Chhotebhai
Those familiar with the ongoing Indian Premier League would know that the orange cap is worn by the batsman scoring the maximum runs, and the purple one is worn by the bowler who has taken the most wickets. They are the players in the field, performing under pressure. The umpires, coaches or commentators sitting in air-conditioned boxes are not entitled to wear these caps.
After seeing our red sashed bishops going to meet the saffron clad yogi my thoughts swirled around to these other colours. My good friend, Dr Remy Denis, also a former National President of the All India Catholic Union, often said that the laity is like the players on the field, while the clergy/ hierarchy are like the coaches/ umpires. Each one has its own role, which should not be usurped by the other; because a good player does not necessarily make a good coach, and vice versa.
This phenomenon was annunciated in the best seller “The Peter Principle” by Peter & Hill; that each person attains his/ her own level of incompetency. A good worker may not be a good foreman, and a good foreman may not be a good manager. A top executive could be a disaster as an entrepreneur. The list is endless. In the given context I strongly aver that good bishops may not be the best people to interact with political leaders. Their area of core competence is theology, philosophy and morality, which have little or no role in the rough and tumble of political affairs.
The laity is like the players on the field. They run, fall, get hurt, but keep going. That is why Jesus himself had cautioned his disciples that the people of the world were shrewder than the people of the light (cf Lk 16:8). In his book, “The Prophetic Role of the Laity” Fr Josef Neuner SJ says that “the lay person has access to all strata of secular and professional society. He is not suspected of pursuing ecclesiastical interests; people will meet and accept him on his personal merit” (pg 25). Neuner states that the hierarchical church, that inherited the aura of superiority in the European Middle Ages, resents the changing social equations. “It resists the process of progressing autonomy and often tries to check it. The classical case is that of Galileo. The important document that reflects the resistance of the Church is the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX in 1864. But the process of secularisation could not be stopped; the church had to change its attitude. The Second Vatican Council marks the final breakthrough in the outlook of the church” (pg 12). Remember that Neuner himself was one of the expert theological advisors at Vatican II, so he knows only too well what he is saying.
Unfortunately, there is a huge dichotomy between precept and practice. Our bishops, whether they wear red, purple, orange or saffron, need to be told that they are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, hence they cannot be omnipresent – everywhere, trying to do everything!
This dichotomy is based on mistrust, suspicion and a deep sense of insecurity. Catholic laypersons in India have held high office like Army Chief, Governors, Supreme Court Justices, Ambassadors, Bureaucrats, sporting icons etc. If the country trusts them, then why not the hierarchy? This is almost entirely due to their own deep sense of insecurity. They are afraid of John the Baptist’s dictum “He must increase and I must decrease” ( Jn 3:30).
In 1976 the late Bp Patrick D’souza of Varanasi gave me a book “Christ’s Idea of Authority” by Rev JNM Wijngaards MHM, one of India’s leading scripture scholars. He has some interesting insights into how authority is being exercised in the church, which is so far removed from Jesus’ own approach. It partly explains the bishops’ folly in going to meet the yogi.
Wijngaards says that the scribes and Pharisees considered themselves a class apart, and the people as “am ha-ares” (people of the land), or in today’s parlance, the aam aadmi. In contrast Jesus encouraged his disciples to take the initiative (cf Jn 6:5-9), and did not feel threatened by the initiative of “others”. He was secure in his relationship with his father, hence did not see any rivalry in “others”, telling his disciples not to forbid the “others” (cf Lk 9:50). That is why Wijngaards says that the “tension is not between us but within us” (pg 6).
Borrowing from Transactional Analysis (something that I believe in) Wijngaards says that the hierarchical church usually functions from the Parent personality, and seldom from the Adult or Child ones; though Jesus himself functioned mostly from the Adult one (pg 33). But if the hierarchy “only have a Father figure and cannot be a Child or Adult at other times they have warped personalities” (pg 31). He adds, “Every person has in him a Child personality which makes him dependent on others” (pg 37). In the case off the hierarchy they are not in any way dependent on the laity, because they have the knowledge, power, institutional strength, the threat of divine displeasure or social ostracism, and yes, even the money power. This vantage point is best described by Steven D Levit in his best-seller “Freakonomics”; “As the world has grown more specialised countless experts have made themselves indispensable. Doctors, lawyers, auto mechanics … they all enjoy a gigantic informational advantage” (pg 7). The hierarchy, with their concentration of power, knowledge and influence, easily fit into this category. The aam aadmi is therefore at the mercy of these powerful entities.
The “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” (not an optional extra) says that “a secular character is proper and special to laymen” (LG 11). The laity “by their very vocation seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs” (ibid). “The laity are called in a special way to make the church present and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can she become the salt of the earth” (LG 33). The “Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity” affirms that “they exercise a genuine apostolate … by penetrating and perfecting the temporal sphere of things” (AA 2). Canon Law reiterates that “we should especially esteem those associations whose aim is to animate the temporal order with the Christian spirit” Can 327).
From church teachings itself it is more than obvious that if at all anybody had to meet the man in saffron, it should not have been those wearing red skull caps, but the actual players in the field wearing orange, purple or any other colour of caps – the lay leaders and their organisations like the All India Catholic Union or its affiliated Catholic Associations.
If this sounds like a diatribe against the hierarchy, it is; by their own default. They are hoist on their own petard – the authentic and objective teachings of the church, and not their subjective personal opinions. Neuner’s appeal to lay leaders to fulfil their prophetic office makes sense to me. He says, “They must stand against the kings when they attempt to take the nation’s destiny into their own hands and to pursue their political goals” (pg 2). What applied to the kings of yore can easily be juxtaposed on the hierarchical “rulers” of today. Infact the “Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World” frowns on us seeking privileges or striking clandestine deals. It says that the church “does not lodge her hope in privileges conferred by civil authority. Indeed she stands ready to renounce the exercise of certain legitimately acquired rights if it becomes clear that their use raises doubts about the sincerity of her witness or that new conditions of life demand some other arrangement” (GS 76).
If the bishops (including my good friends among them) are incensed by what I have written, so be it. Neuner says that the lay leader’s role should be “the voice of Yahweh, beyond the clever reasoning of the politicians and scholars, and the rituals of the temple” (pg 3). This is why Vatican II unequivocally states that “an individual layman, by reason of the knowledge, competence or outstanding ability which he may enjoy, is permitted and sometimes obliged to express his opinion on things which concern the good of the church” LG 37). So I am only doing my Christian duty.
I am not alone in expressing this concern. Friends who responded to my previous article under reference, “Seeing Red”, had this to say. Ladislas D’souza a gifted writer from Mumbai said that it was odd to deal with a thug who has cases pending against him. David Kandathil a church historian from Ernakulam said that the bishops had no locus standii to meet the CM. Vincent Bagul from Mumbai said that this meeting should have had advance preparation and involvement of the laity. Isaac Gomes a senior writer from Kolkata said that there were no laity present because the bishops only want rubber stamp organisations, those that make up the numbers in their “protest marches”. Maria D’souza a senior Executive in Mumbai wondered how the CM would act against his own followers for whom cows are more sacred than human lives?
Denis Daniel from Jabalpur, who spent several years with Vatican Radio in Rome said that the hierarchy is too proud, selfish, diplomatic; and Yogi would like to win over the bishops, but to whose advantage? Rev Sunil Rozario SJ, former editor of the Herald, Kolkata, puts the icing on the cake when he says that despite Vatican II there is no dialogue, including within the church.
Sadly, in the absence of dialogue and debate based on trust and mutual respect, it is only through the press, the fourth estate, that we lay people can express our thoughts, anguish and distress. So I will continue to see red till the red sashes are replaced by the orange or purple caps of the players on the field – the laity.
(The writer has relentlessly espoused the cause of Vatican II reforms vis-à-vis the laity for decades)