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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.