By Rajan Philips –

Rajan Philips

In Bethlehem where it all began, there is no Christmas this year. Bethlehem is located in Israeli occupied West Bank of Palestine. Palestinian churches have reportedly cancelled Christmas celebrations and some of them have set up nativity scenes showing the symbolic Baby Jesus lying in a manger of rubble destruction. Death and destruction now define life in Gaza less than 100 km to the west, but Palestinians on the West Bank are also subject to unchecked attacks by illegal Jewish settlers and retaliation by the Israeli army against Palestinian protests. 

It is all Christmas in the US but in a climate of national political confusion in spite of a robustly performing economy. Confusion rolls around the war in Israel and the stalemate in Ukraine; the hysteria over antisemitism, with the US Congress declaring antizionism and antisemitism as amoral equivalents; the for and against moves involving Trump; and competing expectations and forebodings for the great election year of 2024. There will be little Christmas time in Washington for the Biden Administration, which is literally on the horns of its own dilemma of simultaneously supporting and restraining the Israeli government’s devastation of Gaza. 

On Friday, the US managed to wordsmith a UN Security Council resolution calling for “safe, unhindered and expanded humanitarian access” to Gaza and “conditions for a sustainable cessation” of hostilities. The final wording of the resolution came after a week of textual haggling and that was the condition for the US to abstain from the vote and allow the legally binding resolution to pass without vetoing it down. 

As Canadian academic and international relations expert Janice Stein observed earlier, the US has “significant influence over what comes next … Starting in 1956 the United States has frequently forced Israel both to stop the fighting, accept the ceasefire and at times to pull back.” But how soon the US will be able to do it this time is the question. 

Without it there is no immediate end in sight to this conflict even well into the New Year. With Yemen’s Houthis emboldened to attack merchandise ships in the Red Sea, the whole conflict may take a different turn. The other conflict in Ukraine has entered a stalemate favourable to Russia, with fatigue setting in among Ukraine’s sponsors about continuing their material support of the war.           

Breakthrough in Vatican

Lost in the din of war is what otherwise would have been an excellent Christmas gift and news from the Vatican. Last Monday, a week before Christmas, Pope Francis, the Jesuit Pope, issued a landmark authorization for priests to administer blessings on same-sex couples but outside the Church’s regular mass or formal rituals. This is a reversal of the Church’s 2021 declaration disallowing such blessings in keeping with the Catechism of the Church. The change is considered as providing a “simple blessing” and not the sacrament of (heterosexual) marriage. Yet it is a huge step for the Vatican. 

The change will have its supporters and decriers, and more so in the US than anywhere else. American Jesuit Father James Martin who works among LGBT communities, has welcomed the change as “a major step forward in the church’s ministry” to them. Many same sex-couples are delighted. The conservatives in the Church are obviously opposed to it. Ulrich L. Lehner, a US theology professor, reflecting his nation’s penchant for culture wars, has called it “an invitation to schism”.

The Vatican breakthrough comes two months after the conclusion of the historic synod that Pope Francis had convened to guide the future of the Catholic Church. For the first time in its history the Church convened an official gathering of 364 members that included non-clerical members of the Church including 54 women. After nearly a month of deliberations in October the Synod issued a Synthesis Report of 41 pages with each paragraph voted separately and receiving over two-thirds majority. The synod process and experience were based on listening and formulating positions rather than receiving top down resolutions. The report covered all the current challenges facing the Church including clerical sexual abuse, women’s roles in the church, outreach to poor and the concept of “synodality” itself. 

The report noted that throughout the synod process, “many women expressed deep gratitude for the work of priests and bishops. They also spoke of a Church that wounds. Clericalism, a chauvinist mentality and inappropriate expressions of authority continue to scar the face of the Church and damage its communion.” “A profound spiritual conversion is needed as the foundation for any effective structural change,” it said. “Sexual abuse and the abuse of power and authority continue to cry out for justice, healing and reconciliation.” The same issues will be in focus again when the synod reconvenes in October 2024.

A Himalayan Declaration

Sri Lanka too might be having a breakthrough moment at least going by the grand name given to the latest non-governmental initiative to address the island’s most chronic problem involving the political relationship among its communities. The initiative has been self-proclaimed by its authors as the Himalayan Declaration, and it became public after it was formally presented to President Wickremesinghe. More presentations to other notables are reported to be in the offing. But what difference the declaration is going to make is too early to tell.

The grand sounding name Himalayan Declaration is apparently derived from the small town of Nagarkot in Nepal, where the signatories to the declaration gathered and reached their six-point agreement as the basis for yet another initiative to resolve Sri Lanka’s national question. After the experiences of Thimphu, Oslo, and numerous other gatherings and consultations in many parts of the world including many cities in India, one can only wish heavenly blessings for the latest initiative coming down from the Himalayas to finally succeed. Most of us can only wish and watch, but the success of the initiative will ultimately depend on who among Sri Lanka’s current political actors will take over the initiative and cross the finish line. 

The signatories to the new initiative portray an interesting coalescence comprising all Buddhist Priests from among the Sinhalese, and all Tamil expatriates living in western countries seemingly acting on behalf of the Tamils. One would think the involvement of the Buddhist Priests, all of whom appear to be at the higher echelons of the Sangha hierarchy is intended to maximize the declaration’s purchase among the Sinhalese. Conversely, if their presence in the declaration can dampen the usual rabble rousing against such initiatives, that in itself would be a significant contribution.         

The expatriate Tamil signatories to the declaration and others who worked on it are not household political names in Sri Lanka or among the Sri Lankan diasporas. But they have been in the business of ethnic politics for all their adult lives, and their intervention at this stage deserves due commendation. Unlike the interlopers who used to pop up during the Rajapaksa and Sirisena years, the present group is obviously not looking for handouts from the government. But that is not going to save them from brickbats that will be flung at them from their far flung compatriots, which seem to have already started. 

There is never going to be unanimity among the Tamils on any proposal(s) for reconciliation. That is not in their collective DNA. But if there is substantial support among the Sinhalese for a significant initiative that is also championed by the government in power, then the collective Tamil response will be equally positive. Otherwise, even if the Tamils are unanimous in their support for an initiative it will not go anywhere without sufficient purchase among the Sinhalese. One shortcoming of the initiative is the absence of Muslim and Indian Tamil participants and signatories. Obviously, it could not have been an intended omission, but in ethnic relationships inadvertent omissions can be as damaging as deliberate ones. 

A pre-Christmas Postscript

When I wrote last week that the tradition of peripatetic singing of Tirupavai and Tiruvempavai among the Tamils predates carol singing, I meant it more as an impressionistic observation than a factual assertion. It was a subjective (and aging) reflection on the fortuitous circumstances of my upbringing that drew from the Catholic faith of my family and the Saiva ethos of my neighbours. It was also an observation relating to the peripatetic (walking from house to house) mode of singing and not a serious comparison of the two traditions. 

The main difference between the two is that carol singing is entirely eclectic and has evolved over many centuries with contributions from many sources, spanning many countries, languages and cultures. New carol songs are added even now, and they range from earnest piety to ephemeral pop culture. Andaal’s Tirupavai and Manivasagar’s Tiruvempavai and Tirupalliyeluchi, on the other hand, are entirely exclusive with each comprising 30 stanzas which have remained unchanged since they were first written and sung in the 8^th and 9^th centuries. 

Although the origin of Christmas hymns is traced to the 4^th century, it was not the beginning of carol singing. St. Ambrose’s Latin hymn Veni redemptor gentium (Come, Redeemer of the nations) was not a carol song. To suggest so could be an affront to Ambrose, the 4^th century Bishop of Milan and a celebrated Doctor of the Church, who was instrumental in bringing to the flock another great Doctor, St. Augustine. That was also a time when music was not countenanced in the Church, and the (3^rd century) Tertullian abhorrence of literature may have been still in vogue. 

Popular Christmas songs, with musical and lyrical roots going back to pre-Christian Pagan traditions, are usually traced to the 13^th century and the influence of St. Francis of Assisi. The practice and popularity of carol singing would emerge three centuries later thanks to Protestant Reformation. By way of synthesis, it is possible see a parallel between Andaal and Francis of Assisi – in their mysticism and in their selfless devotion to their Supreme God. We can admire them both and the traditions they started regardless of who came before whom.