Valson Thampu

From a spiritual point of view, nothing happens randomly, or by chance. The duty to understand the meaning of what happens is, hence, basic to spiritual discipline. It may so happen that, on occasions, the proverbial ‘writings on the wall’ seem un-decipherable. The un-decipherable is still significant. It’s just that we are unable to unravel the meanings thereof.

Let’s reckon a general principle relevant to the context that concerns us here. When an issue is fought over with unwarranted ferocity and tenacity, it hides within itself a long-denied reality that cries out for attention. Whether due attention is accorded or not becomes, in course of time, a test of the maturity and sense of responsibility of the people concerned. A crisis, we know, signals at once danger and opportunity. The sane discern the latter and emerge, for that reason, stronger and wiser from it.

It is surprising that the toll that the on-going standoff regarding the mode of celebrating the Mass is taking on the morale of the faithful remains overlooked. This is of a piece with the nature of the crisis itself; namely, indifference to the spiritual welfare of the flock. Believers have a need to have the morale and cohesion of the church correspond, as closely as possible, to their personal faith and integrity. When dissonance is introduced between the two,  believers are pushed into confusion and trauma.  This, in turn, weakens the caring culture of the church and reflects poorly on those who are called to be the ‘shepherds’ of the flock. Athenians, to take a secular example, were able to excel so long as their sense of personal honour and dignity was nourished and sustained by the spirit of Athens. The decline of Athens started when the two split apart, resulting in the disarray of both.

Think, in this regard, of the loyalty that Jesus commanded from his disciples. He not only matched their sense of significant purpose but inspired and surpassed it. Peter was made of pretty brittle stuff. Apart from the Master, he would have remained and died the coward that he proved to be in the courtyard of Caiaphas. This ‘morale-quotient’ may seem insubstantial, but it is decisive in its sustaining power as regards the believers. It is a terriblly irresponsible to erode it.

This issue needs to be understood in relation to what it means to ‘shepherd’ the believers. What are the needs that we need to meet by way of pastoral care? Shouldn’t the need to sustain, indeed enliven, the spiritual morale of the members of the church figure foremost in this? It goes without saying that in times of distress, as at present, it is of crucial importance to regard this as the very soul of pastoral care.

Regrettably, we ignore the spirit and context of Jesus’s teachings as relevant to the present context. Consider, for an illustration, the ‘doctrine of the other cheek’. Why did Jesus enunciate such an unprecedented norm? Surely, it was not the product of a moment of inspiration. The norm that prevailed then was the equivalence between offence and punishment. It paralleled the barter system –the exchange of commodities of equal value- in commerce. Jesus transcended this paradigm. He was inspirational in his moral vision because he came to herald a new humanity. Mere conformity to prevailing norms did not suffice for the purpose. He insisted, likewise,  that the righteousness of his followers should exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.  Gandhi understood the power of Jesus’s inspirational ethics and put it to brilliant use in the political domain; the reason why he continues to challenge the conscience of humankind as well as vex those who stay stuck in ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’, which, Gandhi said, would leave an entire nation eyeless and toothless. Unlike Gandhi, we find the inspirational ethics of Jesus spineless and profitless!

This brings us to a significant change in the Christian community –the shift, early as yet, from priests to Christian god-men. The hallmark of the latter is that they have nothing to do with the exalted ethical ideals of Jesus.  They are blithely unaware of the need to bear witness to a superior spiritual or social order.

This issue lurks also in the modus-of-Mass stand-off. Should the authority of the Synod be obeyed implicitly in this matter, or should it be viewed in the light of a changed and changing context?  What, if any, are the legitimate limits of obedience in an evolving scenario? Unconditional obedience may be legitimate in relation to (a) inspirational leadership predicated on transformative ethics, such as Jesus represented and (b) a politico-cultural context of hierarchical governance, such as monarchy, characterized by inequality. Can unconditional obedience be claimed in a climate of egalitarian democratic sensibilities? The hierarchical is based on law and coercion; the inspirational is based on love and voluntary obedience. The authority of the Synod is of the former kind.

What happens when the members of the priestly hierarchy squander the spiritual-mystical aura they enjoyed for long? It cannot be that those in authority ignore their duty to safeguard their spiritual standing, and still deem themselves entitled to unconditional obedience. This was the problem that the clergy precipitated at the time of the French Revolution.  They enjoyed enormous privileges, including those of the secular kind, but did not bother to sustain their spiritual authenticity. It was not privileges per se that offended the people; but privileges sans the duties and discipline that went with them.

Unseemly confrontations, in full public view, can only undermine whatever is left of the reverence that believers conferred habitually on church authorities. That loyalty derived, in no small measure, to the presumed ethical superiority of the priestly class. When this perception is jolted rudely and repeatedly and, alongside, violent confrontations on liturgical minutiae are enacted in public, the outcome is bound to be harmful to the aura of ecclesial authority. This is bound to prove ruinous to both parties in the conflict, and its tsunamic effect is bound to roll over the Christian community as a whole for the reason that denominational differences are lost on the public. For them, what happens in one section of the Christian community happens to the whole of the community. All the more so, when it claims to have, for its script, the supreme sacrifice of the one who is the author and finisher of the Christian faith itself.