(Fr Francis Gonsalves S.J.,
Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune)
Interviewed by Fr Sunny Kalapurackal

“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” is Jesus’ cry from the Cross. What does it tell Christians?
Good Friday is the centre of our faith. It is the day when Jesus expresses His love by giving Himself up totally. It is the culmination of His love. Jesus says: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (Jn 15:13); that is precisely what He does on Good Friday. It shows us the depth and the climax of His love on the cross at Calvary. “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” That is taken from Psalm 22. We have two broad streams of theological explanations. First, Latin American theologian José Comblin says that in this darkest hour of His crucifixion, Jesus felt so forsaken by even God, His Father, that He could no longer call Him ‘Abba’ (an endearing, intimate term which He often used), but could only call Him ‘God.’ I find this a very radical kind of explanation. Honestly, I don’t think that even at the most desperate moment Jesus would have thought that God, His Father, had abandoned Him. Second, we must see psalm 22 in its entirely. It begins with: “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” But, later, in verse 9 we read: “It was you who took me from the womb; you kept me safe at my mother’s breast.” Here we get a maternal image within that Psalm itself and then it ends with beautiful consolation. Jesus knows that God will never ever forsake Him. The psalm climaxes with: “To Him, indeed, shall all who sleep in the earth bow down; before Him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and I shall live for Him. Posterity will serve Him; future generations will be told about the Lord, and proclaim His deliverance to a people yet unborn, saying that He has done it.” Jesus is talking about life even though He is on the Cross. Being a Jew, Jesus would have been well-versed in the Psalms. Thus, I think that the first explanation is too radical and does not give an accurate picture of the Passion. While we admit that Jesus did experience pain, denial, betrayal and forsakenness, He had hope that God would, ultimately, deliver Him, and bring about new life through His death.

So, could we say that it is more a kind of deliverance that we see in the Cross than mere suffering?
Yes, I would say it’s both—suffering leads to deliverance and suffering leads to redemption. All suffering is surely painful. But, when suffering is endured with the right spirit, it is salvific. Any giving up of oneself for a larger cause is always redemptive. That’s what I sincerely believe. All sacrifice brings positive fruit and new life.

Through Jesus’ suffering and death, He had paid for our sins and He had paid it in full. Paid whom? Can we implicate God in Jesus’ crucifixion and passion?
This ‘paying back’ theory is rather out dated and unacceptable today. This is the 12th century theory of St Anselm in his book ‘Cur Deus Homo?’ literally meaning, ‘Why did God become Man?’ It is called ‘satisfaction theory’—a kind of retributive theory, which goes like this: God is very angry, because Adam and Eve sinned and wandered away from Him, thereby creating a great chasm and distance between God and Man. The price of this sin has to be paid, and someone has to rebuild the ‘broken bridge,’ so to say, between God and Man. Who can do this? Surely, only one who knows both parties—one who knows God and who knows human beings. So, the only person suitable to pay the price and rebuild the bridge to God, is Jesus Christ, since He is both God and man, the god man. But, by speaking like this, what kind of idea do we convey about God? Is our God a vengeful God? Is God a businessman or ‘baniya’ who yearns to be paid back—paid back with the blood of His Son, Jesus? How would God profit by asking for the blood of Jesus? Obviously, this kind of theory is not reconcilable with what Scripture says about God; He is loving, merciful and forgiving. Rather than say Jesus ‘paid’ the price, I would say Jesus ‘paved’ the way. Jesus paves the way and carries us back to the Father. God the Father, loves us irrespective of who we are and what we do. A good example of this is the parable of the prodigal son or prodigal father (Gospel of Luke, chapter 15). The prodigal father is so extravagant, so wasteful in loving his son even when he is a sinner. God is always waiting for us to come back. That’s the picture that Jesus reveals to us about Abba, our Father. It’s not a person who is waiting for the blood, who is rejoicing over sufferings. So I think we should forget this old theology that Jesus paid the price for our sins. Rather, Jesus suffered to show us the way to the Father by going out of His way to love and to serve. Loving and serving necessarily involve some amount of suffering and pain. For example, a mother taking care of her children or a soldier protecting his country must undergo suffering and pain. This is what Jesus did. He paved the way back to the Father by walking the pathway of love, service and sacrifice.

Then, Jesus was made a scapegoat and killed. Is not the scapegoat mechanism prevalent in our culture? How do we get out of it? What does the Crucified tell us of scapegoating?
Scapegoating is a kind of passive theory of violence. Sadly, it does happen in our Indian society. Today, the Sangh Parivar or the proponents of ‘Hindutva’—i.e., fanatic and militant Hindus who are not really representative of their religion since the majority of Hindus are very peaceful, tolerant and open to other religions—indulge in scapegoating. Hindutva fanatics think that if the Muslims and Christians are thrown out of India, they will have a peaceful India. Here they are making us scapegoats. The idea of scapegoat is taken from the Book of Leviticus chapter 16, where the sins of the community are put upon a goat, which is then pushed out into the desert. Scapegoating never works. Imagine if all the Muslims were thrown into the Arabian Sea and all the Christians, Parsees and other minorities were dumped into the Bay of Bengal, do you think India will be a peaceful nation of Hindus? The same people will turn their violence upon members of their own group. Hence, scapegoating theory is flawed. René Girard speaks of a ‘mimetic desire’ whereby violence is replicated or replayed in the ritual. There is a rough parallel in the violent cow-protectors or Hindutva ‘gau-rakshaks’ who lynch Muslims (mainly) to save the ‘holy cow.’ This kind of scapegoating really does not work. The case of Jesus is slightly different. Though Annas and Caiaphas say that “one man must die to save the nation” and make Jesus a scapegoat, seen from Jesus’ point of view, He offers Himself up willingly out of love for the last and the least. His suffering is voluntary and vicarious—undergone to save others. The theory of vicarious suffering holds that we can suffer for others. Usually people run away from suffering. But, we do have individuals who are ready to suffer for others. They are beautiful examples of love. Love is vulnerable. For example, people who voluntarily donate their organs to others may suffer—a suffering to promote fuller life.

In the Gospel of John, we don’t find the Eucharistic narrative; instead, he reports the washing of the feet at the Last Supper. What does that tell us?
The Gospel of John is written last. It is the last piece of New Testament writing. So, it was written almost fifty or sixty years after the death and resurrection of Christ. By then, the community was already celebrating the Eucharist and were familiar with the institution narrative, namely: Jesus took the bread/cup and said, take and eat/drink, this is my body/blood. But John realizes that something very important has been forgotten, which is precisely the washing of the feet. John evidently doesn’t see the need to repeat the narrative of the institution. But, he has two chapters—i.e., chapter 6, when Jesus says: “I am the bread of life, one who comes to me shall not hunger, and one who believes in me shall not thirst” (6:35) and chapter 13, which has the narrative of Jesus washing His disciples’ feet. By these two chapters, John wants to convey the idea that the eating/drinking at the Eucharist is meaningless unless it is complemented and completed by the washing of the feet. Many people say that the washing of the feet is the sign of Jesus’ humility. I would rather think that it is the sign of a new order of relationships and new structure of power. Jesus says, “You call me Lord and master, and that I am” (Jn 13:13). Note that Jesus doesn’t say that He is not their Guruji; rather, while asserting that He is their Lord and Master, Jesus also asserts that He has washed their feet—a task normally left to slaves. So, by washing their feet, He desires that they metaphorically wash each others’ feet. Interestingly, why does Peter not want Jesus to wash his feet? I think Peter is afraid that if Jesus washes his feet, then, he, as head of the disciples, will have to wash the feet of the other eleven disciples! Peter is not ready for that. But Jesus turns the pyramid of hiearchy and power upside down. The Master will no longer sit at the top; the true Master will sit at the feet of his disciples as a servant. This is a very radical and relevant message for us today. Truly, John’s gospel is an extremely beautiful and mystic gospel, where one sees the deeper meaning of the Eucharist.

When we compare these two—the institution narrative and the washing of the feet—what may be more important in the present context?
As a priest I must honestly say that today the Church is in crisis because of its priests. All over India we see a rather tepid kind of clergy involved in abuse of Church property, money and sex. I am not saying this of all priests, but there have been a lot of scandals. On Maundy Thursday, the priest might be ready to wash the feet of a few men, but not of women. But, look at Pope Francis! On the very first Maundy Thursday after he was installed as Pope, he washed the feet not only of men, but also of women! Moreover, not only of women, but also of Muslim women. What an impact that made on the whole world! Even Muslims were feeling that this man is a great Guru. Pope Francis is truly a humble servant, interested in loving and caring. This makes a great difference. I think, rather than washing feet symbolically once a year in front of the faithful, if a priest were to adopt Jesus’ servant-mentality daily, what a wonderful Church we would have!

Mary Magdalene remains the first witness of resurrection. In Jewish culture, a woman is really not a witness. What is the significance of this narrative?
First and foremost, when we talk of Mary Magdalene, we must shed the misconception that she is a prostitute. Nowhere is it written in scripture that Mary Magdalene is a prostitute. On the contrary, in the gospel of Luke, chapter 8:1-3, Mary Magdalene is described as one whom Jesus cured of seven demons. She then became Jesus’ disciple. She is a very faithful disciple; because, scripture tells us that, at the foot of the crucified Lord, there were only Mary, mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and John the Apostle. All the other disciples had fled for fear of the Jews. After Jesus’ burial, Mary Magdalene goes very boldly to the tomb—thereby exhibiting all the beautiful qualities of a disciple: love, faithfulness and courage. The Risen Jesus gives her the first appearance, the very first darshan of Himself. In Jesus’ time, the opinions of women were not taken seriously and women could not stand witness in a court of law since it was believed that women were fickle-minded, frivolous and changed their minds very easily. Interestingly, knowing that women’s opinion were not taken seriously, why does Jesus choose a woman, Mary of Magdalene, and other women to become messengers of His resurrection? I think that Jesus wanted His followers to believe in the resurrection due to their firm faith rather than on whether the news was conveyed to them by a woman or man. Perhaps, Jesus was also telling the world, these women have been faithful to me and therefore I give them the first darshan! Mary Magdalene says: “I have seen the Lord!” (Jn 20:18)—first person singular. Notably, out of the six apparitions of the Risen Lord mentioned in the gospels, Mary Magdalene’s name appears in five—and her name is always mentioned first. In the early church she was called ‘Apostola Apostolorum,’ meaning, Apostle of the Apostles. This is often pointed out by feminist theologians but largely ignored. I see Mary Magdalene as a very beautiful model of the Bhakti Marga, the way of devotion. She feels pained to be separated from her Guruji, her Master. So, she goes there. She went there to be with Him even in His death. You see, true love goes beyond the grave. In one word: who is Mary Magdalene? I say, she is a beautiful, exemplary disciple.

Can we say that Jesus had that kind of approach to vulnerable women and that He considered them more valuable than men?
I wouldn’t say that Jesus considered women more valuable than men, for He considered them equal to men. Jesus had no problem to approach a Samaritan woman, which was counter cultural. Indeed, it was almost a scandal. First, as a Jew and a Rabbi, Jesus going to ask for water from a woman is scandalous. Second, Jesus is supposed to be a holy person; thus, His going to a Samaritan woman becomes doubly scandalizing. Third, Jesus going to a woman who had six husbands becomes thrice scandalizing. Here, Jesus indicates that every human being is precious; male or female, Samaritan or Jew. You are important because you are a son or daughter of God. It is a radical step that good news is to be proclaimed by everybody. Everybody has an equal right and therefore Jesus seems to say: I shall even send women; they too shall be my disciples.

Pope Francis has defined the observance of Lent in a new model this year especially during his homily. How do you evaluate it in the context of traditional way of observance of the Lent?
I often jokingly tell people, “I love Pope Francis not only because he has taken my name and belongs to my Jesuit congregation; but, because he is a man who walks and talk.” He practises what he preaches! Whatever he says in word, he shows in his work and in his witness of life. He speaks very powerfully. During Lent, many people undertake strict fasts, pray more and give more alms—but, how do these practices affect their life, attitudes and behaviour? It could happen that someone fasts and then keeps on boasting about it, feeling proud and superior to others. This is wrong. Suggesting alternatives ways of fasting, Pope Francis says we should fast from gossip, fast from TV, fast from WhatsApp and other things which we are attached to or which makes us less ‘Christian.’ All fasting and abstinence is meritorious only if the time, money, energy saved in these activities is spent in serving others. In sum, all sadhanas should be God-centred and other-oriented. Pope Francis is very practical. He does not preach abstract theology or philosophy, but practical Christianity. He is another Christ; thus, all people love him.

You are from the land of Modi, Gujarat, which is exhibited as a model of development in India. Yet, some say that this development happened only in the urban areas and the poor villagers are still suffering. How do you evaluate this developmental programme in Gujarat?
Being in Gujarat for almost forty years, I have seen how Gujarat has become communalised. Basically, Gujaratis are a business community. If their business is prospering they are very happy. Most are not interested in the poor and social realities. The roads are very good in Gujarat; but roads meant for whom? The poor people don’t have vehicles to travel on the roads. Roads lead outsiders into the villages to rob and take away natural resources like precious minerals and wood. Gujarat was also the laboratory of Hindutva. In the late 1990s, we had lots of persecutions of Christians. I have been writing about this for the past twenty years. Believe it or not, what is happening in Gujarat is dangerous. This communalism and divisive politics of the Hindutva brigade to build the ‘Hindu Rashtra’ will not pass away. Sadly, even people who were sitting on the fence and did not have strong political opinions and inclinations are today sympathizing with Hindutva ideology. They think: Since we don’t have any other Hindu nation in the world, why not transform India into a theocracy, a Hindu nation? Let’s ask: What is happening now in India? Who are the people prospering today? The Ambanis, Adanis, Modis, Amit Shah’s family and other corporates are profiting from this so-called ‘development.’ What’s happening to the poor? They suffer because of demonetization. I know people in the villages who don’t have bank accounts. They save their hard earned money in the cupboard, in small matkas (earthen pots), under their bed or pillow. All that money was gone overnight because of demonetization. Moreover, the world’s tallest statue of Sardar Patel is built on the Narmada River transgressing all ecological norms. How have the Adivasis profited by this? They got nothing; and they will get nothing but more pollution. Their water resources are depleted, their jungles are cleared, their whole habitat and ecosystems are destroyed. The tribals are dying a slow, painful death. This ‘Gujarat model of development’ is shameful. We must become aware of all this; for this is precisely what I mean when I say we must be politically aware and a stute.