It is Time for an Inner Transformation of the Church

M L Satyan –

Having relocated from Bengaluru to Coimbatore after two decades, I’ve had the chance to frequent a local parish. During these visits, a recurrent theme was the parish priest’s appeals for financial contributions, alongside grandiose displays in festive ceremonies. Additionally, there was a persistent emphasis on attendance at various religious activities like mass, rosary, and novenas, coupled with gentle warnings regarding non-participation.

Presently, the prevailing ethos among priests seems to be encapsulated in the phrase “Pray, Pay, and Obey.” Lay members are inundated with prayers to recite both in church and at home, alongside regular financial obligations to the parish. Furthermore, there’s an indoctrination of obedience towards church authorities.

Contrastingly, the foundational teachings of Jesus, whom the Church professes to emulate, centered on simplicity and service to the poor. He exemplified this through his humble birth in a stable and his sacrificial death on the cross. By washing his disciples’ feet, he redefined leadership as servanthood.

Jesus, whom the church claims to follow, was born, lived, and died poor. By saying, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Lk 9:58), he clearly meant that he chose to be poor and wanted to be pro-poor. Right from his birth in a cowshed and his death on Calvary, he demonstrated his poverty.

His disciples called him “Lord” and “Master.” He gave a different meaning to these words. By washing the feet of his disciples, he opted to be a servant and not a Master or King. He said, “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” (Jn 13:13-15).

On one occasion, Jesus called the twelve together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you! Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mt.20:25-28)

Jesus’ disciples internalised these values. Early Christians, following their example, shared their possessions for communal welfare, ensuring equality among members and demonstrating care for the marginalised.

Jesus had many women disciples, some of them special friends like Mary and Martha (sisters of Lazarus) and Mary Magdalene whose lives were transformed. He had a healthy relationship with all of them.

The apostles personalised the values given by Jesus. The early Christians, following the example of the apostles, disposed of their possessions and gave them to the community for common benefit so that all members would partake of them in equal portions. They ensured that there were no social and economic inequalities among them.

There was no personal attachment as yet to riches thus used, either on the part of the single Christian individual or for any autonomous Christian nucleus. The ownership, possession, and enjoyment of any wealth were anonymous, impersonal, and collective. There was also a deep concern for the poor, slaves, sick, and prisoners. The disciples never banked on their properties and wealth.

This apostolic tradition of poverty was eventually abandoned. Instead, accumulation of wealth has taken preference. The clergy, for instance, began to ask for money in exchange for their work or made money out of church goods. The Patrimony of St. Peter had become, not a modest sum of liquid money to be distributed to the destitute, but the accumulated wealth of a rich religious system determined to become even richer in the years ahead.

At one stage, Christianity witnessed the phenomenon of Francis Assisi, whose initial steps to sainthood were the renouncing of even the very clothes he wore, which he returned to his father; after which he dedicated himself to a life of total poverty by asking for the protection of the bishop, stark naked. The episode was a rebuff to the Church of his time, since Francis, following this symbolic gesture with practical concreteness, founded a new monastic order.

Bernard of Clairvaux had renounced all earthly riches as an individual. He gave new life to a corrupt and rich Western monasticism. He fulminated again and again against a religious system with a voracious appetite for earthly goods, accusing her of worshipping Mammon instead of God. He did not spare priests, bishops, or even popes.

Francis of Assisi and Bernard of Clairvaux advocated for a return to simplicity and condemning the pursuit of material wealth.

The early church was married to poverty, prisons, and persecution. Today’s church is married to prosperity, power/position, and popularity. (Note: Some exceptions have been like Fr. Bede Griffiths, Deenabandhu, Swami Sadanand, and Bishop Saupin). The church authorities are never ‘transparent’ about their wealth and properties. With this money power they do ‘some’ good things and ‘many’ bad things. Money has corrupted them to a very great extent. I believe the root cause of all evils prevalent in the church today is ‘money’.

Today’s Church, in contrast to its early roots, seems entangled in opulence and influence. Rampant corruption, caste disparities, and cases of sexual and clerical abuse tarnish its image. Lavish churches and clergy mansions stand in stark contrast to the teachings of Jesus.

Can the church prelates and religious authorities shed outdated honorific titles like Reverend, Very/Most Reverend, Superior, General, Monsignor, Lord, Excellency, Grace, Eminence, and Holiness? Why can’t all the men prelates and religious authorities be called just ‘Brother’? If done, a lot of disparities and discrimination will disappear. Will it not pave the way for a new ‘Fellowship’?

Also, can they shed ostentatious attire that contradicts the ethos of simplicity and service? These changes could foster a more inclusive and authentic community, aligning with the teachings of Jesus. Whenever a clergy puts on the ‘glittering vestments’, he must recall the pictures of the semi-naked children and people who are living below the poverty line in our midst. Are they prepared to get rid of this ‘cultural alienation’?

In essence, the call is for personal transformation among clergy and laity alike, to embody the sincerity, simplicity, and service exemplified by Jesus rather than merely paying lip service to his teachings.

“If you wish to be my disciple, take up your cross and FOLLOW me.”