Two Thoughts About a Faculty of Theology

Today’s proclamation of the exam results at our Faculty of Theology, K.U.Leuven, provided a welcome oportunity for the inauguration of the newly renovated collegium veteranorum, a building which will host the dean and the key administration offices of the Faculty from August 15th, 2009 on. Two thoughts struck me in the various speeches that were on offer. They concern the role and the place of a faculty of theology in today’s world.

Prof. Mathijs Lamberigts, a former dean of the faculty, told us how he had moved forward the project of the renovation of the collegium veteranorum. One of his arguments with the university authorities claimed that a faculty of theology needs a front door that opens it up to the street and through which the street can enter. It’s a powerful metaphor to state that the world and the concrete realities of that world should never be very far from the heart of our concerns and thoughts. Theologians cannot isolate themselves from the concrete real lives of people, a fact which our current dean, Prof. Lieven Boeve, put forward by saying to those students graduating today that their input, arising out of their pastoral and educational commitments, will be crucial to our faculty and our ways of thinking in Leuven. We need that input to feed our thought.

One of the university’s top managers, Prof. Koenraad Debackere, praised the Leuven theologians for their entrepreneurial spirit – they know how to acquire funding, they know how to manage the greatest theology library in the world, etc. – and referred to the importance of values in setting up economic systems so as to point to the role theologians can and have to play in a world that is suffering one of the worst economic crises in its history: the renovated building can be an embodiment in the midst of the university precisely to highlight and emphasize the role of theologians.

I liked both remarks, because I am convinced that we live in a rapidly changing world – the environmental crisis being a key player in these dramatic changes – and as a theologian I feel the urgency to build up a theological reflection that addresses these challenges. How can we, in a faculty of theology, empower (in Flemish, I would say: “toerusten”, to equip, to provide with the necessary tools and skills) our young students so that they become more capable to address a world, the shape and contours of which we can hardly imagine today. And, inevitably, as professors we will increasingly have to learn to listen to the intuitions of our young students – not only when they describe the crisis and its dangers, but also and foremost when they express their hopes and their ideas about what will be important to address the challenges. To try to find out the ways in which theology can become a source of creativity and of hope in a rapidly changing world is, I think, the main challenge of a faculty of theology. May the new offices of the dean remind us constantly of this!

 

Brian Lennon’s “So You Can’t Forgive …?”

Brian Lennon is an Irish Jesuit, committed to the Northern Ireland peace process and involved in many grassroots processes. He has recently published a very interesting little book that I had the occasion to read today: So You Can’t Forgive …? Moving Towards Freedom (Dublin: The Columba Press, 2009, 84 pp.). He concentrates on and analyses the processes of forgiving in a wronged person, stresses the importance of separating from the wrongdoer before, in a Christian movement as illustrated by many biblical references, moving beyond the separation. Brian synthetically summarizes the process of forgiving (he doesn’t want to use the word “forgiviness” or “reconciliation” as he concentrates on the processes in the wronged person alone) in four steps, the latter two reflecting the move into a Christian attitude and its call to forgiving:

1. Recognizing my anger and accepting it as legitimate.
2. Letting go of the desire for revenge by separating myself from the wrongdoer.
3. Developing a degree of empathy with the wrongdoer by distinguishing between the bad act and the person who did it.
4. Wishing the perpetrator well.

The use of the “I” person involves the reader as if it were in the process of a challenging workshop and, indeed, the book offers insights which are grasped with more depth when readers become involved with their own histories of being called to forgiving, when the book begins to tickle one’s own life.

I am really impressed by this book as it unknots what I could call the “compulsive Christian” in me, who feels guilty while having to fathom patiently all the diverse aspects of a process of forgiving, thereby unlocking many possible pitfalls that I would have liked to avoid, but that I am called to address if I desire to heal in freedom. I allow myself to quote a passage from the book, on p. 27, that is profoundly compassionate, full of humor and encouragement:

COMPARING OURSELVES TO OUR LORD
Another trap, for Christians, is to compare ourselves to Our Lord: he did it, so why can’t we? One answer is because we are not Our Lord!
Yes, we are called to follow Our Lord. Yes, he did say ‘Be perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect.’ But nowhere in the gospels does it say that we have to achieve this overnight.
We have to be patient with ourselves. One old, old trap is to set ourselves a goal, e.g. giving up drink, then beat ourselves up for not achieving it, and then because we are fed up on account of this we go back on the drink!
It can be the same with forgiving: we can set ourselves impossible goals, and then when we fail we give up the whole idea.

Brian invites us to engage into forgiving as a life process of growing in freedom and of following God, unfolding patiently the rich complexity of a love that heals us by allowing us to explore our depths.

Rodrigo Plá’s “La Zona”

This evening I saw Rodrigo Plá’s impressive movie “La Zona”, about human reactions when in a rich area of a Mexican city, separated as an enclave from the rest of the poor city by walls and private security people, robbers kill one of the inhabitants, who take revenge in their own hands while protecting their secure life. It is a very hard movie, not only because of its plot itself, but also because some very profound logics of human behaviour are unwrapped: violence and greed are all at once not strange to us, to the viewers of the movie. Do we not live in protected zones of many kinds, keeping our privileges by keeping others out and policing our neighbours dictatorially when these privileges become threatened? To me, the movie is also a metaphor for the contrast between rich and poor in our world and it explains how people become trapped in violent logics so as to maintain the advantages of power, status and wealth.

This is not the most beautiful side of our human nature and behaviour and I came out of the movie with pain in my heart. The young Alejandro, who befriends Daniel, one of the persecuted robbers in the zone, gives hope: in him profound and compassionate humanity works its way to the surface of existence. The mystic Jan Ruusbroec wrote that compassion is the deepest of human characteristics, and the theologian Jon Sobrino insists that compassion is the starting point of every serious theology into which we sometimes have to be shocked. These ideas are also present in the movie and they stimulate me to change myself, the people around me, and the world.

Added later: While talking to a friend, it struck me how this movie also invites me to think about the Church as a holistic, inclusive and universal endeavour. The Church is about bridging in a life giving way murderous differences and separations … it’s about constructing frontierspaces of encounter on borderlines of separation.

Colony Collapse Disorder

Colony Collapse Disorder is a frightening pheonomen taking place in the USA, but apparently also spreading to Europe and other parts of the world. I quote a recent BBC-World article: “Accross the Atlantic US honey bees are being wiped out in vast numbers by a mysterious condition that leaves hives deserted”. The exact causes of CCD are as yet unknown and that is all the more disturbing, as bees are primary actors in processes of polinization, crucial to the growing of our food. This is certainly something to know about and to follow-up, but there is more.

I was listening to a radio report on the issue this morning and to my great surprise the seriousness of the issue was measured in terms of money losses to the US and the world economy. No mention at all was made of the fact that CCD may add to the already existing worldwide food problems, that it may mean (at least) serious hardship to many people, particularly poor people. We measure losses in dollars or euros … do we forget about human lives?

White Pebbles …

Yesterday, I started reading Lytta Basset’s very moving book Ce lien qui ne meurt jamais (Paris: Albin Michel, 2007), a conversation with a diary she started writing five years ago after the suicide of her 24 year old son Samuel (May 7, 2001). I am very touched by the way she speaks about the capacity of people to be near, to embody Christ’s presence next to us, to interact in consoling situations and events which she calls “white pebbles” (”cailloux blancs”):

“Mais qu’appelle-t-on ‘caillou blanc’ au juste? Pour moi, c’est une coïncidence, une convergence, une résonance … tout événement instaurant un trait d’union entre des vivants. Pourquoi ‘événement’? Parce que cela arrive, sans que nul ne l’ait programmé ni prévu, sans que l’entourage n’y voie rien (de particulier): c’est un événement uniquement pour la personne à qui il est destiné” (p. 45).

I understand this as follows: an event that happens to us, in life-giving and empowering relationships with others, and in which we touch a depth of reality which at that precise moment opens up to us, to the person to which this depth is addressed, a sudden density in which many elements of our lives touch one another and in which some depth of our life comes to the surface. It is really moving that this happens amidst interactions with people who by coïncidence open up reality to us without even being aware of it, people who are a gift without knowing it. For their openness to become such a gift, these people are very dear to us.

I am grateful to Lytta Basset to describe these experiences so precisely. They are so vital and crucial to us, and I was reminded of their simple beauty on the train between Leuven and Brussels. There was a seat free next to me, as there was also one next to a person sitting in the row before me. People crowded in, many people … amongst them, an elderly couple, the man clearly somewhat distressed that they will have to sit on different rows, not next to one another, not facing one another. The tenderness between them was very moving and I stood up and said: “well, I think both of you want to sit side by side … I’ll move to another row, then there are two seats free here”. The man answered: “we’ve been together 51 years, I think we can sit on different rows of twenty minutes or so … but I am glad to accept your offer”. To me, this was one little white pebble, one with a great sense of humor, reminding me to trust in love and friendship and tenderness over very long periods of time, encouraging me to overcome anger and pain in relationships. A wonderful combination, coïncidence, encounter with L. Basset and two wonderful people, still in love after 51 years.

Blogs … Fragments of Unfinished Thoughts

Today, I have been wondering about what it means to keep up a blog. A couple of critical remarks were made, that have their importance: (a) whether blog contributions are sufficiently crafted and researched; (b) whether one should not take into account that a blog is never totaly private, in the sense that the blogger also belongs to organisations or groups of people (in my case, for example, I am a Jesuit and I am a professor of theology at the faculty of theology, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium); (c) whether the time invested in blogging could not be used in a better way. I feel these are important remarks, and they made me think about what blogging means to me and what are my goals when I invest time in it.

Blogging, to me, refers to thoughts that I want to share with others, to stimulate critical reflection, but also to be challenged in what I say or claim. Thoughts put on a blog are not necessarily finished or polished, they may be tentative and heuristic, probing into deeper understandings or inviting others to think. In that sense, blog thought will always be fragmented – a blog is not an article or a book. Of course, that doesn’t mean that a blog contribution should not have been thought through, or that the author should not be careful when writing about him/herself or about others.

I think the openness of blog entries is important: are they open to further thought, and discussion?

Given the world in which we live and given the importance of internet interaction, I am convinced that good blogs are crucially important. Not only do they keep alive a sound critical sense, they also challenge us into new ways of thinking together. However, I will keep wondering on how this can best be done and what decency, quality, and honest seriousness mean when blogging.

Advertising and Persuasion … Hit us Right where We Want

I have been very impressed by Frontline’s 2004 program “The Persuaders” about the art of advertising products and policies, the art of persuading people to buy or to vote. If I understood correctly, the idea is the folllowing: efficient advertising is about persuading people to buy into what they already want. This entails both discovering what people want (and sometimes people don’t know themselves, as there structures of desire are like a hidden “reptilian code”, beyond any rational argumentation and very akin to deep seated emotions), and presenting what you have on offer with words and emotions that connect with the deep wants of people. A piece of political advice that struck me: don’t speak about “the Iraq war”, but rather about “the war on terror” (the latter one seems acceptable, while the former sparks off discussion and debate); don’t speak about “global warming”, but about “climate change” (the latter doesn’t show the same urgency as the former).

I like the program, as it awakens in me a double critical sense: (a) be aware of the fact that there are structures and patterns of desire in people that they are not always aware of, and that can also be approached as a sociological phenomenon, and unearth this hidden “code” not to use it for advertisement, but to make people and societies more self-aware; (b) be aware that advertisers and persuaders are using this hidden code for their own goals and interests.

Moreover, as a theologian, I would like to point out two more elements that may be important for sound social and political discernment about our ways of life. This deeper “reptilian code” may be an important given, but we can unearth it (at least the “persuaders” do it to better sell their products and policies) and bring it to the level of consciousness. That also means, that we can be critical of its content, that we may take some distance and ask ourselves if this code is really the last word about our lives and our desires. I think, as a theologian, that this is exactly the point where we have to ask the question: how does this “code” relate to God and how God created/s us in our world? Can we assume responsibility in the face of this code, so as not to allow persuaders to play us all to easily …

The second critical note I want to add as a theologian, concerns the fact that the focus on playing the tunes of this “reptilian code” moves out of play arguments of content: as consumers we are reduced to our emotions and codes, our argumentative capacities are bypassed. This is a dangerous thing to do with regard to our consumption habits, particularly in times of human caused global warming. It is also a very dangerous feature in politics. My Christian faith tells me that we have been created as rational and emotional beings, and I think this is confirmed by who we are and what we can … we should not drop these fundamental features or ourselves. Codes are there to be unravelled and to be critically assessed. In this case, religion and the reference to God may be a good help to do so.

From Hermeneutics to Heuristics

This post should be read not as a finished and well polished theological thought, but rather as an attempt and an invitation to allow Christian experiences to find a path into theology. It’s tentative, open to further exploration.

Theologians of the Leuven school (K.U.Leuven faculty of theology) are well known for their excellent library (I am convinced it is the best in the world) and for their hermeneuticalapproaches that allow for a creative and faithful understanding of tradition, allowing a close interaction with concrete lived realities as well as for powerful interpretations of biblical texts and foundational texts from the tradition. The deep concern of this hermeneutical approach is to clarify that faith and tradition are really alive, that they mean something to people in today’s world – there is a deep concern here to communicate what Christians find most precious, their relationship with God in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, shaping their lives for the better and the happier.

Hermeneutics is a dynamic process, in which both our lives and our traditions are deepened precisely through their mutual interaction. That is why I like to call tradition an adventure – some will think this is paradoxical, while others may fear a betrayal of tradition here … but I don’t agree with them: when I read the lives of saints and of great Christians, I do this precisely because they inspire me to interact with tradition (the relationship with God through the relationship with Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, as transmitted from generation to generation precisely again through relationships) and to deepen our understanding of our lives and of tradition. The Christian tradition transmits a deep relationship with God who commits to us in Jesus Christ, and it does so by again and again involving us in relationships (building the church while receiving from it) that point to this foundational relationship and its deep work in our world.

In that dynamic sense, hermeneutics is heuristics: trying to “unearth” (the word is beautiful as it seems to refer at the same time to the importance of the incarnation, God’s commitment to the earth, and how the delving into the earth – becoming profoundly human, without escaping the world – allows us to move beyond the earth (”un-earth”) as God fills us with grace the more we commit, as Godself does, to the fullness of creation) both the meaning of life and of the tradition that embodies God’s commitment and graceful promise. Today, I am wondering whether we should not rather use this word “heuristics” instead of “hermeneutics”, particularly in view of the fact that young people today are facing a world that is changing so radically and rapidly, that they will need all their faith and faithfulness to tradition to commit to people, particularly to those who suffer from the profound changes that are happening. They have to re-discover how one lives as a committed Christian in a world for which the traditional ways of framing tradition do not anymore offer cheap security. The challenges for young people are enormous – they will need all the faith they can muster as well as the courage to entrust themselves to the relationship with God in Jesus Christ, a relationship which they will be able to discover, experience and transmit, to the extent that they commit as Jesus to the world, which has a very different face and complexity than it had in Jesus’ lifetime. The commitment of young people, to the world and to God, is a costly commitment – it doesn’t come cheap (cheap and costly grace are insights I gained from reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s work).

When I reflect upon what I want to transmit as a Christian and as a theologian to others – particularly to young people -, I tentatively would say the following: to commit to people and to the world, as God commits to the world and to people in Jesus Christ, and in that commitment that allows us to enter deeply into the world and into life, to encounter God as challenging us, in this world and in the faces and lives of people, to the “beyond the world and the people” that is, at the same time, the deepest intimacy of the world and the people. It’s complex to formulate and I don’t know whether I say it correctly. I recognize it in the mystical experience of one of the 20th Century greatest mystics, a Jesuit worker priest, Egied Van Broeckhoven, who entered into the world of factories to encounter people (incarnation in line with God’s incarnation) in such ways that in the intimacy of these encounters God reveals the very deep love that is God as Father, Son and Spirit. The movement towards the intimacy of the world is the movement into the intimacy with and of God: incarnation and Trinity strengthen each other.

I am not sure whether I manage to formulate this with sufficient theological sharpness, but I am convinced this touches the depth of the Christian experience, and it is an experience in which love for and from the world, and love for and from God, grow together in a mutual exploration and grace … an experience that is, to me, and particularly in a world that has become threatening and insecure in totally new ways, profoundly consoling and empowering.

Discerning about what we want to do with our lives

I have been very impressed by the movie Lions for Lamb and the website that has been set up for this movie. I just want to share some impressions on the movie, in the hope of luring some of my readers into watching it. The movie is about people discerning about what they want to do with their lives, precisely in the tension field of individual decision and political and structural context. As it is easy to identify with the people in the movie, viewers and movie goers are also challenged to think, discern and decide. It made me reflect about what I do and where are my priorities. It made me also reflect how easy it is to throw away oportunities or not to make the best out of the gifts one has received.

The background situation is a military operation in Afghanistan and the fate of two concrete soldiers, whose decision to become part of the military is presented as part of the movie. This allows broader analyses: how the military work, how political decisions are taken (Tom Cruise plays the ambitious senator Jasper Irving), how the media reflect on their own role (Meryl Streep, as the journalist Janine Roth, is feeling uneasy about her work and how she is being used in political games), how important intellectual life and academic work are (Robert Redford, as professor Stephen Malley, confronts and is confronted by one of his very bright students, Todd, played by Andrew Garfield). The structure of the movie is impressive: on the one side the military action, on the other side two main running conversations (the politician and the journalist, the professor and his student), with a set of other smaller but not less important conversations and events (e.g. a class, the journalist and her boss, the very important contrast between the white Todd and the two students – a Latino and a black US citizen – who decide to join the military, …). To me, these two main conversations as part of the whole movie, have been crucial: I had the impression of being part of them.

The website reflects the desire of Robert Redford to make people face important societal issues and to call them to task: what is what you want and can contribute? do you want to contribute?

This is a movie I will ask my students to engage with. Of course, as a theologian I cannot but regret that so little is being said about religion and faith in the movement … although … is what I have just said really correct? Is this movie not about “religion” in the broad and deep sense of the word? Religion as the capacity to reflect (religion seems to be connected to the Latin ‘re-legere’, which means ‘to re-read’) about what really matters for us (religion seems also to be connected to the Latin ‘re-ligare’, which means to ‘re-bind’ or to ’solidly bind’).

I was also impressed by one of the professor’s claims: “I have the ability to recognize great potential” … It’s a humble and an important statement. In the movie “Amadeus”, the composer Salieri is capable of recognizing Mozart’s genius, but he resents the fact that he doesn’t have that genius himself and he challenges God on that ‘injustice’. In the gospel, John the Baptist recognizes the Lord and is happy about being the friend of the bridegroom, not the bridegroom himself. Professor Stephen Malley (R. Redford) in the movie, seems to be of the kind of John the Baptist.

Europeans Set the Right Priorities … But Do They (Know How to) Act ????

The European Parliament and the European Commission published this month a special Eurobarometer – which can also be accessed through Renata Goldirova’s article on euobserver.com – on Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change. When asked about what they think to be the most serious problem currently facing the world as a whole, a representative sample of EU citizens rates first “poverty, lack of food an drinking water”, and second “global warming / climate change”. It is interesting that “international terrorism” is third on the list – it reassures me that this one is not top of the list – before “armed conflicts”, “a major global economic downturn”, “the spread of an infectious disease”, “the proliferation of nuclear weapons”, and “the increasing world population”. It is very interesting to read the more detailed analysis, splitting up the answers according to region, gender, age, level of formation and education, etc. What interests me most, however, is that issues of environment and poverty are considered primary concerns. As I have tried to argue in some previous blogs, these are also linked. So, I would say: the Europeans have their judgement in the right place. I hope this will give a boost to European politicians who are committed to policies on poverty reduction and environmental care (I hope, of course, they will formulate these policies in a positive, creative and forward looking way, and not in a reactive manner).

On the downside, it appears that Europeans do not feel sufficiently informed about climate change issues. In a conversation this evening – unrelated to this Eurobarometer – some of the reasons appeared: too much confusing information (what and whom should we believe?), too complex, too depressing, too unclear about what people can and should do, … The following quote from the report shows the complexity of responses:

… we see that respondents with a longer education who feel well-informed about climate change (its causes, consequences and the ways of fighting it) or who consider this phenomenon to be a very serious problem are more inclined to believe that climate change is serious, that the process of it can be stopped, that alternative fuels should be used to fight it and that fighting climate change would impact European economy positively than respondents who spent shorter time within education, rather feel poorly informed about the subject or do not think that climate change is a serious problem.

I personally do not feel fully recognized in this result. I think I have had a very long education and that I am more or less well-informed about climate change. I do believe that climate change is VERY serious, I am not convinced that the process of it can be stopped (I think we may mitigate the effects to some extend, but I am also convinced that we will have to adapt), I am not convinced that alternative fuels and technological means are sufficient on their own to tackle the challenges (I think that we will have to change our lifestyles and frames of interpretation and understanding the world), and I am not sure anymore about what I should understand by “economy” as I think that this is one of the areas where reframing is absolutely urgent and necessary.

So, I would be less optimistic than most of my fellow Europeans, but I am very far from thinking that the battles are lost … On the contrary. As a theologian, I would say that we are at a “kairos”, an important moment in time, when decisions are taken on important issues, and when the great qualities and creative potential of human beings come to the fore. I think we will have to work on several fronts: intellectual (reframing our perceptions and understandings of the world), action (personal, political and structural in a worldwide perspective), values (creational respect, justice), spiritual (personal and communal attitudes, developing the potential for common discernment), symbolic (often we find inspiration in our capacity to dream, to en-vision and to celebrate life), etc. I remain convinced that it is very important to commit personally, at a very concrete level (e.g. our use of water and energy consumption), to keep focussed and also to keep hopeful and creative.

The Europeans put poverty and environment on top of their list … Benedict XVI links both of these with the concern for the young people. Our world belongs to the young people … they will inhabit it tomorrow. The issue is not only to make it sustainable for them, at this moment – while we are probing into what to do – we will also have to listen to their intuitions, their capacities to tackle the complex, and their wisdom. The challenge is to create new forms of knowledge, a deeper spiritual sense that connects us with one another and with the world as a gift, and a sense of how – in action, in thought and in relationships – the local and the global, the individual and the structural, go hand in hand. The fact that the issue of poverty is linked to climate change, reminds us of issues of justice and of the principle of a preferential alliance with the poor, listening to their needs, anxieties and longings, while recognizing their creativity.

These are risky, but above all exciting times! These are also times when, more than ever before, we – most certainly the Europeans – have to be shocked and concerned, moved into action, by the suffering of many people around us.

Pope Benedict XVI connects concerns for the young, for the poor, and for the environment

In his address to the French politicians on August 12th, 2008, an English translation of which can be found on ZENIT, Pope Benedict XVI says the following:

The Pope, as witness of a God who loves and saves, strives to be a sower of charity and hope. All of human society needs hope. This hope is all the more necessary in today’s world which offers few spiritual aspirations and few material certainties. My greatest concern is for young people. Some of them are struggling to find the right direction or are suffering from a loss of connection to family life. Still others are testing out the limits of religious communitarianism. Sometimes on the margins and often left to themselves, they are vulnerable and must come to terms on their own with a reality that often overwhelms them. It is necessary to offer them a sound educational environment and to encourage them to respect and assist others if they are to develop serenely towards the age of responsibility. The Church can offer her own specific contribution in this area. I am also concerned by the social situation in the Western world, marked sadly by a surreptitious widening of the distance between rich and poor. I am certain that just solutions can be found that go beyond the necessary immediate assistance and address the heart of the problems, so as to protect the weak and promote their dignity. The Church, through her many institutions and works, together with many other associations in your country, often attempts to deal with immediate needs, but it is the State as such which must enact laws in order to eradicate unjust structures. From a broader perspective, Mr President, I am also concerned about the state of our planet. With great generosity, God has entrusted to us the world that he created. We must learn to respect and protect it more. It seems to me that the time has come for more constructive proposals so as to guarantee the good of future generations.

I have taken the liberty to highlight in bold the three key concerns of the Pope: young people, the widening distance between rich and poor, and the state of our planet. Theologically these concerns are woven into creational and eschatological perspectives, emphasizing charity, responsibility for the world entrusted to us, and hope for the future. This offers a wonderful frame for theology in our global world. In a previous blog I referred to a recent document published by Oxfam, in which the link between social justice and care for creation are linked. The pope adds the concern for young people: both the fight against poverty and the commitment to care for creation are, indeed, of major importance to young people. They are called to change a world haunted by unacceptable and life threatening poverty and climate change. And this is a difficult challenge to take on: new ways of thinking and framing reality have to be discovered and created … the current frames (economic, political, scientific, philosophical, religious, …) are not enough and, moreover, too isolated from one another. To put difficult words to the challenge: how can we move from hermeneutics to transdisciplinary heuristics? This question keeps my mind very busy at this moment, as I am planning my courses on theology for the next academic year: how can I teach my students this kind of transdisciplinary heuristics that I am still myself exploring and for which even our university structures need a conversion? How can we create spaces where new types of knowledge (and not only knowledge) are developed? What Benedict XVI clearly says to a theologian is: this is a question of creation and of hope, this is also a question of probing the deeper interplay between youth, justice and environment. I would add: this is an issue of church building: only by committing to dignified and just communities, respectful of and grateful for the embeddedness in creation, will we be able to change our attitudes and actions.

———–

I add the French text of Benedict XVI’s address, also available on ZENIT:

Le Pape, témoin d’un Dieu aimant et Sauveur, s’efforce d’être un semeur de charité et d’espérance. Toute société humaine a besoin d’espérance, et cette nécessité est encore plus forte dans le monde d’aujourd’hui qui offre peu d’aspirations spirituelles et peu de certitudes matérielles. Les jeunes sont ma préoccupation majeure. Certains d’entre eux peinent à trouver une orientation qui leur convienne ou souffrent d’une perte de repères dans leur vie familiale. D’autres encore expérimentent les limites d’un communautarisme religieux. Parfois marginalisés et souvent abandonnés à eux-mêmes, ils sont fragiles et ils doivent affronter seuls une réalité qui les dépasse. Il est donc nécessaire de leur offrir un bon cadre éducatif et de les encourager à respecter et à aider les autres, afin qu’ils arrivent sereinement à l’âge responsable.

L’Église peut apporter dans ce domaine sa contribution spécifique. La situation sociale occidentale, hélas marquée par une avancée sournoise de la distance entre les riches et les pauvres, me soucie aussi. Je suis certain qu’il est possible de trouver de justes solutions qui, dépassant l’aide immédiate nécessaire, iront au coeur des problèmes afin de protéger les faibles et de promouvoir leur dignité. À travers ses nombreuses institutions et par ses activités, l’Église, tout comme de nombreuses associations dans votre pays, tente souvent de parer à l’immédiat, mais c’est à l’État qu’il revient de légiférer pour éradiquer les injustices. Dans un cadre beaucoup plus large, Monsieur le Président, l’état de notre planète me préoccupe aussi. Avec grande générosité, Dieu nous a confié le monde qu’il a créé. Il faudra apprendre à le respecter et à le protéger davantage.

Il me semble qu’est arrivé le moment de faire des propositions plus constructives pour garantir le bien des générations futures.

All these texts will also be available through the official Vatican website.

Indifference and Kenosis: knowing how to say “no” because of saying “yes”

Management authors and books of spirituality stress that it is important to formulate a deep “yes” – to make a profound choice for a goal or a value in one’s life – before one is really able to say “no” to what does not focus on this profound “yes”. That means that people, who feel difficulty saying “no” to all kinds of invitations and calls, may be helped in their lack of focus by connecting to a deep “yes”, a profound choice they make for a life commitment and a crucial vision. Simplicity and focus arise out of this deep “yes”. Of course, questions may be raised as to what one says “yes”, and this “yes” may even be shattered by concrete life experiences in which one discovers other tasks or responsibilities. But, however this may be, strong people seem to be more people of “yes” than of “no”.

I find this, as a theologian, an important observation, and it may help to get a better grip on two important spiritual and theological ideas: indifference and kenosis. Divine kenosis is often interpreted in a “no” way: God divests Godself of divinity, humiliates Godself to come near to human beings. We tend to forget that at the core of this “no”, there is a deep “yes” of love. Mothers and fathers have to say “no” to a lot of things and opportunities, but the important thing is not that they say “no”, on the contrary: there is a profound “yes” to their relationship and their children that shapes their many “no”s. A “no” is so to say a crypto-”yes”. Don’t look for what has been left behind when you hear no, look for the powerful “yes” that allows for the “no”s. “Yes” is deeper.

Indifference is a term that is often used in an ignatian context (spirituality inspired by Ignatius Loyola). It is a key attitude in the Spiritual Exercises. Sometimes it is understood as an injunction to leave behind all kinds of attachments, disordered attachments, that is. Then, one focusses on these attachments and the difficulty to let go of so many things that absorb us too much: we have to gain inner freedom of all that could bind us. When approached in this way, there is a risk that indifference is understood as a profound “no”, as if the core of human life would be to say “no”. In the ignatian perspective, however, the “no” is conditional upon a very profound “yes”. When one discovers one’s deepest attachment, one’s deepest “yes”, one’s whole life receives a focus. Ignatius’ idea is that love does not distract but focusses. In a wonderful prayer former Jesuit General Pedro Arrupe formulates it as follows: “what you are in love with, what seizes your imagination, will affect everything … fall in love, stay in love, and it will decide everything”. Our deepest “yes” is life giving and very practical as it shapes our attitudes and actions.

Certainly in my own life, but also in the lives of many people around me and even as a social feature, I have the impression that it has become difficult to focus on that one deep “yes” and that, therefore, it has also become difficult to make choices and to say “no”. It’s interesting that management guru’s point to that: they seem to remind us how important spirituality, the spirituality of the deep “yes” may be.

Climate Change Undermines Human Rights

‘Climate inaction’ costing lives … A BBC-world news item drew my attention to a new Oxfam report Climate Wrongs and Human Rights, in which a clear connection is made between climate change and human rights (such as: the right to life and security, the right to food, the right to subsistence, the right to health, all internationally recognized human rights that are threatened by the consequences of global warming and climate change). This is a very important connection. Indeed, we usually think about climate change in terms of sciences or in terms of economy (targetting mainly the energy resources and the offsetting) … and the latter can give rise to a very cynical cost calculation and balance. A Jesuit of SJS (the Jesuit Social Justice Secretariat in Rome) once told me: “if the connection is not made between climate change and social justice, we won’t be able to motivate people”. Well, this document should do the trick! There is no way to hide anymore: not acting responsibly in the context of climate change, not changing one’s lifestyles that are directly involved in causing climate change (however small this contribution may be) means infringing upon the human rights of mainly poor people … in Christian terminology: it’s sin. And I would add passionately: those who didn’t know, should know now: they move from ignorance to sin. The focus on human rights allows for a powerful moral perspective and an emphasis on responsibility.

Oxfam is not naive. It opens a competition for suggestions on how to bring these offenses on human rights to court, ánd it suggests policies of mitigation and adaptation along a set of human rights principles: guarantee a core minimum – a basic standard of rights for all; focus on vulnerability and those whose rights are most at risk; ensure participation of people whose rights are affected by policies; provide accountability and remedies for violations; deliver on international co-operation to realise rights worldwide. It is very concrete and makes us realize how much depends on us and our political will and commitments.

If I would be allowed one comment, at least with regard to the Executive Summary, which is what I have read, I would broaden the emphasis on states, not in the direction of companies because that is done, but in the direction of more international and global institutions. I am wondering whether the concept of states – even in the distinction between rich and poor countries, as the geographical wealth distribution is more complex than that – is still the most workable political and visionary (strategic) perspective, and to focus on the responsibility of states seems to me to be important, but by far not enough for the global, worldwide crisis of global warming and climate change.

The fellow Jesuit at SJS is right … this Oxfam document will help. The Society of Jesus, as one of the worldwide Roman Catholic organisations working at various levels (presence in the fields of suffering, capacity for reflection and transdisciplinary analysis up to the highest academic standards, active in networks that can powerfully affect public opinion and political decision-making, with entries in the mass media and on the internet, tapping into spiritual resources and offering those to people, …), is a wonderful platform to work on the worldwide perspective. So is the Roman Catholic Church as a whole … One may expect that the awareness of a severe sin of omission when not acting, will spur us into ever more real, concrete and universal, service.

Our Changing World: from Belgian Francs to Euros …

The Little Sisters of Nazareth, who take their inspiration from Joseph Cardinal Cardijn and Charles de Foucauld, asked me to prepare a reflection on our changing world. These sisters are very close to concrete people, very often people who suffer, and they are also aware that some of this suffering is caused by structural characteristics of our global world that, often, are not and cannot be understood or seen by those who suffer. I have been looking, over the past days, for a metaphor to understand the changes and also to allow to think about our reactions to these changes. What came to me is the experience of having had to change from “Belgian Francs” to “Euros”, where one (1) current Euro corresponds to forty (40) former Belgian Francs. The very meaning of “1″ (in its relationship to all things that money can value and buy) changed, and I still have difficulties adapting to this … 1 Euro seems so little, but it is about double the weekly pocketmoney that was given me as a kid …

I am wondering whether our changing world does not have that same kind of effect on us: a change of measuring sticks, a change in our way of scaling things, and the difficulty we have to adapt to this. The change of units is necessary, of course: our world has changed and requires other units and coordinates of measurement. Nevertheless, our units of coordinates, as we use them to frame our world (framing our world is a bare necessity of life!), have changed abruptly. What seemed immensely far when I was a kid, is now near: my neighbourhood is bigger than it has ever been. I know about what happens in what were once exotic places: Zimbabwe, Timor, Cuba, etc. I have friends in many of these places and can easily get in touch with them through the internet, whereas not so long ago letters would have taken weeks to move around. The world is smaller, not only in the sense that I now know more about other places, but also because we are more and more interdependent, as is clear – in a threatening way – from worldwide economic and political crises, or from the causes and effects of global warming and the ecological challenges. The world also seems to move faster: communication through e-mail has given us a different time perspective. We expect answers within 24 hours and, therefore, decisions are taken much more rapidly, putting us under pressure sometimes. The change of measurement scale can be felt also with regard to the number of people that inhabit earth: we are a fast – exponentially – growing species, and I wonder sometimes whether the expression “many people” has the same meaning as it had some 100 years ago, or whether we do not, more easily than ever before in history, hide behind large numbers, both to impose policies and convictions, and to protect us from the impact of human suffering. Given our numbers, the structures that organize our life together, have also become more complex and more difficult to fathom. Moreover, although we participate in a very small way to maintaining these structures (that sometimes produce new and unheared injustices on a worldwide scale), and although we sometimes feel as their victims, we do not have yet developed adequate ethical guidelines to define our responsibilities within such structures, particularly when there comes the need to question or even to oppose them. I am not sure, as a RCC theologian, that my church’s concept and understanding of “sin” can really sufficiently cope with this difficult relationship between structure and individual – over the past years I sense that we are deepening our understanding of guilt and responsibility.

We have to learn to work under circumstances where our measurement units have changed, where even new parameters have been introduced. We may not be aware of this … and, when we are aware, it may well frighten us so that we are tempted to remain with our old way of measuring. Are there clear and neat criteria ready for us in our new situation? Certainly, the preferential option for the poor remains a crucial perspective. Moreover, we are discovering the ideas of sustainability and of creational dignity … they are not completely new, but they are in need of elaboration. We feel the challenges of a reality in which structural features have come to play an important role. We are also more and more aware of many kinds of plurality: many religions seem to compete with one another, many political and cultural views or convictions share a worldwide market, … How can this manifold become a wealth and an opportunity?

These are very broad and sweeping questions, but it is fascinating that they are also concrete questions for very ordinary people. Even when we are not aware how much we are involved in a world that requires a yard stick larger than what we had before, even when we would prefer to run away from the complexities of a world that is too large for us to understand, we can nevertheless not escape our embeddedness in this larger world and its challenges. I am not sure how this will evolve. This moment is a “kairos”, a risky moment of our history, but also an opportunity. Will we be able to maintain worldwide complexity? Do we want that? Who will pay the bills of a world that becomes more complex? Or will today’s complexity not be able to maintain itself and will our world fragment and fall apart? And who will pay those bills? How are we, moreover, going to take into account that other non-human player, nature, that seems to escape our control?

The questions here are theological questions, for sure: this world is the holy ground on which God calls us to work towards the Kingdom. They are also very practical political issues: what kind of structures and decision making processes do we need to develop so as to reach more worldwide justice and to find a new covenant with nature and the world as a whole?

Those sisters ask good questions … on tough issues …

Human Beings … Are We Important?

In view of the evil that human beings have wrought and continue to bring about, as well as in view of the destructive human caused global warming and abuse of natural resources on the planet earth, the question whether our world and the universe would be better off without human beings around, seems a legitimate one. Add to that that human beings are one, merely one, of the many living beings that originated in a long and complicated process of evolution … despite the fact that many philosophical and religious arguments have been constructed to ideologically underpin the idea that human beings are the focus and goal of the cosmos and of cosmic evolution. Should we not be more humble about ourselves, all the more so when we consider that amongst living beings, humans enjoy great abilities and capacities, not in the least their developed skills of thinking and of (self-)reflection which provide them with means to order their world? Is humility not appropriate when one realizes that one has received these gifts not for oneself, but as part of the cosmos and towards the service of the cosmos. In a way, it as is if the cosmos, over a long period of time and complicated processes of evolution and change, has given itself possibilities for further development.

Reflections as these point towards a balanced view on human beings as part of the world, the universe, the cosmos. Of course, human beings are special and precious – there are not many of us around in our own corner of the galaxy, as Stephen Hawking reminds us on a TED talk -, and that means that they have a role and a responsibility as part of the world. “As part of the world” cannot, I think, be replaced by “as goal of the world”. Overshooting on the side of the importance of human beings, has rightly been criticized – when human beings belong their sense of belonging to the universe and start to instrumentalize all other beings and resources just in view of themselves, then a destructive dynamism ensues that will, in the end, also lead to the destruction of the living conditions and possibilities of the human beings themselves. But, not recognizing the special role and capacities of human beings at the service of change in the universe and not allowing for human beings to be considered “something special”, deprives the world of a capacity it has given itself. It’s important to strike the balance well, when considering the role and place of human beings in the universe, when asking the question of anthropocentrism.

The issue is of great importance for philosophers and theologians, as well as for scientists. All of them are aware that our knowledge about the world – and if one wants to say: a kind of knowledge that the world reaches about itself – is human. But this capacity of knowledge and reflection seems to, so to say, separate the knowing subject from the known object, and it is highly tempting, as a consequence, to consider the knower, the human being, as something very special ánd separate from the rest. What I would plea for – and after re-reading Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s introduction to his Le phénomène humain, I have the impression that I am here in his good company – is to be aware of the human being as “special” but “not-separate” from the rest of the world, and even dependent on the whole rest of the world for survival. As a theologian, I would say it as follows: in creating the universe and allowing it to bring forth human beings, the Creator gave creation a potential for development and ran a risk. Our interwoven anthropologies and cosmologies should articulate this double perspective.