“How do you ‘presence’ people without looking at them?”

Rev Dr George Pattery S.J.

You wrote an open letter to the Major Archbishop who was recently elected and you said there of ‘listening ears.” Will you explain your metaphor and its implications?
I was prompted to write that letter for several reasons: i) I was deeply pained to see the visuals of the ‘Liturgical conflicts’ in some of our churches, leading to physical attacks, and altercations, inside the church, in the sanctuary and in the church compounds; ii) I was surprised at the way Ab. Cyril Vasil, s.j. during his first visit, ‘confronted’ the faithful gathered in the church, using the blessed sacrament as a ‘weapon’ to silence them; iii) from the responses of Ab. Thazath, it appeared that use of ‘police force’ to settle church matters is nothing but ordinary way, and that ‘deacons’ can be cajoled to ‘obey liturgy position’ as a condition for ordination.
In the light of the above, when I listened to Ab.Thattil’s initial response saying that he has two ears and will listen to all, I felt a refreshing tone. ‘Listening ears’ is very biblical. Yahweh listened to the cry of his people on innumerable occasions and acted – through the prophets, kings and wise men and women. Jesus in the Gospels, mostly seen moving along, on the border lines – on the road, at the well-side, along the sea-shores, in the fields, – and listened to people and dined with them.
In ‘listening’, we need i) to be present intentionally to the one who talks; bring our ‘senses’ to make us present in the ‘here and now’; ii) we need to silence our ‘minds’, keep our eternally chatting monkey-mind to be quiet; iii) be conscious of the ‘other’ as a partner, instead of ‘othering’ the speaker; iv) seeking the new that is emerging; v) confronting within me ‘set borders’ and if need be, to expand them; vi) creatively attending to the new. It is a very engaging yet creative act. The presupposition is that the Spirit is engaging us and working in and through our conversation. This is an essential part of ‘discernment in common’. The Spirit of God is actively working in and through us – believers. As an ordained minister in the church, it is further expected of me to listen to the movements of the Spirit, in me, in others, and in the community at large. I often found ‘listening’ as the most demanding exercise, and also most ‘rewarding’ act! When I heard Ab.Thattil saying that he would listen to everyone, and he has ‘TWO EARS’, it brought a refreshing tone.

Many bishops of the Synod sent a signed circular to priests and faithful of the archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly to obey. What do you think that they are saying? Was it a prudent way of handling the issue?
The other day when I heard in the News Channel, a Circular is being sent out (again!) to EKM-Angamaly, signed by the Synod Fathers, including Ab. Thattil, I was appalled. Ab. Thattil is celebrating his appointment, having many receptions at different levels and by many groups; (to my mind in itself his ‘receptions’ are over-done and unnecessary; he decried of our costly and wasteful spending in festivals in the parishes, and yet seems to relish similar type of celebrations for his receptions). The tone and spirit of the Circular is very disappointing and counter-productive. Even when the newly appointed Ab is yet to come to take full charge, this Circular is reinforcing the previous positions. What purpose does it serve? To delimit the scope of the working of the new Ab? To support his ministry with ‘a firm backing’? to make sure that ‘nothing happens’? He being a signatory of the Circular, how could he say that he would listen to people with an open mind, when circular is reinforcing the old position and foreclosing any other solution? Who is getting bluffed? The whole exercise looks to me like a circus!
Yet in his speech at the reception extended to him in Trivandrum, (an elaborate and prolonged political exercise involving the Chief minister, Ministers, MPs, Religious Heads etc), Ab. Raphael said that three pillars, as it were, of his approach, will be marked by Communion, Kenosis and Ministry. Communion meant walking with all together (without leaving anyone aside – the perspective of the Shepherd in search of the lost sheep); kenosis meant to suffer loss as the way of the Lord, of self-emptying, of letting go rather than clinging to power/positions; and ministry as service and not industry to fetch benefits. I wish that this mentality pervaded the Synod and its documents! Will there be any change/move in that direction? I hope there will be.
The synod already lost a wonderful opportunity for Christian witness; rather it exhibited a counter witness of wielding power in a pagan way! The synod lost a wonderful opportunity to take the wash basin, to kneel down and wipe the feet of the priests and the laity! They are the sahayatris (co-travellers} in the church, walking together to become disciples of the Lord in the church. The hell is empty, (Pope Francis) – even though some of us are eager to put them all in hell! If only Pope Francis heard the constant threats to ‘priests and laity’ of disciplinary action in Syro-Malabar church, he would revise this personal thinking and say that hell is full, with people from EKM-Angamaly archdiocese!

You speak of Samudayam or commune, do you think the Syro-Malabar church is becoming communal? And are they creating division between communities, say the Muslims?
From the sporadic utterances of different Bishops (mainly from Pala, Changanassery, Thalassery etc) it is becoming very obvious that their ‘interest and preoccupation’ is to protect the limited communal agenda of their community. The social teaching of the church on social justice, ecology and inter-faith questions, are being deliberately ignored, choosing ‘communal items’ for their discourse. It is the obligation of the Bishops to teach their communities on the growing volumes of church’s teaching especially on ecology and inter-faith issues. When the interest of the particular community clashes with the perspectives of church teaching, it is the responsibility of the Bishops as pastors to help them learn gospel/church’s positions and act accordingly. The social teachings of the church are an ever growing corpus that responds to contemporary issues and perspectives.
In spite of 12 years of obligated catechetical teaching, our people do not know that ‘inter-faith marriages’ are allowed in the church, and that church’s teaching on it need to be studied by the couples with due respect and openness. Pope Francis is teaching the church to be open to people of other faiths, and that since the Vatican Council, Church’s teaching on it has been growing, especially with regard to Abrahamic religions. Such teaching, presented with due respect and diligence will enable young couples to make informed decisions, and avoid blanket condemnation of other faith communities. Synod insists on the so-called ‘rebel priests and the lay people’ to obey the Pope on liturgy. Bishops are to obey the Pope, by transmitting the teaching of the church on various issues such as Inter-Faith dialogue, social justice, ecology, blessings etc. The documents like ‘Laudato si, ‘Frattelli Tutti’, and ‘Fiducia supplicans’ are to be transmitted to the people and invite them to respond to them. I am afraid that some of our Bps have taken contrary positions with regard to them, and speak to the public in order to please their ‘communal constituency’. This is in effect a disobedience. The Synod looks helpless to defend the spirit and perspectives of these documents and the teachings of Pope.

You speak of “colonizing expedition” in the church, is the diaspora churches simply extension of power and panoply of the church?
‘Syro-Malabar church minus Malabar seems to be zero’. This is a remark I heard some years ago, on the side lines of a national seminar. Malabar (Kerala) culture and language are so intimately related to Syro-Malabar church that it fails to have or teach perspectives other than these. The recent events in Syro-Malabar church and Synod in particular, appear to support such perceptions. The Oriental theological insights could be presented respectfully and intelligently to attract seekers. Belonging to Syro-Malabar Church by ‘birth’ should not be presented as the first and the last argument in inter-ritual situations and places. Cultural identities are confused with ‘ecclesial’ belonging, and insist on membership issues, based on one’s birth, rather than a studied choice of people. I think there is a communication from the Vatican for some time now, saying that the Syro-Malabar Catholics living in large cities outside Kerala, and have been frequenting Latin Parishes, are given ‘choice’ when a Syro-Malabar diocese is erected in that territory. But such possibilities are not told to the people. There seems to have a colonial mentality in the exercise of ‘ecclesial power’, occupying the ‘territory and people’ without dialogue, communion and fellowship. Are we also weaponising ‘sacramental life’ specially at the time of marriage and death, in order to preserve or increase the number of people in our parishes/diocese? I wonder whether Ab.Thattil has a different and enlightened view of ‘mission’ of the church as he holds that Syro-Malabar church has finally got its ‘Right’ to evangelize the whole of India, and thus betrays an expansionist view of church, in terms of number and influence, and not necessarily Gospel inspired perspectives and growth of kingdom (kin-dom) communities.

As a Jesuit how will you help the bishops in the discerning process of understanding the issues at stake to solve them?
Pope Francis has brought to the fore the ‘tool’ of discernment in church governance. This is not an invention of Pope Francis or the Jesuits, but already present in Pauline letters, and in the teaching of the early Church Fathers and Mothers. Certainly St. Ignatius of Loyola developed it further, through his journey in the Spirit and bequeathed to the Society of Jesus this patrimony. In fact, the Orthodox churches in their synods have been using this tool for their deliberations. Pope Francis is convinced of it, and insist on it as a vital tool of governance because the Spirit is guiding the church, and we need to be open to the Spirit in our on-going journey.
Freed from inordinate attachments to ‘riches, power, and honours/pleasure’, the leadership in the church constantly seek the guidance of the Spirit in its on-going journey to follow the path of Jesus of the Gospels. I do not know the guidelines of the Synod of Syro-Malabr church; I assume that they have worked out ways and means of ‘discerning process’ in their style of governance, and conduct the Synod in that way. But the way the Synod circulars are appearing and the manner in which commissions are appointed without proper ‘guidelines and mandate’, I doubt, whether there has been sufficient discernment done in decision making. This takes us to the issue of Synod membership. Synod could include leaders from the Religious (men and women), the lay people (men and women), and Bishops. Besides, the manner of the exercise of power is vital. In Ignatian phrase, it is said: there is a name behind every decision, and there is a process of consultation/dialogue prior to every decision. In the NT language, we read: ‘The pagans lord it over their people. This shall not be among you; ours is servant leadership (Mk: 10.43). The servant leadership is the model that Church leadership is built on. At times, it looks to me that Synod proceedings are following the political party style. Clever manoeuvring, and group-ism seem to succeed! Recognizing our personal and communal ‘blocks’ with regard to power, riches and honour/pleasure, (we may not be free of them totally, but being aware of them so as not to influence our decisions is important) we need to be constantly checking on our ‘inner freedom’ (especially our inordinate attachments arising from belonging to a particular group), while making decisions, and recognize ‘interior movements of consolations and desolations’ within us. Accordingly, decisions are made and reviewed, and if required, open to revision.
The Spirit of the Lord is active and present in the Bps, priests, the religious, and the lay people (men and women) as members of the believing community. In listening to one another, we recognise, and are led by the Spirit. Pope Francis chose to be just one of the 10 members, in group sharing during the Synod. ‘Listening’ becomes meaningful and challenging, when we listen to one another in the Spirit. Does it happen in Syro-Malabar Synod? When a Synod decision is consistently and continuously challenged by a group, it could be seen as also an invitation by the Spirit, to review and revise the decision if need be. Discernment is a process, and undertaken joyously.
Do you think the bishops of the synod are not giving time and space for the new major archbishop to initiate a process of healing and come to some solution to the problem pestering them?
I am literally baffled by the ‘logic or the lack of it’ in issuing a Circular, soon after electing the Major Ab. In the volatile situation of the local church in EKM-Angamaly diocese, it is important for the new Ab to study the issues, to listen to people and to discern the matter; he needed time and certain urgency to address the issue. By reintroducing a Circular, the Synod is in fact foreclosing any development on the issue. Similar things happened in earlier times with the work of commission under Bp. Bosco. If Bp.Bosco and earlier Ab.Vasil had no mandate to propose a solution, then why did they spend so long hours in discussion? Is Synod interfering in their work or are they using Synod screen to avoid any solution? Is Synod serious about the issue?

As a priest who started the ministry from the archdiocese of Thrissur; what do you think of the new leadership and his expressions in a volatile situation? What do you think he can and should do at this time of his career as the new leader?
It took many centuries for the universal church to arrive at an integral theology, and mode of celebration of the Eucharist, and as a sacrament. The teaching of Vat II implies that the president of the Eucharist is not a poojari, just repeating the prayers and rituals as instructed in the text. He is the celebrant of the Eucharist, interpreting the scriptures, and manifesting the formation/gathering of the people of God, in and through the breaking of the bread and sharing the cup (Table-Fellowship of Jesus) in ‘memory’ of Jesus, whose self-gift on the cross to the Father, is the continuation of the kenotic life/ mutual self-gift of the Trinity. The believing messianic community is being nourished and grown, in and through this process. Didn’t we learn it beautifully during ‘pralayam’(deluge) and Covid? We missed the presence of people, and also the spirit of Eucharistic community. How do you ‘presence’ people without looking at them?
Ab Thattil could initiate a discernment process within the Synod, and Syro-Malabar church; we listen to the Spirit working through each one, and learn of our ‘wounded-ness’ and our interior blocks (power, riches and honour/pleasure). I hope that he does. He said he would listen to all with a broad smile. But will he hide the real issues behind his smile? He is talented in speaking, and connecting with people. But is he prone to be occasionally naïve, with his populist style, and a loose tongue? He can easily get entangled into knots of his own making. Recently I heard him saying: what is written in the Bible, and rituals of Mass prescribed for ‘Qurbana, cannot be changed by the priests (celebrant). Are they both on the same level in theology and scripture, and determined for ever? The Scripture is to be interpreted according to the times, and make it intelligible to people. The celebrant of the Eucharist is NOT a poojari, repeating and doing things automatically. He has to be alert and flexible, and responsive to the invitation of the Spirit in the celebration of the Eucharist. It is not only a sacrifice, but continuation of Table Fellowship (radical inclusiveness), of washing the feet and self-offering to the Father. It is not OT model of sacrifice, but forming the community modelled on the kingdom values.
Ab.Thattil speaks of Kaarunnyathinte oushadam, (medicine of mercy) as the need of our time; but it was absent in Synodal approach of which he was and is a member, and leader. In the NT, Jesus lived and died dangerously, and his memory was a daring and endangering one for the early Christian community. Jesus of Syro-Malabar church seems to be a sanitized Jesus, to be preserved behind the curtain in the sanctuary. Pope Francis’ call to the youth of Brazil to open the doors of the churches, to let Jesus go out and meet people, seems important for us too.
(To be concluded)