Fr Dr Jose Kuriedath CMI

You have completed fifty years as a priest; as you look back how fulfilled and happy are you, and what makes you so happy?

I am quite happy and content as a priest for the last fifty years; more so, since I am a religious priest in the CMI Congregation. From my school days, I felt very close and attached to the CMI fathers in my native place, as I was an altar boy in the monastery church, and a member of a few pious associations there, since the parish church was quite far away (Puthenpally then), and so desired to become such a priest. My desire arose from the cordial relationship of those priests with young boys on the one hand, and my fascination with the various kinds of services they were doing, on the other. In my young eyes, the parish priests were chiefly performing sacred rituals, while these fathers were engaged in various ministries like youth formation, teaching, social service etc; to me, these seemed more challenging. I am happy now because, during the last half a century, I have had enough opportunities to do such services that I dreamed of as a young boy. The CMI congregation groomed and trained me well and enabled me to fulfil those dreams. I was a teacher of not only secular subjects like sociology, philosophy etc but also of theology, religious life and so on throughout my priestly life. I have considered it as my sharing in the prophetic and teaching ministries of Christ. As an extension of this teaching duty, I also had opportunity to spread knowledge through writing too. So, I am happy that I could help at least a few to become more informed and knowledgeable and lead an enlightened Christian life. This does not mean that I am less interested in performing other priestly functions like celebrating Mass, administering sacraments and so on, which, like any other priest, I have been doing all through my priestly years. Together with and on account of all these, I believe, I have also grown to some extent in priestly personality.

You taught sociology and was a good reader of our society, as you read our Catholic community what makes you happy and proud and what makes you angry and worried?
I am happy that the Catholic community is quite advanced in education and human resource development. So, the members of the community migrate to different parts of the nation and the world and try to build up their career. It is also comparatively a tolerant group, probably due to the higher level of education and an enlightened view of religion and society.

“The expression of their religious and spiritual life, is becoming more introvert and going back to a religiosity or spirituality dominantly based on ritualism, which, I think, is like falling back to a tribalistic religious perception.”

At the same time, I am, as you have noted in the question, also worried that an influential section of the community is gradually growing more fundamentalist and exclusivist. Probably this is the result of a reaction to some painful experiences from other communities. I am also not happy that the Catholic community which gave great importance to a moral and upright social life (and education for the same) and service to the society as the expression of their religious and spiritual life, is becoming more introvert and going back to a religiosity or spirituality dominantly based on ritualism, which, I think, is like falling back to a tribalistic religious perception.

Indian theologian Felix Wilfred in an interview says our church “leadership went down and has now become bland and uninspiring”. He is bemoaning the Asian church “leaders don’t represent the needs of their people”. How true and why does that happen?
The most important needs of the people, especially in Asia and particularly in India, are satisfaction of their basic needs and security in life. For them, religion is either a source of strength to meet the challenges in life and/or of solace in the manifold pains and stresses. The religious leadership should be able to help people obtain authentic and lasting support in and through religious practices as fast changes take place today in lifestyle. Instead, I feel, our people get mere superficial, sentimental and temporary solutions through some religious rituals and even gimmicks. More importantly, religious leaders should be capable of pointing towards new visions of religious life convincingly especially to the youth as they are becoming more educated and knowledgeable, and tend to question several conventional answers. I think, the Indian Church has not been able to rise to these challenges in recent years, probably because the leadership itself lacks visionaries, and/or because most of them are too preoccupied with externals and peripherals.

When you look at the society there is a narcissist tendency in every community or religion, a centripetal drive which makes them communal, why? Is technology uprooting and making people fundamentalists? Or is the market economy make everyone self-interested and egoist?
I fully agree that we see a strong tendency in all religious groups to withdraw to their own shells, and, as it is said, become more narcissistic. And the most important factors behind this tendency seem to be both the modern technology and market economy. Market economy by its very nature is based on self-interest. So, with the failure and fall of different kinds of socialist economies from 1990’s, and the consequent spread of capitalism and market economy, its chief spirit, namely, self-interest has also spread to these societies. It doesn’t mean that in the erstwhile socialist societies, self-interest had completely died out. They were in dormant state due to the firm controls that existed then. When such controls collapsed, the narcist human woke up from slumber again. Besides, religion itself has begun to use market dynamics to grow and spread. It invests heavily in those areas where they can get a good return, not merely in money, but in power, influence, reputation, status and so on. So, the essential characteristic of altruistic charity and concern for others, the backbone especially of Christianity, has been very much marginalized, and it appears more and more as a self-centred organization.
Equally important is the spread of modern digital technology, as you noted. The fast spread of modern communication and transportation has broken up many of the past boundaries such as of state, religion, nation, language, ethnicity and so on, and the modern humans look as if they are standing almost coverless and unprotected in a vast and global open field. I think, this experience might have created in many people a strong desire to find a shelter once again in some conventional groupings such as of religion which he/she can see, touch and feel in everyday life. And the Indian social ambience being very much religious unlike several western societies, the members of the religious communities in our country become easily inward-looking and over-protecting.

Samuel Huntington speaks of a war of civilisations based on religious divisions; he seems to foresee a war between the West and Arabia. But Pope Francis is totally opposed to such an attitude and reading, and he speaks of dialogue, co-existence, cooperation and communion. Is the Kerala church heeding Huntington or Francis?
There are religious diversities all over the world, especially between the West and Arabia. But I do not think, the feared scenario (of war of civilizations) is one of religious divisions. The western societies are no more very deeply rooted into their religious foundations as in the past; they have become more secular. The problem, I think, is of a different kind. Most religions have their roots in tribal cultures, and tribal culture in its primitive form is very exclusivist and inward-looking. Today, Christianity, especially in the West, has grown out of its original tribal mentality due to the influence of modern secular, democratic and humanistic values. Unfortunately, such a growth has not taken place in Arabia. On account of the strong hold of conservative leadership, the very fundamentalist interpretation of their religious writings, and the lack of readiness to reform and adapt life and practices according to the needs of modern times, it has still a strong tribal mentality. When some among them try to practice such anachronistic and tribalist way of life in the modern society which has already accepted the values of modern life such as equality, inclusiveness, tolerance and so on, it is inevitable that clashes of convictions and practices occur. Of course, Judaism and Christianity also were born in tribal societies. But the former due to the influence of modernity, and the latter due to the acceptance of modern secular values as well as the more inclusive and universal teachings of Jesus himself have largely come out of such tribalism. So, I see the forecast mentioned in the question as one about the clash of two different cultures rather than of religions. Cultures change only out of necessity, either from within or without. I am not sure, how strongly dialogue can create such an influence. Either there should be self-made changes under the strong influence of some emerging charismatic reformers from within or enforced changes from without.

You had been the principal of a college. Heidegger says. “Science does not think.” Are science and technology leading the world into an ecological catastrophe?  Is education balanced between positive science and human sciences meaning arts and literature?
It is mostly true that uncontrolled use of science and technology, especially in exploiting nature and using immorally the modern inventions, has had disastrous effect on nature and ecology. Science and technology are tools in the hands of human beings who make use of them for good or evil purposes. Definitely, such a wide misuse of technology is the result of an unbalanced formation of human personality. Education is expected to give an integrated or holistic formation shaping a healthy and fitting personality, nurturing the intellectual, cultural, moral, physical and such other aspects. And it is quite evident that art, literature, humanities, social sciences etc provide more opportunities for such a formation than positive sciences. The new National Policy of Education (NEP) which envisages a great deal of flexibility in education may help the system to reform in this line and could be an opportunity to make education more holistic.

Jewish community existed through centuries, they had the temple and priesthood with many rituals related with the temple. But at a later period, they had no temple, no priesthood and they stopped many rituals and started synagogues and prophetic teachers – rabbis. Their scripture was very much a collection of laws but later they came to prophets and wisdom literature. What does this evolution tell the Christian churches?
According to the findings of sociology and anthropology, most religions begin with a few creeds and cultic rituals for expressing their creeds. That is why in modern theology also, it is said that worship or liturgy is the celebration of faith. It is only gradually moral life, and its prescriptions evolve from these creeds. These moral laws may be rather crude and specific in the beginning of their evolution, but gradually they begin to manifest a spirituality that is quite humanistic, more or less universally applicable to all human beings. Still at a higher level, if religions can rise to such heights, religions begin to promote a global spirituality. That is why it is sometimes said that religions divide people, but spirituality unites them. Yes, creeds and cults are distinctive, while spirituality is inclusive. We see a good example of the above mentioned evolution in Judaism. Still further, the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus manifest a purer and more universal form of spirituality. However, that spirituality was soon moulded and fitted into the structure of a religion so much so that Christianity became just one among other religions from the time of theologisation by St. Paul himself. That is another story.

What does priesthood mean for you, a cultic pujaari or socio-religious prophet? The New Testament terms are presbyteros and episcopos which are secular words on leaders and not religious notions?
As I noted in the beginning of this interview, from my puberty I was more attracted to religious priesthood rather than the diocesan. The chief motivating factor was the interest that religious priests showed in the prophetic function of priests. The Catholic theology of priesthood notes three important dimensions of priesthood – prophetic, pastoral and priestly. The last mentioned dimension, viz., priestly function demands leadership in and performance of prescribed rituals and thereby bringing together the people of God as the body of Christ (koinonia). The second function expects every priest to reach out to all, go in search of the sheep and serve to their manifold needs, especially the spiritual (diakonia). And the first function is to discern the will of God for his people and make this will known to them and help them fulfil this will (kerygma). Jesus performed the first two functions throughout his public life, but we see him hardly doing anything of the third category (priestly). Jesus is never presented as a priest in any of the NT books, except the Letter to the Hebrews. The only ritual he performed was the Last Supper which was not fully consonant with the prescribed ritual of Judaism. As someone remarked, the whole set of Catholic clergy has been tied to numerous rituals in agreement with the notion of priesthood of Christ, that exists only in a book of NT whose author nobody knows, while all the Gospels and other books of the New Testament are filled with the manifestations of the role of Jesus as a prophet/teacher and pastor. Probably, the early Church had a clearer and straightforward vision of Jesus (which is why the terms mentioned in the question were used for the Church ministers in the early centuries), which unfortunately got clouded under the heavy and thick layer of priesthood in more evolved Christianity in the likeness of other religions.