By A Pushparajan
Bengaluru: Nowadays we come across protests being staged against the appointments of bishops. Leaflets are afloat with an appeal to the Pope to “stop caste discrimination in the Catholic Church.”
A simple glance at these leaflets enkindles certain reflections in a fair-minded faithful like me who has been actively involved in the Church affairs in various capacities (secretary to Archdiocesan Commission for Dialogue for sixteen years, consulter to CBCI Commission for Laity, and member of the National Advisory Council, consulter to the Pontifical Commission for Faith and Culture, among others.).
First of all, there is no gainsaying that the Indian Church has been infested with virus of caste discrimination which needs to be eradicated root and branch. Nor is there a second opinion about the Dalits’ demand to stop caste discrimination.
The only problem is to understand the logic behind raising the demand vociferously on occasions of appointment of bishops. Still worse is the type of argument made out in support of the claim. It usually runs like this: “Since the Dalits form the majority of the faithful in some dioceses, appointment of bishops in those dioceses should be made from Dalit communities.” Worse still is to appeal to Pope Francis to intervene and stop the caste discrimination in our local Church.
• Caste discrimination is not an ecclesial doctrine to be removed by the Papal authority. Nor is it a customary practice of the global Church to be withdrawn by the intervention of the Pope.
• It is a sociological virus that we, Indian Christians, have inherited from the ancient stratification of society. Hence the onus is on us to destroy it ourselves rather than asking our Holy Father to stop it. What we need is a strong ‘political will’ of all the faithful (Dalits or non-Dalits, priests, laity and the religious) to eradicate the virus altogether from our social ethos as well as our mindset.
• Despite the Constitutional provisions forbidding the practice of untouchability, caste discriminations have been persisting until today even in small village-communities. Even in a parish which is purely ‘Dalit parish’ there has been a perpetual warfare between two Dalit communities, one claiming superiority over the other and vice versa, involving even murders of individuals.
• Also in our Institutes or Formation houses where a Dalit has been appointed as head (mainly for the sake of giving preference to the Dalit-cause), the other members, stressed over their shades of Dalit identity have been conflicting with his/her headship, precisely for this reason that he/she does not belong to ‘our’ group.
• With such discriminating practices galore in our petite circles, we live like fighting kids un-repentant of our sin. Is it proper, then, to appeal to the Holy Father to stop it, by appointing a Dalit bishop?
• For argument’s sake, let us suppose, the appeal is granted and a ‘Dalit’ bishop is appointed in a particular diocese. Will it solve the problem of caste discrimination in that diocese automatically? Will not other subgroups clamor for ‘their own’ leader to be appointed a bishop in another diocese in which they are the majority?
A more serious question is: Whether appointment of bishop in the Church can be made on basis representation or reservation?
• Reservation norms are special provisions guaranteed by our Constitution to offer certain facilities like education and job-opportunities to compensate for the deprivations people have suffered for ages in the past. They are to last for a limited period of time only.
• But these provisions do not apply to such leadership-posts like the office of Chief/Prime Minister. Such posts can never be claimed as a matter of ‘right’ on the basis of quota system. Rather it is matter of ‘merit’ which is decided by such criteria as the achievements one has made, the rigorous training one has undergone, hardships one has suffered for the sake of the party and the people, and the contribution one has made to the common good of the society.
• If, thus, the quota-system cannot be applied to even in political realm, how can we claim it to be applied in the realm of spiritual governance?
• To be appointed a bishop is indeed a call within a call. The choice of the ‘high priest’ is usually made only from among those who are already called to be ‘ministers of the Church.’ This call cannot be decided on the basis of numerical strength of the faithful residing in a diocese, or with a criterion of representation or reservation.
• In our Church alone there is a hoary tradition of choosing worthy candidates, a process largely insulated against any lobbying or politicking. Those who are endowed with the desired requirements will ‘command’ the bishoprics rather than demanding it as matter of ‘right’. Much less, to indulge in instigating people to make appeals to the Pope? Least expected, to protest against the appointments already made.
There are some rumors, afloat that manipulations play a role. If true, then the existing hierarchy must own responsibility. They must take some positive steps to address such grievances. More and more transparency must become the rule of the day.
• But this does not mean that the well tested methods of choosing worthy candidates needs to be given up. Otherwise, our Mother Church is fated to degenerate into the same fiasco the Protestant main-line Churches and in the denominations, where the appointment of bishops are heavily politicized.
In fine,
• Let us try to wash our own dirty linens of caste discrimination within our own circles, rather than appealing to the Pope who is not party to it.
• Let us stop claiming for the bishoprics on the basis of quota system or as a matter of representation.
• Let the existing hierarchy prove that they are above suspicion of caste considerations and maintain the sanctity of the hoary tradition of our Mother Church in appointment or transfer of bishops.
(Professor A Pushparajan retired as the head of the Department of Interreligious Relations in Madurai Kamaraj University. Currently based in Bengaluru, he gives guest lectures in the fields of his specialization: Dialogue, Gandhi, Ecology and Laity.)