By chhotebhai

Kanpur: The Blame Game, and shirking responsibility for one’s acts, is as old as the hills. When God questioned Adam, he blamed Eve, who in turn blamed the serpent (cf Gen 3:12-13). Their son Cain also sought to deflect responsibility for his brother’s death saying “Am I my brother’s guardian?” (Gen 4:9).

This passing the buck is also found at the time of Jesus’ trial. Pilate, on coming to know that Jesus was from Galilee that was Herod’s jurisdiction, “passed him over to Herod who was also in Jerusalem at that time” (Lk 23:6-7). Herod sent him back to Pilate and the Chief Priests also forced Pilate to make a decision.

Unable to withstand social pressure Pilate, who had just been boasting of his power (cf Jn 19:11), now chose to literally wash his hands off his own decision. “So he took some water, washed his hands in front of the crowd and said – I am innocent of this man’s blood. It is your concern” (Mat 27:24).

It is easy for us to sanctimoniously condemn Adam, Eve, Cain, Herod and Pilate. How different are we? This question came to my mind when I read in Matters India about the recent developments in Calcutta and Ajmer. Rarely have I seen so many comments trending on the portal. The majority were critical of the two priests, Rodney Borneo in Calcutta and Varghese Palappallil in Ajmer.

To recap, Borneo was the “very popular” principal of a prestigious Catholic school in Calcutta. He resigned to join the BJP and blamed his Archbishop Thomas D’Souza for not addressing his grievances that necessitated this drastic move. The other incident is when Varghese allegedly physically assaulted his Bishop Pius D’Souza at his dining table, accusing him of being against him in a sexual abuse case. Varghese later denied the assault.

Through my sources, some of whom have requested anonymity, I have obtained the “official” letters from both these bishops. Matters India initially reported that Varghese had been ex-communicated, but later corrected the report to say that the priest had only been suspended. What is the truth behind these incidents? More importantly, what lessons are to be learned?

It is not my intention to blame anybody, neither the concerned bishops, nor their priests. I have taken great pains to gather first hand information and also to obtain a studied opinion on Canon Law from Capuchin Father Girish Scaria, who has a doctorate in Canon Law from Rome.

First Calcutta. According to Father Francis Rozario of Calcutta Rodney was a gold medalist in psychology and counselling. He was facing “pressures and inconveniences” in his functioning as principal. He quotes an unnamed source (who I happen to know) that the archbishop was responsible for this as he didn’t heed the cry of the priest. That person subsequently confirmed this to me.

Another source told me that maybe the archbishop resented the priest’s popularity as he was often on TV shows and the print media. Earlier he had even accompanied Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to Rome for Mother Teresa’s canonization. I was also informed that while this crisis was unfolding the archbishop was attending a gala event at a Rotary Club!

The official communiqué from Archbishop D’Souza is his letter No RCAC/OFFICIAL -1/2021 dt 10/3/21 signed by both himself and the Chancellor Father Dominic Gomes. It inter alia states that the priest’s resignation has been accepted and “After his decision to give up Priesthood (sic) and join the BJP on 9th March 2021 Fr Rodney Borneo ceases to function as a Roman Catholic priest with immediate effect”. Dr Scaria confirmed to me that this action was in accordance with Canon Law. I quote: “Clerics are forbidden to assume public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power” (Can 285:3); and “They are not to play an active role in political parties or in directing trade unions” (Can 287:2).

Now to Ajmer. Here again Bishop Pius has issued a letter dated March 10 addressed to Father Varghese himself. It too is countersigned by the Chancellor Father Nelson V. It states that the bishop was assaulted by Varghese in the refectory of the Bishop’s House Extension on March 7, an act witnessed by Father Henry Moras, also of the diocese. It says that as per provisions of Canon 1370:2 (I had quoted it earlier) Varghese had incurred a latae sententiae interdict and suspension … which includes suspension from all priestly duties and priestly ministry, celebration of Eucharist, sacraments, sacramentals, and to receive sacraments … from the very moment of the physical assault.” Scaria clarifies that the canonical word interdict means prohibition. So Varghese is prohibited not just from priestly ministry but even from reception of the sacraments. In Hindi we would call this “hookah paani bandh”!

Varghese, in his defence, had claimed that he had been falsely implicated in a sexual assault case, by virtue of which he was not allowed to function as a priest since 2015, and the bishop was complicit in this act. As per my sources Varghese allegedly sexually assaulted a married Protestant lady M … G …. (name withheld to maintain the victim’s privacy), who has since migrated to the UK.

The case now gets curiouser. I leave readers to draw their own conclusions. The alleged victim keeps sending emails to the diocese asking it to take action against Varghese, even though she herself has not filed a First Information Report (FIR) against him. She also failed to appear before the enquiry committee set up by the diocese to investigate the matter. Perhaps this is one reason why the matter is still hanging fire.

On the other hand, despite the public scandal, when Varghese returned to the diocese, he was appointed as a chaplain to a convent in Vallabhnagar. Last year he was transferred to Mount Abu but he refused to accept the transfer orders. Till the time of interdict the diocese was also giving him his priestly stipend on par with other priests.

After the alleged assault Bishop Pius was constrained to file an FIR against Varghese because the latter had threatened to return after two days. Earlier Varghese had also filed several FIRs against the bishop for defamation etc.

So who is to blame in these cases, the concerned bishops, priests, or both? As I said at the outset, I am not interested in a Blame Game, or taking sides, more so since I myself am far removed from both scenes and am relying on purportedly trustworthy information. I am more concerned with trying to learn some lessons from these unfortunate incidents.

The first lesson seems to be the disconnect, or lack of communication, between the bishops and their priests. I have long advocated the establishment of a Grievance Redressal Cell in every diocese. The CBCI must act to establish them without delay.

Secondly, bishops should not consider their dioceses as their personal fiefdoms. It is for this reason that I strongly oppose bishops having a “Coat of Arms”, a relic of medieval European principalities. Bishops should not become permanent institutions. They should be transferred every ten years.

What of school principals, especially of the elite English medium ones? They are powerful and influential and this can go to their heads, especially if they don’t have a deep spiritual life. They are usually “Masters of all they survey.” In religious orders a principal may next get posted to the kitchen to peel potatoes. Not so with diocesan priests. Once they become principals they can move in only one direction – up! That is their downfall. School principals also need to be transferred after six years, lest the grass grow under their feet. This may not always be possible in Govt aided schools where such appointments are confirmed by the Govt. Perhaps it is time to appoint lay persons as principals. Their spouses will ensure that they don’t have a bloated ego!

Next comes the matter of priestly celibacy. Jesus was clear that this was a gift, not the norm (cf Mat 19:11). Unfortunately we have made the exception the norm. The growing clerical sexual abuse cases have been the biggest scandal in modern times. Dioceses have either gone bankrupt or face a major exodus. This issue again needs to be addressed head on. It can no longer be put on the back burner.

I hope and pray that these reflections will be received in the spirit of concern and love for the church with which they are written, for the Blame Game will get us nowhere.

(The writer has developed these thoughts at length in his recent book The Jerusalem Code, a road map for the reform and renewal of the church.)