Good Introduction to Liberation Theologies

Those of us who are looking for a good introduction to liberation theology and who understand French, will value the November 2011 issue of the French-Canadian periodical Relations, which devotes a set of articles to liberation theology on the occasion of the anniversary of the publication in 1971 of Gustavo Gutiérrez’ Teología de la liberación. The various articles, written by Jean-Claude Ravet, Yves Carrier, Gregory Baum, Nidia Arrobo Rodas, Claude Lacaille, Carmiña Navia Velasco, Guy Côté, and François Houtart, focus on the history of liberation theology particularly in Latin America, on some of its methodological features such as the basic communities and the use of the bible, on special themes such as the indigenous theologies, the place of women and the challenges posed by the contemporary ecological crisis. Attention is also paid to the fact that liberation theological perspectives developed in several Christian denominations and also in Jewish and Islamic contexts. An evaluation of how liberation theology influenced the Christian social movement in Québec illustrates the on-going importance of its approach and methodology. Much information can be gleaned from a careful reading of the articles and one also finds a good introductory bibliography. This is a very well presented thematic issue of Relations.

Personally, I would have been interested also in ideas about how contextual theologies such as liberation theologies can be articulated in the face of worldwide issues and how theologies that are connected to particular geographic regions and particular challenges interact when they are responding to planet-wide realities that require addressing both at local and global levels. How can liberation projects in these new contexts be articulated in their mutual interactions?

A New Weblog

Today, Luc Reychler, a close colleague at the K.U.Leuven and an international specialist in conflict transformation, showed me his new blog: Diplomatic Thinking Garden. There he will post some of his articles, as well as some opinions on recent events and on peace building. Luc is very fond of metaphors and it is not surprising that he introduces the idea of a garden to illustrate the complexity of peace building. I recommend the blog very highly.

Leuven Traffic and Marcella Althaus-Reid

Tiensestraat, Leuven, Belgium

In my classes on theology, we are reading books and articles by Marcella Althaus-Reid, a very challenging and critical theologian, who died recently, but whose thought remains a strong stimulus to improve move beyond liberation and feminist theologies. One of the books we are discussing, “From Feminist Theology to Indecent Theology”, criticizes liberation and feminist theologies for ultimately not leaving behind the so-called heterosexual matrix of thought. Liberations theologians have often not paid attention to the blind spots in their own approaches: although they emphasized the struggle against oppression, they did not always take account of how women are excluded or marginalized. But Marcella’s criticism is more profound than mere forgetfulness: it concerns the fact that even in our thought about liberation, we remain indebted to frames and patterns of thought that may well pervert the very idea we have of liberation.

I must admit that I do not always grasp the full dimensions of what Marcella is saying. In my efforts to understand, this morning I walked through the Tiensestraat in Leuven. This is the street where I live. This street is very typical: in an effort to protect the pedestrians, the street is subdivided: a section for the cars, a section for the pedestrians (the footpath). We could say: this is done out of respect for the pedestrians, who are the weak users of the street (when a car and a pedestrian clash, the most likely victim, and by far, is the pedestrian): it is an attempt to “liberate” the pedestrians out of a situation in which they are oppressed. One could, therefore, look at these attempts as “liberative”.

But a closer look at the street, shows that in fact, we maintain the superiority of the car over the pedestrian: liberation is not liberation, it is oppression under the guise of liberation. Look at the yellow panel on the footpath: it is an indication FOR CARS set on the footpath and making the accessibility of the footpath more difficult (particularly, for example, for mothers with young children, or for buggies). The matrix “car = king of the street” has been maintained, even if we would claim that the street is built for pedestrians. This was confirmed to me, a couple of months ago, when we were told that the Tiensestraat would be renovated. I expected that the footpaths (that are in a terrible state) would at least share in the renovation efforts … but that was not true: only the part for the cars was renovated. We seem to live in a society, in which, even when we claim that the pedestrians are important, the cars are nevertheless the absolute rulers.

Maybe, Marcella’s criticism of liberation theologies goes in the same direction. Although we speak about liberation, although we seem to act in favour of the weak, we, nevertheless, continue to think in the same setup of mind, in which the weak are still the weak, although we claim that they have been liberated.

European Colonial Arrogance and Nazism

I just finished reading a fascinating and troubling historical book on Germany’s colonial past in Namibia and on how the arrogant ideas and attitudes that characterize Europe’s colonial endeavour motivated Nazi genocidal action, particularly in the Soviet Union and the Eastern European territories they conquered: The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism (London: Faber and Faber, 2010), by David Olusoga (an Anglo-Nigerian historian and producer, working for the BBC) and Casper W. Erichsen (a Danish historian, who is the director of a Namibian NGO dealing with HIV and AIDS).

Important social changes in Germany at the end of the 19th Century (a rapidly growing population that resulted, for example, in slums in Berlin), as well as the rise of anthropological views that fed on social Darwinism, fueled a desire of both the military and the imperial administration (although chancelor Bismarck was first reluctant) to look for vital space (Lebensraum) by colonizing African countries, the population of which was considered to be less developed and advanced. Because of the resistance of the Herero and the Nama peoples in Namibia, the original perspective of bringing culture and education, rapidly turned into agressive warfare to enslave and anihilate these people – in line with what had happened to the Indians in North America and with what the British were doing in South Africa, where they invented the first concentration camps in their war with the Boers. The first part of the book tells us the story of these wars, the concentration camps and the genocide that took place.

The second part of the book analyses in various ways (some of the military and the civil servants who had worked in colonial Africa played a role in the origins of the Nazi party; racist social Darwinism that had constituted the ideology behind imperial colonisation was further developed as an anthropological science; the colonial idea of concentration camps evolved into annihilation camps as Auschwitz or Treblinka; underdeveloped people, especially the Slavic peoples, were enslaved at the service of industry, as had been the case with the Herero’s and the Nama’s in Namibia; Hitler and other Nazi leaders considered their activities in Eastern Europe and Russia as colonisation in line with what the British Empire had done in India and with how the USA had treated the Indians; …) how the ideas and attitudes that determined the colonial ambitious of imperial Germany in Africa came to influence the Nazi hunger to expand Germany’s vital space by annihilating populations that were considered to consist of lesser human beings (Untermenschen). The authors want to show that part of Nazi arrogance and violence was rooted in European colonial attitudes and views. By doing so, they explain that Nazism is not a phenomenon sui generis, but the extreme symptom of some destructive and murderous European colonial ideas. That is certainly something that should make us think and reconsider the importance of the history of European colonialism.

I can only recommend this book: it is fascinating and shocking at the same time. It should make theologians as myself think about the responsibilities they have in dealing with ideas that determine social and societal behaviour.

Sacrament of Reconciliation and Restorative Justice

In 2006 Elías López published an interesting booklet on how the structure of the sacrament of reconciliation and the practice of restorative justice (as described in Stephan Parmentier’s TARR model – for: Truth, Accountability, Reparation and Reconciliation) relate. I remembered this contribution recently while wondering, in the context of the paedophilia crisis in the Belgium Roman Catholic Church, how much the attitudes of many Catholics with regard to the scandal of clerical paedophilia may be determined by some aspects of the structure of the sacrament of reconciliation, understood as the practice of the individual confession, centred, of course, on the process of conversion of the sinner, the perpetrator of evil.

Indeed, if this is the dominant perspective on reconciliation and healing that structures our way of thinking also on paedophilia, we run the risk to concentrate on the individual perpetrator and to pay insufficient attention to the plight of the victim as well as to a context of healing beyond the strict relationship between victim and perpetrator. Of course, in saying this, I do not claim that such lack of attention to the victim and the community is a necessary consequence of the mindset involved in the individual confession of the sinner, as the individual confession, indeed, emphasizes the need for reparation and is situated in the context of the ecclesial community.

Practices of restorative justice accentuate the necessity to pay attention to the victim and invite to explore the larger social context that is in need of healing - beyond the strict relationship between victim and perpetrator. In fact, restorative justice invites Belgian justice to take greater care of victims and to consider broader traumatized contexts. I am convinced that both these perspectives – (1) focus not only on the perpetrator, but also on the victim, and (2) attention for reconciliation in the larger traumatized community – should be taken into account when dealing with paedophilia. Restorative practices may well provide one of the best approaches in this situation.

The theologian in me is, of course, also interested in how these two key elements of restorative justice may help us to understand, develop and practice the sacrament of reconciliation beyond its understanding as individual confession of the sinner.

First of all, is it possible to focus not only on the sinner, but also on the victim? Do we have a sacramental celebration that takes victims as the addressees? For this, we probably have to look at the sacrament of the anointing of the sick. The reference to the sick could be taken in a wide sense as indicating suffering people, not only physically and not only in the process of dying. Could there be moments of sacramental anointing of those who suffer, recognizing the fact that they suffer and are victims of evil? This type of recognition of suffering and victimhood is certainly crucial in the case of paedophilia and clerical paedophilia.

A second question concerns the possibility of practices of sacramental reconciliation that involve both victims and perpetrators, as well as the larger communities that are affected. In the case of paedophilia, this means that also bystanders, people who did not, and for various reasons, react appropriately when victims told them about their ordeal, become part of a sacramental process of healing and reconciliation – family and friends, but also police, judges, medical doctors, church authorities and other authorities. Of course, such processes of reconciliation, possibly involving a large number of people and certainly not only the perpetrators, are very demanding and they may not always be possible. But offering them as a possibility reminds the larger communities of their need of healing in the face of God.

These thoughts are not meant, of course, to discredit the current practice of the individual confession of the sinner, nor do they claim that in this practice the victim and the community would be absent, but they suggest the importance of sacramental practices of reconciliation that clearly highlight also victims and larger communities. Such sacramental practices may help us all, particularly in the case of paedophilia, to remain sensitive to the plight of the victims and to community trauma. It is then also possible to gain a healing perspective on the perpetrator/sinner.

Consolations of the Spirit in Desolate Times …

Although there is still a day to go at COP 16 – that means that still a lot can happen –, a real politically and legally binding agreement on a planetary scale seems far away. Even a sequel to the Kyoto Protocol, which seems to me to be the bare minimum if we want to address worldwide climate change, seems far away. I still hear some optimistic voices, but that is because I am looking for them as a medical doctor tracks the life pulse with a stethoscope. In the meantime, with a small team of OCIPE (José Ignacio García, Thorsten Philip and myself), we are involved in a workshop on the Church, the Jesuits and the environmental issues, given for the young Jesuit philosophy students in Padua, Italy. Today we made them see the “facts” and face the situation using biblical contrast texts. At the end of the day, while I was aware that it is easy for us all to feel powerless and desolate in view of the challenge that calls for our engagement, I asked these young people to put on paper the consolations they may have experienced today by piercing through the wall of discouragement and fear we all experience in the face of these complex global threats. I still have to read the students’ reflections – they are arriving in my mailbox around this time – but I want to share some of the sources of my own consolations. They may be helpful to some of us.

In my list of consolations, the young people come first. They are committed to the world that will be theirs tomorrow and they know that they will have to change lifestyles and societal structures, if they want to inhabit a planet that will still support enjoyable life for all human beings. I met these young people at COP 15 in Copenhagen, I met them in a workshop in Paris, and then also here in Padua. I meet them amongst my theology students in Leuven. They still have the courage and freshness that allows them not to be easily imprisoned by destructive thought frames or structures of greed and oppression. They are also eager to explore their spiritual resources as they connect to their research or very concrete praxes. When I see them smile and engage, I feel the flow of their energies.

Other faces that come to me are those of victims of climate change worldwide. Sometimes, these faces frighten me, as I know that in my lifestyle and thoughts, I am not always faithful to them. Sometimes, I may even attempt to keep them at bay, as I fear that I could come to share their fate. Their presence, their faces and names, shock me into reality over and over again. We share a same planet, we are all human beings … Nevertheless, we seem to be worlds apart, separated by borders of injustice and exploitation. This is the shaky ground, where I learn to love my brothers and sisters. This is where I start to question many things that seem self-evident to me, this is also where I am forced into transdisciplinary research, this is where I discover that even in my attempts to answer the challenge of injustice, I discover that I am using worldviews that are part of the problem. I need to learn to see things differently, precisely there where up until now I felt most secure … I need to learn to think “queer,” as some theologians would say. I am grateful for authors as Tim Jackson or Herman Daly, who give me a fresh look at economics, for example. I am grateful to many theologians as Denis Edwards, Celia Deane-Drummond, Ivone Gebara, Marcelo Barros, Seán McDonagh, and so many others, who help me to re-think theological frames and to re-discover the beautiful creational strength of many theological concepts. I am grateful also to a mystic as Egied Van Broeckhoven, who ever more deeply draws me into the mystery of a God who enters into creation interweaving and connecting it more intimately in the myriads of encounters that constitute creation – an idea that I have termed “trincarnation”.

This week, on Dec 6, I was deeply happy when reading that the Brazilian bishop Erwin Kräutler had received the Right Livelihood Award for “a lifetime of work for the human and environmental rights of indigenous people and for his tireless efforts to save the Amazon forest from destruction.” Small events as these, little sniplets of news that easily escape our notice, are so full of life and strength … and they shed light on the deeper meaning of challenges as COP 16. I hope this has not gone unnoticed in Cancún …

A short vacation in Ireland gave me the opportunity to rediscover the beauty of nature and of the planet. Since then, I am on the lookout for the smallest of animals, that creep away there where we usually don’t see them. Little creatures, sometimes dangerous, but always so beautifully intricate and complex parts of an environment that we need to live. John Feehan taught me to always ask that simple question: “hey there, who are you?”, and to treat nature as a conversation partner, not as some useful tool at my disposal. The focus on the issues of biodiversity and the concept of Gaia, as developed by Jim Lovelock, has helped me to see how nature, how our planet, builds a whole, of which I am a part, to which I belong, in which all elements and living beings are jointly at stake. I find these comforting and stimulating thoughts confirmed in the work of people as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Berry and Michel Serres.

I feel also strengthened by being a Jesuit. Not only because I can rely on a spiritual tradition that provides me with tremendous tools to address the planetary environmental challenges (e.g., common apostolic discernment and Ignatius Loyola’s vision of the Cardoner, which has found its way into the Spiritual Exercises’ Contemplation to Obtain Love, …), but also because the universal Society of Jesus constitutes a unique, truly planetary network, that is present in the field, and has the resources to do research and education, as well as to advocate the case of people and concerns through the media and with politicians. And the Roman Catholic Church, to which I belong, constitutes a similar and even more complex planetary network. I know that the RCC and the Society of Jesus, for various reasons, are not always using the opportunity that has been given them, but at least there are here some platforms that offer possibilities and that can collaborate closely at a planetary level with many others and with many other religions. These networks give me the opportunity to meet extraordinary people from all over the world, who are engaged in this service of God’s people and creation. Here, I find people, organizations and initiatives that give me the support of critically challenging me, even when in desolation. I review their faces this evening, just out of gratitude.

These are but a few examples of deep consolations, even when a lot around me seems to drive me to anger and despair, to fear and discouragement. We need these consolations more than ever, to keep us going and to participate wholeheartedly in what I consider as God’s deep work in creation.

Cancún, Europe and WikiLeaks

Today, the Flemish minister for the environment, Mss Joke Schauvliege left for Cancún and COP16. As, at this moment, Belgium assumes the presidency of the EU, she will also play an important role in representing the European perspective. At the airport of Brussels, a delegation of the Climate Coalition, an umbrella for around 70 organisations, invited the minister to push forward the negotiations for a follow-up agreement on the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, in the meantime we know that precisely these negotiations seem to be blocked. The core difficulty, at political level, is probably the difficulty of multilateral agreements. In this context, it is interesting to note that already immediately after the Copenhagen COP16, at which he was not present, Herman Van Rompuy expressed in a conversation, leaked by WikiLeaks, with US ambassador in Belgium Howard Gutman that he did not expect real results from a multilateral meeting as Cancún. A summary of that conversation is available in the Euobserver. Of course, the president of the European Council is convinced of the urgency of climate change and the planetary environmental challenges, but at the same time, when looking for a political approach, he emphasizes to clarify and solidify the European position and commitment, and then to engage in bilateral negotiations, first with the USA and then with the USA and China.

After it has become clear that Japan is unwilling to pursue a re-negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol and in view of this conversation between Van Rompuy and Gutman, one may wonder whether it will be possible to design a political strategy that will lead to an urgently needed agreements on mitigation, adaptation, financial support and technological transfers.

Earthcaremission …

I just discovered the blog of a dear friend, who is profoundly committed to environmental issues and who, at this moment, is present in Cancún: Seán McDonagh. The blog is called Earthcaremission and can be found at: http://earthcaremission.wordpress.com . Do not hesitate to visit and leave a message.

SJ 4.2 and Planet Wide Environmental Challenges

This blog contribution turns out to be playful and serious at the same time. It aims at highlighting the responsibilities of institutions as the Society of Jesus, the Ignatian Family and the Roman Catholic Church – and not only these – in the midst of the planet wide environmental challenges. It attempts to offer a “network” frame to better understand these responsibilities. I am not sure it will work, but I surely do hope so, when I continue to hear the message heralded by the media that we should not really expect much from COP16.

There is fascination when one looks at the phenomenon of the World Wide Web – it represents a complex network in full evolution. That is the reason why expressions as Web 2.0 or even Web 3.0 are used. It struck me that I could do something similar with regard to the Society of Jesus, so as to sketch the complex network it represents. And while doing so, I was also struck how this network representation provides us with a powerful tool to discern how to serve the world and God’s people, precisely in the midst of the planet wide environmental crisis.

SJ 1.0 represents, so to say, the Jesuits as individuals. They are people who have made a particular choice in their lives and who have gone through a process of formation and spiritual growth, in which discernment takes an important place. Jesuits share the engagement with the Spiritual Exercises and they belong to an organisation ruled by Constitutions.

Jesuits are also organized in provinces. It is their primary network – their Provincial knows each one of them and assigns missions. We could call this network:SJ 2.0. In their missions, assigned to them by their provincials,Jesuits have always had collaborators and friends, but recently they have become more aware that these really share in their missions and take responsibilities in these, also at the level of discerning and deciding how these missions are best articulated. This is, so to say, SJ 2.1. Of course, this leads to reflections on SJ 1.1: how does the individual Jesuit relate to non-Jesuit collaborators and friends?

Recently, Jesuits have become more deeply aware of regional networking, precisely because they experience differences at that level: there are Indian Jesuits, European Jesuits, US Jesuits, Latin American Jesuits, African Jesuits, etc. There is a level of identity and mission that reflects these regions, and it is given shape in conferences of provincials. This level could be called SJ 3.0, and we have become aware of significant and interesting, challenging, differences in our perceptions of the world. Of course, at this level the relationships with collaborators arise in new ways, that are often culturally determined: meet SJ 3.1.

And then, there is one more level, and it is crucial: SJ 4.0, the universal, planet wide Society of Jesus. Jesuits have that sense that they have places to feel at home all over the world – they belong to and feel part of a really big organisation, truly transnational. Here we find a solidarity and a loyalty that areborn deep in the personal experiences at level SJ 1.0 and that find concrete expressions at levels SJ 2.0 and SJ 3.0. And again, Jesuits are learning how important it is to change the o in 1, also at level 4: SJ 4.1 is emerging as a solid reality.

In the perspective of Ignatius Loyola, SJ 4.0 receives great importance. He enshrines this level of network in the so-called fourth vow of obedience to the Pope concerning the missions. In the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope is the person in charge of the broadest perspective, of a universal view on the world. We could, therefore, – and even if Popes are human beings and may not always be capable of this broad view – explain the fourth vow and SJ 4.0 as follows: whatever concrete mission Jesuits are involved in, they are invited to heed the universal perspective, to become aware that in the very concreteness of their experiences and actions the larger vision of God over the universe is at work and at stake.

Networks SJ 4.0 and SJ 4.1 strike me as particularly important with regard to planet wide environmental challenges. The Society of Jesus and the Ignatian Family (indicating the Jesuits and their collaborators and friends … the expression may not be the best, but I use it for lack of better) are organized so as to have a universal and planet wide perspective and scope of action, even and precisely when they are committed locally and concretely. They enjoy the resources and possibilities of an organisation that can address worldwide challenges, such as climate change. Moreover, they can take into account the differences at levels 3, 2 and 1, in a spirit of creative collaboration in solidarity. Jesuits and collaborators in various parts of the world, in the rich countries, in the emerging countries, in the developping countries, in those countries and places that already suffer the consequences of climate change, belong to one body that exists in a profound solidarity at level 4.

One could even be tempted to introduce SJ 4.2: the universal Society of Jesus and the universal Ignatian Family are becoming aware of their relationship to the planet, to nature, to creatures of all kind, alive or not. SJ 4.2 means that Jesuits, collaborators and friends begin to act together with nature, accepting creatures as partners in the mission of creation. The fourth vow, the vow of universality, concerns not only human beings, but the whole spectrum of creatures. The challenge is to take into account, in concrete missions, the existence of these creatures, to act out of the awareness that our lives depend upon them and are lived in solidarity with them. The alliance that expresses our belonging to the same creation becomes the scope of the word “universal”. The existence of SJ 4.2, of course, invites us also to think of SJ 1.2, SJ 2.2 and SJ 3.2. We are learning to ask the question: what does our alliance with nature and with the planet mean at personal, provincial, regional and planet wide perspective. Our network is becoming richer and fuller, but also more demanding.

SJ 4.2 opens up a very interesting perspective on planet wide challenges and on the climate change crisis. It reveals a hitherto unsuspected mission and opportunity, an expression of what it means to belong to the Society of Jesus or to the Ignatian Family.

Is it necessary to say that I suspect the existence of RCC 4.2, where RCC stands for Roman Catholic Church? And why should we think that RCC is the last step? But, at least, I would suggest to take seriously both SJ 4.2 and RCC 4.2.

Cancún: COP 16

Tomorrow, Nov 29th, COP16 starts in Cancún, Mexico. We will attempt to follow this event and to offer some reflections on the Ignatian Econnet blog. I will copy my own contributions to this blog also. My first blog contribution concerns the context of and the  hopes in view of the Cancún encounter.

I would like to highlight some of the important elements of the context, in which COP16 takes place. (1) The health bulletin of our planet and the threats to human and planetary life have worsened: we continue to deplete – and at an accelerated pace – the natural resources of our planet; CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere – the consequence of our lifestyles – are still increasing and heating up of the planet rapidly; biodiversity is suffering. (2) There is much less public interest with regard to the global environmental crisis than was the case at COP15 in Copenhagen. (3) From a political perspective, matters don’t seem to have improved. In my own country, rather than discussing the urgent matters at hand, the media focus on the quarrel between some of our ministers: who will take the pride to head the Belgian delegation at Cancún? Such discussions go on, while we now know that Belgium has one of the worst ecological footprints in the world. In the USA, the hope felt when Obama was elected, has now dissipated again. We cannot, therefore, expect serious moves from one of the main actors. Meanwhile, the so-called emerging countries (such as China, India, Russia and Brasil) are becoming more important, not only because they claim an ever growing share of the natural resources for their own development, but also because they begin to define their own environmental policies and because their voice at the international conference tables becomes more important. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily good news for the developping countries and the poor countries: they continue to be exploited for their resources and do not really acquire the necessary means and tools to adapt to global climate change. (4) There is growing awareness of the seriousness and urgency of the situation, as well as of the necessity of adaptation. This is exemplified by the viewpoint of a prestigious weekly as The Economist in its issue of Nov 27 to Dec 3, as well as in its The World in 2011. But it is painful to see that this growing awareness is often conceived of in the perspective of economic growth as we understand it today: those, who have the resources, will be able to adapt; adaptation will mainly result from private action, although public action will be necessary also; there may be some help for the poor, but, and I quote what I consider to be a highly cynical remark, “unfortunately, such adaptation has always meant large numbers of deaths”. There seems to be little understanding of the fact that the resources to adapt are limited. Analyses as the ecological footprint, show that these resources will, in the end, be available only to a very limited number of privileged people. I think, as I expressed it in another blog contribution, that there are serious shortcomings in this kind of approach, but it is still the way of thinking of many of us. (5) Scientific research on the complex reality of climate change as well as on historical precedents, is unfolding at a rapid pace, and it points to the seriousness of the situation. Moreover, the attacks on the integrity of climate scientists have been proven unfair, and one can only regret the time and energy that have been lost in these fights although the painful experiences have also made scientists more aware of the need to communicate clearly and efficiently their findings and insights. (6) There is a growing awareness of the role churches and religions can play, as is shown in the commitment of the World Council of Churches. Unfortunately, not very much has been done in fact and there is still a long way to go on the level of mobilizing people and energies. This is particularly true for the Roman Catholic Church.

In this context arise new hopes. (1) It is very well possible that the lesser political profile of COP16 (as compared to COP15) will provide a direct context, in which it is more easy to reach the international agreements that are more necessary than ever. Moreover, the more important role played by the emerging countries may open new and creative avenues towards international collaboration and good governance. A main concern remains the question who will be advocating the case for the poor countries and countries in development. (2) Scientists are more than before in a position to play a prophetic role: their science is improving rapidly, they have learned to communicate better, and they also increasingly advocate for a voice that is insufficiently present at the table of negotiations, the voice of nature – this is a point clearly made by Michel Serres in his Le temps des crises. Indeed, all too often the voice of nature is not heard and, therefore, natural limits and constraints are insufficiently taken into account when we design economic and political approaches to the crisis. (3) The voice of young people in a context in which they are globally connected through the wordwide web, is becoming more important. They are a force to change mentalities and interpretations of the world and realities of the planet. This is also true of the voice of the indigenous people: their approaches to nature offer perspectives that can enrich the ways in which we situate ourselves in our world. (4) There is a need to re-think our economic models. The articles in The Economist show, I think, that there is a growing awareness of the seriousness of the crisis, but also that new economic models have to be developed, in which  sustainability, ecological footprint and limits are taken into account, and in which also the poorest of the people on our planet have a voice. A continuing emphasis on mitigation is necessary, although some think that the time for mitigation has passed by. Indeed, a one-sided emphasis on adaptation may wel be at risk to forget what mitigation states clearly: there are lifestyles that are responsible for this crisis and that will continue to aggravate it. The accent on mitigation helps us to pay attention to lifestyles that are not without consequences on the lives of the poor and on nature and the life of the planet.  (5) There is opportunity for religions and churches to speak with clear voice and to become more aware of the constructive and creative role they can play, particularly when they find ways to collaborate. For Christians, and particularly for Roman Catholics who belong to a well organised international network, the task is not only an ethical one about social and international justice. It also entails a re-thinking of theologies and worldviews in the form of a creation theology that is capable of viewing the world and the universe as a connected whole in space and time, of which human beings form a special part, as they are capable, as a part of creation, to voice creation’s self-reflection and spiritual search. Moreover, structurally speaking, as a complex international organisation with a presence at levels of political advocacy, media, research, education and in the field, the Roman Catholic Church offers opportunities to efficiently address a crisis at an international level.

DR Congo: Positive Prospects

A few days ago, at the Faculty of Social Sciences (K.U.Leuven), organized the presentation of research involving in depth-interviews of about 800 Congolese students on the future for sustainable peace in DR Congo. Luc Reychler presented this open book, with a call for reactions and further research, under the title: “DR Congo. Positive Prospects. Building Sustainable Peace Together. Open Book“. The questionnaire touched on an appreciation of today’s situation in DRC, on the various forms of violence, on descriptions of peace and imaginations of the future, on factors necessary to build up peace, on identity issues, on dealing with the past, on foreign players and on the engagement at the service of peace. The results express strong hope and a will to engage a situation that one knows to be very difficult. Of course, one can express criticism of the research, if it would be closed down at this point. Indeed, only students were questioned – they are not representative of the whole Congolose population – and one can wonder to what extent answers are formulated from the perspective of a wished or expected state rather than of the threatening reality. The reseach answers these objections by taking on the form of an “open book”, i.e. the results are brought to the public so as to provoke further research and debate. This is research that calls for engagement and, therefore, for further research.

I had been asked to “respond” to the research. I focused on two perspectives.

(1) I highlighted three aspects of the methodological approach to the research. This is, first of all, research done by people who enter into solidarity, who are aware that the concerns of the people in DRC are also their concerns – the researchers are researching issues that are important to them and that may even raise their anger. Secondly, there is engagement in the sense of interdisciplinary analysis, that attempts to listen to people and to give them a voice, particularly to people whose opinions are not taken into account. Theories of interpretation are developed and revised through a process of conversations with real people in the situation. Thirdly, this research moves with people: responsibility is given to people, they are encouraged to work with the research and to gather hope and energy out of it.

(2) I described some of the ways in which this research works in a European context: how does this research call us to action in Europe? How can we collaborate with the inhabitants in DRC? Several lines of action are possible. How do we as Europeans assume responsibility in the plundering of natural resources in the Congo – how can we elaborate political and legal tools that will help to tackle, on the European side, the plundering of the natural resources? A further question concerns how we deal in Europe with refugees, migrants and the diaspora that arise out of DRC? Are we able to move into an adult relationship with Congolese, who attempt to state their identity, without remaining trapped in colonial and paternalistic patterns of analysis and thought? How can we relate as adults amongst ourselves? The most vital question is, I think, how to descry and sustain hope that energizes.

This research is important and provides important information if it is taken to stimulate further engagement and research. I know the authors will know return the research to those who have answered the questionnaire, so that the reflection process may continue also in DRC.

God be praised … We still have Herman Van Rompuy

Today, on the train, returning from a study afternoon on Ignatian Leadership, I have been reading The World in 2011. It is a kind of a state of the world outlook on next year, produced by the authoritative weekly The Economist. I must admit that I was somewhat shocked: I could not have experienced a more clear contrast to what I said about M. Serres’ Temps des crises yesterday. Very little is being said about the state of the planet. The leader article, “Cooling the Earth” (p. 22), does not really take the earth as a conversation partner and seems to reduce the climate challenges to energy issues. The author seems to have forgotten that 2010 is the year of biodiversity – that clarifies, I think, that we are talking about more than human beings here: the earth on which we, human beings, are dependent. Another article, “Another Year, Another Billion” (p. 25), on world population, concentrates on the second derivative of population over time to say that it is turning negative – the rate of population growth is slowing down -, but does not pay attention to the real issue: this planet cannot anymore sustain its population, most certainly not if the goal is the lifestyle of the richest and most developed of its countries. If the analyses of WWF on the ecological footprint had been considered less disdainfully than is the case in the article, some more nuanced thought on population could have been possible.

I have difficulty understanding that the state of the world presented by such a prestigious organisation as The Economist does not pay more attention to what is probably the most pressing issue for the survival of the human species and life on our planet. That, in the section on sciences, no attention is paid to some of the most difficult and complex scientific research that is going on on the environment and our planet, is a real gap. I would also have hoped to have some wider perspective on new economic approaches than the reference to INET, the Institute for New Economic Thinking (p. 140).

Luckilly, there is the article by Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. In his article on “Europe in the new global game” (p. 40), he writes the following: “We will continue to defend our values, not in a provocative or moralising way, but in standing firm. This is not only about human rights and democracy accompanying economic development, but also about the climate. The biggest loser of “Copenhagen” was climate itself. Europe is ready: other world actors have to share the responsibility”. These are the words of someone who has learned to value the planet as a creation, who takes time to enjoy nature and to write poetry on its occasion. We’re lucky to have him as a leader and he trumps all the so-called “leaders” of The World in 2011. Ad multos annos, Mr. President!

Michel Serres: “Temps des crises”

I just finished reading Michel Serres‘ book Temps des crises (Paris: Le Pommier, 2009, 79 pp.). The idea that struck me most and that seems to me to be really helpful in the context of today’s planetary environmental crisis suggests to allow beings on our planet – air, water, energy, earth, living beings (Serres calls this “Biogée”, a French word, for which, as yet, I have no translation) – to constitute a kind of parliament – called WAFEL (Water, Air, Fire, Earth, Life) with voices that can address with us, human beings, today’s challenges. Nature becomes a subject with a voice, a conversation partner. Of course, the question has to be raised how we, human beings, are going to be able to listen to these voices. Not our politicians, nor our economists, provide the capacity to listen. Here, Serres emphasizes the role of scientists. I like these ideas and suggestions, as they initiate a new kind of epistemology and philosophy. I think also the religions should learn from these ideas, so as to acquire a more humble attitude towards nature as creation and so as to be rescued from their all too narrow focus on the human being. I will continue to read Michel Serres … He has written a lot, and some of it is even available in English.  I also signal a blog devoted to his thought.

I allow myself one quote from Temps des crises, as an appetizer for those who read French. It is taken from p. 51 of the book:

“Je viens de proposer la création d’une institution non internationale mais mondiale, où l’air et l’eau, l’énergie et la terre, les espèces vivantes, bref, la Biogée, seraient représentés. La WAFEL serait le parlement de la Biogée. Mais qui aurait la parole en ce parlement de muets? Mieux vaudrait en discuter vite – je le fais plus loin – que s’adonner aux répétitions susdites. Sûrement pas, en tout cas, les politiques actuels, dont la désuétude se mesure à leur ignorance des paroles et des choses du monde. …”

 

Are Our Priorities As They Should Be … ?

There has been a remarkable shift in the reporting on the Church in Flanders. Church sexual abuse, which was receiving most of the attention some weeks ago, seems to have faded away. Discussions about statements made by our Archbishop have taken the center stage – statements about AIDS as immanent justice in response to promiscuity, about the treatment of old priests guilty of pedophilia, about the correct rules governing liturgy and the proper place and role of priests in liturgical celebrations. Not so long ago the focus was on the victims of Church sexual abuse, now discussions about Church ordering and the special place of hierarchical representatives of the Church have taken center stage. Some people even raise questions about who is and who is not a real catholic. In the current controversies, I miss the voices of the victims of sexual abuse: what do they think about the ongoing discussions?

When I remember these voices, as I heard them some weeks ago, several of their concerns come to the surface, concerns we should keep in mind today. (1) The need to continue to tell and to listen to the stories of those victims, how their lives have been ruined and how their wounds and pain still require healing, even after many years. (2) The call for justice: individual perpetrators should be confronted with their victims and evil acts in ways that promote the healing, first of the victims, then of the perpetrators themselves and, ultimately, also of communities that have remained silent in the face of such evil. (3) The assurance that in the future such sexual abuse will not be tolerated and that adequate measures will be taken to ensure that it will not be repeated. (4) The call to unmask and to reform hierarchical structures and institutions that have systematically covered up the evil of sexual abuse or have failed to respond adequately to the suffering of the victims. (5) The hope that a broad societal public debate will become possible, in which not only the Church, but also the larger society that has allowed the evil of child abuse to take place, be addressed.

Are these concerns still voiced? Are they still heard?

As painful as the disappearance of the voices of the direct victims of Church sexual abuse, is the fact that in the current inner ecclesial controversies much energy is diverted away from the Church’s core business: embodying God’s commitment to the many victims, who are suffering in today’s world and who, as they reveal the crucified Christ, are our real guides. In that commitment, expressed in prayer, in liturgy and sacraments, in theology as well as in concrete action, God touches our innermost spiritual being. I was reminded of this when reflecting on the film “Illégal” and even more powerfully when, through friends in the Jesuit Refugee Service, I hear about the fate and suffering of concrete refugees and migrants, people with a name and a face. I am troubled by the fact that in today’s controversies these needy fellow human beings and the causes of their suffering, are not our central focus, while our minds are kept busy with arguments about the right proportion of altar boys and girls, about whether or not lay people are allowed to deliver a homily during mass and about who is and is not a true catholic.

I am left wondering: are our priorities as they should be?

Illégal

On the occasion of a double anniversary of the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), the thirtieth anniversary of JRS International and the tenth anniversary of JRS Belgium, people were invited to watch and discuss Olivier Masset-Despasse’s hard, but moving film “Illégal” (Illegal). I had been invited to offer a short reflection on migration, detention and illegality.

In this Belgian movie an undocumented Russian migrant, a woman, Tania, is detained in a detention center as the authorities plan to expell her. Her son, Ivan, has escaped detention. It is, ultimately, the love between mother and son that will help them to overcome the psychological, social and physical hardship they both suffer.

In a short contribution, I highlighted seven ideas. (1) The importance of an existential identification with the people presented in the movie, not in a superficial emotional sense, but in the depth of a shared humanity. (2) The awareness that people hide suffering and their responsibility in the suffering of others behind the screen of social systems and institutions, which offer them the possibility to avoid a direct confrontation with reality. (3) The rude awakening when the cracks in these systems, structures and institutions confront us with real suffering people or with the people, who, directly, inflict the suffering. (4) The importance of political action aiming at the constuction of a community where life is shared: such political commitment requires, in the case of migrants, profound changes in our lifestyles and international relations. (5) We try to hide our personal and structural abuse of power, but we are also sensitive to the resources of hope, faith and love that help us to denounce abuse and to hold firm amidst abuse. (6) The word “illegal” in the title of the movie suggested that a person can never be called “illegal”, but also that, sometimes, people will assume the nasty word as a title to denounce the abuse that it expresses. The makers of the film also intended to say that, in fact, a system, which leads to such experiences in detention centers, is illegal. (7) JRS – in its threefold mandate to accompany, to serve and to advocate – invites all of us to a solidarity with refugees and migrants, out of which grows a dignified community, in which all of us enjoy one another’s fellowship.

This approach suggests a variety of theological thoughts, which cannot be fully developed here: on incarnation, on the structures behind which we hide people’s real crosses and our inhuman behaviour, on an anthropology that expresses the ambiguities of our lives, on the call to community (creation, church, Kingdom of God, Trinity) and to the political engagement necessary to build such community, on the resources of love and hope, on the preferential option for the poor, and on how, in people and in circumstances, we are invited to always discover the presence of the Lord of Life.

Nov 6, 2010: A French translation of my intervention at the JRS anniversary is available on the website of the Centre Avec.

Nov 6, 2010: I would like to add another link to a review of this film by Jim Conway SJ on the pages of Thinking Faith.