*Ivo da Conceiçao SOUZA

Introduction

            In the contemporary world, which has become a ‘global village’ thanks to communication revolution, there is still chaos: dissensions, wars, riots, bioterrorism, fundamentalism, racism, casteism, fanaticism, political corruption, despotism, religious intolerance, cultural clashes, new forms of slavery.  It is multifaceted selfishness that is playing havoc in our society. It disturbs and damages the fabric  of  happy life of human society. At this difficult juncture, we are witnessing an effort to come back to brotherhood, to a just, peaceful, more humane existence. Religion, which is a search for the ultimate meaning of existence, should guide us, provide inspiration and strength. But unfortunately religion has become the tool of politics, of communalism and of fundamentalism. It is source of confusion.

            We are living in a multiethnic, multicultural and multireligious country, a real mosaic of people, of cultures, of religions. In the words of the great historian, Fr.Henry HERAS, SJ, “The history of India is not the history of a nation, it is the history of a continent in  which many peoples have been fused together. It is the history of many migrations, all of which have left gold dust in their train; it is the history of many dynasties which all together have raised monuments. Finally, it is the history of a constant desire to seek truth through the centuries, such metaphysical ideas as are not to be found in the most renowned civilizations of the ancient world”.[1] We have to live with them. We cannot repress them, whether covertly or overtly, without losing equilibrium. All religions should unite in their effort to bring back peace to the world through renewal and dialogue. There is a need for dialogue, within and without: dialogue within the Church herself (intra-religious dialogue) and dialogue with the world, with other religions, cultures, ideologies and traditions (inter-religious dialogue). We are at the end of the United Nations-proclaimed Year of Dialogue Between Civilizations.  John Paul II had dedicated his World Day of Peace 2001 message to the Year of Dialogue. I shall dwell on the meaning of dialogue in the modern context of chaotic growth and then, after providing anthropologico-theological basis for dialogue, speak about the concrete steps towards dialogue of the Church, within and without. 

            A.  Dialogue

            1.  Its Meaning

            Dialogue, which is derived from the Greek word dia-log(on)/izomai, can be defined as a “conversation on a common subject between two or more persons”. It is a “con-versation”, talk across the table on a common topic, exchange of views, encounter through the word. It is an integral dimension of human existence. It challenges one’s life and changes each other. It is a living, growing I-thou relationship. It is a process of growth. It begins with mutual admiration and acceptance. Its primary purpose is to understand the other and enrich mutually. It is a process of participation in the common learning from the other so as to change and grow. It is a process of transformation. It is an expression of transformative love.

            God created cosmos out of chaos, but man through his misuse of freedom “de-created” the world and “created” a new chaos. Now we have to “create” continuously cosmos out of chaos. This is not possible without man’s dialogue with God. Only then will Man be able to promote dialogue with others. Man will have to affirm the value of life against chaos. He will have to work with other human beings for the common goal, for the transformation of the world.

            Dialogue means listening to others. Unless we listen to others, we cannot learn from others. To listen, we have to hold others in admiration and respect. We have also to affirm our identity and offer our values to others. This will be a process of mutual enrichment, mutual liberation and mutual growth. Only after a self-critical process, can we engage together in critique of the contemporary society, together can we work for integral development and peace, for a new social order.

        Dialogue is an integral part of the Church’s mission. When we are suffering inIndia from an intolerant atmosphere, we can only survive through dialogue. It is the new way of being Church today. It is the only way to survival. It is the only way to peace. We have to listen to the expectations and grievances of the people within the Church, as well as of the people of other religions and cultures, we have to apologize for our faults, learn from our mistakes, see others in a new light, discover liberative dimension in us and in others; in short, shun what divides us, and promote what unites us.

        Dialogue should go together with proclamation. Dialogue should be an integral part of evangelization, of mission, of universal ministry of reconciliation. We are pilgrims, we are searching truth.  We cannot claim to have monopoly of truth, we are still groping for truth, we see the truth dimly, as if in a mirror (cf.2 Cor 3:18), we have to share with one another, we have to walk with others. On the one hand, we affirm our self-identity, whilst on the other hand, we share in the search of truth in which ‘others’ are engaged.

            Dialogue is  mutual communication  between two individuals or members of different religions and ideologies.  It  is a reciprocal process: giving and receiving.  It presupposes our ability to reason and to change. Each culture may say that its way is the way, to the exclusion of all others. But a genuine dialogue between cultures requires a respect for differences. There has been collision between religions and civilizations. Ethnico-religious differentiation has been used as a justification for brutal conflict, genocide, and persecution. We have crossed the boundaries of elimination of subordinate groups through genocide or of assimilation through ethnocide by dominant groups to dialogue, living encounter and pro-existence. [2]

            2.  Anthropological Dimension of Dialogue

            Dialogue is an integral dimension of human existence. It challenges, recharges and enriches each other. Dialogue is an on-going process. We are bodily beings, in a body-soul unity. Aristotle has defined man as a zoon logikon, which can be understood as animal rationale, as it has been in the philosophical and theological tradition, or rather as “living thinking, intelligent being”.[3] We are social and institutional beings. We grow through affirmation by others, we form our self-identity. We are beings of history and of tradition. We live amidst collective experience. We interpret our personal experience in the light of the collective horizon. We evaluate traditions through our spatio-temporal lenses. We are also liable to misinterpret history, jeopardize progress and bring destruction. Man is not only social and historical being, he is also linguistic being. His personality grows to maturity when he is addressed by others with words of affirmation and love. Language helps us to grow, it becomes our food and a word of support. Human existence is essentially and deeply linguistic. Man questions, decides, hopes.[4] Vatican II sums up the basic questions asked by every human being in his present condition:

            “The problems that weigh heavily on the hearts of men are the same today as in the ages past. What is man? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is upright behaviour, and what is sinful? Where does suffering originate, and what purpose does it serve? How can genuine happiness be found? What happens at death? What is judgment? What reward follows death? And, finally what is the ultimate mystery, beyond human explanation, which embraces our entire existence, from which we take our origin and toward which we tend?” [5]  

            Through dialogue we share experiences and reflections in order to reach a more complete world vision (Weltanschauung) and be willing to respond with wholehearted commitment for a better world. We listen to others in order to ‘under-stand’ their living worlds and be with them in their joys and sorrows.

            There has always been tension between ‘self’ and ‘the others’ or ‘strangers’ (meant by the word bárbaroi), which remains still today in our pluralistic society. The problem of “the one and the many” goes back to ancient Greek philosophy. [6] We have still to steer between Scylla of metanoia of the ‘self’ and Charybdis of paranoia of ‘the other’.

            Today philosophers have provided us with the vision of man as a relational being, through his I-thou dimension. The I-thou relationship is deeply rooted in the transcendental I-Thou relationship. Together they co-create a new entity, a “We”. A person cannot be owned, objectified, reified, used as an object (‘thing-ified’).The opposite of I-thou dialogue is monologue, which implies selfishness and manipulation. In genuine dialogue we accept and affirm others in their personhood. By doing so, we nurture the divine spark in them, and thereby actualize God in the world. A world without dialogue, unity or community is a “broken world”.  Martin BUBER,  Martin HEIDEGGER, and Gabriel MARCEL have elaborated this dialogical dimension of Man.[7] Dialogue has been a concern of philosophers right from Socrates and Plato till today with Hans-Georg GADAMER. This dialogical approach is quite evident in John Paul II’s writings. 

       Hans-Georg GADAMER brought to light how through the interplay of questions and answers dialogue provides a deeper understanding of a theme. Listening and responding brings openness, which enables us to reach the core-meaning, revealed in the inner word (Logos). Every statement is to be regarded as an answer to a question. Dialogue presupposes goodwill to reason and change. There should be equality and reciprocity, common subject-matter and common questions, which will facilitate the “fusion of horizons” (osmosis) between the speaker and the listener.[8] Only through dialogical dialogue,– which means piercing the ideology in order to reach that trans-logical realm  of the heart,– we are ultimately allowed ‘under-standing’, namely standing under the same horizon of intelligibility.[9] But understanding is not a purely cognitive  matter, accumulated new information for the sake of  curiosity. It is a change in one’s way of being-in-the-world, a conversion. [10] We have to move from tolerance and co-existence to enriching, fulfilling dialogue, a transformative encounter of living worlds.[11]

            3.  Theological Foundation of Dialogue

            Religion is a dialogue between God and humanity, between God and the individual, between I and Thou. Salvation history from the beginning is presented as a dialogue between God and Man—the Father speaks to his children.[12] The Paschal Mystery is the culmination of the dialogic relations between God and Man in Christ. The Eucharist is the kernel of the Christian life and of the priestly ministry. It nourishes our dialogue with the Risen Lord. Prayer is a dialogue with the Lord of our life and history.

      This dialogue is rooted in the Trinitarian Mystery: The Triune God is love and communicates love within and without. The Trinity will imprint its seal of love on every genuine religious experience, on every community, one every scriptural record. The Triune God is the Lord of creation and of history. He wants to be the Lord of every human heart. His greatest gift is human freedom. There cannot be meaningful dialogue among civilizations without religious freedom. Every culture of the world, with its diversity of gifts, has to contribute with diversity in unity, to the building up of a “civilization of love”. Differences among civilizations should be respected, since every individual has the right to truth according to the dictates of his/her conscience, within the context of his/her cultural heritage.

            Dialogue is not a luxury, but a vital necessity. It  is  not a new gimmick for  conversion to another religion,  but sharing of light and values, “like a householder who draws old and new from his treasure” (Mt 13:52). It is conversion of heart and mind. The Church is not only donor, but also recognizer and receiver of values, like harmony, brotherhood, honesty, fidelity, love. The Church has to be self-critical and proclaim brotherly love that corresponds to the aspirations of the contemporary Man, which are also the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ (GS 1). Evangelization consists in proclaiming the law of love which is “the basic law of human perfection and hence of the world’s transformation” (GS 38), or as St.Paul  states: to evangelize means to “bring to perfection the Gospel of Christ” (Rm 15:19) or to “realize the event of the Word of God” (Col1:25).[13]

            We need understanding, education to forgive, mutual admiration and respect, apology and openness. We have to forgive and forget the past. Dialogue is a practical virtue, an art. It requires effort to love, to understand, to forgive, to change.  We have been hurt and we have hurt, let us apologize, let us forgive. Unfortunately, we have been witnessing in these last years attacks on the Christian and Muslim communities on the part of the Hindutva activists. Instead of bridges, we have been building walls.[14] True, we have every right for protection under the Indian Constitution. We should retort to baseless allegations, serenely, calmly. We need more dialogue at this juncture. Christendom cannot be identified with Christianity. We have to identify the latent factors, political and econonomic, as well as prejudices and myths, underlying communal tensions. Without renouncing to our faith, we have to revise our attitudes and behaviour.  Truth will always prevail…We start the dialogue from where we are, without diluting or suspending our convictions. Otherwise, we shall not have anything to offer. For example, we cannot dilute the teaching of the uniqueness/universality of Christ, which is central to Christianity… We would deny our identity. We have to stand by our faith, honestly and courageously.

         It is to be recorded in golden letters how Mrs.Gladys STAINES publicly forgave the criminals (suspected Hindu militants), who burnt alive her husband, Graham Stuart STAINES,  and her two sons, Philip and Timothy inside their jeep, in Orissa. John Paul II asked forgiveness on March 12, 2000, for all the offences committed in the past by the Church. We have to accept the realities of history with humility and courage.

         We have to dialogue with Hindus, as well as with Muslims, Sikhs, Parsees, Jains and people of tribal religions. Let us show our identity and our convictions. In Indiaall religious communities are to be respected, the fundamental human rights are to be promoted. Outfits of Sangh Parivar should not interfere with the personal options in the field of religion. Our dialogue with the world religions should go beyond praying together and sharing together the experiences and doctrines. It should go beyond the dialogue of praxis or living. It should address the political reality of India, threatened today by political corruption, communalism,  violent fanaticism and distorted, militant  nationalism. As Jesus has challenged the power structure of his times, with his “anti-power” stance, with his servant leadership, so our task is also to upset the value system that does not respect human dignity and usher in a new face of society.[15]  Dialogue should be self-critical, creatively revising historiographical problems and contributing to the democratic process of rebuilding the nation as a secular (or rather a multireligious) state.[16] It should be at micro and macro levels, including ‘tree-top level’, with the governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), on all issues affecting our human rights and existence. [17]

         4. Levels of Dialogue

         There can be dialogue at four different levels: a. The dialogue of life, where people strive to live in an open and neighbourly spirit, sharing their joys and sorrows, their human problems and preoccupations; b. The dialogue of action or cooperation, in which Christians and others collaborate for the integral development and liberation of people; c. The dialogue of religious experience or witnessing, where persons, rooted in their own religious traditions, share their spiritual riches, for instance, with regard to prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching for God or the Absolute; d. The dialogue of theological exchange or doctrinal, where specialists seek to deepen their understanding of their respective religious heritages, and to appreciate each other’s spiritual values. The fruit of dialogue will be a deeper communion with God and with other people. We shall grow in friendliness and be able to promote and defend “common ideals in the spheres of religious liberty, human brotherhood, education, culture, social welfare and civic order”[18] We are living with fear psychosis in today’s world where everything seems to divide us. After Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the twin towers of theWorldTradeCenter and the Pentagon inAmerica, the situation has become darker. Also, inIndia we are witnessing terrible attacks against the Christians and Muslims for years together. It is high time to promote understanding between cultures and religions. In his address at the Plenary Assembly of the United Nations inNew York, Archbishop Renato MARTINO, Head of the Delegation of the Holy See and its Permanent Observer to the U.N., explained that  “No authentic dialogue can take place if it fails to respect life”.

B.Dialogue with World Religions

1.Paul VI and Dialogue

            The Secretariat for the Non-Christians was created on the Pentecost day of 1964, presided then by the Cardinal Paolo MARELLA and later in 1989 renamed Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. Soon was proposed to the world his first Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (August 6, 1964), which is the “charter of inter-religious dialogue”. It delineates the principles and motivations, the scope and methods, the modality and spirituality. Paul VI in his Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam sees the concrete situation in a series of concentric circles around the central point at which God has placed us.  The first circle is mankind, the human race, the world, with common nature, common life with all its gifts and all its problems (ES 97-107). The second circle comprises of the worshippers of the One God, like the Jewish people and the Muslims, and all the followers of the great Afro-Asiatic religions (ES 108). The third circle includes the  Christians (ES 109), differing from us on many points concerning tradition, spirituality, canon law, and worship. To the last circle belong the  Catholics (ES 113).

            Paul VI came toIndiaon December 2, 1964, as a pilgrim of peace, of joy, of serenity and love. His Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam had already set the stage for such a dialogue. In his speech on December 3, to the representatives of the non-Christian religions, Paul VI spoke of the intense search for God inIndia, quoting from the Hindu Scriptures, the Upanishads:

            “From the unreal, lead me to the real; from darkness, lead me to light; from death, lead me to immortality”.[19]

2.John Paul II and Dialogue

            John Paul II is a man of dialogue, a specialist in theory and practice. Karol Wojtyla belongs to the Dublin School of Philosophy. Under the leadership of Fr.Mieczyslaw KRAPIEC, OP, the Lublin School retained Thomistic realist principles and incorporated insights of Gabriel MARCEL, Martin HEIDEGGER, Karl JASPERS and Martin BUBER, all with their emphasis on the I-thou relationship. With his grammatical, philological and philosophical background, John Paul II enriched theological reflection with anthropological, personalist dimensions.

            In all his writings, John Paul II provided the Church principles and guidelines for dialogue.[20] Also through his visits to different countries, the Holy Father  fostered dialogue. His visits to Constantinople (1979), Canterbury (1982), Geneva (1984), Khartoum, Sudan (1993), India (January 31-February 11, 1986 and November 6, 1999), Sri Lanka (January 21, 1995) and the World Day of Prayer and Fasting for Peace at Assisi, Italy (October 27, 1986) are to be recorded in golden letters. [21] He has also given audience to several leaders of other churches, religions and states, including the Soviet President Mikhail GORBACHEV, originator of  Perestroika and Glasnost.

In Tertio Millennio Ineunte  (TMI, n.56), John Paul II is clear about the duty to proclaim the Gospel in an atmosphere of dialogue. Interreligious dialogue “cannot simply replace proclamation, but remains oriented towards proclamation“. “We know in fact that, in the presence of the mystery of grace, infinitely full of possibilities and implications for human life and history, the Church herself will never cease putting questions, trusting in the help of the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (cf. Jn 14:17), whose task it is to guide her “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13)”.

3.World Religions and the Church

        i.Since John XXIII sounded the clarion-call for a renewal of the Church (Aggiornamento), there has been an effort for an “Open Catholicity”. Windows were opened and there was a new outpouring of the Spirit of God, a new Pentecost.

       ii.Some preliminary remarks about terminology are in order. The expression “non-Christian religions“, though commonly used in our theological discussions, may be misleading. It can be used in statistical sense, for the sake of division, like Jews and non-Jews or Greeks and non-Greeks. It  is rather “pre-Christian” religions. It may smack of old colonial thinking  (“religious colonialism“). But in default of  a  better one  we  shall use the term. But still we can call  it,  also  not quite correctly in the modern communication era, “unevangelized“. We call them world religions and quasi-religions (Marxism, Communism, Fascism, in the words of Paul Tillich).

      iii.Statistically,  Hindus are 81 per cent (including  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes, constituting about 23.5 per cent of the  total population; if deduced from the Hindu total, the Hindu percentage would  come down to 60-62 per cent), Muslims about 12  per  cent, Christians  about 2.3 per cent, Sikhs 2 per cent,  Buddhists  .75 per  cent,  Jains .50 per cent, others .50 per cent.  About  60 per cent of the total Christian population are  in southern states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.  Christians  constitute  a majority in the tribal states  of  Nagaland, Meghalaya,  and Mizoram, 31 per cent in the state of Goa  and  26 per cent in Manipur, 26 per cent in Andaman andNicobar Islands.

            This “little flock” is placed in the midst of one billion of  Indian population. But  Christians who are less than 3 per cent of one billion people ofIndia, are serving the nation through their social commitment, particularly among the marginalized, forsaken people.      But it is a pity that we project a ‘divided’ picture inIndia: Catholics, Protestants, Syrian Christians, without speaking of different sects. It is a ‘scandal’ for our neighbouring non-Christian brethren.

            iv.The Problem

            With new discoveries of peoples and  nations in the sixteenth century CE, a reality experienced all over the ‘global city’, the Church had to grapple with the problem of God’s salvific will, on the  one  hand,  and the salvation of the unevangelized,  on  the other hand. Questions arose in our research: How can the unevangelized be saved? Are the different religions many ways to the one goal? Do all religions not contain God’s Revelation? Is Salvation to be found in the other religions as such? In short, are the religions of the world salvific? How is the Church to be missionary in a pluralistically religious world?  Should the Christian missionaries continue to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to people of other faiths? How do we proclaim the uniqueness/universality of Jesus Christ, his Lordship, in the face of similar claims from the followers of other religions?  

v.Solutions

            Threefold Approach to Other Religions:

            Christian  attitudes towards the world religions range from the rigid  exclusivism of  Karl Barth,–for whom there is only one true, revealed religion,–to the broad  tolerance of John Hick’s ‘universe of faith’ pluralism.

            There  are three main approaches proposed by theologians  to solve the tension between the two fundamental axioms that  salvation is through Jesus Christ alone, and that the good God equally desires the salvation of all human beings.

       a)Exclusivism or Ecclesiocentric theories with an exclusive Christology: Both Christ and  the Church are constitute of salvation, so that salvation is mediated exclusively  through  Jesus Christ,  and only to  those  who  explicitly express faith in him; and, in some versions, are members of the Christian Church, have the possibility of salvation. Outside the visible Church there is indeed no salvation.[22] Genuine experience of God is confined to Christian  revelation alone and there is only a blurred vision of God and little  salvific  significance  in other religions. They do  not  mediate salvation.

      b)Inclusivism or Christocentric theories    with    an     inclusive Christology: Christ, but not necessarily the Church, are  constitutive  of salvation. Salvation is mediated through death/Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but it can reach all men of good will, even those who do not explicitly believe in Christ’s  salvific role.[23] In Rahnerian terms,  people who  are saved without explicit confession of their faith in  the unique Saviour Jesus, are called “anonymous Christians”.[24] They are said to belong to the Church voto (implicitly) if  not  re  (formally)–though this way of speaking  or  even  of thinking is rapidly falling into disuse. Other religions are  generally  not regarded as salvific in these  theories,  for the unevangelized are  saved, in spite  of their religions, but not through them. Such God-seekers are saved  because  they are  in  some way linked to Jesus,– as Piet  Fransen  has suggested,  through an option for love, the kernel and the heart of Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God.[25] Thus, according to them, though genuine experiential knowledge of God may be found  in  other religious traditions, they are not salvific. The fullness of truth is prerogative of Christianity.

      c)Pluralism or Theocentric theories:

All religions are equally salvific paths to one God.  No  saviour  can be universal, his  salvific  influence  is limited  to  his/her  own followers. They opt for  a ‘Theocentric’  as  opposed to a ‘Christocentric’  perspective  of history.[26] For John Hick, God/Ultimate Reality is unknowable and  ineffable  in  itself. He draws a distinction between  “the  Real  in itself  and  the Real as manifested within the  intellectual  and experiential  purview of that tradition”.[27] He called for a ‘Copernican revolution’ in  Christian theology to place God at the centre, not Christianity, under  the suggestion that “all the religions of mankind, including our own, revolve  round him”.[28] There are more variations of these theories (G.D.Kaufman, Paul K. Knitter). Other religions too are salvific in  their own  right (de iure) and do not need a reference to  any  ‘unique’  saving event. They constitute  a  ‘universe  of faiths’, centred round an ineffable and ultimately undefinable God.

            vi.Theological Reflection

            There are efforts among worldwide theologians for elaborating a theology of religions.

            *Religion means search for God.[29] It is a constitutive dimension of human existence and clearly meets a deeply rooted human need to find meaning in life, as well as the corresponding social need to find a community which shares and maintains that meaning. In the light of Jewish-Christian Revelation, it springs from the human nature created in  the image of God (cf.Gn 1:26f). This longing for the Infinite and for Transcendence is within our hearts and leads us to God (cf.Rm 1:20; Acts 17:26-27). St.Paul tells that the Gentiles are inexcusable because they came to know God and they have the law within their hearts, yet they failed to glorify the Lord, who for this reason left them to their own weaknesses and aberrations (cf.Rm 1:18-2:16; 3:15; see Jr 31:31-34; Ez 36:23-28, cf.27; 37:14; Rm 5:5; 2 Cor 3:6.7-18). The oracles against the nations (Am 1-2; Is 13-21;  Jr 46-51; Ez 25-32) do not target the deficiencies found in the religious systems, but rather anti-social  aberrations and crimes, pride, cruelty (cf.Acts 14:17; Ps 95:5; 1 Cor 10:20). God of the Covenant, of promises, of  faithful love and compassion. God does not leave alone humankind that is striving after him (cf.1 Tm 2:4).[30]

            *Religion shapes our culture, that is people’s attitude towards nature, man, history. The mission of the Church is to reveal/communicate  God’s love to all people and nations (AG 10). All have but one origin and one final purpose (RMi 31-32).  Through evangelization cultures are not diminished, but rather are prompted to open  themselves  to  the newness of the Gospel’s truth. The process of inculturation has to continue. The  Church  cannot abandon what she has gained  from  her inculturation in the world of Greco-Latin thought. This criterion is valid for the Church in every age, even for the Church of  the future.[31]

            *“Outside the Church, No Salvation”:

1.The axiom, “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), has given a negative image. It  goes back to the image of the Noah’sArk, portraying salvation through baptism (1 Pt 3:20). It asserts positively that there is “Salvation inside theArk”, not negative statement: “No salvation outside theArk”. It says explicitly that Christ “died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (3:18),  preached the good news after his death (3:19)  to  those very  people “who formerly did not obey” (3:20), and  hence  were not  inside  theArk. Therefore, the assertion is  “No  salvation  outside Christ”.

2.The  image was adopted by Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons  and Clement  of Alexandria. It is for the first time given  its  complete,  but now negative, formulation by Origen:  “Outside  this house,  that is, the Church, no one is saved”.[32] But it was by Cyprian of Carthage that it  was  applied  with fully  consistent juridical exclusiveness.[33]

3.The  strict  literal sense in which the axiom was  taken  is shown  in this sentence from Augustine’s disciple  Fulgentius  of Ruspe: “There is no doubt  that  not only all heathens, but also all Jews and all heretics and  schismatics  who die outside the Church will go into that  everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”. [34]

4.Boniface VIII in 1302 in his Bull Unam Sanctam  affirms clearly the unity of the Church and within the time-bound ideology seems to propose the hierocratic theory in an extreme form—there are two swords , the temporal and the spiritual powers, but the temporal is under the control of the spiritual, concretely under the jurisdiction of the Pope. Outside the “papal” Church, identified with the mystical Body, there is no salvation: ”We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff” (DS 875/ND 804). But it was not maintained by  the  subsequent Popes. The doctrinal point is that the Church is necessary for salvation.

5.Only after the discovery of new continents with morally good people theologians, like Robert Bellarmine and Francis Suarez, and  the  Council of Trent itself, in 1547,  in its Decree on Justification,  taught that  justification could be given either through baptism or through its desire (DS  1524/ND 1928).  Against the rigorism of  the  Jansenists,  the proposition  that  “Extra  Ecclesiam  nulla  conceditur   gratia” (“Outside the Church there is no grace”: DS 1379/2429) was condemned by Clement XI in his Constitution of September 8, 1713.

6.When  the Encyclical Mystici Corporis by Pius XII (June 29, 1943) seemed to give again a  rigorous interpretation (cf.DS 3821)  and  Father  Leonard Feeney, with  a group of Catholics in Boston, tried to  take  the words  of  the encyclical quite literally, namely  that  everyone outside the Catholic Church is damned, the Holy Office/See intervened to protest against this teaching, with a letter to the Archbishop Cushing of Boston, dated August 8, 1949,  [35] emphasizing the ancient doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation—all, in order to be saved, must be in some way related to the Church, at least in desire or longing (voto et desiderio), even implicitly, and this desire must be informed by supernatural faith and love (cf.Hb 11:6). It declared  that  those, who stated that no one out of the visible Church could  be  saved, or “falsely maintained that people can be saved equally well in any religion”, was themselves out of the church and excommunicated. [36]

                                                                                           *

                                                                                    *           *

             –Our approach to the world religions and quasi-religions cannot be one of superiority, blind condemnation or total rejection. On the one hand, we cannot opt for eclecticism or syncretism; on the other hand, we cannot state lightly that “all religions are equal” and fall into relativism. There should not be any compromise, any diluting, any false irenism, or a policy for befriending the brethren of  other faiths, but an attempt to delve deeper into the mystery of divine Grace. By studying other religions we shall deepen our own understanding of Christianity, as well as of the other  religions. Aware of  their  deficiencies  and shortcomings, we shall realize better the uniqueness and universality of Christ. We shall no longer consider the other religions as inimical to our own. Christ is the only Saviour  but his salvific Grace already reaches the non-Christians. It reaches them, not in spite of their non-Christian religions, but by  using the very elements of genuine truth  and  goodness that are present in these religions.[37] They can be better in their own religion and at the same time, draw near to Christ in the recesses of their hearts. Religions are not parallel  or complementary to Christianity. Rather, they are convergent,  within God’s unique saving plan, on Alpha and Omega, that is Christ, and through Christ on God (cf.Eph 1:4-10; Col 1:20; Rev 1:8; 21:6; 1 Cor 15:28: “God will be all in all”). Dialogue will continue for ever when we shall be with the “fountain of living water”, in the assurance given by God himself that “I shall be God and he will be my son” in the new Jerusalem, the “new heaven and the new earth” (cf.Rev 21:1).  From the existential viewpoint, the world religions become the “ordinary” paths of salvation, taking into account that it is Grace welcome through faith, “working though love” that saves (cf.Gal 5:6). They belong to the general/universal history of revelation and salvation, whereas Christians and Jews, and, to a certain extent, Muslims belong to the particular/special history of salvation. On the historical level, members of the world religions receive salvation through their religious practices and beliefs, but on the transcendental level, the Triune God is present in their genuine experience. Since the Word is present and active in the ultimate, transcendental level, any genuine experience will be a saving dialogue with Christ, even if it is not consciously known. Every divine self-gift points towards Christ as its goal and focus, therefore every experience of God’s self-communication is always related to and depends on Christ.[38]

–It is not religions that save us, but God through the religious traditions and systems. It is God who saves us through his Word and Spirit, the “two hands” of God.[39] The  Grace of Christ is not confined to any institution or means, it is  never commensurate with them; often the Christic grace can purify and elevate seemingly inadequate human  means far above their natural  efficiency. From the existential viewpoint, a non-Christian can be touched by God and his Grace in  his  present situation. This does not contradict the tenet of our Christian faith, namely that Christ is  the “Way, the Truth and the Life” (cf.Jn 14:6). While giving us all the salvific means, God did not abandon all those who “faultlessly have not come to the explicit knowledge of the Gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by his Grace, strive by their deeds to do his Will as it is known to them through the dictates of  conscience” (cf.LG 16); or “those who faultlessly have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his Grace”. He reaches them “in ways known to him alone” (GS 22), in a thousand of unchartered/unstructured ways through the Word (Logos), that “enlightens every Man that comes to the world” (Jn 1:9). Their  scriptures, their rites, their traditions, the lessons and examples of  their teachers, prophets (rishis) and saints, are means which God’s Providence allows them to use for their growth until they can hear and understand the call of Christ. [40]

–Their sincere, noble lives will be fulfilled by the Christic Grace, in the fullness of Christ (cf.Jn 10:10). Knowing that “the wind blows where it wills” (cf.Jn 3:8), Vatican II reminds us of the activity of the Spirit of God also “outside the visible body of the Church”. The Council speaks of “all people of good will in whose hearts Grace works in an unseen way”. The rationale is clear: “Since Christ died for all, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a maner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery”.[41] The Holy Spirit sows the ‘seeds of truth’ among all peoples, their religions, cultures and philosophies.[42] Countless images, myths and  symbols are shadows of the Reality to come. The activity of the Spirit in creation and human history acquires an altogether new significance in his action in the life and mission of Jesus. The “seeds of the Word” (semina Verbi) sown by the Spirit prepare the whole of creation, history and Man for full maturity in Christ”.[43] There may remain admixture of truths and errors in their personal and social ‘credo’, which can be brought to refinement through the knowledge of the Christian mystery. This positive approach to the mystery and theology of world religions should not diminish our missionary love and zeal. On the contrary, it should fill us with more enthusiasm to bring our brethren of other religions to a fuller light and life.

The Declaration Dominus Iesus and Dialogue:

           –The Declaration “Dominus Jesus” (DI) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (August 6,  2000) was intended to be a response to deviations in the understanding of Christian faith in the context of  today’s multireligious context and the current interfaith and interchurch dialogue.[44] It seems to target as a precautionary measure the theologians of  theThird World, chiefly the Indian thinkers. The document does not contain any new magisterial teaching, but recalls the theology of Vatican II, as it has been re-interpreted in subsequent documents. It is to be read together with other Church pronouncements. It may have given the impression of closing discussion than encouraging ecumenical dialogue. The Declaration has put its finger on the important issue of dialogue with the world, with the Christians and the people of other religions. Often dialogue has been more polemical than dialogical. Its central concern has been the dangers of reductionism, relativism and indifferentism. But there have been dissenting voices: It is obstacle to decades of painful ecumenical movement among Christian communities,  and chiefly in the dialogue with the other religions. It may reverse the progress ushered in by Vatican II and decades of its follow-up.  Its language is rather negative. It did not take into account the historico-personalistic understanding of Revelation and Faith, which came as a source of renewal from the Vatican II.

          –The Congregation has two primary concerns, namely “the definitive and complete character of the Revelation of Jesus Christ” and “the nature of Christian faith compared to that of belief in other religions” (DI  4). The first concern can be spelt out in three steps: first, “the fullness and definitiveness of the Revelation of Jesus Christ”;  secondly, “the mystery of His incarnation, death and resurrection is the sole and universal source of salvation for all humanity”; and thirdly, the unique mediation of Jesus Christ as the center of salvation history. The Declaration tries to balance two theological concerns: on the one hand, Christ is the sole mediator of salvation (cf.1 Tm 2:5); and on the other hand, further study is needed about how others who remain through no fault of their own outside Christianity, can be saved. But it states immediately that “Christ’s unique mediation does not exclude participated forms of mediation of various types and degrees”, but such forms receive their value from Christ.       

        –Pedagogy of Dialogue: The fruit of Dialogue should be our common growth in truth and love. Together we should turn to God with greater commitment. “By dialogue we let God be present in our midst; for as we open ourselves in dialogue to one another, we also open ourselves to God”.[45] Therefore, if we want to address our brethren, our dialogue should be phased.[46] We have to advance gradually. We have to start from what is common to us.  We may have to bracket what will bring our conversation to a halt, if we are not going to give the partners the feeling of superiority of Christianity on our part or of proselytizing.[47] We have to stress on human and religious values that we share and have to work together to make these values operative in our community. Our service should be an expression of love. Division of any sort openly contradicts the will of Christ and is a stumbling block to the world. 

CONCLUSION

Our study carried us through the rich dimensions of dialogue which is the key word today in our relationships. Inspite of the clouds in the Asian-Indian sky, we see a silvery line. We are hopeful that this is the “new springtime of Christian life”.[48] Theologians should continue to work with courage and optimism. All of us should be renewed in mind and heart. It is not the “commandment” of going to the world and proclaiming the Good News that spurs us on, but the mission itself, the love that is burning within our hearts (cf.Lk 24:32; 2 Cor 5:14). We are being watched by our Hindu brethren. It is worthwhile to listen to a Hindu brother, Dr.Kalpesh Gajiwala, who found in Christ a Perfect being, who is ONE with the Supreme Divinity—God. [49]According to him, God manifested himself at different times in different ways: “Ekam sad, bahuda vadanti viprah” (The Truth is one, experts call it by many names). God is Inexpressible. The Word has existed from the beginning of time and has been leading humanity into truth before he became flesh. Dr.Gajiwala feels that Christians have a superiority complex: “they wave their passports for heaven, stamped “Jesus Christ” confident they will be saved (whatever they do) and everyone else doomed”. “It seems as if after giving the Son to the world, God is sitting in some corner somewhere, forfeiting the divine rights to omnipotence and sovereignty, while God’s agents here on earth decide who is going to be saved and by  what means”. [50]

            We cannot play god, nor can we carry on our old mentality. We need to renew our minds and hearts through an effective, fruitful dialogue.     

[1] Cf.Gustavo GUTTIERREZ, Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ, trans.Robert R.Barr,Maryknoll,New York: Orbis Books, 1993. See its review by J.Chathanatt, SJ., VJTR (Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection), September 1996, pp.635f.  Bartolomé de las Casas, the great sixteenth century Dominican missionary to the ‘Indies’, is known as “Defender of the Indians” (as the indigenous people of the Americas were mistakenly called , later on ‘Red Indians’), for he prophetically denounced butchery and slavery—after half a century of Spanish domination there was a demographic catastrophe caused by malnutrition, disease, war and hard labour; by 1570 the population was reduced to about nine millions from about sixty-five millions.

[1] Cf.Luigi BOGLIOLO, SDB, “I Fondamenti Antropologici del Dialogo”, Portare Cristo all’Uomo. Congresso del Ventennio dal Concilio Vaticano II, 18-21 Febbraio 1985, vol.1: Dialogo, Pontificia Universita Urbaniana, Roma, 1985, Studia Urbaniana, 22, pp.557-565

[1]Cf.Gerald O’COLLINS, SJ, Fundamental Theology,  Darton Longman & Todd,London, 1980,  pp. 130-150

[1] Vatican II, Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, n.1

[1] Cf.Rudolf C.HEREDIA, “Pluralism, Tolerance and Dialogue”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.255-264.

[1] Cf.Seymour CAIN, Gabriel Marcel, Regnery/Gateway, Inc.,South Bend,Indiana, 1963, pp.35-48 and 78-86

[1] Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”,  Jnanadaya.Journal of Philosophy, issue no.8, June 2000,Salesian College, Yercaud, Salem Dt., pp.15-20, cf.p.19

[1] Cf.Sandra M.SCHNEIDERS, “From Exegesis to Hermeneutics: The Problem of the Contemporary Meaning of Scripture”, Horizons 8, 1981, pp.23-29; see for details, Ivo DA CONCEICAO SOUZA, “Biblical Hermeneutic for Today”, LUCEAS.Year Book of Rachol Seminary, Jubilee Issue, 1984-1985, pp.78-87

[1] Cf.Bosco AUGUSTINE, SDB, “Understanding as Questioning in Gadamer’s Truth and Method”, p.20. See Hans-Georg GADAMER, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, London, 1975; Paul RICOEUR, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning, The Texas Christian University Press, Forth Worth, 1976; Raimundo PANIKKAR, Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics, Asian Trading Corporation,  Bangalore, 1983, pp.4-10, cf.p.8; Bernard LONERGAN, SJ., Method in Theology, London, 1972, p.155

[1] Cf.William T.CAVANAUGH, “Balthasar, Globalization, and the Problem of the One and the Many”, Communio, Summer 2001, vol.28, n.2, pp.324-347; Xavier PRADES, “The Tribe or the Global Village?: Fundamental Reflections on Multiculturalism”, Communio, pp.348-376

[1] Cf.Jr 7:23; 31:33; Ez 36:28; Gn 1:27; Ex 4:22; DV 14, 21

[1] Cf.Stanislas LYONNET, SJ, La Carita pienezza della Legge secondo san Paolo, Editrice A.V.E., Roma, 1959, p.75

[1] Cf.”Holy Peace, not Holy War”, The Tablet, October 20, 2001, p.1483. See David TRACY, Dialogue with the Other.The Inter-Religious Dialogue, Peeters Press,Louvain, pp.95-123

[1] Cf.Lucien LEGRAND, “Power in the Bible”, Jeevadhara, January 1989, pp.43-56

[1] Cf.T.K.JOHN, “Today’sIndiaand its Religions”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.12-30

[1] Cf.Felix WILFRED, “Inter-Religious Dialogue as  a Political Question”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.361-374. See also Archbishop Angelo FERNANDES, “A Global Spirituality of Social Responsibility”, VJTR 60, 1996, pp.31-43

[1] Address of John Paul II to the Leaders of Non-Christian Religions, at Rajaji Hall, Madras/Chennai, on February 5, 1986, in: “The Pope Speaks to India”, St.Paul Publications, 1986, Bandra-Bombay, pp.82-87, cf.p.86

[1] Cf.Paul PULIKKAN,IndianChurchat Vatican II, pp.452-458

[1] John Paul II, Inaugural Encyclical Redemptor Hominis (RH, The Redeemer of Man), March 4, 1979; Enc. Slavorum Apostoli (SA, Eleventh Centenary of Sts Cyril and Methodius), June 2, 1985; Enc.Dominum et Vivificantem (DV), May 18, 1986; Apostolic Letter, Euntes in Mundum (EM, Conversion of Russia to Christianity), January 25, 1988; Enc.Redemptoris Missio (RMi, Mission of the Redeemer), December 7, 1990; Enc.Ut Unum Sint (UUS), May 25, 1995

[1] Luigi ACCATTOLI, John Paul II.Man of the Millennium. A Biography, trans.Jordan Aumann, OP, St.Pauls, Mumbai, 2001, pp.101-105

[1] Mariasusai DHAVAMONY, “Theology of Religions”, R.Latourelle and  R.Fisichella, eds, Dictionary of Fundamental Theology,New York: Crossroad, 1996,  p.888; see also his article, “Christian Theology of Religions”, Seminarium, Year 38, n.4, October-December 1998, pp.751-769

[1] See C.I.GILLIS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for  Theology,Louvain:  Peeters Press, 1993, p.18

[1] Cf.Karl RAHNER, “Christianity and the  Non-Christian  Religions”,Theological  Investigations, vol.5, 1966, pp.115-134; Idem,  “Missions”,  Sacramentum  Mundi, vol.4,  Theological  Publications  in India, Bangalore, 1978, pp.79-81.

[1] Cf.Piet FRANSEN, SJ,  “How Can Non-Christians Find Salvation in their own Religions?”, in: Christian Revelation and World religions, ed. And introduced by Joseph Neuner, SJ, Compass Books, Burns & Oates,London,  pp.67-122, cf.p.91-103

[1]C.L.GILS, Pluralism: A New Paradigm for Theology, p.19

[1] J.HICK, An  Interpretation  of Religion: Human Responses to the  Transcendent, London: Macmillan, 1989, p.236

[1]John HICK, God and the Universe  of  Faiths (London:  Collins/Fount Books, 1977), p.131 . 

[1] Religion is derived from Latin religio (from relegere, “to turn to constantly” or “to observe conscientiously”; from religari (“to bind oneself  back”) ; and reeligere (“to choose again”). Its etymological derivation points to three possible religious attitudes. According to St.Thomas Aquinas,  religion “denotes properly a relation to God” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.81, a.1)

[1] Pietro ROSSANO, “The Bible  and  the  Non-Christian Religions”, in: Bulletin. Secretariatus pro non Christianis, Vatican City 1967, n.4, pp.18-28

[1] John  Paul II, Encyclical Letter,  Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), September 14, 1999, nn.70-72

[1] In Jesu nave,  3:5: MPG  12,  841

[1] De unitate  Ecclesiae, 6: CSEL III/1, 214f.

[1] De fide ad Petrum, 38, 78

[1] Cf. ”Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston”, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, ed.J.NEUNER, SJ-Jacques DUPUIS, SJ(ND), Seventh Revised and Enlarged Edition, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore, 2001, n.854/3867,  p.329;  see Denzinger-Schoenmetzer (DS) 3866-3873, esp.3872. Cf.the Code of Canon Law (CIC ), can.849: “Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire”.  Father Leonard FEENEY,  self-appointed as the “Defender of  Faith”, in his commentary “From the Housetops”, held that all non-Catholics –except the catechumens with an explicit desire (voto explicito) of joining the Catholic Church—would be excluded from eternal salvation, and because of his obstinacy against the warnings of the authority was excommunicated on February 4, 1953.

[1] For a survey of interpretations,  cf.Hans KUENG, “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation”, Christian Revelation and World religions,  pp.25-66, cf.pp.31-46

[1]Cf.Jesuit  Scholars,  Religious Hinduism. A  Presentation  and Appraisal,  St.Paul Publications, Allahabad-Bombay, 1964, in  his Introduction, “A Christian Approach to non-Christian  Religions”, Pierre FALLON,15-21, cf.19; see Vatican II, Aetate Nostra, n.2; Ad Gentes 4; LG 17

[1] Cf.Geral  O’COLLINS, Fundamental Theology, pp.122-125

[1] Jacques DUPUIS, SJ, “Le Verbe de Dieu, Jésus Christ et les religions du monde”, NRT123, 2001, pp.529-546; Idem, “The work of the Potter”, The Tablet, November 3, 2001, pp.1560-1561; see also his book, Vers une théologie chrétienne du pluralisme religieux, Cerf,  Paris, 1997. On Logos-Christology, see also B.POTTIER, SJ, “Note sur la mission invisible du Verbe chezsaint Thomasd’Aquin”, NRT 123, 2001, pp.547-557

[1] George M.SOARES-PRABHU,  “Inculturation-Liberation-Dialogue”, Biblical  Themes for  a  Contextual Theology Today,  ed.by  Isaac  Padinjarekuttu, Jnana-Deepa  Vidyapeeth  Theology Series, Pune,  1999,  pp.51-78, cf.58-62

[1] GS 22; cf.LG 16. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem, May 18, 1986, n.53

[1] John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, November 6, 1999, n.15; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio, December 7, 1990, n.28; GS 11.22.26.38; AG 4.15; LG 17

[1]John Paul II, Ecclesia inAsia, n.16; Rmi 28

[1] John Paul II on June 16, 2000, “ratified and confirmed” it and ordered its publication (n.23).

[1] John Paul II, “Address at Rajaji Hall”, The Pope Speaks toIndia, p.85

[1] Cf.Jacob KAVUNKAL, SVD, “Missionin the Context of Other Religions”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.917-927

[1] Cf.Arvind SHARMA, “Epoché and Hindu-Christian Dialogue”, VJTR 64, 2000, pp.927-932, cf.p.930

[1] John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, November 10, 1994, n.18: AAS 87 (1995), p.16

[1]Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, VJTR, February 1993, pp.105-109, cf.p.106

[1] Dr.Kalpesh GAJIWALA, “Liberating the Unlimited. A Hindu’s Reflection on Christ”, p.108

The question is asked every day as follows: Is cancer curable? We might answer today with one “YES”. This ”yes” has to be qualified in several ways. 1. Cancer is “curable” for some, for some it has cost them life. 2. More than 80 per cent of cancers are “completely curable”, IF treated early. 3.Rarely will it appear when patients have been successfully treated for cancer, and it does not recur for a period of next five years. But a patient should get himself/herself examined every month, or half-early under all conditions and with all modern tests.

There are three factors to be considered: 1. Type of cancer; 2.Stage of cancer; 3.Response of the patient to surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy. It is a myth the belief that vaccine can “cure” cancer. We do not know exactly the  of cancer, it is not caused by a germ.

Our Answer: 1. IF the disease in question is diagnosed early, there are more chances of a person’s “survival”. If it is a tumor in breast or bowel, there are more chances of a person’s “survival” by way to operating and removing that part of the body, totally or partially. But if it is not a tumor restricted to one place, and has spread to other parts, also then by way of chemotherapy the cancer cells are destroyed.

There are some types of cancers, which are curable even after they have spread like, Childhood Acute lymphoid leukemia, (All types), Hodgkin’s disease, Large cell lymphoma, APL Testicular cancer, Choriocarcinoma

There are hundred different types of cancer, all of them have a different type of  treatment and “cure”.

Food and Cancer: Relation of food and cancer can be summed up as “In some individuals, deficiency of Vitamin B can result in changes in certain tissues, particularly related to mouth and lips, which may towards the end become cancerous. However, as far as it is known, no food or combination of foods has can cause or cure of cancer. Heavily fried food or abandoned red meat is the suspected culprits as per some latest research. Green veggies and cabbage may help in preventing certain cancers, especially some types of cancer related to women.” But there is nothing that can absolutely give you cancer or cure one of it.

     La recherche sur l’homme est au centre de toute réflexion philosophique. L’homme doit être le pivot de toute philosophie, de toute culture et encore de toute théologie. En effet, il n’y a pas manqué de débats passionés, recherches enthousiastes, critiques amères sur la notion de la personne humaine.

     Nous nous proposons d’aborder la vie et la pensée d’un des plus grands penseurs français contemporains. Il était musicien, dramaturge, philosophe. Son mérite était d’ouvrir de nouvelles avenues pour un nouveau type de métaphy­sique: la métaphysique de la participation ou incarnation. Nous nous bornerons, aux limites de cet essai, à esquisser sa  réflexion sur la personne humaine, avec toutes ses  implications  principales.  Dès lors, nous avons donné pour son  titre, un énoncé quelque peu général–sens de l’homme;  en nous cantonnant dans un auteur existentialiste chrétien universellement apprécié, nous avons dû ajouter–d’après Gabriel Marcel. Cette étude présente alors un double intérêt. Au premier lieu, la métaphysique n’est pas prise au sens traditionnel du mot,  c’est-à-dire elle n’est pas une philosophie de  l’abstrait, de l’essence, du système (que G. Marcel appelle  philosophie  de ‘pensée pensée’), mais elle est une approche concrète du réel, la ‘morsure du réel’, et donc une ‘philosophie de pensée pensante’. Toute recherche metaphysique doit être une réflexion sur l’expérience humaine dans sa totalité, elle doit être une description, à la fois phénoménologique et métaphénoménologique, de la situation existentielle de l’homme. Autrement dit, l’incarnation de l’homme, comme un être lié à un corps, c’est la donnée centrale de métaphysique.

    D’où, faut-il signaler d’emblée une conséquence de cette approche ontologique pour le domaine épistémologique–la connaissance philosophique n’est pas une adéquation ou une conformité intentionnelle entre le sujet connaissant et l’objet connu (adaequatio intellectus et rei), mais un mode de participation à l’être, qui le fonde et enveloppe.

     Au deuxième lieu, la pensée de G. Marcel maintient son actualité vivante. Elle réflète, tout d’abord, les inquiétudes et angoisses de la situation, dans laquelle il a vécu. Sa réflexion brille par la clarté de l’expression, par la  profondeur de l’analyse et surtout par son souci pour l’engagement, la communion intersubjective, dialogue, participation au monde.

Sa Pensée:

      Sa contribution à la philosophie est faite surtout d’un journal métaphysique, d’une oeuvre de dramaturge, de recueils d’articles et de conférences, qui sont des méditations, pas des traîtés. Cette circonstance rend plus difficile la tâche de l’interprète.

     Son point de départ, comme d’ailleurs pour tous philosophes existentialistes du vrai nom, c’est “l’inquiétude  métaphysique” (HM, p.192). Après avoir défini la métaphysique comme “l’acte par lequel  une inquiétude se définit et  partiellement–mystèrieuse­ment aussi–parvient, sinon à se supprimer elle-même,  tout  au moins  à se transposer, à se transmuer en une expression  de  soi qui, bien loin de paralyser la vie supérieure de l’esprit, l’affermisse et l’entretienne au contraire”.  Cette inquiétude n’est pas une curiosité. Être curieux, c’est  partir d’un certain centre  immobile  et se tendre pour happer un objet  tout  en  se tournant  vers la péripherie. Tout au contraire, être inquiet, c’est n’être pas sur de son centre et donc être à la recherche de son propre équilibre.

     On  peut dire avec sureté qu’il n’y a pas d’autre  problème métaphysique que le “QUE SUIS-JE?”, car c’est à celui-là que tous les  autres ramènent, comme l’existence des autres consciences. Cette inquiétude métaphysique n’est pas un état immédiatement donné, comme l’attente d’un ami, mais des circonstances m’amèneront à prendre conscience d’une inquiétude, qui avra un caractère de permanence, car elle n’est pas liée à un particulier maintenant et elle s’étend à tous les êtres qui sûrement avront la même expérience que moi, en tant qu’ils sont humains. C’est une inquiétude pour nous tous, mes frères et moi.

      À cet étage la perspective de l’itinéraire suivi par notre auteur. Il insiste beaucoup sur la necessité de tout remettre en question. “La philosophie, avoue-t-il, n’est rien, si elle n’est pas une recherche, mais chercher c’est espérer trouver, c’est tendre vers du définitif” (PI, p.15), car la philosophie est une recherche de la verité, l’amour de la sagesse (du mot grec, FILOS=ami  et SOPHIA=de la verité). On ne doit pas confondre la Verité avec les verités particulières, qui sont l’objet de la Science, c’est-a-dire, peuvent être décou­vertes par le savant au terme de ses investigations et sont strictement formulables.

Problème et Mystère:

     Cette distinction entre le problème et le mystère est fondamentale à ses yeux pour son itinéraire philosophique. Le problème (derivé du mot grec, pro+ballo (jeté devant moi) est ce qui se pose devant moi, qui me barre la route. Il est un objet de Science. Le mystère (du mot grec :L,4<, myein=cacher), par contre, est quelque chose où je me trouve engagé, et qui transcende toute technique.

      Si nous analysons les categories de l’être et de l’avoir, nous devons dire que la Science par ses techniques s’occupe de l’avoir, de posséder les choses, qui nous sont extérieures, que nous rencontrons sur notre route et nous manions comme objets de nos expériences. Au contraire, le philosophe cherche à prendre conscience toujours davantage de l’être, dans lequel il reconnaît le grand mystère qui l’envahit.  On se trouve donc dans le domaine du méta-problématique. Bref, la Science traite du problème, pendant que le philosophe se trouve devant le mystère.

     Je peux aussi dégrader un mystère pour en faire un problème par la réflexion primaire, mais je dois me découvrir comme mys­tère par le recueillement, par la réflexion seconde. G. Marcel appelle cette intelligibilité propre au mystère “la reconnaissance du mystère” (EA, pp.20, 170). “Les mystères ne sont pas des verités  qui nous dépassent, mais des verités qui  nous  compren­nent” (EA, p.205). Cette terminologie est exigée par le réel lui-même, car les mystères correspondent à la dimension totale du réel, alors que les problèmes correspondent aux dimensions par­tielles du réel. Mon existence elle-même, je l’éprouve comme totalité. Dès lors, demander “qu’est-ce que l’être?” ou  ”que suis-je?”,  c’est s’interroger sur la totalité de l’être et sur moi-même en tant que totalité” (PA, p.55).  La métaphysique doit être donc définie comme “réflexion braquée sur un mystère” (EA, p.146).

     Si la philosophie se définit, d’après la conception de G. Marcel, comme réflexion sur le mystère du réel, peut-on dire que la philosophie appartient au domaine de l’invérifiable?  Si cela est vrai, la philosophie ne cesserait-elle de jouir d’universalité, étant au-delà de toute démonstration? Dans son libre Présence et Immortalité‚ G. Marcel fit une mise au point quant à la définition donnée par Pietro Prini, qu’il a considerée comme “particulièrement heureuse“, et remarqua que le terme “l’invérifiable” était pris au sens étroit qui est donné à un mot dans les sciences de la nature (cf. la Lettre-préface, Gabriel Marcel et la métodologie de l’invérifiable, Desclée, Paris, 1953, p.7.Voire la réponse en PI, p.187). Mais en ce cas cette terminologie n’est valable qu’en tant qu’elle s’oppose a l’idéal de vérifiabilité du type scientifique. Il y a, en effet, une vérifiabilité propre à la métaphysique, comme il y a aussi une vérifiabilite propre à la croyance, car on ne croit pas sans raisons de croire. À n’en pas douter, affirmer une proposition, c’est l’affirmer comme vraie et verifiée. Donc la vérité du jugement et sa vérifiabilité lui doivent être immanentes. La vérification d’une proposition donnée en est la justification interne, la légitimation profonde. Autrement dit, c’est le processus de vérification qui éprouve l’authenticité d’une proposition quelconque.

   Comme a dit Badi Kasm, “La véritable dialectique s’insère dans la trame de la pensée elle-même” (L’idée de preuve en métaphysique, PUF, Paris, 1959, pp.105-106, cf.62). Cela revient à dire que la vérifiabilité métaphysique est au mystère ce que la vérifiabilité ration­nelle est au problème.

Réflexion Primaire et Seconde:

     G. Marcel l’appelle aussi “réflexion à la deuxième puissance” ou “réflexion du second dégré“.  Elle est un procédé ou tentative pour recupérer l’unité du réel rompue au sein de la realité, la scission sujet-objet, la fissure entre moi et le réel. Elle est par sa nature objectivante, abstractive.  La Science s’ensert dans toutes ses démarches et ne saurait pas dépasser le plan de la réflexion primaire. Par contre, le phi­losophe doit dépasser ce procès abstrait et réfléchir sur l’expérience comme totalité, c’est-à-dire sur l’existence.

         La réflexion seconde est donc “recupératrice“, “une reconqu­ête” (ME, I, p.98). Mais, faut-il préciser, la réflexion seconde s’exerce sur la réflexion primaire, elle a donc besoin de la médiation. En outre, doit-on signaler, la réflexion seconde n’est possible que par un exercice effectif de la liberté. Rien d’ex­térieur à moi ne peut m’y contraindre. Cette réflexion demande (ou requiert), à bien entendu, un recueillement, une ascèse, donc “un acte par lequel je me ressaisis comme unité” (PA, p.63).

La Personne Humaine:

        La persone humaine a été toujours l’objet d’étude et de re­cherche dans le domaine philosophique. Dans la première partie du sixième siècle, la personne humaine était définie par Boèce comme “une substance individuelle de nature rationnelle” (ration­alis naturae individua substantia). Cette définition classique était adoptée par St.Thomas d’Aquin.

       Être une personne humaine, c’est être une “substance“. Une “substance humaine” complète est nécéssairement et toujours une personne, indépendamment de son fonctionnement. D’après St.Thomas, l’homme est un “animal rationnel” (animal  rationale), une substance humaine, composée de l’âme rationnelle et du corps. Mais cette definition a été écartée dans l’histoire de la philosophie. C’était une définition statique. Dès lors, nous avons différentes définitions dynamiques, qui font justice à l’être doué de liberté ainsi qu’est l’homme. Il est nature ou facticité  et liberté. Selon Réné Décart (Descartes), la personne humaine est sa conscience (self-consciousness), dont l’essence, c’est la pensée (le COGITO cartésien). D’après Descartes, elle est une conscience close, fermée en soi-même. Dans le courant idéaliste, la caractéristique principale de la personnalité est la conscience de soi-même. Dans le système hégélien, le progrès de l’esprit est davantage l’avance de la conscience. Dans la pensée moderne, faudrait-il espérer, l’accent est mis sur la liberté plutôt que sur la conscience. Liberté est la caractéristique principale de la personne humaine. En outre, peut-on dire, la liberté est regardée comme la cause efficiente de la personnalité, or, tout au moins, comme une condition nécéssaire, car la personnalité, c’est une conquête, une acquisition, une création. L’homme peut devenir une personne ou cesser de l’être, dans la mesure où il se saisit comme un être libre ou non. 

         Le mot “personne” est donc employé dans un sens tout divers de celui de la philosophie scholastique du siècle XIIIe. Emma­nuel Mounier (1905-1950) est le représentant principal de ce courant. Ce courant est un proteste (ou réaction) au monisme ou à la philosophie “totalitarienne“, qui ménace la dignité, indépendance et valeur de la personne humaine.

       La philosophie peut être définie comme la pensée interroga­tive, la mise en question de l’homme par l’homme. Les sciences peuvent apporter des solutions à des problèmes, mais le philoso­phe laisse toujours ouverte la question du Sphinx: “Qu’est-ce que l’homme?”  D’autre part, la philosophie se transforme comme l’homme même.

       Aujourd’hui la philosophie, semble-t-il, s’efforce de récon­cilier la raison avec expérience, et pour autant elle est réflexion sur l’expérience humaine, sur la condition existentielle de l’homme.

       La personnalité authentique, disons-nous, c’est une conqu­ête. Le “moi” humain doit opérer graduellement le passage “de l’existence à l’être“. C’est l’oeuvre de la vie toute entière.

       L’homme se trouve plongé dans l’existence, il est jeté là en proie à une foule de contacts, l’hérédité, lieu, époque. Je me trouve dans telle situation ou milieu, je vis à telle époque, j’appartiens à telle race, à tel sexe, j’exerce telle profession, j’ai mes hobbies…. Je suis un “être-en-situation“, exposé, ouvert à l’alterité. Mais une “réflexion première” va objectiver cette participation plutôt statique en une communication dénaturant l’être véritable. À ce moment-là emerge le “moi“. Évoquons l’enfant qui apporte des fleurs qu’il vient de cueillir dans les prés. “Regarde, s’écrie-t-il, c’est moi qui les ai cueillies“. Cette annonce est accompagnée d’une intonation triomphale et surtout le geste, peut-être d’ailleurs simplement esquissé, avec qui il se désigne lui-même à l’admiration et à la gratitude. “C’est moi, ce n’est personne d’autre, Schubert/Yvonne“. L’exclusion est essentielle à l’affirmation: “c’est moi, pas l’autre“.

   Mais Marcel stigmatise la tendance à objectiver l’être, mon être et celui d’autrui. L’objet est, selon Marcel, ce qui est “jeté devant” (ob-iectum, Gegen-stand), en face de moi, séparé de moi et sans rapport avec mon intériorité personnelle. Il faut, tout d’abord, préciser le sens du mot “existence” dans l’existen­tialisme en général et chez G. Marcel en particulier.

       En regardant un chien couché‚ devant une boutique, Marcel remarque: “Il y a une chose qui s’appelle vivre, il y a une autre chose qui s’appelle exister:  j’ai choisi d’exister“. Mais qu’est-ce qu’exister?

      Lorsque pour les scholastiques l’existence signifie une composante de l’essence qu’elle actualise, pour G. Marcel elle signifie le moi existant, incarné dans un corps et à travers le corps dans l’univers tout entier. Autrement dit, l’homme ne peut accéder seul à l’existence: “Il n’existe qu’en tant qu’il se traite lui-même comme étant pour autrui, par rapport à autrui” (EA, p.151). Je me découvre moi-même par la médiation de l’autre, connu sur le mode personnel du “toi“, non pas du  ”lui“. En outre, je me saisis en même temps que le monde et dans mon con­tact vécu avec lui.  Bref, exister, c’est se faire en se dépas­sant par la communion ontologique avec l’autre et avec l’univers.

      Dès lors, la personne ne se réalise, bien entendu, que dans l’acte par lequel elle tend à s’incarner dans une oeuvre, dans une action, dans l’ensemble d’une vie, mais en même temps, il est de son essence de ne jamais se figer ou se cristalliser définitive­ment dans cette incarnation particulière, car elle participe de la plénitude inépuisable de l’être d’où elle émane. Il s’agit ici d’une “réalité superpersonnelle qui préside à toutes ses initiatives, qui est à la fois son principe et sa fin“.

       Peut-on alors affirmer que G. Marcel soutient lui aussi le principe sartrien suivant lequel “l’existence précède l’essence“?  Disons-le d’emblée, nous ne connaissons aucun texte de G. Marcel qui puisse autoriser pareille affirmation. Par contre-coup, il rejette ce postulat sartrien de l’antériorité de l’existence par rapport à l’essence.

       Quant au sens du terme “essence“, G. Marcel ne s’est jamais prononcé d’une façon explicite sur celui-ci, peut-être à cause de son ambiguité. Ce mot peut signifier aussi bien la nature (ou condition) de l’homme que sa liberté. Seul Jean-Paul Sartre dira que l’homme est liberté, tout court.  D’après lui, “l’homme est d’abord et ensuite il est ceci ou cela“, “l’homme doit se créer sa propre ssence“, car “l’essence de l’être humain est en sus­pens dans la liberté (L’Être et le Néant, p.61). Ce qui revient à dire que chacun pose librement les normes du vrai, du beau et du bien, car la liberté elle seule est l’”unique source de valeur” (EN, p.72), c’est-à-dire “nous voulons la liberté par la liberté” (EN, pp.82, 84). Dans Les Mouches, Oreste réplique à Jupiter qui veut le ramener à l’obéissance: “À peine m’as-tu crée, j’ai cessé de t’appartenir; et il n’y a pu rien au ciel, ni Bien, ni Mal, ni personne pour me donner des ordres. Je ne reviendrai pas sous ta loi:  je suis condamné à n’avoir d’autre loi que la mienne. Car je suis un homme, Jupiter, et chaque homme doit inventer son chemin“. La liberté sartrienne semble-t-elle avoir une étendue indéfinie, mais il ne s’agit ici en realité que d’une pseudo-liberté–la spontanéité du vivant. On trouve ici une conception fort cartésienne de la liberté humaine, conception qu’on doit écarter, parce que Sartre dans son “pro-jet” ne tient sufisamment compte du phénomène de l’incarnation.

     G. Marcel est aux antipodes de cette position sartrienne. L’essence et l’existence sont deux principes métaphysiques des êtres, deux axes sur le réel, deux modalités existentielles concrètes.  Par essence on entend ce qu’un être est, “ce qui n’est que conçu“, l’idée, l’ensemble constant de propriétés. On doit distinguer entre l’essence universelle, par exemple: Je suis un homme (en général), animal raisonnable, je possède l’es­sence humaine; et l’essence individuelle, c’est-à-dire cet comme-ci, avec non seulement les caractères communs avec tous êtres de même espèce, mais avec les caractères propres à chacun. D’autre part, exister, c’est (si l’on s’inspire de l’étymologie du verbe derivé du latin ex-sistere) “apparaître, se trouver dehors, émerger, se révéler, être présent aux autres”. Lorsque je dis: “Je suis un homme“, le premier membre désigne l’existence, lorsque le second membre affirme l’essence. En Dieu seul l’ex­istence est inséparable de l’essence: “Je suis celui qui suis” (Ex 4:14). C’est la définition de YAHVEH. Il est dans l’essence de Dieu d’exister. Dieu est nécéssairement existant et c’est une contradiction que de supposer qu’un Dieu puisse ne pas exister.

       G. Marcel définit positivement le concept de l’existence dans son article Existence et Objectivité, publiée en appendice au Journal Métaphysique. Seul l’homme existe au sens propre de ce mot; les pierres sont simplement jetées dans le monde, elles s’enlisent dans la nature; pour “exister“, elles ont besoin de la médiation de l’homme. Seul un être incarné peut vouloir l’exist­ence des choses; donner le sens et la valeur au monde extérieur, c’est à lui. Dès lors, exister ne veut plus simplement dire être là ou être ailleurs, mais transcender l’opposition de l’ici et de l’ailleurs.

     L’essence concrète (humaine, bien entendu) ne fait qu’un avec l’existence, elle aussi concrète qui n’est pas séparable de l’existant. Celle-ci se confond avec moi, être incarné, elle me lie aux autres existants, c’est-à-dire au monde comme totalité. Pour Marcel aussi, c’est chacun qui détermine ce qu’il sera, son essence individuelle. C’est nous qui choisissons ce que nous sommes, notre essence individuelle. Nous ne sommes vraiment que ce que nous devenons. Dans cette perspective, la liberté de l’homme serait appelée à réaliser cette profonde phrase de Goethe: “Werde was du bist” (“deviens ce que tu es“). Exister, c’est vraiment transcender, se dépasser, se réaliser dans sa situation, c’est-à-dire dans sa communion dialogique avec d’au­tres êtres et avec le monde. Exister, c’est, en d’autres termes, choisir le sens du donné, s’engager dans le monde.

     Science et Objectivité

     On manipule, transforme comme on veut, transmet et transfère à  son  bon gré “une chose“, un “objet“.  Alors on ne doit pas traiter la personne humaine en “objet“, la “chosifier“. Il y a aussi dans l’univers humain des realités qu’on ne doit pas “objectiver“, comme un sentiment que j’éprouve, l’amitié. Cette-ci est un phenomène intime, personnel. Seulement l’ami peut reconnaître un signe d’amitié et en saisir le sens. “Con-naître” quelqu’un, c’est naître avec lui. L’amitié est un “don“, qui ne peut pas s’apprendre.

       La technique a la tendance d’”objectiver“. C’est le mal qui provient de cette “technocratie“.  Mais on ne peut y renoncer. Seulement que la machine ne doit pas regner en maîtresse. L’ap­pauvrissement  humain  en sera le fruit. Mais nous ne saurions nier les avantages de la machine et de la technique. Nous voudrions mentionner quelqu’uns: elle nous fournit des moyens de déplace­ment rapides. Mais le technocrate se laisse absorber par l’en­tretien offert par les machines. Elle nous fournit du confort, un ensemble de moyens pour faire les choses aisément, mais ce confort facilite la paresse. “Plus l’homme domine le monde extérieur, moins il se domine lui-même” (Cf.Edgard SOTTIAUX, Gabriel Marcel. Philosophe et Dramaturge, E.Nauwelaerts, Louvain, 1956, p.19).  En outre, elle nous crée des modes de vie artificiels et nous détache des liens naturels, en nous asservissant de plus.

     Par elle-même, la technique est un moyen de protéger la vie, par exemple, contre la maladie, contre les fléaux naturels, la faim, la pauvreté…  En vérité, elle est une source de securité. Mais la mentalité technocratique peut finir par aimer la securité pour elle-même et non pour la vie.  Elle peut aussi fournir des moyens de destruction, comme bombe atomique, bombe à l’hydrogène, missiles pour la guerre. D’où la profonde angoisse de l’homme moderne qui a peur d’un “suicide cosmique“. On pense aujourd’hui à toutes ces ‘techniques d’avilissement’, comme experimentations humaines, dans les champs de concentration, tortures policières, l’eutanasie, l’avortement. À n’en pas douter, la technique peut favoriser la culture, en fournissant des moyens de communication, et aider l’uniformisation. Mais cette planification universelle, cette “massification” des personnes humaines, est un déficit certain. Ce qui est pire, c’est qu’elle devient pour l’homme moderne la religion definitive. Dans ce “monde cassé“, l’homme se trouve vide de son intimité personnelle, remplacé par une sommme de notations “objectives“, de ses fonctions. Dans cet engrenage affreux, il en a la “nausée“, car la vie n’a pas d’idéal, de saveur, de mordant. Le confort matériel, l’avoir humain ne lui donne pas le bonheur. Elle n’apporte que le “déséspoir“, qui est le sentiment du néant. Devant la mort, la technique ne peut rien, et de plus en plus la vie devient dévalorisée et absurde. La vérité scientifique ne comble jamais l’esprit, elle éblouit et deçoit. Tel est le “traumatisme ontologique” de l’homme livré aux inquisitions de la Science. Il doit cependant réagir contre le monde sans coeur, réfuser de se laisser traiter comme une “somme de fonctions“, étant bien convaincu que la technique peut ajouter à son “avoir“, mais ne peut lui donner pas plus d’”être“.  Si l’homme proteste contre la mort-anéantissement, c’est qu’il aspire à un être, à une joie indestructible, à une plénitude.

       Mais avec cette démarche nous avons dépassé le palier de la “réflexion  première”  et operé une “réflexion seconde“, qui va nous mener à la “communion ontologique“.  Par ce recueillement, l’homme peut rentrer en soi-même, se retrouver dans son être vrai, s’ouvrir à une profondeur et avoir l’expérience de la transcendance. Ce nouveau plan lui donnera une nouvelle vision des êtres et substituera un centre (la communion avec les autres) à un autre (le moi egoïste). Par example, quand un mari qui considérait sa femme en fonction de lui-même comme domestique non-payée, découvre la réalité, la valeur de sa femme et la traite comme un être.

     Nous pouvons maintenant prendre quelques approches con­crètes. Voici une première voie: 

     1.L’opposition entre l’être et l’avoir: 

        Qu’est-ce que l’avoir? J’ai de l’argent, du mouchoir, deux voitures, des livres. J’ai relation à des choses extérieures, relativement indépendantes de moi, mais qui sont à moi.                              

          L’être est une présence qui doit plutôt être éprouvée et attestée. Elle ne peut être définie ou inventoriée  totalement.

     A cet étage, nous arrivons au concept du témoignage. Alors qu’est-ce que “témoigner“? Ce n’est pas une simple constatation: on constate que n’importe qui, un moi dépersonnalisé. Le vrai témoignage est le fait d’un JE PARTICULIER. Celui qui témoigne fait acte de lib­erté, celui qui refuse de témoigner, refuse de s ’engager, de “s’en mêler“; il veut rester spectateur.

       L’acte du témoignage est un acte libre, un engagement tout à fait libre, une intervention toute personnelle. Je ne suis point un spectateur ou un enregistreur, mais je porte garant, ma personnalité assume la valeur de mon témoignage.  

       La liberté n’est pas un ‘avoir’. La liberté n’existe que quand je l’exerce, que quand je la vis intérieurement. Dès lors, ma liberté existe encore quand j’ai perdu bien des libertés, et réciproquement, je puis me trouver sans liberté véritable, même si j’ai toutes les libertés et suis esclave de tous mes caprices.   

        Je suis plus que mon avoir. Mon corps est à moi.

     Nous envisageons une seconde “approche concrète“:

2. Mon Être et Temps:  Être ne s’identifie pas aux aspects temporels de ma durée. Celle-ci est passée ou présente. Serais-je identifiable à mon passé? Quand je “raconte ma vie“, mon être n’est pas tout-à-fait le personnage dont je parle, que j’”objec­tive“, le faisant évoluer aux yeux de mes auditeurs et à mes propres yeux. Le passé n’est pas fixé une fois pour toutes. Pour rester moi, il lui faut revivre en moi. Le passé, c’est encore mon oeuvre qui survit, mais celle-ci doit aussi être revécue dans un acte présent. Par un acte présent, je l’accueile ou j’interprète. De fois nous souffrons du poids de notre passé. Mon présent accueil fait mieux le contour de mon être personnel. Mais il semble bien que ma vie comporte quelque chose de plus sûr, de plus profond, de moins fugitif. Notre personnalité transcende infiniment ce qu’on peut appeler ses états pelliculaires et instantanés. La conscience n’est pas un aliègnement  d’états discontinus, une succession pure, mais une “histoire”, une “mémoire“… Il y a une tentation au déséspoir chez eux qui se réfugient dans l’”instan­tanéisme“”, car le besoin ontologique le plus profond aspire à resister à la succession, à la dispersion du devenir: l’unité ontologique est un transcendantal, la dispersion de l’être est un mal. Il faut donc conclure que je ne me reduis pas à ma durée temporelle, succession de phénomènes que est aussi bien le  fait de  l’animal; il y a en moi autre chose, l’être qui est,  en  un sens, “surtemporel“. La preuve en est que j’ai “conscience” de ma durée, que je la “comprends“, que je la juge et la domine. Il y a en moi un je-Moi eternel.

     Ce n’est pas que je puisse me détacher du temps (pas plus que de mon corps) et me situer dans une éternité immobile: je suis et je reste temporel et corporel, mais il y a en moi une profon­deur qui survit au passé, qui ne s’éparpille pas dans la succes­sion des instants, qui se prolonge et s’enrichit à travers ma vie dans la mesure d’ailleurs (nous le dirons bientôt) ou je suis en communion d’amour avec autrui et Dieu. Ce qui en moi émerge de la durée et la vainc, c’est l’essence de mon être. Et je le découvre en moi ce qui n’est pas lié au moment passager, passé, présent ou à venir. Nous ne pouvons signer aucune profession de déséspoir. Comment peut l’homme éphémère, englouti dans le cosmos démésuré, se regarder comme le dépositaire d’une valeur privilégiée, qui défierait les normes de la durée ou de l’étendue.  

3. L’Être et Temoignage: La troisième “approche concrète’ est l’Être et Témoignage. Nous savons maintenant que l’être ne peut être “objectivé“, ni ramené à l’”avoir” ni au pur “devenir“. Qu’est-ce que l’être que je suis? L’être est mystère, et le mystère s’oppose au problème. Le problème (pro-ballo, BD@-&“88T: jeter devant) est fait de donées “objectives“, que je puis aligner devant moi, extérieures à moi; le moi est invité à resoudre des problèmes, sans en être un des données; aussi bien le problème s’offre-t-il en principe à n’importe qui; il n’a rien de personnel. Or nous savons que le sujet dans sa vraie réalité est “inobjectivable“; il n’est jamais “en face” de lui-même. Le mystère est “comme une sphère ou la distinction de l’”en moi” et du “‘devant moi” perd sa significa­tion et sa valeur initiale” (I, 267). Le sujet tout entier y est “engagé“; aussi ne relève-t-il d’aucune technique impersonnelle et universelle. Il échappe à la connaissance “objective“, à la vérification scientifique, parce qu’il n’est pas quelque chose qu’on pourrait regarder du dehors; il traduit une “expérience” intime, profondément mienne, dont je ne puis un instant me dé­gager pour l’observer du dehors.

     Pour le philosophe classique, le monde pose des problemes parce que d’avance il pose en face de soi des tranches de réel dont il veut se faire juge, extérieur aux parties. Or les problèmes que le philosophe cherche à resoudre (celui du mal ou de la liberté…) se situent, non pas en face du moi, mais au coeur même du moi qui les pose: ils sont “mystère“; ce dont des problèmes qui empiètent sur les propres données. On voit dès lors que le problème est un “mystère dégradé“…par exemple, quand je considère le mal comme un vice de fonctionnement de l’univers, “je ne me traite pas seulement comme indemne de cette maladie ou de cette infirmité, mais comme extérieur à l’univers, que je pré­tends reconstituer au moins idéalement dans son integrité. Par là j’adopte une position entièrement fictive et incompatible avec ma situation actuelle” (Gabriel Marcel, Du refus à l’invocation, p.95). Car l’homme est un être “en situation“, engagé dans un “inépuisable concret” qui le constitue et le déborde de toute part.

     Dès lors, accéder au réel, c’est s’imposer une participation par le dedans au “mystère” de l’être inobjectivable. La vie est donc un “drame” vis-à-vis duquel l’homme ne peut pas se comporter en spectateur “objectif” et désintéressé; il est “acteur” dans le monde et l’intelligence de la pièce ne lui est accordée que dans la mesure où il joue le plus intensément possible son rôle personnel. Certes, nous l’avions vu, il y a une forme de pensée nécéssairement “objectivante“, qui exprime le réel sous une forme impersonnelle: c’est la pensée scientifique. C’est ce qui ex­plique que beaucoup d’hommes de science, mathématiciens et physi­ciens, soient pénétres de la mentalité idéaliste. On arrive aux propositions hypothétiques, exprimant le monde sous la forme de la légalité pure. Les propositions scientifiques ne sont pas catégoriques, directement expressives du réel. Aucune dialectique ne pourra jamais exprimer en langage de science positive ce qui constitue un lien d’amitié; même la psychologie scientifique, fût-elle exploration systématique de ma vie abyssale, n’étreindra jamais le dernier de mes actes, le “‘fond du problème“, de mon problème, qui lui reste mystère.

     Une réalité humaine, comme l’amitié, n’est pas susceptible d’une telle vérification. C’est l’expérience que j’ai de notre affection réciproque qui me fait “croire” en mon ami. Cette “foi” n’est pas vérifiable, c’est-a-dire communicable à un tiers-contrôleur. Il y a donc dans notre vie des expériences  indiscu­tablement  réeles encore que “méta-problématiques“.  Je ne les connais qu’en y participant. L’être finalement est le mystère par excellence, il n’est pas une chose extérieure à moi; j’y suis engagé, j’en suis. La réalité de mon “je” réside dans ma participation à l’être, “assurance massive qui ne saurait se détailler sans péril” (Journal Métaphysique, 313). L’existence n’est pas une “donnée“, mais est “constitutive de ce qu’on a coutûme d’appeler le sujet; elle ne lui est pas apportée, fournie; sans elle, il n’est rien” (Ibidem, 313).

     Le moi, témoin de l’être: témoigner, c’est un acte de liberté. Liberté, c’est etre comme un don pour autres. Être, c’est aimer. Voici une autre demarche: Communion ontologique ou intersubjectivité.

3.Communion Ontologique:

 Nous abordons maintenant le problème da la Communion Ontol­ogique.

     L’homme est un être-en-situation, et donc il n’existe pas qu’en tant qu’ouvert à l’influence de l’alterité, du ‘tu’, à un autrui non objective. Être, c’est aimer.

      À ce plan, il y a rencontre. Un sourire, une parole, un geste peut établir une rencontre, un contact, un lien plus in­time. Cette étincelle fait naître une amitié, qui peut nous transformer profondément. Je m’intéresse peut-être aux re­nseignements, qui je voudrais transmettre à quelqu’un et le traiter en un ‘lui’. 

     La rencontre dépasse le coudoiement banal, où les hommes passent les uns à côté des autres comme des objets. Parfois un sourire de sympathie établit un contact, un lien plus intime. Ce contact peut être l’étincelle qui fait naître une amitié, qui va nous transformer profondément. Cette “rencontre“, briève ou durable, nous porte au delà du plan de la communication objec­tive. 

     Dans la communication objective, on demande de renseigne­ments, sans souci réel de son drame personnel, de sa liberté engagée. On poserait le même questionnaire à “n’importe qui“, à un “lui” à propos d’un “objet“. Leur être total n’est pas touché dans les profondeurs. Il n’y a pas de “participation” ontolo­gique, de communion dans l’être. La relation est triadique: je m’adresse à un “lui“, je parlerai d’un “lui” à un autre “lui“. 

    Mais dans la rencontre, je m’ouvre à “toi“, avec l’espoir d’une réponse. La relation est dyadique.

    Cette réponse est la réaction profonde par quoi “tu” mani­festes que tu tiens compte de moi, que tu veux entretenir avec moi cette communion vivante, ce nourrissant dialogue, que tu m’appartiens, que tu me donnes dans l’amour. Tu n’es pas l’”objet” de questionnaire, un “lui“, mais un être personnel, responsable d’une liberté et d’un engagement. Alors nous ne serons qu’un, étant avec toi, pas simplement “étant-là” devant lui, le croisant ou même l’interrogeant pour avoir ou pour sa­voir. Cet acte libre crée la “co-présence” de deux libertés engagées.

     Dès lors, cette participation est une présence, pas une simple proximité spatiale, mais le lien mystérieux, spirituel entre deux libertés, pas une “communication formelle“, mais une communion de valeur ontologique. Elle est intersubjectivité, c’est-à-dire être ensemble, être avec (co-esse). Les objets ne sont pas juxtaposés, à “côté“, par exemple, au travail, au service militaire. Mais ils sont ensemble, sont dans et par l’acte de participation. Bref, le “co-esse” authentique ne se réalise que dans l’amour. Être, c’est aimer. 

     Aimer, c’est s’éléver à un être nouveau, un “nous“. L’a­mour, tout comme la communion ontologique, est un mystère. Il ne se laisse pas traduire par des jugements “objectifs“, mais il porte sur l’être au delà de ce qu’on peut en dire, au  delà de toute ‘idée’ et de tout ‘jugement‘. L’amour construit la per­sonne d’autrui. Quand je traite l’autre comme tu, je le connais comme liberté, non pas seulement comme ‘nature’  (ou ‘facticité‘). Quand je l’aime, je l’aide à se faire être, je collabore à sa liberte, je l’aide à aimer en retour. L’amour authentique est créatrice, il lui donne d’être ce qu’il doit être. L’amour se donne, et en se donnant, gagne sa véritable réalité profonde. Mais le jugement s’appuie sur les notations “objectives”, sur l’extériorité.

     L’amour s’ouvre à autrui. En aimant, je réalise une synthèse dans la dispersion de mes forces, qui détruit, et me réalise vraiment ce que je dois être, je m’enrichis vraiment, car je rélève de ce que tu m’apportes. Cette communion tend à s’élargir et devenir universelle, sans quoi elle peut se dénaturer et devenir un egoïsme à deux.

     L’amour culmine dans l’espérance. Devant la ‘rupture objective’ que constitue la mort, G. Marcel affirme l’efficacité de la foi en un Dieu-Amour qui maintient le lien entre des êtres qu’Il aime Lui-même et dont il ne peut vouloir l’anéantissement. La foi en la survie de l’ami défunt, c’est l’espérance. Elle est une expérience de l’être. Il n’y a pas crainte, ni désir, expériences qui portent sur l’avoir. Je convoîte la réussite, la gloire, telle femme, et je crains de ne pas réussir, de perdre mon argent, de faillir dans mon enterprise. La véritable es­pérance m’oriente vers le salut ontologique et une vie totale plus riche, et s’oppose à des raisons de se décourager, me liberte du déséspoir. Cette espérance n’est accessible qu’au croy­ant parce qu’il se sent en communion avec Dieu qui l’aime et dont la Paternité fait essentiellement que “tout est grâce“. Elle bondit vers une restauration, un renouvellement, une vie trans­figurée.  

      Le contraire de la vraie espérance, c’est le déséspoir, la passion morbide du néant, par laquelle un homme ne trouve plus de sens à la vie, n’attendant plus rien de lui-même, des autres, de la vie, de Dieu. On parle aujourd’hui en ce contexte du “silence de Dieu“. 

      L’espérance est une affirmation d’éternité. Elle consiste à croire que le futur serà sauvé, au total.  Elle n’est pas de la révolte, ni le raidissement stoïque, ni la protestation pathétique de l’être contre l’absurdité du destin. Elle se fixe au delà de la mort et de ces vicissitudes. Ce qu’importe est de fixer son être dans l’amour. L’espérance est une patience qui fait confiance au temps. Elle est une acceptation positive de l’inévitable. Elle est une attitude qui loin de se crisper et de se fermer, prend son temps. Étymologiquement, elle est un laiss­er-faire, mais elle est au-delà de l’indiférence. La patience n’est pas une résignation inerte, une acceptation passive, un quiétisme moral. Elle ne se dirige pas au côté du déséspoir, du fatalisme. L’espérance implique qu’on se maintienne activement en soi l’assurance du salut. Ainsi dans et par l’espérance l’être s’affirme et se réalise.

     L’espérance est donc un acte de communion. Elle n’est pas l’optimisme, qui est l’affaire du moi plus ou moins egoïste. Elle se trouve liée à l’amour. Celui qui aime fait crédit à un autre homme, il entre en communion avec l’autre par l’amitié. Isolé, il se livre au déséspoir, qui est au fond une prise de conscience de cet isolement. En aimant, il connaît l’autrui comme être, il sait qu’il peut avoir confiance en lui. Le croy­ant espère en Dieu. 

     L’espérance est confiance, et non pas science. Elle est faite d’humilité. La seule espérance authentique est celle qui va à ce qui ne dépend pas de nous, celle dont le ressort est l’humilité, non pas l’orgueil. 

     Après avoir fait ce qui est en son pouvoir, il se réfugie devant l’obstacle insurmontable dans l’espérance, il s’adresse à un pouvoir supérieur comme allié–il prie. Il attend un secours d’un autre être. Prière est l’amour même, le recours à l’ami, l’invocation. 

     L’espérance est liée à l’amour. Elle n’est pas centrée sur lui-même. C’est un espoir pour nous, pas pour soi, pas particu­lariste. Elle s’adresse à un “toi“, mais je peux espérer en Toi Transcendant de façon totalement ferme, et sans crainte d’être jamais déçu. Nous pouvons espérer du Toi absolu tout ce que nous espérons, l’imortalité et même la resurrection des corps. 

***

     Que penser de la philosophie de Gabriel Marcel?

On l’associe à l’existentialisme dit chrétien mais on sait     que durant près de vingt ans, l’expérience spirituelle a été au centre de ses préoccupations, sans qu’il se sente pourtant jamais le droit de s’affirmer comme chrétien. Et ce n’est qu’à l’âge de trente-neuf ans qu’il aura la conviction d’être sur la voie du Christ et entrera dans l’Église catholique. Il y trouvera sa vraie famille, à laquelle, en dépit de tout, il restera fidèle jusqu’à son dernier souffle.  G. Marcel était un des grands initiateurs à la vie intér­ieure. Sa pensée nous rend sensibles au mystère, où nous baig­nons, où nous sommes, et nous defend contre toutes les tentations de l’inhumain. Mais il ne donne pas un cours systématique, bien articulé, où tout élément est enchâssé à sa place, où tout problème est envisagé. Sa philosophie, est donc incomplète. Gabriel Marcel a toujours constate d’ouvrage en ouvrage qu’il est impossible de decrire “sa philosophie” en discourse suivi, come un systeme clos, comme une tache tout accompli. La pensee selon lui est un cheminement plus qu’une mise en ordre, un forage plus qu’une construction, un defrichage toujours repris sur place, plus qu’un parcours. Comme il lui-meme dit, “Il ne s’agit pas tellement d’édifier que de creuser”. Il parle selon les besoins de son époque. Sa manière est plutôt augustinienne. Il critique le monde technocratique, le monde “objec­tive“, l’avoir possession. Il a raison, car l’avoir aujourd’hui détruit l’élément fondamental de la communion intersubjective. Mais il a tort en ce qu’il a l’air de dénigrer la technique, comme s’il s’agissait de chose à déplorer en soi. L’aspect technique est indispensable même dans la réussite de la commun­ion, ainsi le médécin ne peut se passer de médicaments ni de chirurgie. Il vaut mieux souligner son caractère relatif et le situer dans une hiérarchie de valeurs. 

     Marcel utilise la méthode phénoménologique comme méthode philosophique. Mais elle décrit l’être. Il néglige la preuve rationnelle de l’existence de Dieu. Pour son compte, l’homme doit invoquer le Transcendant, rencontrer personnellement Dieu. Marcel ne distingue pas les éléments de certitude philosophique sur Dieu et les éléments de la foi surnaturelle (révélee). Selon lui, on n’atteint Dieu que par la foi.

        Être, selon Jean-Paul Sartre, se réduit à la somme de ses apparitions. La méthode phénoménologique qui vise à décrire l’existant, se ferme la voie de l’ontologie. L’expérience qui a la portée ontologique, est l’engagement, la fidélité. L’engagement est la reconnaissance, non pas théorique ou verbale, mais effective, concrète, vécue d’un être véritable, d’une personne qui ne se confond pas avec phénomènes changeants de sa vie psy­chologique. L’être transcend le devenir phénomenal. “La méta­physique, c’est le prochain“, disait G. Marcel. Sa méthode de penser elle-même est systèmatiquement partielle, mais elle est un enrichissement aux traités classiques.       

     Il est toujours facile de critiquer des sommets d’une méta­physique ou d’une théologie, comme un géographe qui avec la carte complète d’un pays au mûr de son bureau reproche l’explorateur heroïque de n’avoir pas visité toutes les regions marquées sur la carte. Ces refléxions nous aideront à comprendre comme on peut aussi élaborer une philosophie de vie à la lumière de la Révélation.

Bibliographie:

Théâtre
Le coeur des autres. Paris, Grasset, 1921.
L’Iconoclaste. Paris, Stock, 1923.
Un homme de Dieu. Paris, Grasset, 1925.
Le monde cassé suivi de Position et approches concrètes du mystère ontologique. Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1933.
Le chemin de crête. Paris, Grasset, 1936.
Le dard. Paris, Plon, 1936.
Le fanal. Paris, Stock, 1936.
La soif . Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1938. Réédité sous le titre: Les coeurs avides, La Table Ronde, 1952.
Théâtre comique: Colombyre ou le brasier de la paix – La double expertise – Les points sur les i – Le divertissement posthume. Paris, Albin Michel, 1947.
Vers un autre Royaume: L’émissaire – Le signe de la croix. Paris, Plon, 1949.
Rome n’est plus dans Rome. Paris, La Table Ronde, 1951.
Croissez et multipliez. Paris, Plon, 1955.
Mon temps n’est pas le vôtre. Paris, Plon, 1955.
La dimension Florestan suivi de la conférence Le crépuscule du sens commun. Paris, Plon, 1958.

Préfaces et autres écrits
Diagnostics. Essai de physiologie sociale. Préface de Gabriel Marcel. Paris, Librairie de Médicis, 1953. Réédition: Fayard, 1985.

Dr.Lino  Valério  da  Piedade Sousa, natural de Calangute, filho de Dr.João   Crisóstomo António da Conceição e Sousa,  advogado  das comunidades,  e de Feleciana Brígida Mascarenhas e Sousa. Nasceu em 10 de fevereiro de 1878, estudou no Seminário Real de Rachol, e em seguida no Liceu Nacional da Nova Goa (Panjim), e completou os seus estudos de Medicina na Escola Médica em 1904. Fundou o Instituto Académico em Calangute. Foi ele quem primeiro se agitou por Autonomia para Goa. Foi fundador e editor do jornal Tribuna em 1920 e A  Voz de  Goa, que ele editou até a sua morte. Foi  Delegado de  Saùde das Praças do Norte ae de Bardês, como também Administrador  das Confrarias de Bardês por tres anos. A sua viùva, Maria  Faustina  Matildes Fernandes, dos Reis Magos (Verém), onde Dr.Valério costumava passer algum tempo, faleceu em 22 de abril de 1950. Encontrei-me com a sua filha, Feleciana, nas praias de Calangute, há alguns anos, quando ela tinha 81 anos de idade. Ela deu-me alguma informação sobre o jornal Tribuna. Dr.Valério faleceu em 14 de Junho de 1925.

     A família do Dr.Bento d’Ejipsy Sousa sente orgulho legítimo de ter enriquecido a sociedade goesa com médicos. O seu pai foi Dr.Eduardo d’Ejipsy Sousa, médico do Asilo de Mapuçá, e, mais ainda, o seu avô paterno foi Dr.João Crisóstomo D’EGIPSY SOUSA. Ele foi médico, professor, orador, cientista, patriota e educador. Natural de Calangute, Dr.João Crisóstomo nasceu em 28 de outubro de 1870, filho de João Egípcio Plácido Romualdo Sousa e de D.Marinha Carlota Assucena dos Prazeres Mártires, neto de Bento Gaudêncio de Sousa. Ele foi estudou latim com o Reverendo William Robert Lyons, completou o curso no Liceu nacional e no Instituto Profissional e depois obteve o grau em Medicina e Cirurgia na Escola  Médico-Cirúrgica  de Goa, em Panjim, no seu ‘Grande Acto’ em 28 de março de 1894. Naquela altura ele fundou uma associação académica “Ateneu Literário“, que durou por pouco tempo. Praticou medicina na aldeia de Calangute por cinco anos. Foi Professor Substituto de Física e Química e Ciências Naturais no Liceu Nacional Afonso de Albuquerque em 25 de Junho de 1899 durante a ausência do Prof.Dr.Costa Álvares, e em seguida após a sua exoneração ele foi  nomeado Professor Efectivo da mesma disciplina pelo Decreto de 28 de novembro de 1904. Ele tinha pendor para matemática e ciência. Ele ensinou também português e literatura portuguesa. Tinha bom conhecimento do latim e etimologia. Teve de se resignar em razão da sua idade pela Portaria Ministerial de 19 de novembro de 1937. Ele também esteve envolvido em actividade social e política. Ele contribuiu para a imprensa: A VOZ DO POVO, em Calangute, que era órgão do partido político, “Congresso Provincial de Goa“,  de que ele foi Presidente. Ele foi membro do Conselho da Província, da Junta Geral  de Província, do Congresso Provincial. Colaborou para O CRENTE, então boletim oficial da Arquidiocese de Goa, e também para A  VOZ DE S. FRANCISCO XAVIER, posteriormente órgão oficial de Arquidiocese de Goa, como também para o “O Jornal do Povo“, fundado pelo Conde de Maém.   De seu caminho ao Liceu, da Praça de Sete Janelas (onde está hoje o Instituto Menezes Bragança), ele se inclinava perante o monumento de Afonso de Albuquerque.  Ele foi membro do então Instituto Vasco da Gama (hoje Instituto Menezes Bragança). Ele participou em 1935 na primeira Comissão Provincial da União  Nacional da Índia Portuguesa, presidida pelo General  Dr.Miguel Caitano  Dias. Ele recusou o ensejo de ir a Portugal durante a sua vida activa em Goa.    

Durante a sua aposentação, Dr.João Crisóstomo publicou o “CATÁLOGO BOTÂNICO DAS PLANTAS  DE  GOA  E TERRAS VIZINHAS“, de cerca de 150  páginas, no Boletim do  Instituto Vasco da Gama, em 1944.  Ele faleceu na idade de 76 anos, em 7 de dezembro de 1947. O Governador Geral de Goa, Gen.Manuel  António Vassalo  e  Silva,  inaugurou em 28 de maio de 1961, no bairro Sauntavadó,  uma nova Escola Primária Oficial, de seu nome.   

Alla base dei concetti ebraici di sangue e vita, il Professore Ivo spiega l’importanza della vita umana nel contesto della ‘cultura della morte’, che si trova tra di noi.

Il Professore Ivo da C.Souza ha insegnato da 27 anni l’esegesi biblica e sociologia nel Seminario Patriarcale di Rachol, Goa, India. Lui a pubblicato la sua Tesi e due libri, innumeroveli articoli nelle diverse riviste. Adesso lui lavora nella parrochia del Santo Spirito, Margão, Goa 403601, e è il Segretario della Commissione Teologica dela Conferenza Episcopale Cattolica dell’India (CCBI).

È un paradosso che oggi gli dotti si sforzinno di prolun­gare la vita, ma d’altra parte uccidinno i bambini col aborto. Sarebbe utile esaminare il concetto biblico della vita umana, che è spesso simboleggiata dal sangue. Nel contesto della degrada­zione della vita umana e della cultura o civilizzazione della morte, vediamo spesso meglio il senso ed il valore della vita umana.

     Oggi si parla tanto dei diritti umani, ma spesso si violano questi diritti fondamentali: la tortura civile oppure politica, aborto, omicidio, suicidio, crueltà verso le donne ed i bambini, oppressione degli operai e degli immigranti, e tante altre cose cattive!…

       Quale sarebbe appunto il nostro attegiamento verso la vita umana, verso i diritti umani e verso i violatori di questi dirit­ti? La fede cristiana non può essere sincera e reale senza la giustizia. Quindi bisogna esaminare i brani della Bibbia per conoscere più in fondo che cosa Dio insegna in rispetto alla vita umana e le tradi­zioni bibliche sulla vita umana e i diritti umani.

     La vita è sacra. L’esistenza umana è veramente un mistero. Il mistero, al contrario del problema, non può essere rimosso di davanti a noi, ma può soltanto essere vissuto, perchè si trova in torno a noi e ci coinvolge. In ogni epoca umana lo spirito umano ha cercato di rispondere a questa questione di fondo sul significato dell’esistenza umana. Le risposte sono state parziali, erronee oppure non pienamente soddisfacenti.  La risposta non può essere ricavata soltanto dalla ragione, ma può esser illuminata e rafforzata dalla luce della  Rivela­zione.

     Fluisce chiaramente dalla Bibbia che la vita viene soltanto da Dio, particolarmente la vita umana. È un dono dell’amore di Dio. Con solennità, il libro della Genesi  descrive l’origine ed il valore del esser umano: “Dio  disse:  ’Facciamo l’uomo all’immagine e somiglianza nostra; e che lui sia il signor del pesce del mare, degli uccelli dell’aria, del bestiame,  degli animali selvaggi, e dei rettili striscianti sulla terra’” (Gen 1:26). L’esser umano fu ‘creato’ da Dio alla sua immagine e somiglianza. Noi riverentemente inchiniamoci davanti alla vita umana quando la guardiamo come una “riflessione di Dio“, che ha destinato l’uomo per la gloria eterna. Per mezzo della sua attività l’uomo deve rispondere all’invito di Dio per diventare ‘come  Dio’  e raggiungerlo  nel suo Regno, quà giù e nell’eternità. Il dono della vita ha uno scopo nel disegno salvifico di Dio. Noi siamo soltanto dispensieri della vita, abbiamo la responsabilità di aver cura della nostra vita e di rispettare la vita degli altri. La questione “Sono forse il guardiano del mio  fratello?” (Gn 4:9) è una scusa irresponsabile formulata da noi oggi, come Caino. Aristotele ha definito l’uomo come “l’essere  politico” (B@8\J46@< .όT<, polītikōn  zōon, cioè un essere sociale, che vive  nella  B@84H, polis=città-stato). Questa responsabilità sociale sorge dalla sua relazione transcendentale con Dio-Amore. Noi apparteniamo alla famiglia di Dio. La vita è sacra, il potere del sesso è sacro, cioè la  partecipa­zione nel potere di Dio per ‘creare’, per portare una nuova  vita al mondo. Dio nella sua amabile saggezza ci fa partecipare in questo potere. Questo potere di vita non può esser mal usato. Nel contesto di servizio alla qualità della vita, l’aborto è un crimine, distruzione della vita umana. La vita umana dev’essere prottetta sin dal inizio attraverso le differenti tappe del suo sviluppo. Questi valori sono fondamentali e communi a tutti, che credono in Dio, come il Signore della vita e dell’Universo.

La Vita è un Dono Singolare di Dio: La vita è singolare e del valore infinito. È il dono il più grande e il più prezioso di Dio a noi. L’uomo è il coronamento e culmine della gloria della creazione, il capolavoro di Dio, creato alla fine, come l’apice della sua attività creativa, “all’immagine e somi­glianza di Dio“, per sovrastare su tutto“, per umanizzarlo ed imprimere la sua personalità sul tutto l’Universo. Col ritornello ripettuto, “E Dio vide che quello era buono“, noi ci siamo accorti della gioia di Dio e della soddisfazione ad ogni momento/tappa della creazione (Gen 1:10.12.18.21.25.31).  La vita umana bisogna essere rispettata, promossa e protetta, ad ogni tappa della sua esistenza.

La vita definisce Iddio (cf.Ger 2:13). Dio è amore (1 Gv 4:8).  Gesù è “la via, la verità e la vita” (Gv 14:6). Lui è  ”la Rissurrezione e la Vita” (Gv 11:25). Iddio prese il nome  ”Io sono colui che sono” (Es 3:14, Yēhiēh āshēr  yēhiēh), cioè  ”la sorgente di vita ed essere“, la pienneza dell’essere. Dio sempre esiste, vive, Lui è la vita stessa (“il Dio vivo“). Quando noi riveriamo la vita umana, noi onoriamo Iddio. Quando la vita è minacciata, Iddio è disonorato. La vita umana ha un valore intrinseco esistenziale, independentemente di alcuna funzione. Ogni vita umana è preziosa. I diritti umani, tra i quali il diritto di vivere è il primo e il più fondamentale, si sono radicati sulla dignità umana. C’è una contradizione, un strano paradosso, nel nostro attegiamento verso la vita. Di una parte, la biologia e la medicina si sforzano pure per  la promuozione e benessere della vita ad alcune tappe dello sviluppo della vita; ma d’altra parte, le scienze stesse distruggono senza  rimorso di conscienza questa  medesima  vita, particolarmente alle due estremità della sua esistenza–nascita e morte–, coll’eutanasia, aborto,  infantici­dio, eugenetica. Nel nostro comportamento quotidiano, noi abbiamo le nostre preferenze, dei pregiudizi, discriminiamo sulla base dell’apparenza, posizione oppure condizione sociale, ricchezza, amici­zia!

Vita-Sangue nel Primo Testamento:

La vita si trova concretamente descritta nel Primo Testa­mento come vitalità, pienezza di potere, piacere, integrazione nella società e nel mondo. La promessa ad Israele e la vita nella ‘terra’  (Dt 4:1; 16:20), dove la vita appartienne e può essere esperimentata  (cf. Dt  12:1; Is 38:11; Ger 11:19; Ez  32:23; Sal 52:7; 142:6; Jb 28:13). Quando gli Israeliti salutano il Re, dicendo, “Viva il Re per sempre!” (1 Re 1:25.31.34.39), loro auguranno che Jahvé gli donni la vita, saggezza e felicità.  La vita include il piacere del vino (Qohelet 10:19), una moglie fedele (Qo 9:9), riparo, ricchezza (Gio 1:3), rinomanza.  Il nostro corpo è un epitome dell’Universo, e un microcosmo, ma l’Universo è un macrocosmo.

La vita è liberta, è movimento. Solo Jahvéh dona e sostiene la vita.  Solo Lui dona la gioia della vita. Il simbolo dell’albero della vita può accordar il potere di vivere sempre (Gn 2:9; 3:22.24). L’uomo diventa un essere vivo, quando Dio infonde nelle sue narici il ‘soffio della vita’  (nēpheš hayîm, .E!C( –G5G1, cf.Gn 2:7). La vita rimane mentre l’uomo possiede lo spirito  (ruāh, H%{9), il respiro che fu ispirato in lui da Javeh (cf.Gn 6:17; Gio 33:4). La vita dei esseri umani non é un dono degli genitori, ma del Creatore (2 Mc 7:22f). L’uomo muore quando lo spirito lo lascia. Questa é, in somma, un’analisi fenomenolog­ica di un uomo vivo e morto. Quando lo spirito le muove, le ossa arida della visione d’Ezechiele vivono di nuovo (Ez 37:1-10). 

      La vita non è meramente una realtà biologica, ma una fun­zione etica. È buona, quando la volontà umana è integrata nella volontà di Dio. Per scegliere la vita Israele deve compiere gli commandamenti di Dio. La Legge è un dono di Dio per eccelenza, una sorgente di vita e di felicità. La vita è donata e mante­nuta dall’amore di Jahvé e dalla fedeltà ai suoi comandamenti (Dt 4:1; 6:24; 16:20; 30:6; anche Lev 18:5). L’uomo non vive soltanto dal pane, ma dalla Parola di Dio (Dt 8:3; cf. Lk 4:4; Mt  4:4). L’uomo giusto vive da fedeltà a Dio (Hab 2:4). “Cerchi il bene, non il male” (Amos 5:14). “Cerchi il Signore“, il Dio ‘vivente’, che è una realtà vivente, in contrasto alle immagini senza vita dei dii stranieri (Amos 5:4.6; Gios 3:10; Sal 42:3; 84:3; Is 37:4.17; Ger 10:10; Ho 2:1). “Sceglie tra la vita e la morte, tra il bene e il male, tra la benedizione e la maledizione” (Dt 30:15-20). La vita è qui non soltanto l’esistenza vitale, ma la vita nella sua pienezza del bene e benedizione, che è data non per puro caso, ma per la sua libera scelta. La vita è frutto della saggezza e giustizia (Prov 3:2). Dopo la morte, il Dio Omnipotente rialzerà il popolo (1 Sam 2:6; cf. Dn 12:2; 2 Sam 7:9). La nostra personal­ità transcende la nostra corporalità, il corpo fisico.

La vita s’identifica col sangue (Gn 9:6; vedi Gn 4:10; Es 23:7; Mt 5:21). Nel Primo Testamento, l’espiazione dei peccati è sopratutto raggiunta da un certo rito col sangue. Alcuni gruppi, anche tra i Giudei, qualche volta consideravano il sangue come il cibo dei dii. I Giudei non erano inconsapevoli di queste idee, ma i profeti respingevanno queste idee (polemica ‘contro il culto’). Soltanto la nozione erronea del sacrificio era condannata. Questa nozione era in voga tra i Gentili vicini, cioè che certi riti potevano magi­camente placare le divinità, se bene che il sacrificio non era accompagnato dalla conversione del cuore (cf. Amos 5:21-23; Es 1:11-20).

Dal punto di vista biblico, il sangue delle vittime sempli­cemente evoca l’immolazione delle vittime. L’uomo meritava di essere punito a causa del suo peccato ed ora lui subisce la punizione simbolicamente nella vittima. Attraverso l’offerta sacrificale l’uomo desidera esprimere l’obla­zione di se stesso. Nel olocausto, il sacrificio il più perfetto, tutta la vittima è trasformata in vapore del fumo e sale a Dio (quindi  in  ebraico, ‘olāh, “ciò che sale“, dal verbo alāh, “salire, andare sù, ascendere“). L’olocausto esprime simbolica­mente la sua offerta in sottomissione a Dio e quindi il suo ritorno a Dio, morendo alla “carne“, al suo egoismo. Come San Tommaso commenta, questo significa “che lui deve accettare da lui la vita e non distruggerla, perchè Iddio non prende piacere colla destruzione dei viventi’ (Sap 1:3)” (Sul Rom 5:10). Il valore del sacrificio dipende dall’amore che l’uomo vuol esprimere col suo dono. Se quel valore è assente, il sacrificio è privo di qualche valore (cf. Eb 9:14).

Non c’è espiazione dei peccati senza l’effusione del sangue, perchè il sangue è la vita: “La vita della carne è nel sangue; perchè è il sangue che espia a motivo della vita (bannepheš)” (cf.Lev  17:14;  Gen 9:4; Dt 12:33). Il sangue era identificato colla vita, perchè si credeva che il nepeš, “soffio“, era nel sangue. Quando il sangue correva fuori d’un essere, allora il nepheš lo lasciava. Nel Giorno dell’Espiazione (Yom Kapporet), il Sommo Sacerdote aspergeva il kapporet col sangue a causa dei peccati degli Israeliti.

Il “sangue dell’alleanza” unisce le due parti contraenti dell’alleanza, Dio e il popolo (cf. Es 24:8). Il sangue produce la remissione dei peccati, perchè “la vita d’ogni essere vivo è nel sangue” (Lv 17:11a; vedi la stessa identificazione nel v.14): “Il sangue purifica in quanto che è vita” (Lv 17:11b; cf. Eb 9:11-14). Questo si dice nel contesto dell’interdizione di consumare il sangue (cf.v.10). Il sangue era versato sul altare, sul libro e sul popolo. 

Vita-Sangue nel Secondo Testamento:

Nei Vangeli Sinnotici, la vita è la communione con Dio e si raggiunge compiendo i comandamenti (Mc 10:17-19), rinunciando tutto a causa di Gesù (Lc 18:30). Non si assicura colla richezza (cf. Lc 12:15). Significa anche la vita eterna (Mt 19:16-22). Dio
è  omnipotente: ”Lui non è Dio dei morti, ma dei  viventi”  (Mc 12:27).

Nei scritti giovanei, noi troviamo due parole: psyche per la vita naturale e zoé per la vita divina. La vita, che è luce degli uomini, è in Lui (Giov 1:4). Gesù stesso è la “via, la verità e la vita“, attraverso di cui noi veniamo dal Padre e conosciamo il Padre (Giov 14:6). Gesù è la parola viva e vivificante che mani­festa la vita, che gli Apostoli videro e tocaranno (1 Giov 1:1f). La vita è il pardono del peccato (1 Giov 5:16), che è incompatibile colla vita divina, come il giorno e la notte.  Anche si chiama “l’acqua vivente“, che zampilla alla vita eterna (Giov 4:14; 7:38). Gesù ha le parole di vita eterna (Giov 6:68). Gesù è il “pane della vita” (Giov 6:35-40), il pane vivo che si dona per la salvezza del mondo (Giov 6:51-58). Si raggiunge la vita eterna per la fede in Lui (Giov 3:3.5f.15.36; 20:31), rimanendo in Lui (Giov 15:11).

Nel Bhagavadgita, Krishna istruisce Arjun che se lui l’adora, lui sarà condotto al sentiere della pace e della vita: “Sii  sicuro  che  colui  che  m’adora  non muore” (IX:31, pratijanihi na me  bhak­tah  prannasyati, cf. Giov 3:5). La vera risposta è data da Gesù, che è “l’Alpha e l’Omega“, “il primo ed ultimo“, “il principio e la fine“, “il Vivente” (Rev 1:8, cf.v.17). 

Nei scritti paolini, la Legge, sorgente di vita per i Giudei, divenne sorgente della morte (Rom 7:10), perchè, essendo esterna all’uomo, la Legge poteva dare la conoscenza di che fare o non fare, ma non poteva dare la forza per compierla. La Legge (<Ï:@H, nomos) per Paolo è il Decalogo, scolpito sulle tavole di pietra. Quindi, la legge interiorizzata dallo Spirito dá la vita, mentre la legge uccide (cf. 2 Cor 3:6; Rom 8:2-4). Attraverso il peccato, la morte intrò nel mondo (Rom 5:12). La morte spirituale è la mancanza della comunione con Dio; la morte escatologica è la perdita totale di vita, la separazione definitiva tra Dio e l’uomo. Il Signore Risorto ha donato la sua vita in pienezza: “Dove il peccato abbondò, ivi sovvrabbondò la grazia” (Rom 5:20b).

La vita eterna è una realtà presente inaugurata per mezzo del Battesimo (Rom 6:4), che pienamente fiorirà nella vita ultraterrena (‘escatologia prolettica’).   È una vita nuova, ottenuta per l’unione con la Morte e Rissurrezione di Gesù (Rom 4:25). La vita nuova del Cristiano è la vita dello Spirito, perchè il Padre ha fatto il Figlio Rissorto par­tecipare alla vita sua. La novità della vita Cristiana consiste nella nuova relazione col Padre nello Spirito (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15). Non è ormai il Cristiano che vive, ma il Cristo che vive in lui e ama per mezzo di lui (Gal 2:20). La sua vita è nascosta con Dio in Cristo (Fil 1:21). Cristo è la sua vita (Col 3:4). Gesù è il conduttore di vita, che Dio ha rissorto dai  morti (archegόs tes zoés, cf. Atti 3:15). Dio è intimamente in relazione con noi, Lui non è pure lontano da noi. Dice Paolo: “In Dio noi viviamo, noi ci muoviamo e abbiamo il nostro essere” (Atti 17:28), in fatti “Noi  siamo la sua posterità” (v.29).

La vita nuova è prottrata e sostenuta nei membri della Chiesa attraverso la Parola e i Sacramenti. Per mezzo della sofferenza, questa vita cresce e giunge à la maturazione. Morendo a se stesso, il Cristiano cresce in Cristo e riempie la misura delle sofferenze che sono una parte essenziale della vita Cris­tiana (cf. Col 1:24). Il Cristiano è sostenuto dalla speranza della Rissurrezione, un incontro vivo col Signore nella Parousia. Questa tensione escatologica è espressa dalla preghiera Marana-tha (cf. Riv 22:20; 2 Cor 16:22).

Il Sangue e la Nuova Pasqua:

Il sangue dell’agnello era il segno e la causa istrumentale della liberazione del popolo d’Israele dalla terra di schiavitù, ossia dall’Egitto, come è inteso dalla tradizione rabbinica, cioè dai Targumim e Mekhilta sull’Esodo: “sangue della Pasqua” o “sangue dell’Alleanza” (cf. Lc 22:15s; 1 Cor 5:7;  Gv  1:29.36; 19:36,  vedi  Es  53:12; Lev  1:2s.10;  Riv  1:5s;  5:6-10.12-14; 6:14.16; 12;11; 13:8; 14:1.4; 17:14). L’Agnello pasquale è chiar­amente identificato in Cristo (1 Pt 1:17-19, che si riferisce alla liturgia battesimale; cf. Rom 6:1-6), che libera dal peccato mediante il proprio sangue.

Il Sangue e la Nuova Alleanza:

Nel Secondo Testamento, il sangue di Cristo è spesso menziona­to: Gesù ha inaugurato la “nuova alleanza” nel suo sangue (cf.1 Cor 11:25; Lc 22:20; vedi Mt 26:28 e Mc 14:24). Gesù ci riscattò col suo sangue (Atti 20:28; Rev 5:9; Efes 1:7; 2:13; Rom 3:25; 5:9; 1 Giov 1:7; Eb 9:22; Riv 7:14). Ci sono anche parecchie allusioni al sangue Eucaristico di Gesu, simboleggiato dal vino, “sangue” dell’uva (1 Cor 10:16; 11:27; Giov 6:53-56; Eb 13:20). Nel contesto della sua morte, “il sangue” denota la sua vita, la sua Persona. Il sangue Eucaristico è “sangue della nuova alleanza“. Il sangue di Cristo suggella la Nuova Alleanza, con­traponendosi al sangue animale che suggella l’Antica. (Nel Antico Testamento, il sangue delle vittime era il sangue dei dii).

Se il Sangue di Cristo denota la presenza del Signore Rissor­to nella Eucaristia, allora l’Eucaristia è la Nuova Alleanza, il sangue è la nuova alleanza, la nuova Pasqua, fonte della remis­sione dei peccati e della vita nuova, che scaturisce e zampilla alla vita eterna, alla Parusia.

Riflessione:

I lettori saranno d’accordo col concetto biblico della vita. Ma nel contesto della vita d’oggi, dello sviluppo scientifico-tecnologico e pluralismo religioso, ci sono questioni da rispondere: È, o non, una persona umana il bambino concepito nel seno della madre? Appunto quando incomincia la vita umana? Che signi­fica la “creazione dell’anima“? Che sarebbe la vita umana nelle altre religioni?

La questione riguardante al principio della vita umana è stato dibbattuta senza fine. Dal punto di vista filosofico, la vita umana comporta un certo livello di coscienza, di culturalità, d’amore, di auto-sufficienza, di auto-transcendenza, d’umanità, vitalità e vivezza, d’alterità, dello sviluppo fisico e mentale. Ma questo discorso non ci aiuta a rispondere a questa questione complessa. È ormai un’affermazione comune e diffusa quella che sotto­linea la mentalità pluralista, secolarizzata ed immanentista della visione del mondo d’oggi. La secolarizzazione è in stretta connessione col pluralismo. Questo infatti si è affermato, sempre di più, come negazione di qualsiasi valore assoluto, parti­colarmente per quanto riguarda la legge morale, e ha relegato la dimensione religiosa alla sola coscienza individuale, negandonela cittadinanza nella organizzazione della vita sociale. Per questo il pluralismo combatte sopratutto la religione cristiana, che continua ad affermare le verità assolute, sia della ‘legge naturale’, che della Rivelazione. La secolarizzazione, da parte sua, si regge tra i suoi prinzipi, anzitutto su quello dell’immanenza, rigorosamente chiuso alla trascendenza e alla dimensione religio­sa. È un chiaro segno della fine dell’epoca della societas christiana, segnata profondamente dalla visione cristiana della vita. Tale fine ha portato con sé anche la rottura tra ragione e fede, tra fede e cultura, “il dramma della nostra epoca“, come lamentava  Paolo VI. Dobbiamo affrontare tutte le sfide della globalizzazione. Oggi l’evangelizzazione dovrebbe mettere più l’accento sulla vita, sui diritti umani, sulla persona umana, sul dialogo al livello dell’intelletto come anche della vita, sulla “globalizzazione della solidarietà”…

Note:

1. Questo detto greco può darsi che sia modellato sull’uno di Epimenides di Knossos, 6to secolo AD.  

2. Questo  viene  forse di  Aratus di  Soli oppure  Tarsus, poeta Ciliciano del 3zo secolo.

3. Esortazione Apostolica, “Evangelii Nuntiandi”, no.20.

4. Vedi Giovanni Paolo II, Fides et Ratio, no.

5. A.J.Caetano  da Cruz Fernandes, Sanguis Christi. Ricerca del Senso e dell’Ambito Sacrificale di questa espressione neotesta­mentaria alla luce del concetto e dell’uso ebraico del sangue, Roma, 1971, 184 pp.

 Don Ivo da Conceiçăo Souza

Fr

It is the dream of humanity to be in the light and walk according to the light. I am happy when my Hindu brethren celebrate the feast of Divali, the festival of lights. It symbolizes the victory of good over the evil. This is the theme of the festival: it is symbolized by the burning of Narakasur, the demon of darkness.

The festival takes place from the 13^th of the dark half of Asvina (September-October) to the 2^nd of the bright half of Kartika. Its origin is the incident or legend of Yamraja, the King of death. Though all five days are often called Divali, they in fact constitute a complex of five different feasts.

1.The Origin of the Feast: There is a story that Yamraja, the King of death, asked his servant: “Do you feel any time bad when you snatch men’s life?” “Yes”, replied the servant, “ when I took the son of king Haim. It was just four days after his marriage, while joy and merry-making was all around I had to take away his life.” Yamaraja felt bad about it and from then onwards decided saying: “Today is the 13^th of the dark half of Ashvina  Dhantrayodashi. From today all those who will observe the five-day festival of light will not die an untimely death.” Thus came the custom of lighting the lamp for five days, with special rituals. The feast came to be known as the festival of light, Divali or Deepavali (“row of lights”).

There are five celebrations: i)First celebration is on the 13^th day. It is called Yamatrayodasi: worshipping Yamaraja, the king of death. It is characterized by cleaning and painting of the house, having ritual bath and worshipping Krishna. The purpose for keeping this day holy is to seek Yama’s deliverance from untimely deaths.

ii)The second day is known as Naraka Chaturdasi (Naraka’s Fourteenth”), commemorating Krishna’s victory over the demon Naraka.  It falls on the 14^th of the dark half of Ashvina and it is known as Narak Chaturdashi (from Narak, meaning “hell”, and Chaturdashi, meaning the 14^th day. Narakasur was a wicked king, a symbol of Satan. He had imprisoned around 16,000 women, snatched away the ‘chatra’ of Indra, “Kundale” from the ears of Adity, the mother of the gods. When Krishna heard about the wicked deeds of Narakasur he decided to destroy him. But it was Satyabhama, Krishna’s wife who took the challenge of killing Narakasur. She killed Narakasur and liberated all women and when they returned home they expressed their joy by lighting lamp and drawing “Rangoli”.  In remembrance of this event, even to this day, people early in the morning take bath and draw “Rangoli” to mark the celebration.

iii)Third Day: Divali proper, also called Laksmi-Puja or Kali Puja (according to places and castes). It is on the moon light “Amavasya” of the Ashvina Laxmi that the goddess of wealth was taken as a slave by king Bali. Vishnu in his fifth Avatara as Vaman defeated Bali and freed Laxmi. It is a day special to the shopkeepers and merchants. They close their old accounts and open new one. Cows are specially honoured and a “Govardhana-puja” is done in thanksgiving for the prosperity bestowed by God. New clothes are bought, crackers and other fire-works’ display surrounds the houses. It is a day for rejoicing and entertainment.

iv)Fourth celebration is called “Bali-pratipada”. It is an auspicious day celebrated as a New Year’s Day. It is in honour of the ancient Indian King Bali. He  was the one who had taken Laxmi as slave but he had not harmed her, he was good to her. Because of the goodness showered towards Laxmi, Vishnu promised him that he will not kill him, but he will degrade him to a lesser-level-god. King Bali along with his wife Vidhyavali is worshipped with a meaning that “let suffering go and let Bali’s kingdom come”.

v)The final celebration is called “Yama-dvitiya/Bhaiyado/Bhai-beej: This day commemorates the meal that Yama had at the house of his sister Yami/Yamuna. On this day all men are supposed to go to their sisters’ houses for a meal. If one does not have a sister, he should go to the nearest female relative. Before a meal, a ritual bath is prescribed. Sister shows love and concern for her brother by serving him a meal, while brother reciprocates by offering her ornament or some other gifts. With this, the festival comes to a close.

The five day celebration of Divali is, therefore, meaningful for all of us. We grope in darkness for light and happiness. God is Light. Only God can remove darkness and vices, and usher in a day of brightness, joy and happiness. For us, Christians, Jesus of Nazareth is the “Light of the World”. We share in his divine light and life, and try to communicate it to others through our service and communion.

Devotees of Yama worship him because they belief that he protects them from untimely death. We as Christians firmly believe in Divine Providence of God. He protects us and surrounds us with his warm love. Death is unavoidable, but even death has been conquered by Jesus Christ through his Resurrection. 

Narakasur represents the social, political, ecological, economical evils of our time. They are at our door steps.  What is my attitude towards the evil? What has been my contribution to fight such “Narakas”? Satyabhama represents the role of women in struggle. There are women who are victims of so many evils, injustice, oppression and pain. Who will come to their rescue? Can we be voice to the voiceless? What is our prophetic role in being at their service, at the service of love and brotherhood?

Laxmi-puja consists in worshipping goddess of money and wealth. But money is a means for the integral development, for a better world, not an end (‘god”).

Devotees of Bali see goodness even in suffering. We who have been redeemed by passion, death and Resurrection of Jesus have all the more reason to see the value of sufferings in life. A life without suffering is not a challenge and life without happiness is not a reality.

               Bhaibeej strengthens the bond of love between brother and sister. It calls for sharing love and showing concern. Though Bhaibeej seems to limit to the blood relations or close relatives; Christian love, however, has been expanded even to those who persecute you. “Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt. 5:44).

Cardinal Francis ARINZE, President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, Rome, has sent greetings to our Hindu brethren on the festival of light. We need a national day of celebration which may unite us. We have to be united in fighting against corruption and injustice. We should be at the service of truth and love. 

Ivo da C.Souza

1640 – 1656
D. João IV “O Restaurador” (19 Março 1604 V. Viçosa-6 Novembro 1656 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Luísa de Gusmão1656 – 1683
D. Afonso VI “O Vitorioso” (21 Agosto 1643 Lisboa-12 Setembro 1683 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Maria Francisca de Sabóia1683 – 1706
D. Pedro II “O Pacífico” (26 Abril 1648 Lisboa-9 Dezembro 1706 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Maria Francisca de Sabóia e com D. Maria Sofia de Neuburgo1706 – 1750
D. João V “O Magnânimo” (22 Outubro 1689 Lisboa-31 Julho 1750 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Maria Ana de Áustria1750 – 1777
D. José I “O Reformador” (6 Junho 1714 Lisboa-24 Fevereiro 1777 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Mariana Vitória1777 – 1816
D. Maria I “A Piedosa” (17 Dezembro 1734 Lisboa-20 Março 1816 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Pedro III1816 – 1826
D. João VI “O Clemente” (13 Maio 1767 Queluz-10 Março 1826 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Carlota Joaquina1826 – 1826
D. Pedro IV “O Rei Soldado” (12 Outubro 1798 Queluz-24 Setembro 1834 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Maria Leopoldina1828 – 1834
D. Miguel I “O Tradicionalista” (26 Outubro 1802 Lisboa-14 Novembro 1866 Áustria)
Casou com D. Adelaide de Rosenberg1826 – 1853
D. Maria II “A Educadora” (4 Abril 1819 Rio de Janeiro-15 Novembro 1853 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Fernando II de Saxe Coburgo-Gotha1853 – 1861
D. Pedro V “O Esperançoso” (16 Setembro 1837 Lisboa-11 Novembro 1861 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Estefânia Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen1861 – 1889
D. Luís I “O Popular” (31 Outubro 1838 Lisboa-19 Outubro 1889 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Maria Pia de Sabóia1889 – 1908
D. Carlos I “O Martirizado” (28 Setembro 1863 Lisboa-1 Fevereiro 1908 Lisboa)
Casou com D. Maria Amélia de Orleães1908 – 1910
D. Manuel II “O Rei Saudade” (15 Novembro 1889 Lisboa-2 Abril 1932)
Casou com D. Augusta Vitória Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

É interessante conhecer a vida do tradicional lavrador de palmeira (render, toddy-tapper), como também do padeiro (poder) e do pescador (pagi).  Nós precisávamos na nossa vida de dia em dia do lavrador de palmeira como também do padeiro e do pescador. Pois não podemos imaginar vida sem pão diário, sem peixe-caril, sem (talvez não valha isso para cada um de nós, sobretudo para mim) um copito de feni. Não podemos imaginar as nossas festas sem sandanás (sannam) e sem nossos pratos que nos deleitam e nos trazem saliva à boca como o sarapatel (sorpotel) e chouriços, vindaloo, pará de peixe e molho ladin, sem vinagre.

Os nossos pescadores e operários vão à taverna sempre às tardes para um copito de feni ou urraca. O lavrador de palmeira (rendermam’) andava com o seu calão de barro (kollso), media o grau de feni, metendo o alcolímetro na garrafa, para ver o grau 18, e então pagava o devido. Após um dia de trabalho árduo, ele tomava o seu copito (kopin) de feni à noite antes do jantar (ceia). Ou às vezes ia também a outros bares da aldeia com os seus companheiros para tomar dukhsiri, ou seja, um cocktail  estranho de feni e de raízes medicinais. Era para aqueles que labutavam e suavam nos campos e nas várzeas, uma bebida refrescante e estimulante, como vodka, sem deixar traços de mal-odor. Ou para ser mais seguros, os amigos lhe davam cravos das bolsas das suas calças, e eles iam mastigando alegremente no seu caminho para casa. Todos estavam alegres, eles e as suas esposas (cara-metades)…

Este livro é um tesouro de informação. Era edificante ver o lavrador a fazer o sinal da cruz antes de subir à palmeira. Era curioso o processo de destilação do feni. Estes e outros detalhes estão bem descritos no livro.

Neste mundo dominado por ‘machos’ era estranho ver uma senhora de Vernã a subir à palmeira para extrair sura. Lembro-me como uma vez bebi sura quando um lavrador de palmeira desceu em Galgibaga com o vaso de barro e paguei-lhe uma rupia só para um copo.

Com fotografias coloridas, o livro Rendermam’ ani Tachem Jivit é uma excelente contribuição em Concani no alfabeto romano. Saltando duma palmeira à outra, três vezes ao dia, o arrendatário levava vida solitária. Sentado sobre a ola, com o foice (kati) e o vaso de sura (dudinem) e o vaso de argila (damonnem), o poeta nado canta: “Se pensar na vida nossa

Treme o corpo da gente;

Subir e descer do coqueiro

Esta é a vida de rendeiro!

(Jivit chintlear
amchem,

Xirxirta ang
lokachem.

Maddar choddun
denvpachem,

Jivit amchem
Rendranchem!)

É vida difícil e arriscada a do rendeiro. O lavrador da palmeira é uma pessoa fascinante.

Ele recita o rosário diário, e juntamente com os vizinhos e amigos canta a ladainha (ladin) de Nossa Senhora, assiste à Missa com a sua comunidade inteira no ultimo Domingo de Fevereiro na Basílica de Bom Jesus, na Velha Cidade. Como qualquer Goês de sangue (niz Goenkar), ele ama o desporto, em particular o futebol, e adora o teatro (tiatr e khell-tiatr).