The empire’s extreme arrogance: universal spying

The kidnapping of the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, by barring his plane from entering European air space, and the revelation of universal spying by the organs of intelligence and control of the Northamerican government, (NSA), cause us to reflect on a cultural topic of grave consequences: arrogance. The above mentioned facts show the level of arrogance reached by the Europeans, under pressure from the United States. Arrogance is a central theme of Greek reflections, whence we come. In modern times it has been extensively studied by Luigi Zoja, an Italian thinker with a background in economics, sociology and analytical psychology, whose book, Historia da Arrogância, (Axis Mundi, São Paulo, 2000) was published in Brazil.

This dense book traces the history of arrogance in world cultures, especially in Western culture. The Greek thinkers, (philosophers and dramatists) noted that rationality, as liberated from mythology, was inhabited by a demon that would lead to unbounded knowledge and desire, in an endless process. That energy tends to destroy all limits and ends up as arrogance, the true sin that the gods punished harshly. The excess in any field was called hubris, and Nemesis was the divine principle that punished arrogance.

The imperative of old Greece was meden agan: «nothing to excess».  Thucydides would have Pericles, the genial politician from Athens, say: «we love beauty but with frugality, we use wealth for active projects, without useless ostentation; poverty shames no one, but it is shameful not to do everything possible to overcome it». The Greeks looked for the just measure in everything.

Oriental ethics, Buddhist and Hindu, preach the imposition of límits on desire. The Tao Te King already said: «there is no greater disgrace than not knowing how to be content»  (cap.46); and «it would have been better to stop before the glass overflowed» (cap.9).

The hubris-excess-arrogance is the major vice of power, be it personal, of a group, or of an empire. Today that arrogance is embodied in the Northamerican empire, that subjugates all, and in the ideal of unlimited growth, that underlies our culture and political economics.

Excess-arrogance has presently reached its peak in two fronts: in unlimited vigilance, that consists of the capacity of an imperial power to control everyone, by sophisticated cybernetic technology, violating the rights of sovereignty of a country and the unalienable right to personal privacy. It is a sign of weakness and fear, that an empire can no longer convince by its arguments, or attract by its ideals. So it uses direct violence, lies, disrespecting rights and statutes internationally consecrated.  According to the great cultural historians, Toynbee and Burckhard, these are the unequivocal signs of the unrestrained decadence of empires.  But they cause unimaginable destruction as they decline.

The second front of the hubris-excess resides in the dream of unlimited growth through the merciless exploitation of natural goods and services. The West created and exported to the whole world this type of growth, measured by the quantity of material goods (GNP).  It breaks with the logic of nature, that always self regulates, maintaining the interdependence of all with all. Thus a tree does not grow endlessly to the sky, and in the same way, the human being knows its physical and psychological limits. But this development causes humans to impose their arrogant process on nature: thus consuming until they sicken, while simultaneously seeking total health and biological immortality. As the limits of the Earth are being felt, because it is a small and sick planet, humans employ new technologies to force the Earth to produce even more.  She defends herself through global warming, with its extreme events.

Soja correctly says: «growth without end is nothing more than an ingenuous metaphor for immortality» (p.11). Samuel P. Huntington, in his controversial book, Clash of Civilizations, (El choque de civilizaciones, Paidos 1998) affirmed that Western arrogance constitutes «the most dangerous force for instability and possible global conflict in a world of multiple civilizations» (p.397). The surpassing of all limits is aggravated by the lack of sensible and cordial reason. Through it, we emotionally read the data, listen to the messages of nature. and perceive the humane of human history, dramatic and hope-filled.

The acceptance of limits makes us humble and connects us to all beings. The Northamerican empire, through the very logic of dominating arrogance, distances itself from everyone, creating distrust, rather than friendship and admiration.

I end with a story by Leo Tolstoi, in the style of João Cabral de Mello Neto: How much land does a man need? A man made a pact with the devil: he would receive all the land he could walk on foot. He began to walk, day and night, without stopping, from valley to valley, from mountain to mountain, until he fell dead from exhaustion. Tolstoi comments: had he known his limits, he would have known that he only needed a few meters; he would not need more than that, to be buried.

To be admired, the United States would not need more than its own territory and its own people. They would not need to distrust everyone, or always to be prying into the lives of all the world

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

Can the Roman Curia be Reformed?

The Roman Curia consists of all the organs within the 44 hectares surrounding Saint Peter’s Basilica that assist the Pope in governing the Church. There are just over three thousand functionaries. It began small, in the XII century, but in 1588 it was transformed by Pope Sixtus V into a body of experts, created especially to confront the reformers; Luther, Calvin and others. Paul VI, in 1967, and Pope John Paul II, in 1998, tried in vain to reform it.
Is considered to be one of the most conservative governmental administrations in the world, and is so powerful that in practice it delayed, filed away and annulled the changes introduced by the two previous popes, and blocked the progressive line of Vatican Council II, (1962-1965).

It continues undetered, as if it worked not for the times but for eternity. However, the moral and financial scandals that took place within its confines have been of such magnitude that a cry has arisen from all the Church, requesting that the new Pope Francis undertake to reform it as one of his missions. As Giancarlo Zizola, the prince of the specialist on the Vatican, sadly now gone, wrote: «four centuries of counter-reformation have nearly extinguished the revolutionary chromosome of the original Christianity, as the Church established herself as a counterrevolutionary organism» (Quale Papa, 1977, page 278).  It rejects everything that is new. In a February 22, 1975 speech to the members of the Curia, Pope Paul VI went as far as to accuse the Roman Curia of having «an attitude of superiority and pride towards the Episcopal College and the People of God».

Will Pope Francis succeed in transforming the Curia, combining Franciscan sensibility with Jesuit rigor? He has wisely surrounded himself with eight experienced Cardinals, from every continent, to work with him to realize this colossal task, and the purges that necessarily must be realized.

Behind all this there is a historic-theological problem that greatly hinders the reform of the Curia. It is expressed by two contradictory visions. The first comes from the fact that, after the 1870 proclamation of the infallibility of the Pope, with the consequent Romanizing, (uniformization), of the whole Church, there was a maximum concentration at the top of the pyramid: namely, the papacy, with «supreme, total, immediate» power (canon 331). This means that all decisions are concentrated in him, a load that is practically impossible for a single person, even with absolute monarchical power, to carry alone. No decentralization is acceptable, because it would reduce the supreme power of the Pope. The Curia, then, surrounds the Pope, who becomes its prisoner; sometimes blocking initiatives that are contrary to its traditional conservatism, or simply putting aside projects until they are forgotten.

The other vision recognizes the weight of the monarchical papacy. It seeks to breathe life into the Synod of Bishops, a collegial organism created by Vatican Council II to assist the Pope in governing the Universal Church. But John Paul II and Benedict XVI, pressured by the Curia, who saw it as destroying the centralism of Roman power, turned it into a consultative rather than a deliberative organism. It meets every two or three years, but with no meaningful effect on the Church.

All indications are that Pope Francis, by convoking the eight Cardinals in order to reform the Curia, with him and under his leadership, will create an organism through which he will preside over the Church. Let’s hope he enlarges this collegiate organism, including representatives not only of the hierarchy but of the whole People of God, women included, because women are the majority of the Church.  Such a step does not appear impossible.

The best way to reform the Curia, in the opinion of experts on Vatican affairs and also of some important leaders, would be a major decentralization of functions. We are in the era of globalization, and of real time electronic communications. If the Catholic Church wants to adapt to this new period of humanity, nothing would be better than to undertake an organizational revolution.  Why not transfer to Africa the Secretary (dicasterio) for the Evangelization of the Peoples?  Relocate the Secretary of Inter-Religious Dialogue to Asia? That of Justice and Peace to Latin America?  Couldn’t the Secretary for the Promotion of Christian Unity be in Geneva, close to the World Council of Churches?  Some secretariats, those involved with the most immediate things, would remain in the Vatican. Through video-conferences, skype and other communication technologies, they could maintain direct daily contact. This would avoid the creation of an anti-power, at which the traditional Curia is a great expert. It would make the Catholic Church truly universal, not just Western.

As Pope Francis is always asking us to pray for him, we have to, in effect, pray deeply, so that this wish becomes reality, for the benefit of all.

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

A Council of All of Christendom?

We have celebrated the 50th anniversay of the death of Pope John XXIII (1881-1963), surely the most important Pope of the XX Century.  To him is owed the renewal of the Catholic Church, which attempted to define her place in the modern world. On January 25, 1959, without telling anyone, he declared to the astonished Cardinals gathered in the Benedictine Abby of Saint Paul, outside the city, that he was going to call an Ecumenical Council. On his own he had undertaken a critical analysis of the situation of the world and of the Church, and had realized that we were in a new historical phase: in the modern world, with its science, technical advances, liberties and rights. The Church had to position herself positively within this emerging reality. The attitude that existed then was one of distrust and condemnation. The Pope understood that this behavior was leading the Church towards isolation, and a destructive stagnation.

He repeated the old saying: vox temporis vox Dei (“the voice of the time is God’s voice”). This does not mean, he said, “that all in the world as it is now is the word of God. It means that everything carries a message of God, if it is good, we should follow it, if it is bad, we should change it”.

Thus Vatican Council II took place in Rome (1962-1965).  The Pope opened it, but he died before it ended, (1963). His spirit, however, marked the whole event , with repercussions that are felt to the present.

There were two principal themes: aggiornamento and pastoral council. Aggiornamento means saying yes to the new, yes to bringing the Church up-to-date, in terms of her language, her structure and her form of presenting herself to the world. Pastoral Council was intended to express an open relationship with the people and with the world, one of dialogue, of acceptance and fraternity. Consequently there was nothing about condemning modernity and the “Nouvelle Théologie” as previously had been stridently done. Instead of doctrines, there was dialogue, mutual learning and interchange.

Perhaps this statement by John XXIII summarizes his spirit: “The life of the Christian is not a collection of antiquities. It is not about visiting a museum or an academy of the past. That, without doubt, can be useful —as is a visit to an old monument— but it is not enough. To live is to progress, drawing the best from the practices and experiences of the past, to always go forward on the path Our Lord is showing us”.

In fact, the Council brought the Church into the modern world, participating in its avatars and its accomplishments. The Church in Latin America soon realized that the modern world not only exists, but that there also exists an underworld of which little had been spoken in the Council. In Medellín (1969) and in Puebla (1979) it was recognized that the mission of the Church in this underworld of poverty and oppression had to be promoting social justice and liberation.

50 years have now passed since the Council. The world and underworld have changed a lot. New challenges have appeared: economic-financial globalization and the consequent planetary consciousness, the dissolution of the Soviet Empire, new forms of social communication (Internet, social networks and others) that have unified the world, the erosion of bio-diversity, an awareness of the limits of the Earth and the possibility of the extermination of the human species, and with it, the extinction of the human planetary project.

We cannot address this new and threatening reality within the categories of Vatican Council  II. Everything points to the need for a new Ecumenical Council. Now it is not about calling in only the bishops of the Catholic Church. With the dangers we will have to face, all of Christendom, with its Churches, is threatened.  If we want to save the life of the planet, we need to take seriously the alliance between the Churches, religions, and techno-science, proposed by the great biologist E. Wilson. (cf. The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, [La creación, Salvemos la vida en la Tierra, 2006]). How can the religious forces contribute so that we may still have a future? Everything is premised on the survival of life on Earth.  Otherwise, everything disappears and nothing makes sense. Christians must forget their differences and their polemics, and unite for this life-saving mission.

Pope Francis has the capacity to bring together all Christian expressions, men and women, backed by learned persons of renown, including the non-religious, to identify the type of collaboration we can offer, in line with the new consciousness of respect, veneration, of caring for all eco-systems, compassion, solidarity, shared sobriety and responsibility without restrictions, because we all are inter-dependent.

With his way of being and thinking, Pope Francis awakens in all of us the cordial, sensible and spiritual reason. Together with the intellectual reason, we will protect and care, care for and love this unique Common House that the universe and God have bestowed on us. Only in this way will we guarantee our continued presence on the Eart

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

The Pope of freedom of spirit and cordial reason

One of the principle conquests of humanity in its process of individualization is the freedom of the spirit.  Spiritual freedom is the capacity of being doubly free: free from the impositions, rules, norms and protocols that were invented by society and its institutions to foster uniform behavior and mold personalities according to their rules. And fundamentally it means being free to be authentic, to think for one’s self and to act according to an inner norm, nurtured throughout life, in resistance to and tension with such impositions.

And it is a titanic struggle. Because we all are born into certain circumstances that do not depend on our own will, be it in the family, the school, the group of friends, religion and the culture that our habits are molded. All these instances function as super-egos, that can be limiting, and in some cases, even debilitating. Logically, these limits perform an important regulatory function. Thanks to their borders and limits the river can be guided to the sea. But those limits can also repress the proper flow of the waters. Then the waters overflow their banks, and become floods.

The surprising attitudes and behavior of the present “bishop of Rome”, as he likes to introduce himself, commonly called Pope Francis, elicit in us this category that so determines the freedom of spirit.

Normally the cardinal named Pope instantly assumes the classic, sacral and hieratic style of the Popes, in his vestments and his gestures, through the symbols of the supreme sacred power, and his manner of speaking. Francis, endowed with an immense freedom of spirit, has done the opposite: he has adapted the figure of the Pope to his own personal style, to his habits and his convictions. We all know the changes he has wrought without much ceremony.  He has left aside all the symbols of power, especially the crucifix of gold and precious stones, and the mozetta, filled with brocades and preciosities, symbols of the pagan Roman emperors of yesteryear; smiling, he told the secretary who was about to put it on his shoulders: “put it away because the carnival is over”. He dresses with great sobriety, in white, with his usual black shoes and, underneath, his trousers are also black. He has put aside all the comforts attributed to the Supreme Pastor of the Church, including the pontifical palace, substituting for it an ecclesiastic guest room, where he eats together with the other fellow guests.

He thinks more of the poor Peter, who was a rustic fisherman, or of Jesus, who, according to poet Fernando Pessoa, “understood nothing of accounting, nor is known to have own a library”, because He was a “fac-totum” and a simple Mediterranean peasant. Francis considers himself the successor of the first and a representative of the second. He does not want to be called “Your Holiness”, because he feels like a “brother among brothers.”  Nor does he want to preside over the Church with the rigors of canon law, but with loving charity .

In his trip to Brazil he showed without compunction his freedom of spirit: he requested a popular car for transportation, a covered jeep to be able to move amidst the people, to embrace the children, to drink a little cimarron, even to trade the “white papal skullcap”  from his own head for another, well-used one, that was offered by one of faithful. In the official welcoming ceremony by the Government, that follows a rigorous protocol, after the speech, he walked up to President Dilma Rousseff and gave her a kiss, to the horror of the master of ceremonies.  And there are many other examples.

This freedom of spirit gives him an undeniable radiance, a mixture of tenderness and vigor, the personal characteristics of Saint Francis of Assisi. It is about a man of great integrity. Such serene and strong attitudes show a man of great compassion, who realized a meaningful personal synthesis between his profound I and his conscious I. He simultaneously elicits lightness and security.  That is what we hope for in a leader, especially a religious leader.

This freedom of spirit is elevated by the splendid resurgence it brings to cordial reason. The majority of Christians are weary of doctrines, and skeptical of campaigns against the real or imaginary enemies of the faith. We are tired to the bone of intellectual, functional, analytic and efficient reason. Now comes someone who always speaks from the heart, as he did in his talk in the Varginha community (favela), or on the island of Lampedusa.  It is in the heart where the profound feelings towards the other and towards God reside. Without the heart, doctrines are cold and elicit no passion.  To the survivors brought from Africa, he confesses: ”we are a society that has forgotten the experience of crying, of ‘suffering with’: the globalization of indifference has stolen from us the ability to cry”. He speaks with wisdom: “The greatness of a society is measured by the way it treats the most needy”.  According to this measure, this world’s society is stunted, anemic and cruel.

The cordial reason is more effective for presenting the dream of Jesus than any erudite doctrine, and will make its principal herald, Francis of Rome, a fascinating figure who touches the deepest heart of Christians and others.

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.