them interchangably, but my point is that they can hamper my time and my life whether it be the past, the present, or the future. They may be summarised into one basic emotion of fear. It is normal, but still one needs to deal with it. The Bible, it is said, has the words or the equivalent, "Do not fear" ("Do not be afraid," "Have no fear") about 365 times repeated. That is to say, the Lord stands at your side to encourage you and comfort you each and every day of the year. How nice it will be to listen to him, and to believe in his words. And preach what I believe, and practise what I preach.