Does this title shock you? It is meant to. Is it audacious? The word is described as being recklessly daring. I am being daring; but reckless? Wait till you finish reading this. Our former President APJ Abdul Kalam advised young people to dream with their eyes open, so as to convert their dreams into reality. That is true daring. It is a calculated risk. And nothing risked is nothing gained.
What Kalam said in a national context is exactly what the first Pope, St. Peter, said, in his very first public address. Explaining the Pentecostal experience Peter first dispelled the false notion that they might be drunk, saying it was still the “third hour of the day” (Acts 2:16). He then went on to quote the Prophet Joel by saying, “I shall pour out my spirit on all humanity. Your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your young people shall see visions, your old people dream dreams” (Acts 2:17). So it is sagacious, not audacious, to have dreams, even of becoming Pope!
I have a one-in-600-million chance of becoming Pope, because that is the approximate number of male Catholics in the world today. Since I am married and nearing 60, the odds against my becoming Pope can be multiplied by another million. So I have a 1-in-600-trillion chance of becoming Pope. It does not deter me from having my vision of the Papacy.
MY NAME: If I were to be the Pope I would take the name of Peter the Second, not because I envisage the end of the world, a la Malachy, but because Peter is my favourite biblical persona. I closely identify myself with the fumbling and bumbling fisherman. At his very first encounter with Jesus, Peter actually asked Jesus to leave him alone (cf Lk 5:8). At the Transfiguration when Jesus was giving him the keys and renaming him Peter, he again misunderstood Jesus’ intentions (cf Lk 9:33). He floundered in faith while walking on the water (cf Mat 14:30). He couldn’t face a young girl’s questioning, and denied knowledge of Jesus (cf Mat 26:70). At the Ascension he couldn’t commit himself to unequivocally stating that he loved Jesus (cf Jn 21:15-17). There was obviously something more than human frailty that Jesus saw in him, to appoint him the first Pope (in today’s parlance.)
THE DREAM: There was a hue and cry when Peter II became the Pope. The first indication of what was to come is that the stock markets in America, Europe, Japan, Hong Kong and even India, crashed. It is believed that these shadowy figures, that control share prices, have a better world view than Heads of State, Finance Ministers or leaders of religion. As Peter II unfolded his vision for the Catholic Church, the markets crashed further, and OPEC countries faced bankruptcy, because the price of crude oil had crashed to $10 per barrel.
THE ACTS OF PETER II: The first act of the new Pope was to auction all the treasures in the Vatican museum, amounting to several billion dollars. With such a flood of artwork on the markets auction houses like Sotheby’s and Christies couldn’t handle the rush. The price of MF Hussain’s paintings also crashed. A scrap dealer in Bhayandar bought one for Rs. 10,000/-.
Peter II’s second act was to close all the Vatican embassies throughout the world. He did not believe that the papacy needed to be an earthly power, having diplomatic immunity and status. However, because of the past history of conflict with Roman emperors, he retained Vatican City as a neutral city-state, similar to the UN headquarters in New York. When a red-sashed and red-faced Cardinal had the audacity to challenge the Pope’s decisions Peter II told him about one of his predecessors who was escorting an atheist friend around the Vatican museum. In a lighter vein the then Pope had remarked that like St. Peter he could not say “Silver and gold I have none”. Smack came the atheist’s retort, “That is why you cannot also say – In the name of Jesus, get up and walk”. The Pope was alluding to the incident referred to in the Acts of Apostles, of a lame person seeking alms from Peter at the temple (cf Acts 3:1-6). The Cardinal beat a hasty retreat. After the initial crash, the markets began to pick up gradually. Peter II strongly felt that power and pelf had clouded the vision of the Church, and made a clarion call for simplicity of life. He set an example by walking down the streets of Rome, and visiting the poor in the ghettoes. Rather than going to Castel Gandolfo as a summer resort, he decided to spend 6 months every year in a Benedictine monastery, including working in the fields and with the cattle. It brought him close to nature and to mother earth. He asked all his bishops and priests to live simple and prayerful lives, reminding them that “No man can serve two masters” (cf Lk 16:13). He removed all medieval honorifics that prefixed the names of Bishops, like Lord, Grace and Eminence. He directed to be known as brothers (friars), not as fathers; in keeping with fraternal ecclesiology, and Jesus’ own advice to call no man Father as we have only one Father in heaven (cf Mat 23:9). Together with monetary power he sought to remove psychological power that evolved from paternalistic relationships.
He exhorted the hierarchy to get out of their entrenched and fortified positions to prepare for a new Pentecost, a fresh out pouring of the Spirit, as prayed for by his humble predecessor Pope John XXIII. He convened the Third Vatican Council (Vat III). The markets again became volatile.
VAT III: In a fast changing world, where “Breaking News” was every minute, there was an urgent need for aggiornamento (updating). Vat II had concluded in 1965 (46 years ago), the New Code of Canon Law had been promulgated in 1983, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992. It was time to take stock again. He felt pained that the vision of Vat II had been watered down, especially in terms of the Church’s own self-understanding, and its consequent attitudinal change vis-à-vis the world, science and other religions. He did not believe in a Clash of Civilisations. He believed that to be civilized one must be conciliatory in nature. As a prelude to VAT III he directed that every Episcopal Conference organise a national synod to prepare for the third millennium of Christianity. The exercise would involve all levels of the Church from the parish onwards; and all sections like youth, women, clergy, religious and laity. He did not prepare a Lineanmenta (guideline) but he did express some of his concerns that needed redress:
PETER II’S CONCERNS:
· Why the vision of Vat II was not implemented, especially in de-structuring the Church, and making it more participatory; including the collegiality of bishops and the fraternity of the laity?
· The need for ecumenical unity with other churches, and a bigger interface with leaders of other religions.
· An open dialogue with science, especially in the areas of genetics, human reproduction and the sanctity of life; as also a more pastoral and understanding approach to those in moral conflict situations.
· The question of married priests and the ordination of women
· The first Council of the Church was held in Jerusalem when St Peter had to justify his act of doing away with circumcision as a pre-requisite to being God’s chosen people, saying “God was giving them the identical gift he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ: and who was I to stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:17). Perhaps the time had come to reconsider whether an external act like Baptism alone was the gateway to the Kingdom?
· He even touched on seemingly innocuous phrases from the Our Father and Hail Mary, like “forgive us our trespasses” or “the fruit of your womb”, suggesting that the language of our prayer should be commensurate with modern idiomatic usage.
· He asked for study circles in all parishes to reflect on three important documents of Vat II: (1) Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) (2) Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) and (3) Declaration of the Relationship of the Church to non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate).
POSTSCRIPT: I know that I will never be the Pope and I have no desire to be so either. Neither do I wish any disrespect to the Papacy. Both my parents were papal awardees – my father with the Knighthood of St Gregory, and my mother with the “Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice” medal. When Pope John Paul II came to New Delhi in 1986, after receiving communion from his hands I knelt down and kissed his feet. This does not mean that as a loyal member of the Catholic Church I should turn a blind eye to what I see happening, or not happening around me.
I pray for a new Pentecost in the Church. I pray for the convening of Vat III. I pray that the Church in India, having the advantage of a pluralistic, ancient, religious and also secular society, takes the lead in building up a groundswell of opinion for VAT III or better still JERUSALEM II. I dare to dream.
# The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union and former Director of the International Council of Catholic Men.
JANUARY 2011
Friday 11 February 2011
CALLING NAMES
There is a report that Pope Benedict, while recently baptising some children, had advocated that they be given Christian names. He frowned upon naming children after celebrities. This has me flummoxed. What exactly is a “Christian” name? Also, what is in a name?
No doubt I will be reminded of the saying that a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. Is there any connection between a name and the person or thing named after it? Do names have any significance at all? And what qualifies as a Christian name? Going by the literal meaning of their names I must ask if Sridevi is a goddess, Kishore Kumar ever young, or Meena Kumari ever virgin? If Benedict is considered a Christian name, then what of its Hindi translation – Ashirvad? Would Pope Benedict XVI, with his strongly Euro centric vision, decline to baptise a child named Ashirvad? If during a Litany in Hindi would the Pope object to “Haathi Dant ka Garh”, the equivalent of “Tower of Ivory”?
Would he still want adivasis from remote villages of Jharkhand to be called Hilarius, Fulgentius or Polycarpus; as deemed appropriate by Belgian missionaries of yesteryear? How would Hilarius be in Hindi, a funny word called majak? What about ethnically Malayali names derived from Christian saints like Verghese (George), Kurian (Cyriac), Chinnamma (Ann) or Aleykutty (Elizabeth)? Jyoti (Lucy) and Pushpa (Teresa of the Little Flower) are among the list of hundreds of Hindi names prepared by Padmavibhushan Fr Camille Bulcke SJ. Many of these names have Sanskrit roots, and can be adapted to other Indian languages. Would the Pope find these names un-Christian because they are not European or anglicised?
Supposing a child was being named Michael, what guarantee that it was Michael the Archangel and not Michael Jackson? If it were Elizabeth, it could be after Queen Elizabeth, and not the cousin of Mary!
Is Mary a Christian name? Most biblical names have been heavily anglicised in India. The actual Hebrew word is Miriam, which means “beloved of God” – in Hindi Ishpriya. Jesus again is an anglicisation. In Greek it is spelt Iesus, in the actual person’s native Aramaic it is Yesua, and in Hebrew Yehosua, which means Yahweh is salvation or Yahweh helps . In Hindi it is spelt as Yesu or Yishu and in Urdu as Isa. Joseph is actually Yosep in Hebrew, a tribal name that means, “let him gather” .
Would a priest in Mumbai baptise a child as Dawood Ibrahim, named after an absconding terrorist, or after the heroes of the Old Testament – David and Abraham? Are Yusuf (Joseph), Moosa (Moses), Suleman (Solomon), Ayub (Job) or Yunus (Jonah) Muslim or Christian names? Who decides?
How have names evolved? In China there are so many Lis that it is a demographic problem. When I called out to my friend Jose at a crossing in Kochi the traffic stopped, because every second guy was called Jose! For Sikhs all names have to be based on an alphabet from the Guru Granth Sahib, again leading to a very small name base. When the British came to India they had a problem classifying people for municipal or other records, so they adopted the western model of Christian name, Middle name and Surname. Hindus used Kumar/ Kumari as their middle names, and their caste, like Gupta or Pande, as their surnames. In Kerala the order is reversed – first the house name, then the father’s name and then one’s own name. P.T. Usha had a problem explaining this at the Olympics. Parsees chose their profession like Engineer, Doctor or Merchant, or their village like Barucha, Billimoria as their surnames. Those who follow Arabic or Persian scripts, that are written from right to left, actually have their first name written last by “normal” standards. Then again some Hindus have given “Christian” names like Tommy and Jimmy to their dogs! It is therefore more than apparent that giving names is a complex business.
There are also many communities that have started adapting names for sociological or demographical reasons. Many Parsees called Jamshed got anglicised to Jimmy. Goans like Pereira became Perry, or Fernandes became Ferns, in order to pass off as Anglo-Indians and obtain benefits from the British. Fed up with Jose and Kutty Malayalis have now started calling their offspring Princy and Bincy. In Punjab Shergill has become Sherry and Parminder has become Pammy. As part of “Christianisation” Makwanas in Gujarat became Macwan. In the north Lal became Lyall, while Pal became Paul.
I too changed my name, and for good reason. My baptismal name (I am letting the cat out of the bag) with its addition at Confirmation is (hold your breath) – Allan Peter Ralph Francis of Assisi de Noronha! Quite a mouthful. More than a line-full too! I couldn’t squeeze it into my exercise book when the teacher told me to write it twenty times. Exasperating. Legally I still have that name. But even in its short form, when entered onto my voter’s identity card, and transliterated back to English, it got distorted to L.N.D. Narona. It doesn’t serve as proof of my identity.
Names can sometimes have an adverse or prejudicial impact, as Shahrukh Khan tries to portray in the movie “My Name is Khan”. Many Hindus wonder why Indian Muslims retain Arabic or Persian names, instead of adapting to Indian culture? (Teesta Setalwad’s husband Javed Anand is an exception). In that sense Hindus definitely feel comfortable with Christians adopting Indian names, rooted in the local culture.
Here is a last salvo before I get real serious. What would you call cattle excreta – cow dung or bullshit? They mean the same but their connotations and applications are different. So we see that besides religion there is a lot more that goes into a name – language, culture, convenience, circumstances, connotations and identity. The Pope therefore should not try to impose his views on parents seeking to name their children.
There is also a flip side. Do parents have an unfettered right to name their children as they please? Dalits earlier gave their children derogatory names like Gobaru and Dukhi. Remember Kachra from the movie Lagaan? In France there is an official list of names formulated by the state. France jealously guards its separation of State and Religion. This list was therefore not based on religion, but to protect the interests of the child.
Jesus, being born in a Jewish family, was given a common Jewish name. This is what scripture says about God assuming human form in Jesus. “He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming as human beings are” (Phi 2:7). He was “sending his own Son in the same human nature as any sinner” (Rom 8:3). “It was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brothers” (Heb 2:17). This is called the Incarnational approach; as distinct from the transplantation approach where you take a coconut sapling from Kerala to Kashmir, and expect coconuts to grow there.
The Second Vatican Council is even more explicit when it talks of the interface between religion, culture and language. The “Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church” (Christus Dominus) exhorts bishops to provide for different languages (CD 23). The “Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church” (Ad Genetes) says that missionaries are expected to “gain a more thorough knowledge of the history, social structure and customs of the people … to learn languages to the extent of being able to use them in a fluent and polished manner” (AG 26). It further states, “from the customs and traditions of their people, from their wisdom and their learning … these churches borrow all those things which can contribute to … the proper arrangement of Christian life” (AG 22).
The “Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World” (Gaudium et Spes) has an entire chapter on “The Proper Development of Culture”. It states that “there are many links between the message of salvation and human culture. For God … has spoken according to the culture proper to different ages” (GS 58). And again, “The church is not bound exclusively and indissolubly to any race or nation, nor to any particular way of life or any customary pattern of living ancient or recent” (GS 58). There needs to be a balance between faith and culture, based on mutual respect.
This does not mean that I advocate anonymity. We should feel a legitimate pride in being Indian Christians, fully Indian and fully Christian. Whenever the Republic Day or Gallantry Awards are announced, or elections are held, I look to see how many Christians figure in the list. The names do give some indication of who they are. I know that Margaret Alva, Eduardo Faleiro and Oscar Fernandes are Christians. I also know that former and present Defence Ministers George Fernandes and A.K. Antony are of Christian origin, though professedly agnostic. We know that Sonia Gandhi is also of Christian origin, though she declined to receive Holy Communion when the world was watching at Mother Teresa’s funeral! From their names we would not know that Purno Sangma or Vijay Amritraj are Christians. But D. Napoleon, an M.P. from Tamilnadu is not a Christian. Names have both their relevance and their limitations too.
So the next time somebody takes a child for baptism do give a thought to both religion and culture. I hope that parish priests will also read this. If you are left wondering why I am now known as chhotebhai, you’ll have to wait for an opportune moment. Till then let us call each other names – meaningful ones.
* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union.
FEBRUARY 2011
No doubt I will be reminded of the saying that a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. Is there any connection between a name and the person or thing named after it? Do names have any significance at all? And what qualifies as a Christian name? Going by the literal meaning of their names I must ask if Sridevi is a goddess, Kishore Kumar ever young, or Meena Kumari ever virgin? If Benedict is considered a Christian name, then what of its Hindi translation – Ashirvad? Would Pope Benedict XVI, with his strongly Euro centric vision, decline to baptise a child named Ashirvad? If during a Litany in Hindi would the Pope object to “Haathi Dant ka Garh”, the equivalent of “Tower of Ivory”?
Would he still want adivasis from remote villages of Jharkhand to be called Hilarius, Fulgentius or Polycarpus; as deemed appropriate by Belgian missionaries of yesteryear? How would Hilarius be in Hindi, a funny word called majak? What about ethnically Malayali names derived from Christian saints like Verghese (George), Kurian (Cyriac), Chinnamma (Ann) or Aleykutty (Elizabeth)? Jyoti (Lucy) and Pushpa (Teresa of the Little Flower) are among the list of hundreds of Hindi names prepared by Padmavibhushan Fr Camille Bulcke SJ. Many of these names have Sanskrit roots, and can be adapted to other Indian languages. Would the Pope find these names un-Christian because they are not European or anglicised?
Supposing a child was being named Michael, what guarantee that it was Michael the Archangel and not Michael Jackson? If it were Elizabeth, it could be after Queen Elizabeth, and not the cousin of Mary!
Is Mary a Christian name? Most biblical names have been heavily anglicised in India. The actual Hebrew word is Miriam, which means “beloved of God” – in Hindi Ishpriya. Jesus again is an anglicisation. In Greek it is spelt Iesus, in the actual person’s native Aramaic it is Yesua, and in Hebrew Yehosua, which means Yahweh is salvation or Yahweh helps . In Hindi it is spelt as Yesu or Yishu and in Urdu as Isa. Joseph is actually Yosep in Hebrew, a tribal name that means, “let him gather” .
Would a priest in Mumbai baptise a child as Dawood Ibrahim, named after an absconding terrorist, or after the heroes of the Old Testament – David and Abraham? Are Yusuf (Joseph), Moosa (Moses), Suleman (Solomon), Ayub (Job) or Yunus (Jonah) Muslim or Christian names? Who decides?
How have names evolved? In China there are so many Lis that it is a demographic problem. When I called out to my friend Jose at a crossing in Kochi the traffic stopped, because every second guy was called Jose! For Sikhs all names have to be based on an alphabet from the Guru Granth Sahib, again leading to a very small name base. When the British came to India they had a problem classifying people for municipal or other records, so they adopted the western model of Christian name, Middle name and Surname. Hindus used Kumar/ Kumari as their middle names, and their caste, like Gupta or Pande, as their surnames. In Kerala the order is reversed – first the house name, then the father’s name and then one’s own name. P.T. Usha had a problem explaining this at the Olympics. Parsees chose their profession like Engineer, Doctor or Merchant, or their village like Barucha, Billimoria as their surnames. Those who follow Arabic or Persian scripts, that are written from right to left, actually have their first name written last by “normal” standards. Then again some Hindus have given “Christian” names like Tommy and Jimmy to their dogs! It is therefore more than apparent that giving names is a complex business.
There are also many communities that have started adapting names for sociological or demographical reasons. Many Parsees called Jamshed got anglicised to Jimmy. Goans like Pereira became Perry, or Fernandes became Ferns, in order to pass off as Anglo-Indians and obtain benefits from the British. Fed up with Jose and Kutty Malayalis have now started calling their offspring Princy and Bincy. In Punjab Shergill has become Sherry and Parminder has become Pammy. As part of “Christianisation” Makwanas in Gujarat became Macwan. In the north Lal became Lyall, while Pal became Paul.
I too changed my name, and for good reason. My baptismal name (I am letting the cat out of the bag) with its addition at Confirmation is (hold your breath) – Allan Peter Ralph Francis of Assisi de Noronha! Quite a mouthful. More than a line-full too! I couldn’t squeeze it into my exercise book when the teacher told me to write it twenty times. Exasperating. Legally I still have that name. But even in its short form, when entered onto my voter’s identity card, and transliterated back to English, it got distorted to L.N.D. Narona. It doesn’t serve as proof of my identity.
Names can sometimes have an adverse or prejudicial impact, as Shahrukh Khan tries to portray in the movie “My Name is Khan”. Many Hindus wonder why Indian Muslims retain Arabic or Persian names, instead of adapting to Indian culture? (Teesta Setalwad’s husband Javed Anand is an exception). In that sense Hindus definitely feel comfortable with Christians adopting Indian names, rooted in the local culture.
Here is a last salvo before I get real serious. What would you call cattle excreta – cow dung or bullshit? They mean the same but their connotations and applications are different. So we see that besides religion there is a lot more that goes into a name – language, culture, convenience, circumstances, connotations and identity. The Pope therefore should not try to impose his views on parents seeking to name their children.
There is also a flip side. Do parents have an unfettered right to name their children as they please? Dalits earlier gave their children derogatory names like Gobaru and Dukhi. Remember Kachra from the movie Lagaan? In France there is an official list of names formulated by the state. France jealously guards its separation of State and Religion. This list was therefore not based on religion, but to protect the interests of the child.
Jesus, being born in a Jewish family, was given a common Jewish name. This is what scripture says about God assuming human form in Jesus. “He emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming as human beings are” (Phi 2:7). He was “sending his own Son in the same human nature as any sinner” (Rom 8:3). “It was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brothers” (Heb 2:17). This is called the Incarnational approach; as distinct from the transplantation approach where you take a coconut sapling from Kerala to Kashmir, and expect coconuts to grow there.
The Second Vatican Council is even more explicit when it talks of the interface between religion, culture and language. The “Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church” (Christus Dominus) exhorts bishops to provide for different languages (CD 23). The “Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church” (Ad Genetes) says that missionaries are expected to “gain a more thorough knowledge of the history, social structure and customs of the people … to learn languages to the extent of being able to use them in a fluent and polished manner” (AG 26). It further states, “from the customs and traditions of their people, from their wisdom and their learning … these churches borrow all those things which can contribute to … the proper arrangement of Christian life” (AG 22).
The “Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World” (Gaudium et Spes) has an entire chapter on “The Proper Development of Culture”. It states that “there are many links between the message of salvation and human culture. For God … has spoken according to the culture proper to different ages” (GS 58). And again, “The church is not bound exclusively and indissolubly to any race or nation, nor to any particular way of life or any customary pattern of living ancient or recent” (GS 58). There needs to be a balance between faith and culture, based on mutual respect.
This does not mean that I advocate anonymity. We should feel a legitimate pride in being Indian Christians, fully Indian and fully Christian. Whenever the Republic Day or Gallantry Awards are announced, or elections are held, I look to see how many Christians figure in the list. The names do give some indication of who they are. I know that Margaret Alva, Eduardo Faleiro and Oscar Fernandes are Christians. I also know that former and present Defence Ministers George Fernandes and A.K. Antony are of Christian origin, though professedly agnostic. We know that Sonia Gandhi is also of Christian origin, though she declined to receive Holy Communion when the world was watching at Mother Teresa’s funeral! From their names we would not know that Purno Sangma or Vijay Amritraj are Christians. But D. Napoleon, an M.P. from Tamilnadu is not a Christian. Names have both their relevance and their limitations too.
So the next time somebody takes a child for baptism do give a thought to both religion and culture. I hope that parish priests will also read this. If you are left wondering why I am now known as chhotebhai, you’ll have to wait for an opportune moment. Till then let us call each other names – meaningful ones.
* The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union.
FEBRUARY 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)