One would not have expected a furore over ex-communication
in the papacy of Pope Francis; who has repeatedly been asking the clergy not to
close doors, but to open up the Church to welcome even those with whom it may
be seemingly in conflict with.
But
the unthinkable has happened. Martha and Gert Heizer, a lay couple, that are
leaders of a church reform group in Austria, have been ex-communicated. This
has raised the hackles of reformist lay leaders across the globe, especially of
a group “Catholic Church Reforms International” (CCRIL), with which I am
associated. As a consequence I am in the loop of hundreds of emails from
different parts of the world, expressing diverse views. Among the Indians in
the loop are three venerable doctors – Dr James Kottoor, Dr Astrid Lobo
Gajiwala and Dr John Dayal. I am not a doctor, and don’t nurse any grudge about
it!
What
is the furore all about? Is the Catholic Church again behaving like a Fuhrer –
a ruthless dictator? The alleged transgression of the Heizers is that they
assumed the role of a priest, and “celebrated” the Holy Eucharist on their own.
It is not clear if this was a one-off flash in the pan, or was it something
that they were doing regularly, and inviting others to participate. It is also
not clear if the ecclesiastical authorities under whose territorial
jurisdiction they come, took cognizance of the matter, issued warnings or
sought explanations, before taking the extreme step of ex-communication (removal
from the Catholic Church, and denial of the sacraments). Hence I reserve
comment on this specific ex-communication.
However,
this action has opened up a Pandora’s Box. On the one hand we have the
particular circumstances that led to this act, and on the other is the evolving
mindset of many laypersons that love the Church, but are not necessarily in
agreement with some of its orthodoxy or orthopraxis.
So
what led the Heizers to do what they did? Was it an act of open defiance of
ecclesiastical authority, a case of misplaced ardour, or one of genuine
pastoral concern? We cannot judge their actions because we are not aware of the
motive. One may here digress to say that in a murder mystery the investigators
first try to determine the motive behind the crime.
However,
from various reactions emanating from Europe and America, some genuine concerns
do arise. The first is the acute shortage of priests in Europe, sometimes just
one priest for 10 parishes. In the reversal of roles of the erstwhile foreign
missionaries, Europe is now banking on priests from India and Africa. Europeans
do not feel at ease with the “imported” priests, who have a conservative
mindset. Their authoritarian manner doesn’t fit into the ethos of a
participatory European parish. Ironically, it is felt that young priests today
have a pre-Vatican II mindset, something certainly not peculiar to Europe! It
is even more prevalent in our cultic Indian ethos.
This
raises a fundamental question. What kind of vocations are we attracting to our
seminaries? The Vatican II “Decree on Priestly Formation” states, “careful
enquiry should be made concerning the rightness of intention and freedom of
choice” (OT No 6). These two factors cannot be presumed. In the Abbott
edition of the Vatican II Documents that I have (the first English
translation), Alexander Carter, in his introduction to the Decree has this to
say: “A seminary is not a lumber mill or a smelter. It cannot take a raw youth
and, after subjecting him to a few approved processes, turn out a neatly
fashioned or keenly honed priest”. Devoid of jargon, this means that no matter
how much you refine iron ore, you will end up with iron or steel, not gold or
silver!
The
root cause is not the priests being churned out of our seminaries, but the
quality (spiritual, emotional and intellectual) of the raw material entering
there. Once they enter the system (especially in India, where becoming a priest
is considered a prestigious thing, and sometimes a support mechanism for
impoverished families) the element of “freedom of choice” is severely
curtailed. When pious, docile, traditionalist youngsters, with no experience of
life, enter our clerical refineries; even their rightness of choice
becomes suspect. So it is not the exit gate that we need to watch, but the
entry point. In its inordinate haste for quantity in its seminaries, the Church
has compromised greatly on quality, and we are all the poorer for it. There are
no short cuts in the Lord’s vineyard.
Granted
that there is a dearth of priests, both in quality and quantity, does it give
the Heizers, or anybody else, the right to hijack that role? Two wrongs do not
make a right. The Heizers will have greatly erred if they have tried to assume
priestly office, no matter what the circumstances. Such an act would be
considered a direct challenge to the very foundation of the Church on Apostolic
Succession, and ecclesiastical discipline. The Heizers seem to have mistaken
their prophetic role for a priestly function. From Old Testament times the
offices and roles of prophets and priests were distinctly different. Infact the
prophets were often at dalliance with both priest and king, the three arms of
the people of God.
Rev
Josef Neuner SJ, himself an expert advisor to Vatican II, and coincidentally
also Austrian, though based in India, wrote a small book “The Prophetic Role of
the Laity”, that had a great impact on me. He identified the five
characteristics of a prophet as (1) One who speaks in the name of the Lord (2)
His message is contextualised – specific, not generalized (3) He is confronted
by the power of evil (4) His only weapon is the Word of God (5) His life is no
longer his own. A prophet therefore must speak out clearly, based on God’s
Word, in a given context, and be prepared for isolation and persecution. Quite
a tall order, but there it is. If indeed the Heizers feel that they are
fulfilling a prophetic role, inspired by the Holy Spirit, then they must be
prepared to be misunderstood, and face the consequences. This has happened
right through the history of the People of God. However, this does not mean
that those supportive of their cause be mute spectators, if they perceive any
injustice.
To
be fair to all concerned, let us also examine the process of ex-communication,
as laid down in Canon Law. I am no expert. Nevertheless, I share what I have
studied. Book VII of Canon Law deals at length on judicial processes in the
Church. There are two kinds of ex-communication. One is ferendae sententiae,
that which is imposed after the judgment of an ecclesial court; presumably
after following a prescribed judicial process, and giving the accused an
opportunity to be heard. The second is latae sententiae, which is
automatically incurred on committing a particular offence, “without
intervention or judgment”! This latter goes against all norms of jurisprudence.
In India we have inherited British jurisprudence that is based on the premise
that a person is innocent till proven guilty. A latae sententiae ex-communication
is contrary to this norm.
This
severe form of punishment is prescribed in the following cases – (1)
Desecration of the Eucharistic species (Can 1367), (2) A physical assault on
the Pope (Can 1370), (3) A priest who grants absolution in a case of adultery
(Can 977 & 1378:1), which is not very clear to me, (4) A bishop who
consecrates another as a bishop without papal approval, and the person so
consecrated (Can 1382), (5) A confessor who breaks the confessional seal of
secrecy (Can 1388), and (6) A person who actually incurs an abortion (Can 1398).
Other
than the last instance, all the others pertain to ecclesiastical authority or
discipline. Only the last is a purely moral issue, which one needs to discuss
at length separately. One of the emails drew my attention to Canon 1318, which
states that the greatest moderation must be exercised in cases of latae
sententiae ex-communication. There seems to be some anomaly here. If
something is incurred automatically, without “judicial intervention”, then
where is the scope for discretion or moderation?
In
the light of the above the questions that arise in the Keizers’ case are: Under
what process and provisions of Canon Law were they indicted? Were they given an
opportunity to be heard? Did they participate/ co-operate in the judicial/
enquiry process, if any? Were they given an opportunity to admit to performing
an act that goes against the very essence of the sacraments? Did they defy
ecclesiastical authority and declare that they would press on regardless? If
indeed so, then they cannot now cry “foul”. Before espousing their cause these
questions need to be answered. Whatever be the facts and circumstances of the
Heizer case, I have two critical points to make.
Firstly,
what is the need for us laity to assume or usurp the role and function of
priests? We don’t need them, nor their permission, for an agape (fellowship),
or for private prayer meetings/ gatherings. There is no doubt that the
sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are a source of grace. But God’s grace
and presence are not limited to the Eucharist. There are several other ways
through which God is present – in the Word, in the gathering of 2 or 3 in his
name, in our inner being, in our service to the least of the brethren etc. A
quote from the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” would be apt. “The distinction
which the Lord made between sacred ministers and the rest of the People
of God entails a unifying purpose, since pastors and the other faithful
are bound to each other by a mutual need” (LG No 32). I have
highlighted the key words. Here again I will use an analogy to make my point.
God made us male and female. We are in certain ways different, but nevertheless
complementary and compatible. It is precisely the difference that attracts,
unifies and binds us together, as we feel the need for each other. No analogy
is perfect, but I do believe that when priests live or behave like the laity,
or vice versa, then the attraction and bonding break down. Hence I see no need
for us laity to try and imitate or substitute the priests. Let us recognize our
own specific vocation in the vast arena of temporal affairs, while at the same
time fulfilling our prophetic office within the Church. I do not see the two as
being mutually exclusive.
My
second point is also a curative one. As an organizer I always emphasized,
“Communication is the lifeline of an organization”. As a marriage counselor I
have also repeatedly stressed, “Communication is the key to a successful
marriage”. This is where the problem lies. Vatican II ushered in a dialoguing
church – with the laity, other churches, other religions, the sciences etc.
However, as already observed, and prevalent worldwide, the Catholic hierarchy/
clergy are wary of dialogue (perhaps because of their own inherent insecurity
or inadequacy), and are gradually withdrawing into their pre-Vatican II shells,
or fortified positions. It is precisely this insecure and defensive mindset
that Pope Francis is seeking to change. Open-minded bishops and enlightened
laity must engage in open dialogue. Religion today is no longer a one-way
street (ein bahn in German). Several current church traditions, including a
celibate clergy and modern seminary formation, are relatively recent phenomena;
not rooted in scripture or apostolic times. Faith, like love, can never be
static. It keeps evolving. Vatican II was the greatest step in the evolution of
an entirely new ecclesiology.
We
know that the hierarchical establishment is a potent force. We also know that
huge churches, cathedrals and monasteries in Europe are now empty showpieces –
for camera toting, bus riding tourists, especially from non-Christian Asian
countries like Japan. If the hierarchy, ostrich like, continues to bury its
head in the sand, then the sands of time will wash them away.
What
should the laity do against a “formidable opponent”, to use a worldly
expression? Firstly, we are not an opposition, as in a parliamentary democracy.
We are more like spouses in a marriage. Hence we need to assert our rights. If
women today have asserted their rights it is not because they oppose men, but
because certain injustices and imbalances that have accrued over time needed to
be rectified. In like manner the laity needs to exercise its rights. How?
Firstly,
by knowing their rights as provided for in Vatican II documents and Canon Law.
Subaltern leaders have always stressed that knowledge is the greatest weapon
against oppression. Sadly, the laity is woefully lacking in its knowledge of
church teachings. Let us no longer wait for somebody to teach us, we have to do
it ourselves. In some western democracies the police first reads an arrested
person out his rights. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has not yet evolved
to that level of democratic functioning. Hence the laity will have to learn the
hard way.
The
second avenue open to the laity is its organization. We know that unity is
strength. We need to build up more and more lay organizations. The third avenue
is the media – print, electronic and social. We need to use them to the hilt,
to drive home our message, and to restore parity in a clerically dominated
church. As a last recourse we also have our civil rights, which would vary from
country to country. For example, in India our Constitution guarantees the right
to freedom of speech, and of gathering together.
The
top end of the spectrum may be ex-communication; but the bottom line lies in
communication. If we love our Church as an expression of Jesus’ presence, then
all of us must pursue the path of dialogue. Ex-communication is not the
solution. Being in-communication is.
* The writer is a former National President of the All
India Catholic Union, and former Director of the International Council of
Catholic Men.
No comments:
Post a Comment