Publications: Knowledge - Business! - 1

The photos of Benedict XVI, Bishop Emeritus of Rome, are removed and the photos of Pope Francesco are now decorating the Church offices, Bishop’s houses, Presbyteries, colleges and schools. The same endeavor of ‘removal and replacement’ is seen in the bookshops around the Globe.  Every bookshop in catholic countries will have by now at least 10 different books on Pope Francesco. Ii is a good sign because the Church, apart from the Diocese of Rome, will be in touch with the thought of the Bishop of Rome - Pope Francesco. I only wish that people around the world not simply buy the books but they read them and follow them in their Christian life. Will they be able to buy all the books that will be published in the name of Pope Francesco, because the books will be published one after another claiming to offer a unique view on the pope or his thought?

I have more questions. Why did not Cardinal Bergolio attract the publishers’ world as Pope Franceso? Did not cardinal Bergolio say these things already in Argentina? Why were the publishers uninterested in the words of Cardinal Bergolio and are very interested in the thought of Pope Franceso? Does this mean that Pope Fransceso has radically altered his views from that of Cardinal Bergolio? [If he had not changed his position and thought, does it mean that whatever the Pope says become a radical thought?] However, when these words come from the bishop of Rome they are definitely radical. However, even if somebody else had been elected the Pope, by this time there would have been at least seven books if not ten.

Well - The thought of Pope becomes crucial and radical for the publishers because the books on pope will make money and Pope Francesco is only a name of reference for citation! I do not claim that the different popes’ views are the same, I am only pointing out what the publishers do. Utilizing the opportunity they create ideas, different perspectives, and interpretations of the same speech of the same person.

To be continued...

Religiosity and Richness

Why do people go to the Temple or praise God? May be, because they have everything in life. We praise God because we have all the wealth and enjoy all the benefits of the human world and therefore we are concerned about the higher life. This would mean that the rich praise God or that praising God becomes possible when we become rich. In other words, only when our lower needs are fulfilled we will be concerned about our higher needs.  Abraham Maslow had talked about the hierarchy of needs. If religious belief is concerned with the higher or fuller life this means that one’s belief is to be concerned with the higher life. It should mean that only the rich are very particular to praise God. We hear and read that people throw gold and money in some famous temples and Churches. The offering can be seen as the sign that they do not value money so much compared to God and his magnanimity. They are able to tell God – Money or gold is nothing in front of God –.

On the contrary we also know that the poor people are more religious than the rich. Jesus valued the small coin thrown in the offertory box. He also said that there will be always poor with you. Although he had said this in a different context, it seems to me that the passage can be interpreted to mean that these poor will always be there visiting the temple and they will be always faithful. It is obvious that the poor outnumber the rich in marching towards the temples and Churches. When one compares a country like India with the Western countries which are quite well off one can very well understand that they do have less believers and church attendance.[1]

It seems then that the claim that the rich will seek God seems to be false. God is not sought only when one is rich but there is something more to belief and not simply the material welfare. It can be argued that the poor rush to the Churches in order to seek the material welfare, seeking the help of God to attain human welfare. If the poor praise God only to receive material goods, then basic need is not God but my hunger, my clothing and house, in this sense Maslow may seem to be right. I doubt whether this can simply be associated with human needs of hunger. There seems to be more to this. The regular attendance, the affinity to religion can be awakened and one’s explicit identification with a particular religion can also have sociological or political reasons.[2] This affinity to religion can be also seen to be inherent in the human person. That is what some like Paul Tillich called faith as the ultimate concern of the human person.[3] In this sense it seems that the economic relations have nothing to do with the religious beliefs. Poor may be more religious (concerned about the higher life that is inclusive of the ordinary life) not because they lack wealth but in spite of lacking wealth. The rich can also be religious in spite of the wealth they have if they are poor in spirit otherwise the immersion in the world can block the awareness of the ultimacy. Therefore the awareness of one’s need of higher life has an easy access in the poor whereas it seems difficult for the rich.

Does it mean that the poor are really and spontaneously concerned about the ultimacy and the rich are not? Was Job religious because he was rich – or because he was poor in spirit? Or he was rich because he was religious? Did he praise God even when he was poor because he was already poor in spirit – or he became poor because he prayed?

---

[1] I restrict myself here to Europe. I do not want to talk about the United States now. It is true that the United States has more believers and regular attendance of the liturgical celebrations. There are reasons for the differences.

[2] In India the celebration of vinayaga sathurthi has become very popular that can be seen to be associated with the political reasons rather than religious reasons. The question here is about believers therefore the question is raised in the religious context and not others.

[3] Paul Tillich calls the faith as the ultimate concern of the person.

FIRST STONE and RESPONSIBILITY

René Girard’s book - Violence and the Sacred - displays some of his important themes such as the mimetic desire, rivalry and scapegoat mechanism. I need to read the book again. His research is very interesting. More interestingly his article entitled “The First Stone”[1] beautifully explains his important themes on the reflection of the passage where Jesus asks the crowd (Jn 8: 3 – 11).

It is a very interesting article in which Girard analyses the importance of the significance of the ‘first stone’. Since the Gospel passage does not talk about the stoning – because stoning’ never occurred – Girard goes on then to compare another passage in which Apollonius of Tyana motivates the people of Ephesus to stone at a stranger. When someone is surrounded by a furious crowd, the first stone is the very important one. All have stones yet all hesitate to be the first to stone at the culprit or the stranger. When the first stone is thrown then stones follow – one after another non-stop. This is what is ‘mimetic’. The first stone has no model whereas all other stones have a model to follow.[2]

Girard explains how Apollonius does not mention about the first stone at all. He only motivates them to stone at the beggar, Whereas Jesus talks specifically about the ‘first stone’. He exposes the importance of the first stone since it is associated with responsibility. Jesus calls for introspection. Those words of Jesus and his action put an end to violence. It calls for seeing the stranger as I am because he has the same flesh and heart like mine and I am in sin like the stranger. The call reminds that the act is associated with responsibility. At the end the life of woman is saved whereas in Ephesus the significance of the first stone was not spoken and the beggar was killed leaving him under the heap of stones. The gospel then calls for justice which drops the stoning altogether.[3]

He then also pays attention to action of Jesus who bends down to write comparing him to the beggar – the victim in the narrative of Apollonius. It is a very interesting interpretation. The interpretation can be best understood only when one reads Girard’s “The First Stone.”   

---

[1] René Girard, “The First Stone,” Renascence: Essays on Values in Literature, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall 1999): pp. 5 – 17.

[2] Cf. Ibid., pp. 8 – 9.

[3] Cf.  Ibid., p. 14.

Difference between Christmas and Easter

We had a break in the library. Four of us came out and discussed about the Church, Documents, Pope, Festivals. In the course of the discussion, one of my friends was sharing with us about his conversation with an altar boy during the season of Christmas.

He asked the boy what is Christmas? The boy seemed to have answered - "Christmas means that Child Jesus is risen ."

If that is so what is the meaning of Easter? - one could very well say - "Easter means that Adult Jesus is risen."

My friend was very sad and angry and said how badly we transfer our faith to the younger generation. We don't really pass on the faith narratives to the kids well.

Could any theologian tell me whether that kid, who said Christmas is the celebration of the resurrection of Child Jesus, expressed an important truth about God?
If Jesus as God died to his Godhood and was born to a woman - Could this be considered as resurrection? If Resurrection is dying to one life and being born to a new life, can the birth of Jesus be considered as resurrection?

I am trying to rescue the baby who said that Christmas is the celebration of the resurrection of child Jesus? Do I blaspheme?

THOMAS' DOUBT

St. Thomas is often seen to be doubting Thomas as though all other apostles never doubted. However Thomas has become the figure of the doubt of the apostles themselves. He is seen to be the personification of the 'doubt and suspicion' of our own.

Why did St. Thomas doubt? One could see St. Thomas to be a representative of the empiricist tradition of philosophy - unless I see and touch I will not believe. This seems to be as simple as that. But there is something more to it. When does one believe what someone says? Think of a situation in which you have witnessed something spectacular in your life. You convey this wonderful news to your colleagues that you had witnessed something great without any felicity, gladness as though you are a news reader. Do you expect the other to believe that you had witnessed something spectacular?

This is what happened with Thomas. He sees his own friends in the same way as he left them after the death of Jesus. Thomas was like all others in a closed room. In his absence Jesus appears and all the other apostles were present and Thomas was missing. When Thomas returned to join the company of his own colleagues, he did not see anything different in the room. The room was still closed. There was no enthusiasm. The fear that surrounded them still seems to be there. And they tell him that they had seen the master. Would anyone believe that they had seen the master?

Think of another situation where the room is wide open. The other apostles are very happy. They have become courageous. They want to go out and preach the truth about the Master. They want to go to the streets. Thomas enters and wonders what had happened in his absence. They tell him that they had seen the Master. Would anyone doubt that they had seen the master? Do you think that Thomas would doubt it?

This is the situation that happens with the apparition of Jesus again – when he asks Thomas to touch him. Not only the doubt of Thomas disappears but also that of all other apostles. They open the doors – go to the streets. Thomas can be seen to be the one who transformed the life of the apostles by his doubt.

It is not enough that one witness something wonderful and extraordinary, but it should touch you, it should transform you. It is not enough that it transforms one’s life but he shares this wonderful joy with others.
It means  that it is not enough that you see Jesus but you should allow him to touch you, to transform your fear into courage, courage to proclaim the truth.