“The Da Vinci Code” is back in the news because its author, Dan Brown, has come out with another bestseller, “The Lost Symbol”. This time he attempts to de-code the secrets of the Freemasons. His earlier work was a cunning mix of fact and fiction, in his botched attempt to de-mythologize Christianity.
A Code can have two purposes. One is to encrypt the actual text, so as to make it unintelligible or inaccessible to the commoner. The other is to classify data/ text in an intelligible or systematic manner, to make it user friendly. So a Code actually has diametrically opposing intents! With what intent does religion use a Code - to encrypt or enlighten?
An article “Dress Code in Churches” carried by SAR News and published in various journals occasioned this piece. Its author, Predhuman Joseph Dhar, is a good friend. He is a Kashmiri Pundit who became a Catholic due to the ministry of Rev Jim Borst MHM. Dhar has several degrees and an amazing knowledge of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. But, like Dan Brown, he has mixed up fact and fiction in the article under reference.
He advocates a “dress code” for women in church. (Why are women always targeted?) To bolster his contention he uses Canon Law. He quotes canon 855 to say, “Women whose heads are not covered and who are improperly dressed are to be excluded from the Sacrament”. He then quotes Canon 1262(2) to read, “If they (women) should dare to enter the church immodestly dressed, let them be judiciously put out and prevented from assisting of any function whatsoever”. These “quotes” got my hackles up; they didn’t ring true, so I checked out “The Code of Canon Law” promulgated in 1983. As I had suspected, Dhar, like Brown, had been misquoting. Canon 855 refers to the giving of Christian names, and Canon 1262 refers to church donations. It does not even have a sub-clause 2. So why do people deliberately misquote? It suits Dan Brown because his books become bestsellers, while truth is usually quite boring! Why did my good friend Dhar do it? Perhaps to palm off his personal opinion (in this case a male chauvinistic one), by “legitimising” it with liberal dollops of “official sounding” quotes.
Let us move beyond Brown and Dhar to another renowned author, Steven D Levitt. His bestseller “Freakonomics” is subtitled “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything”. Interesting. His book infact is more about ethics than economics; and how information/ knowledge is subject to various interpretations/ manipulations. He says that, “as the world has grown more specialised, countless experts have made themselves indispensable. Doctors, lawyers … financial planners… they all enjoy a gigantic informational advantage” (pg 7, emphasis mine).
What is this gigantic informational advantage? In simple terms it means, “I know everything about this. You know nothing in this field, hence you are totally dependant on me, and must live in awe of my prowess”. The dependant usually pays a heavy price to the “expert” because of this informational disadvantage.
An empathetic expert can help the disadvantaged, but an unethical or prejudiced one can exploit them. The expert seeks to retain its superiority, which would be diluted if it imparted knowledge or information. This is its coign of vantage. That is what happened at Kargil, where the Pakistani intruders controlled the vantage points above, and slaughtered the Indian soldiers going up the slopes, like swatting flies on a wall.
Information that is exclusive or inaccessible is indeed a coign of vantage. Had Levitt been an Indian he would have added four more “experts” to his list of those with gigantic informational advantage. They are the Bureaucracy, the Higher Judiciary, the Defence Establishment and the Catholic Hierarchy. Disparate elements with a common cause – keep them ignorant and powerless.
The Right to Information Act (RTI) has gone a long way in empowering the commoner, the aam admi. The price for obtaining priceless information is just Rs 10/-. The cookie has begun to crumble. The red tape is being cut. Bureaucratic babudom is now answerable to the aam admi. The Judiciary has succumbed to sustained social and media pressure, and Supreme Court/ High Court Judges have agreed to declare their assets. The Defence Establishment still uses the cloak of secrecy, under the guise of national security. What of the Catholic Hierarchy?
It is the quintessential coign of vantage. No information is forthcoming. Letters and complaints, especially on financial and sexual irregularities, are met with a wall of stoic silence. Why is the hierarchy afraid to come out of the water? Is it ashamed of its own nakedness? If there is nothing to hide, then there should be nothing to fear.
The coign of vantage is not limited to money or sex. Its most dangerous avatar is in its area of core competence – faith and morals. Its teaching ends with catechism classes for First Communion and Confirmation, when impressionable and imitative youngsters blindly swallow what they are taught. There is no attempt at ongoing adult catechesis. How many lay Indian Catholics have been taught about the Second Vatican Council, the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or papal encyclicals, including the latest one, “Caritas in Veritate”?
The hierarchy has failed miserably in its primary teaching office, of sharing the faith. It is comfortably ensconced with novenas, pilgrimages and pious devotions, which are non-controversial, undemanding and accentuate the coign of vantage.
As parents, my wife and myself are very open with our young adult children. We don’t fight shy of discussing sensitive or controversial issues. Why? Because we are secure in ourselves. Those who are insecure are afraid. That is the tragedy of the Indian hierarchy; it is terribly insecure. Hence it bolsters itself with pious devotions on the one hand, and burgeoning institutions on the other. Remove these bulwarks, and the hierarchy will collapse like a house of cards.
For centuries Catholics were told not to read the Bible. It was fraught with danger for the uninitiated! The advent of the printing press, the Reformation in Europe, the French Revolution, industrialisation and resultant economic independence, the exposure to other religions, natural and behavioural sciences, and now the IT revolution; have threatened the hierarchical citadel of knowledge and power. They feel even more insecure. A courageous and humble man like Pope John XXIII, however, perceived it as an opportunity rather than a threat. With the convening of the Second Vatican Council he ushered in a new Pentecost.
Unfortunately, most of the Indian hierarchy seem to lack the vision and humility of good Pope John XXIII. Like ostriches, they have preferred to bury their heads in the sands of time. They have clammed up in pre-Vatican II fortified positions. They may be secure inside their citadels/ ghettos, but they are terribly out of sync with the outside world. A lost opportunity.
We need a new Pentecost in the Catholic Church in India, to de-code religion, to rediscover Jesus, to demystify the truth in love and service; and to build a vibrant, responsible, adult church with Caritas in Veritate.
Monday 21 September 2009
Sunday 13 September 2009
BEWARE, ADULTERY IS A CRIME
For all you guys with extra libido, here’s a dampener. If you are having an affair with your neighbour’s wife, you could end up with 5 years in jail, even if it is a consensual sexual relationship. There is a rider though. If your neighbour has no objection to such a relationship with his wife, you can breathe easy. The cops can’t catch you!
Do you think I’m nuts? I’m not, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is. Here are some extracts from Section 497 IPC, in layman’s lingo. “Whoever has sexual intercourse with … the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment… which may extend to five years… In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor”.
Shocking, but not surprising! The IPC was drafted by McCaulay and enacted by the Governor General as Act 45 of 1860. In those days a woman was still considered the property of the man, and had no rights of her own. Hence it was the husband’s property that was being transgressed, and his rights violated. If he had encouraged or permitted his wife to have sex with another man, for whatever reason, it would have been with his consent, and therefore not a violation of his rights; and by consequence, not a crime.
What would we think of a man who allowed his wife to be used by another man – perhaps to curry favour, or avoid harassment? A despicable coward? Unfortunately, Abraham, the father of the faith, did just that; not once, but twice!
When he went to Egypt, he was afraid that the Egyptians would kill him in order to take his beautiful wife Sarai. So he passed her off as his sister, and she was taken into Pharaoh’s household. In exchange, Abraham got top billing, and sheep, oxen, donkeys, camels and slaves. When Pharaoh later came to know that Sarai was actually Abraham’s wife he banished them from Egypt. (cf Gen 12:10-20). Abraham repeated the same dirty trick when he settled in the region of Gerar, and gave his wife as his sister to its King Abimelech (cf Gen 20: 1-7).
The Dictionary of The Bible by Rev John L McKenzie SJ also states that the “Hebrew morality of adultery rested upon the primitive conception of the wife as the property of the husband. Only the rights of the husband could be violated” (Pg 14). So why blame the IPC alone?
Recently there was a big shindig when the Delhi High Court struck down Sec 377 of the IPC that had criminalized homosexual acts. It is about time that Sec 497 was also modified; if the Govt does not consider itself to be a moral guardian. Just as with homosexuality, which most people consider immoral, so too with consensual adultery; it should not be treated as a crime. The provision for consent or connivance of the husband should be abolished forthwith. If at all adultery is still retained as a crime in the IPC, then both the man and the woman should be equally treated as criminals, not just the man.
Unfortunately, there are many other sections in the IPC that seem totally out of sync with the modern world. Here are some glaring anomalies. The punishment for fighting in public places and disturbing the peace is just one month (Sec 159). The punishment for obscene acts or songs in public is 3 months (Sec 294). For spreading a dangerous disease (Sec 269), food adulteration (Sec 272), drug adulteration (Sec 274), rash and negligent driving endangering human life (Sec 279) one incurs just six months of punishment.
However, mischief causing damage upto Rs 50/- (like breaking a window pane) would be punished by two years imprisonment (Sec 427). Mischief to kill or maim somebody’s animal worth Rs 10/- would entail two years (Sec 428), and if the animal is worth more than Rs 50/- it would mean 5 years in jail (Sec 429)! Should the IPC then be renamed as the Idiotic Penal Code? I hope that lawyers and Bar Councils will take up the various anomalies and incongruences in the IPC.
Other than the criminality of adultery, what about its morality? According to the Mosaic Law, adultery was a sin (Ex 20:14). It attracted death by stoning (Ezk 16:40). Murder and adultery are often referred to in the same breath, as in the Ten Commandments. Even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church clubs adultery with murder, blasphemy and perjury (cf CCC 1756 & 1856). It is classified as a mortal sin (CCC 1856), presuming that there is full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). Here again there is a rider. “The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offence, as can external pressures or pathological disorders” (CCC1860).
Fortunately the catechism departs from the Mosaic and IPC concept of the woman being the property of the man. It does not differentiate between the sexes. Be it a man or a woman, if (s)he is married and has sex with a third person, it is adultery (CCC 2380). It is considered an injustice, breach of marital commitment and a transgression of the rights of the spouse (CCC 2381).
Finally, what does Jesus think about adultery, and how does he relate to adulterous persons? He raises the bar in his Sermon on the Mount when he says that even “if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mat 5:27-28). By that token most men should end up burning in Hell!
While on the one hand Jesus is stern in his moral code, on the other he is full of compassion and empathy. He openly associates with tax collectors and “sinners”, a word synonymous with sexual offenders. The self-righteous Pharisees resented this. But Jesus says, “It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. Go and learn the meaning of these words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice. And indeed I came to call not the upright, but sinners” (Mat 9:12-13). He did not hesitate to associate with the Samaritan woman who was co-habiting with her sixth partner (cf Jn 4:18), something that his disciples also didn’t understand.
The icing on the cake is when the scribes and Pharisees bring to him a woman caught red handed in adultery. (Those male chauvinists didn’t think it important enough to also catch the man red handed or red faced)! Would Jesus now subscribe to the Mosaic Law of stoning, or recommend compassion? It was a Catch 22 situation – damned either way. But Jesus is the super Human Relations guru who knows how to handle tricky and conflict situations. His classic reply is “ Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her” (Jn 8:7). He then writes in the dust, and the accusers bite the dust, quietly slithering away. What had turned the tide? Antaryami Jesus had written the names of all those self-righteous accusers who had themselves had sex with that poor woman. Then Jesus says, “Has no one condemned you? Neither do I. Go away, and from this moment sin no more” (Jn 8:11).
I am a sinner, so I am really happy and comforted to have Jesus in my life, to guide and forgive me. But if you don’t believe in Jesus’ teachings, then beware of Section 497 of the idiotic penal code, while jumping into bed with your neighbour’s wife!
Do you think I’m nuts? I’m not, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is. Here are some extracts from Section 497 IPC, in layman’s lingo. “Whoever has sexual intercourse with … the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment… which may extend to five years… In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor”.
Shocking, but not surprising! The IPC was drafted by McCaulay and enacted by the Governor General as Act 45 of 1860. In those days a woman was still considered the property of the man, and had no rights of her own. Hence it was the husband’s property that was being transgressed, and his rights violated. If he had encouraged or permitted his wife to have sex with another man, for whatever reason, it would have been with his consent, and therefore not a violation of his rights; and by consequence, not a crime.
What would we think of a man who allowed his wife to be used by another man – perhaps to curry favour, or avoid harassment? A despicable coward? Unfortunately, Abraham, the father of the faith, did just that; not once, but twice!
When he went to Egypt, he was afraid that the Egyptians would kill him in order to take his beautiful wife Sarai. So he passed her off as his sister, and she was taken into Pharaoh’s household. In exchange, Abraham got top billing, and sheep, oxen, donkeys, camels and slaves. When Pharaoh later came to know that Sarai was actually Abraham’s wife he banished them from Egypt. (cf Gen 12:10-20). Abraham repeated the same dirty trick when he settled in the region of Gerar, and gave his wife as his sister to its King Abimelech (cf Gen 20: 1-7).
The Dictionary of The Bible by Rev John L McKenzie SJ also states that the “Hebrew morality of adultery rested upon the primitive conception of the wife as the property of the husband. Only the rights of the husband could be violated” (Pg 14). So why blame the IPC alone?
Recently there was a big shindig when the Delhi High Court struck down Sec 377 of the IPC that had criminalized homosexual acts. It is about time that Sec 497 was also modified; if the Govt does not consider itself to be a moral guardian. Just as with homosexuality, which most people consider immoral, so too with consensual adultery; it should not be treated as a crime. The provision for consent or connivance of the husband should be abolished forthwith. If at all adultery is still retained as a crime in the IPC, then both the man and the woman should be equally treated as criminals, not just the man.
Unfortunately, there are many other sections in the IPC that seem totally out of sync with the modern world. Here are some glaring anomalies. The punishment for fighting in public places and disturbing the peace is just one month (Sec 159). The punishment for obscene acts or songs in public is 3 months (Sec 294). For spreading a dangerous disease (Sec 269), food adulteration (Sec 272), drug adulteration (Sec 274), rash and negligent driving endangering human life (Sec 279) one incurs just six months of punishment.
However, mischief causing damage upto Rs 50/- (like breaking a window pane) would be punished by two years imprisonment (Sec 427). Mischief to kill or maim somebody’s animal worth Rs 10/- would entail two years (Sec 428), and if the animal is worth more than Rs 50/- it would mean 5 years in jail (Sec 429)! Should the IPC then be renamed as the Idiotic Penal Code? I hope that lawyers and Bar Councils will take up the various anomalies and incongruences in the IPC.
Other than the criminality of adultery, what about its morality? According to the Mosaic Law, adultery was a sin (Ex 20:14). It attracted death by stoning (Ezk 16:40). Murder and adultery are often referred to in the same breath, as in the Ten Commandments. Even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church clubs adultery with murder, blasphemy and perjury (cf CCC 1756 & 1856). It is classified as a mortal sin (CCC 1856), presuming that there is full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). Here again there is a rider. “The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offence, as can external pressures or pathological disorders” (CCC1860).
Fortunately the catechism departs from the Mosaic and IPC concept of the woman being the property of the man. It does not differentiate between the sexes. Be it a man or a woman, if (s)he is married and has sex with a third person, it is adultery (CCC 2380). It is considered an injustice, breach of marital commitment and a transgression of the rights of the spouse (CCC 2381).
Finally, what does Jesus think about adultery, and how does he relate to adulterous persons? He raises the bar in his Sermon on the Mount when he says that even “if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mat 5:27-28). By that token most men should end up burning in Hell!
While on the one hand Jesus is stern in his moral code, on the other he is full of compassion and empathy. He openly associates with tax collectors and “sinners”, a word synonymous with sexual offenders. The self-righteous Pharisees resented this. But Jesus says, “It is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick. Go and learn the meaning of these words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice. And indeed I came to call not the upright, but sinners” (Mat 9:12-13). He did not hesitate to associate with the Samaritan woman who was co-habiting with her sixth partner (cf Jn 4:18), something that his disciples also didn’t understand.
The icing on the cake is when the scribes and Pharisees bring to him a woman caught red handed in adultery. (Those male chauvinists didn’t think it important enough to also catch the man red handed or red faced)! Would Jesus now subscribe to the Mosaic Law of stoning, or recommend compassion? It was a Catch 22 situation – damned either way. But Jesus is the super Human Relations guru who knows how to handle tricky and conflict situations. His classic reply is “ Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her” (Jn 8:7). He then writes in the dust, and the accusers bite the dust, quietly slithering away. What had turned the tide? Antaryami Jesus had written the names of all those self-righteous accusers who had themselves had sex with that poor woman. Then Jesus says, “Has no one condemned you? Neither do I. Go away, and from this moment sin no more” (Jn 8:11).
I am a sinner, so I am really happy and comforted to have Jesus in my life, to guide and forgive me. But if you don’t believe in Jesus’ teachings, then beware of Section 497 of the idiotic penal code, while jumping into bed with your neighbour’s wife!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)