One of the discomfitures in ecclesiastical history is the nepotistic behaviour of our popes. How can the papacy be otherwise? In today’s Gospel, the Apostles themselves witnessed a blatant political manoeuvring that jostled for places of power and honour. Better still that the Evangelists themselves were political pundits. How so, one might ask. Thankfully, the Gospel passage comes from Mark who reported this episode as it was, without gloss. Whereas, Matthew was embarrassed by the shameless audacity of James and John that he had to scrub and sanitised the political image of the brothers by putting the blame of their mother.
The Church is no stranger to politics. We are uncomfortable when the Church wades into politics because our experiences of expediency has left a rather bad taste in the mouth. The recent coup of the “backdoor” government validates the adage that there are no stranger bedfellows than in politics. For many, a divine institution like the Church should not be tainted by the unsavouriness of back-stabbing wheeling and double-dealing.
The experience of crafting a political dynasty in James and John, either themselves or through their mother should not prevent us from the task of rehabilitating politics. First, we should re-evaluate the assumption that politics is dirty. The truth is politics is not as dirty as we are. We are immoral. We are greedy. We are selfish. Sadly, self-interest thrives in the soil of expedient politics. Observe how “party frogs” seem to switch alliance with ease, contingent on whom has the strongest currency, that is, who has the wherewithal to pay more for loyalty.
Contrast this kind of political chicanery with its original or its etymological sense. The word “Politics” is related to the concept of “Civitas”. The former is grounded in the Greek experience. The latter arises from a Roman landscape. The science and art of governance of people, that is, politics, is derived from the Greek “polis”, meaning the city. This notion actually leads us to the Roman “civitas” or the Roman equivalent for citizens of the city. Inscribed into the “civitas” is the seed of civilisation, which is, to draw or bring people out of barbarism. We speak of civilising effects of introducing order into human relationships. Politics is fundamental to the building up of society because it tames the barbarian in us.
Here, we shall take a detour to understand what else should go into politics. It is the idea of “conviviality”. The concept gives us a clue as to where politics should be heading to. “Conviviality” is associated with Consecrated Life, that is, with the religious vocation. As the experience of the Desert Fathers morphed into a “Cenobitic” phase, what was introduced into community living was the idea of “conviviality”. It is the art and practice of living together. This “cenobitic” development in religious life did not arise merely from the need to overcome the isolation or loneliness of the “eremitical” inspiration. Instead, coming together, the arrangement was to mirror the “original holiness”[1] that God had intended for humanity. This evolution did have an effect on work, economy and most of all, governance.
Pope Francis in a General Audience described conviviality in the context of a family as “the attitude of sharing life’s goods and being happy to be able to do so”. Living alone is easier when it comes to idiosyncrasies. We only have to put up with ourselves. However, what happened in the “cenobitic” setting, the sharing at table becomes iconic. We not only share food but also affection and also events in stories. How often have our relationships been strengthened over a meal? Likewise, we are also aware how impoverished a meal can be when there are tensions amongst those who share the same table. Conviviality helps us measure the health of our relationships.
Therefore, “conviviality” teaches us what it means to harmonise, to collaborate and to integrate.
At the most basic level, the disposition of “conviviality” applies to everyone because baptism consecrates us by incorporating us into the Body of Christ. As such, it is not restricted to family or specifically to religious vocations. There was an era in the Iberian Peninsula when Islam was the ascendant religion that Catholics, Muslims and Jews were able to co-exist with each other despite their differences. The Spaniards called it “Convivencia”. It allowed them to live their differences without resorting to the kind of division which we currently faced in this age of cancel culture. In Latin, “Convivium” which denotes a feast is derived from “con” which means “with” and “vivium” pertaining to “life”. The meal teaches us how to live with each other. Imagine how central the Eucharistic setting is to a Christian life of politics.
Therefore, Jesus was not averse to politics. Politics, if we go by the definition of “conviviality”, is more than the science and art of living with each other. Even if we find it revolting because of our association of politics with dirt, the Eucharist is at heart, a political meal. In the Eucharist, we find no sense of self-preservation or self-interest. Thus, Jesus’ response was politically correct because He linked the power and prestige sought by the Zebedee Brothers to the service of martyrdom. Politics, apart from its civilising function, draws us into the arena of public service. But, more than that, if “conviviality” is a reflexion of original holiness that God had intended for us, then politics is but an image or the sacrament of the state of heaven.
The reality is that our global economic structures are governed by the elites who control the media and even have the resources to destabilise economies and countries. Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk cannot possibly used up their wealth in 10 lifetimes. This just shows how big the gap is between the few who are incredibly wealthy and the many who are marginalised. Here there is politics to be spoken about and we are not focussing on distributive justice but rather in the “conviviality” of living together. “Conviviality” is the basis for the Christian engagement in politics.
Thus, this is the rehabilitation that Christians and Catholics can give to the world of “selfish politics”. The failure of politics is the failure of trust and the collapse of expectation. Hence, when a Christian desires to serve as a politician, he or she must embrace what Jesus told the Zebedee Brothers. “Drink the cup that I drink”. Effectively it represent one thing—upholding the Catholic teaching without equivocation. It requires the one who holds power must also be the one who dares to lay down his or her life for others. Otherwise, the label “Catholic” is reduced to merely a tag emptied of its true content. Just for daring to be Catholic in practice, often the price will be paid with one’s political career or the cost will involve dying in defence of the faith. Every one of the Apostles lived and died for the politics of Jesus in which He linked power and authority to public service and not to the solidification of one’s personal selfishness. To follow Jesus, like James and John, is to drink fully the cup of service and self-sacrifice. It is to infuse the City of Man with the values of the City of God.
__________________
[1] Preface of Holy Virgins and Religious: “For in the Saints who consecrated themselves to Christ for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, it is right to celebrate the wonders of your providence by which you call human nature back to its original holiness and bring it to experience on this earth the gifts you promise in the new world to come”. Politics in religious life is supposed to reflect the state of heaven. Of course, we know that remains an ideal.
