CAMEROUN - JARDINS SCOLAIRES

 GRACE A UMEC-WUCT,  LES ENSEIGNANTS ONT BENEFICIES D'UNE FORMATION SUR LES JARDINS SCOLAIRE  DANS LE BUT DE RENFORCER L'ETAT NUTRITIONELLE DES ENFANTS À L'ECOLE ET EN FAMILLE

SYNOD: SILENCE AND PAUSE

 Silence throughout the synod is probably wise, 

but decisions will need to be explained adequately

 

-by Joseph Kelly*

 

For months now it’s been hailed as the most important meeting of minds in the recent history of the Catholic Church, and an event could well produce seismic changes in Catholic doctrine. On the other hand critics have complained that it’s a gathering of extreme exclusivity, internecine agendas and intellectual pomposity when it’s premise is to remove exactly those negative traits from the Catholic establishment.

 The Synod on Synodality has been such a long time in the making, and comes at a time when the Catholic Church has an urgent need to clarify and develop its theology not only for the benefit of the laity, but to reflect unprecedented social changes and global upheavals. For those of us old enough to remember it, this synod has much in common with the Second Vatican Council, which was convened under not entirely dissimilar circumstances.

 “I want to open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in,” said Pope John XXIII at the time.

 The trouble that gave rise to Vatican II, and the trouble that Vatican II caused, was primarily due to the sexual revolution of the late 50s and early 1960s. After generations of social invisibility the younger population in particular had grown tired of the moral strictures of their parents’ generations, and so much that society had assumed to be inviolable was suddenly being challenged, or rejected completely. In the face of this moral stampede the Catholic Church had become like a besieged fortress defending itself against the imagined barbarians howling at its gates.

 One might easily be forgiven for thinking we’ve arrived at a somewhat similar juncture today – what with the furore over gender politics, free speech, abortion, euthanasia, global conflict, the climate emergency and the polarisation of the immigration debate. And that’s before we factor in our deepening internal and theological divisions.

 Little surprise then that many have marked up the Synod on Synodality as Vatican Three Lite.

 It’s a nice thought – but just as Vatican II promised far more than it delivered, this synod may well go the same way, despite Pope Francis’ determination that he wants radical new ground to be broken.

 As far back as 2016 Francis was revealing to his closest circle that it’s “not excluded that I will go down in history as the one who has split the Catholic Church” (at least according to the German magazine Der Spiegal – which didn’t give a citation!).

  For some, this unique and often unpredictable pontificate has the seeds of fantastic expectation and radical reordering within it, for others that same narrative is deeply troubling, heretical even. Where you stand depends largely on whether you think the Catholic Church should lead the world, or provide an antidote to it.

 Change in any organisation is never easy, and it’s especially difficult in an organisation where its central doctrinal premise is the eternal immutability of certain supposedly self-evident truths.

 Pope Francis is in no doubt where he stands; he has a vigorous antagonism towards the structure and outlook of the contemporary Church, which he feels is suffering from a particularly negative and paralysing fortress mentality. More than a decade ago – in an interview after World Youth Day in Argentina – Francis made his position clear: “I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!”

 By November of that same year Francis had expanded these thoughts in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium – On the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World.

 “I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security,” he wrote. “I do not want a church concerned with being at the center and then ends up by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures.” (EG,49)

 We can only hope that a decade later the Synod will deliver the Catholic laity something that is both meaningful, and relevant to the kind of lives that ordinary Catholics in the street are having to live through at present. Few are present at this great gathering, and the Catholic concerns of the masses have been conveyed to the debating tables by a lengthy process of consultation and upward distillation that in any organisation is rarely a healthy formula for democratic consent or unanimity.

 Such a mechanism also tends to create an equally unhealthy return of pronouncements, and even in the first few hours of this synod we’ve had several prime examples of this.

 To take just one instance: earlier this summer a group of five cardinals wrote a letter to Pope Francis asking him to answer five ‘dubia’, or doubts, that they had relating to the synod.

 Cardinals Walter Brandmüller (Germany), Robert Sarah (Guinea), Joseph Zen (Hong Kong), Juan Sandoval Íñiguez (Mexico) and Raymond Burke (USA) delivered their letter of concern to Francis on 10th July – but its contents, and the pope’s reply, was only made public this week.

 Clearly the five cardinals felt that Francis hadn’t answered their questions sufficiently, or rather had sidestepped them theologically. Such was their consternation at the pope’s replies that they redrafted the five questions in a manner that all but required a yes or no answer. So far there’s no indication that Pope Francis has replied and frankly it’s unlikely that he ever will, as Francis is not a man to reduce the complexities of the Christian life to a simple – or rather entrapping – ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

 The dubia that inevitably grabbed the media attention was the cardinals’ question about the validity of marriage and “other types of unions of a sexual nature”, and that the blessing of same-sex couples could give rise to a fundamental confusion amongst the laity about their validity, given that the Church otherwise regards such unions as  irrevocably sinful.

 Francis’ answer was well-crafted; and clearly too well-crafted for the five cardinals. His response also led many media outlets around the world to announce that Pope Francis was open to blessing gay couples. “Pope Francis suggests gay couples could be blessed in Vatican reversal,” shouted The Guardian on Tuesday in a conclusion that rang out similarly from media channels across the globe.

 Like so many such Catholic pronouncements across my 40+ years in Catholic journalism, everyone is of course right, and everyone is in the same instant equally wrong. Things said between theologians can have many contrary meanings – it’s in the very nature of the narrative, just as it’s in the nature of journalists to make a headline, and the nature of protagonists to mould words to support their case. Sadly, it’s invariably left to the rest of us to make sense of all the clamour, and in particular for grass roots clergy and the laity to peer through the glass darkly and try to discern how such arcane arguments might possibly relate to their lived experiences.

 Thus it comes as no surprise that yesterday, as the Synod was finally getting under way, Pope Francis asked its participants to avoid speaking to the press – and not just during the Synod but afterwards as well.

 Dr. Paolo Ruffini, the Prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery of Communications, confirmed that the information flow from the meetings will be “very limited,” suggesting yesterday that journalists can report instead on “the absence of news.”

 It was an announcement that if nothing else revealed that the Vatican knows precious little about the motivations of the media – as trying to shut down controversy is the one sure fire way of putting every journalist on the case.

 Perhaps some has pointed that out to the Prefect, who backtracked somewhat at today’s session, stating rather that “Every member of the synod makes their own discernment” in terms of whether to speak with the media.

 “We are not speaking of punishment or not, but a personal discernment the Pope asked of the members, and the discernment is left to each individual person,” Ruffini said.

 Sadly, the assumption that nothing ever needs to be explained properly, and then trying to hammer down on the discussion after the horse has bolted, is an all too familiar scenario when it comes to the expounding of Catholic teaching. To make matters worse, journalists have not been allowed access to this synod and, whilst there have been no non-disclosure agreements, “canonical penalties” apparently await those who do not maintain their silence, even after the synod is finished.

 (Much the same applied to the Second Vatican Council, though inevitably some individuals did eventually let slip the odd story here or there!)

 Not surprisingly, I’m pretty much on the side of the journalists, who are only ever trying to do their job in difficult circumstances. When I look back over some of the most inflammatory or damaging reports that the media has run about Catholic affairs across the past four decades, much of the damage could have been avoided if the Church had engaged and explained when matters first materialised. Few things are so terrible that they can’t be confronted, and they’re best confronted as early as possible; prevarication and procrastination invariably lead to rumour and exaggeration.

 For the record on the Pope Francis gay blessings story, His Holiness reiterated that matrimony is a union between a man and a woman, but that “pastoral charity” might give a priest the justification to bestow a blessing on a same-sex couple, so long as this was seen as the Church expressing its love and concern for the couple, but absolutely not endorsing their sinful behaviour.

 “For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of benediction, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage,” Francis wrote.

 “Because when a benediction is requested, it is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to live better, a trust in a father who can help us to live better.”

 He said there were situations objectively “not morally acceptable” but the same “pastoral charity” required that people be treated as sinners who might not be fully at fault for their situations.

 But Francis also added that these circumstances were exceptions rather than the norm, “because the life of the church runs on channels beyond norms”.

 All of which makes perfect sense theologically, but also makes an entirely other kind of perfect sense to a non-Catholic journalist and headline writer.

 Like I said, it’s one of the great joys and frustrations of being a member of the Catholic faith that on matters of import we are often all right, and we are often all wrong.

 Given the events of the past few days, a silence throughout the synod is probably a wise decision, but sooner or later someone is going to have to tell the Catholic world exactly what we’re required to be thinking in the years ahead, and in a way that please God we’ll be able to understand and live with.

 *Joseph Kelly is a Catholic publisher and theologian.

  The Catholic Network

EECO - BULLETIN n. 46

EQUIPES ENSEIGNANTES DU CONGO  -   membre de l’UMEC -WUCT    

     

Feuillet de FORMATION et d’ INFORMATION N°46 –SEPTEMBRE –  NOVEMBRE  2023-  EECO

Produit par les Equipes Enseignantes du Congo

………………………………………………………….

VOICI L’HEURE DE LA NOUVELLE ECOLE

Premièrement, la vieille école place les parents en position de force, tel un dominant. Recours aux fessées, punitions ou menaces, l’enfant respecte le contrat motivé par la peur de la sanction. Personne n’a tellement envie d’utiliser ces techniques, elles sont en général le fruit de la fatigue, de la colère, de la frustration ou de l’exaspération. Les enfants ont besoin de constance, sans brutalité.

Deuxièmement, la nouvelle école place les parents dans le respect absolu des besoins de leur enfant. En effet, son cerveau n’étant pas mature, sa crise de rage est compréhensible, il est donc difficile de ne pas céder.

L’art de l’éducation relève de ce juste équilibre où les parents sont invités à être solides pour donner beaucoup de tendresse et corriger avec amour un petit être dont le cerveau n’est pas encore mature, mais pourtant destiné au Bien. 

L’enfance est l’âge de la pureté, des grands rêves, des éclats de rire. Un âge merveilleux mais parfois ardu à guider ! Les bambins cherchent à comprendre le monde et pour cela ont besoin d’en saisir les contours. Le rôle des parents, primordial et irremplaçable, est de fixer les limites, de guider vers ce qui est bon. D’autant que l’enfant est toujours reconnaissant d’évoluer dans un cadre exigeant, tant que ce dernier est juste et cohérent.  

Pelage UWIMANA 

Equipier OUESSO

Lire: BULLETIN EECO

ENSEIGNANTS AUJOURD'HUI. LUMIERES ET OMBRES

Vous êtes la lumière du monde.

Une ville qui est sur une montagne ne peut pas être cachée, et on n'allume pas une lampe pour la mettre sous le boisseau, mais on la met sur le chandelier, et ainsi elle éclaire tous ceux qui sont dans la maison.

Que votre lumière brille donc devant les hommes, afin qu'ils voient vos bonnes œuvres et qu'ils rendent gloire à votre Père qui est dans les cieux. » (Mt 5,13-16)

 

ENSEIGNANTS AUJOURD'HUI. LUMIÈRES ET OMBRES

 Webinaire

Jeudi 5 octobre 

Voir: DOSSIER 

 

HARCELEMENT SCOLAIRE

 Harcèlement scolaire : 

qu’est-ce que la méthode 

Pikas dont la France s’inspire ?

La première ministre Élisabeth Borne annonce de nouvelles mesures de lutte contre le harcèlement scolaire. Le gouvernement s’inspire notamment d’une méthode scandinave, appelée « Pikas » visant à instaurer un dialogue avec le harceleur pour qu’il prenne conscience de ses actes.

Le gouvernement annonce des mesures visant à renforcer la prévention du harcèlement en milieu scolaire (photo : la cour de récréation du Collège Georges Méliès, dans le 19ème arrondissement de Paris, le 26 septembre 2023).

 Par CLAIRE JAILLARD

Le gouvernement annonce des mesures visant à renforcer la prévention du harcèlement en milieu scolaire. Environ 6 % des élèves auraient été victimes de harcèlement au cours de leur scolarité, selon un rapport du Sénat publié en septembre 2021.

À lire aussi Connaît-on l’ampleur du harcèlement scolaire en France ?

Les regards se tournent en cette rentrée vers des dispositifs novateurs, à l’instar de la « méthode de la préoccupation partagée » (MPP). Cette technique éducative vient tout juste d’être généralisée à l’ensemble des établissements français, dans le but de prévenir les cas de harcèlement à temps.

Instaurer un dialogue avec le harceleur

Librement inspirée de la méthode « Pikas », mise au point par le psychologue suédois Anatol Pikas, la MPP « est une méthode contre-intuitive qui part du principe que le harceleur est désireux de sortir de la dynamique du harcèlement », explique Bertrand Gardette, CPE et membre du comité national d’experts sur le harcèlement à l’école, à franceinfo. La MPP mise sur l’empathie que peut ressentir un élève intimidateur et s’éloigne d’un schéma classique de culpabilisation, en excluant toute sanction disciplinaire de son protocole.

Inizio modulo

Fine modulo

À lire aussi  Harcèlement scolaire : les harceleurs pourront être exclus définitivement

Trois étapes sont essentielles à une bonne application du dispositif. La première consiste à convoquer l’élève intimidateur lors de brefs entretiens de cinq à dix minutes. La discussion commence alors par une interrogation : « Bonjour, je t’ai invité à venir car je suis préoccupé pour la situation d’untel, il ne va pas bien, qu’est-ce que tu peux m’en dire ? »

La MPP préconise ensuite de demander à l’élève ce qu’il peut faire pour améliorer la situation, en insistant sur le fait que l’état de l’élève ciblé est préoccupant. Dans un dernier temps, l’intimidateur doit être suivi pour s’assurer qu’il a pris conscience de ses actes et qu’il modifie bien son comportement auprès du camarade visé.

Un dispositif généralisé à tous les établissements depuis 2023

La « méthode de préoccupation partagée » a été intégrée au sein du programme « Phare », un vaste plan de lutte contre le harcèlement à l’école mis en place en 2021. Ce programme est devenu obligatoire dans les écoles et les collèges en 2022 et vient tout juste d’être déployé dans les lycées, en cette rentrée 2023.

À lire aussiHarcèlement scolaire : qui sont les auteurs de ces violences ?

Si le dispositif ne comble pas tous les trous dans la raquette – notamment les cas de cyberharcèlement qui échappent à la surveillance des éducateurs –, il affiche néanmoins des résultats prometteurs. Selon l’Association pour la prévention des phénomènes de harcèlement entre élèves (Aphee), qui organise des formations de professionnels à la MPP, « plus de 80 % des cas de harcèlement sont résolus grâce à cette technique ».

La Croix

Photo

 

 

POWER AND SERVICE - POUVOIR ET SERVICE

 

LA LOGICA DEL POTERE E QUELLA DEL SERVIZIO

THE LOGIC OF POWER AND THE LOGIC OF SERVICE

LA LOGIQUE DU POUVOIR ET LA LOGIQUE DU SERVICE

LA LÓGICA DEL PODER Y LA LÓGICA DEL SERVICIO

 it - en - fr - es 

La logica evangelica sovverte le categorie del potere

 «Voi sapete che coloro i quali sono considerati i governanti delle nazioni dominano su di esse e i loro capi le opprimono. Tra voi però non è così; ma chi vuole diventare grande tra voi sarà vostro servitore, e chi vuole essere il primo tra voi sarà schiavo di tutti. Anche il Figlio dell’uomo, infatti, non è venuto per farsi servire, ma per servire e dare la propria vita in riscatto per molti». (Mc 10,2-16)

  -di Miriam D’Agostino

  La logica evangelica sovverte le categorie del potere, e di ogni potere piccolo o grande che sia. Nessuno è esente dall’esercizio del potere, perché sin da bambini con un pianto “obblighiamo” qualcuno a prendersi cura di noi, della nostra fame, della nostra sete, del nostro bisogno di cure, attenzioni e coccole, e se quel “qualcuno” manca o è carente ci lasciamo “morire”.

  Il potere ha diverse sfumature, diversi luoghi e tempi di esercizio, diverse forme e modalità, differenti linguaggi, accessori, collaboratori e responsabilità.

 Quando qualcuno ha potere su di noi per orari di lavoro, tasse da pagare, compiti da fare, sentiamo subito il peso della frustrazione di non essere stati noi a decidere il “come” e il “quando” di una nostra azione, pensiero, emozione.

  Quando invece siamo noi ad agire per potere, ne assaporiamo il fascino, il gusto, avere qualcuno che fa le cose “come dico io” ci fa sentire “migliori”, confondendo l’idea che per esserci bisogna essere “migliori” di qualcuno da trattare da “peggiore”.

  Non nascondiamoci dietro un dito, succede così nelle nostre famiglie, a scuola, al lavoro, nelle associazioni, nei grandi movimenti, nei club, perché l’esercizio del potere innesca una parte di noi ineliminabile, l’istinto alla sopravvivenza e le tentazioni dell’autoreferenza, del fare carriera e anche del nepotismo.

  La logica evangelica del Vangelo si inserisce proprio qui, nella forma che noi scegliamo di dare ad un elemento creaturale ineliminabile, che ci rimette continuamente in relazione con gli altri, noi stessi e il Padre. Gesù non sminuisce minimamente l’autorità di Mosè, il valore della Scrittura, ciò che va rinnovato, convertito, trasformato, sovvertito è la forma del vivere quel valore che nell’esperienza di altri (scribi e farisei) sembra aver perso la sua originaria validità.

  La questione non è non esercitare la propria autorità, la propria libertà, la propria responsabilità, ma la forma con cui quotidianamente scegliamo viverla.

 Il vangelo ce ne suggerisce il criterio, quello di considerarci “fratelli”, di vivere relazioni di fratellanza, di non pretendere che nessuno si inginocchi ai nostri piedi, di trattare l’altro semplicemente da “altro “con la sua dignità.  “Voi siete tutti fratelli”, non c’è un migliore o un peggiore, ma tutti possiamo riconoscerci fratelli nella misura in cui ci riconosciamo figli.

 Ed è qui che forse la buona notizia evangelica sovverte le categorie del potere, imparare a riconoscersi figli, figli di un unico Padre, significa riconoscere che l’esercizio del mio potere non è arbitrario ma per essere sano, dignitoso, ha l’unico criterio di riferimento che è quello del Padre. Solo nella misura in cui riconosciamo il potere del servizio con cui il Padre, nella persona di Gesù ha esercitato e continua ad esercitare quotidianamente nella fertilità della storia, e di ogni storia, il nostro vivere e relazionarci sarà quello di creare relazioni di fratellanza.

 Link: http://www.monasterosantanna.it/la-logica-evangelica-sovverte-le-categorie-del-potere/

 

THE LOGIC OF POWER AND THE LOGIC OF SERVICE

 The Gospel logic subverts the categories of power

  "You know that those who are considered the rulers of the nations rule over them and their leaders oppress them. Among you, however, it is not so; but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many". (Mk 10:2-16)

  -by Miriam D'Agostino

  The logic of the Gospel subverts the categories of power, and of every power great or small.

No one is exempt from the exercise of power, because from childhood with a cry we 'oblige' someone to take care of us, of our hunger, our thirst, our need for care, attention and pampering, and if that 'someone' is missing or lacking we let ourselves 'die'.

 Power has different nuances, different places and times of exercise, different forms and modes, different languages, accessories, collaborators and responsibilities.

  When someone has power over us because of working hours, taxes to be paid, tasks to be done, we immediately feel the weight of frustration at not having been the one to decide the 'how' and 'when' of our action, thought, emotion.

  When, on the other hand, we are the ones who act by power, we savour the fascination, the taste, having someone do things 'as I say' makes us feel 'better', confounding the idea that to be there one has to be 'better' than someone to be treated as 'worse'.

  Let us not hide behind a finger, it happens like this in our families, at school, at work, in associations, in large movements, in clubs, because the exercise of power triggers an ineradicable part of us, the survival instinct and the temptations of self-reference, of making a career and even nepotism.

  The evangelical logic of the Gospel fits right in here, in the form we choose to give to an ineradicable creaturely element, which continually puts us back into relationship with others, ourselves and the Father. Jesus in no way diminishes the authority of Moses, the value of Scripture, what needs to be renewed, converted, subverted is the form of living that value which in the experience of others (scribes and Pharisees) seems to have lost its original validity.

  The question is not not to exercise one's authority, one's freedom, one's responsibility, but the form in which we daily choose to live it.

  The gospel suggests the criterion, that of considering ourselves 'brothers', of living relationships of brotherhood, of not expecting anyone to kneel at our feet, of treating the other simply as 'other' with his dignity.  "You are all brothers", there is no better or worse, but we can all recognise ourselves as brothers to the extent that we recognise ourselves as sons.

 And it is here that perhaps the good news of the Gospel subverts the categories of power, learning to recognise ourselves as sons, children of the one Father, means recognising that the exercise of my power is not arbitrary but to be healthy, dignified, has the only criterion of reference which is that of the Father. Only to the extent that we recognise the power of service with which the Father, in the person of Jesus, has exercised and continues to exercise on a daily basis in the fertility of history, and of every history, will our living and relating be that of creating relationships of brotherhood.

 

LA LOGIQUE DU POUVOIR ET LA LOGIQUE DU SERVICE

 La logique de l'Évangile renverse les catégories de pouvoir

  "Vous savez que ceux qui sont considérés comme les chefs des nations les dominent et que leurs chefs les oppriment. Parmi vous, il n'en est pas ainsi ; mais celui qui veut devenir grand parmi vous sera votre serviteur, et celui qui veut être le premier parmi vous sera l'esclave de tous. Car le Fils de l'homme lui-même n'est pas venu pour être servi, mais pour servir et donner sa vie en rançon pour beaucoup". (Mc 10, 2-16)

  -par Miriam D'Agostino

  La logique de l'Évangile renverse les catégories du pouvoir, et de tout pouvoir petit ou grand.

 Personne n'échappe à l'exercice du pouvoir, car dès l'enfance, par un cri, nous "obligeons" quelqu'un à s'occuper de nous, de notre faim, de notre soif, de notre besoin de soins, d'attention et de gâteries, et si ce "quelqu'un" manque ou fait défaut, nous nous laissons "mourir".

  Le pouvoir a différentes nuances, différents lieux et moments d'exercice, différentes formes et modes, différents langages, accessoires, collaborateurs et responsabilités.

  Lorsque quelqu'un a du pouvoir sur nous à cause des horaires de travail, des impôts à payer, des tâches à accomplir, nous ressentons immédiatement le poids de la frustration de ne pas avoir été le seul à décider du "comment" et du "quand" de notre action, de notre pensée, de notre émotion.

  En revanche, lorsque c'est nous qui agissons par le pouvoir, nous savourons la fascination, le goût, le fait que quelqu'un fasse les choses "comme je le dis" nous fait nous sentir "mieux", confondant l'idée que pour être là, il faut être "meilleur" que quelqu'un pour être traité comme "pire".

  Ne nous cachons pas derrière un doigt, cela se passe ainsi dans nos familles, à l'école, au travail, dans les associations, dans les grands mouvements, dans les clubs, parce que l'exercice du pouvoir déclenche une part inguérissable de nous-mêmes, l'instinct de survie et les tentations de l'autoréférence, de la carrière et même du népotisme.

  La logique évangélique de l'Évangile s'inscrit ici, dans la forme que nous choisissons de donner à un élément créaturel inguérissable, qui nous remet sans cesse en relation avec les autres, avec nous-mêmes et avec le Père. Jésus ne diminue en rien l'autorité de Moïse, la valeur de l'Ecriture, ce qui doit être renouvelé, converti, subverti, c'est la forme de vivre cette valeur qui, dans l'expérience des autres (scribes et pharisiens), semble avoir perdu sa validité originelle.

  La question n'est pas d'exercer son autorité, sa liberté, sa responsabilité, mais la forme dans laquelle nous choisissons quotidiennement de la vivre.

  L'évangile nous suggère le critère, celui de nous considérer comme "frères", de vivre des relations de fraternité, de n'attendre de personne qu'il s'agenouille à nos pieds, de traiter l'autre simplement comme "un autre" avec sa dignité.  "Vous êtes tous frères", il n'y a pas de meilleur ou de pire, mais nous pouvons tous nous reconnaître frères dans la mesure où nous nous reconnaissons fils.

 Et c'est là que peut-être la bonne nouvelle de l'Évangile subvertit les catégories de pouvoir, apprendre à se reconnaître comme fils, enfants du Père unique, c'est reconnaître que l'exercice de mon pouvoir n'est pas arbitraire mais qu'il doit être sain, digne, qu'il a pour seul critère de référence celui du Père. Ce n'est que dans la mesure où nous reconnaissons le pouvoir de service que le Père, en la personne de Jésus, a exercé et continue d'exercer quotidiennement dans la fécondité de l'histoire, et de toute histoire, que notre vie et nos relations seront celles de la création de rapports de fraternité.

 

LA LÓGICA DEL PODER Y LA LÓGICA DEL SERVICIO

 La lógica evangélica subvierte las categorías de poder

  "Sabéis que los que son considerados jefes de las naciones las dominan y sus jefes las oprimen. Pero entre vosotros no es así, sino que el que quiera hacerse grande entre vosotros será vuestro servidor, y el que quiera ser el primero entre vosotros será esclavo de todos. Porque tampoco el Hijo del hombre ha venido a ser servido, sino a servir y a dar su vida en rescate por muchos". (Mc 10, 2-16)

  -por Miriam D'Agostino

  La lógica del Evangelio subvierte las categorías del poder, y de todo poder grande o pequeño.

 Nadie está exento del ejercicio del poder, porque desde niños con un grito 'obligamos' a alguien a que cuide de nosotros, de nuestra hambre, de nuestra sed, de nuestra necesidad de cuidados, atenciones y mimos, y si ese 'alguien' falta o nos falta nos dejamos 'morir'.

  El poder tiene diferentes matices, diferentes lugares y momentos de ejercicio, diferentes formas y modos, diferentes lenguajes, accesorios, colaboradores y responsabilidades.

  Cuando alguien tiene poder sobre nosotros por horarios de trabajo, impuestos que pagar, tareas que hacer, sentimos inmediatamente el peso de la frustración por no haber sido nosotros quienes decidimos el 'cómo' y el 'cuándo' de nuestra acción, pensamiento, emoción.

  Cuando, por el contrario, somos nosotros los que actuamos por poder, saboreamos su encanto, su gusto, que alguien haga las cosas 'como yo digo' nos hace sentir 'mejor', confundiendo la idea de que para estar ahí hay que ser 'mejor' que alguien para ser tratado como 'peor'.

  No nos escondamos detrás de un dedo, sucede así en nuestras familias, en la escuela, en el trabajo, en las asociaciones, en los grandes movimientos, en los clubes, porque el ejercicio del poder desencadena una parte inerradicable de nosotros, el instinto de supervivencia y las tentaciones de la autorreferencia, de hacer carrera e incluso del nepotismo.

  La lógica evangélica del Evangelio encaja aquí, en la forma que elegimos dar a un elemento inerradicable de la criatura, que nos pone continuamente en relación con los demás, con nosotros mismos y con el Padre. Jesús no disminuye en absoluto la autoridad de Moisés, el valor de la Escritura, lo que hay que renovar, convertir, subvertir es la forma de vivir ese valor que en la experiencia de otros (escribas y fariseos) parece haber perdido su validez original.

  La cuestión no es ejercer la propia autoridad, la propia libertad, la propia responsabilidad, sino la forma en que cada día elegimos vivirla.

  El evangelio nos sugiere el criterio, el de considerarnos "hermanos", el de vivir relaciones de fraternidad, el de no esperar que nadie se arrodille a nuestros pies, el de tratar al otro simplemente como "otro" con su dignidad.  "Todos sois hermanos", no hay mejores ni peores, pero todos podemos reconocernos hermanos en la medida en que nos reconozcamos hijos.

 Y es aquí donde quizás la buena noticia del Evangelio subvierte las categorías del poder, aprender a reconocernos hijos, hijos del único Padre, significa reconocer que el ejercicio de mi poder no es arbitrario sino que para ser sano, digno, tiene el único criterio de referencia que es el del Padre. Sólo en la medida en que reconozcamos el poder de servicio con que el Padre, en la persona de Jesús, ha ejercido y ejerce cotidianamente en la fecundidad de la historia, y de toda historia, nuestro vivir y relacionarnos será el de crear relaciones de fraternidad.