VATICAN II ECCLESIOLOGY

 (AN INDIAN LAYMAN’S CRITIQUE)

1. INTRODUCTION:

In 1969, I obtained a copy of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council (Vat II). For several years thereafter Vat II meant little to me, as I was enamoured of the Holy Bible, and did not see the need of anything more! That was until 1978, when I attended a seminar at the National Vocation Service Centre (NVSC), Pune.

I got a rude shock because several priests and religious were openly critical of the church. I questioned a Spanish Jesuit, Rev Peter Ribes. His reply was an eye opener; “We criticize the church because we love it”. I have not forgotten his words, and still have a paper presented by him on pre and post Vat II ecclesiology. I am acutely aware that the word “ecclesiology” has little or no meaning to most people, even priests and religious. But for me Vat II is an ecclesiological watershed.

This takes me back to another seminar at the NVSC about “new services” in the church. We had no agenda, and were free to express ourselves. Funny things happened. We unintentionally went into a process of backward integration. From services we went to mission, from mission to vision, from vision to our understanding of “church” (ecclesiology), and from ecclesiology to the very person of Christ (Christology). We were back to square one, and the very fundamental question that Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?”[1]. I believe that this process, no matter how elementary it may seem, is crucial to a critical analysis of Vat II. 

From personal experience I would also assert that the answer should keep changing with time and circumstance. It is not enough to recite a pet formula one prepared 10, 20 or 50 years ago. Faith is like love, it cannot remain static. It increases, decreases, evolves or mutates; but it cannot remain the same. In my 44 years of active engagement with both church and society I have seen too many people who felt that they had the answers, and then rested on their oars. I do not per se believe in the “faith” of our fathers, that of my father, or mother church for that matter. Faith must grow and evolve. So must our ecclesiology. Which is why a critique of Vat II becomes imperative.

2. THE FIRST STIRRINGS:

I begin with the man who envisaged it – Pope John XXIII (J23), as reflected in his autobiography “Journal of a Soul”[2], all emphases mine. Less than 3 months after he was elected he announced his desire for the Council. He then prayed, “Renew in our days your miracles as of a second Pentecost”[3]. Three years later, at the opening of the council he referred to that announcement as “completely unexpected, like a flash of heavenly light”. It was not a sudden flash, but a gradual build up of what drove him. I quote some of his reminiscences after becoming Pope. “I have no longer any special ties in this life … the whole world is my family. This sense of belonging to everyone must give character and vigour to my mind, heart and actions”[4]. He says, “Meekness and humbleness of heart give graciousness in receiving, speaking and dealing with people”[5]. He believes in the maxim “Know thyself” which “suffices for my spiritual serenity and keeps me on the alert”[6]. That is why he says, “One must always be ready for the Lord’s surprise moves”[7]! If J23 had not been detached, meek, humble, open, with self-awareness, decisiveness, and equanimity, Vat II would never have seen the light of day. The lack of these very virtues in the church would subsequently destroy his vision.

3. AN OVERVIEW OF VAT II:

Vat II promulgated 16 documents. Of these, two were Dogmatic Constitutions, one a Constitution, another one a Pastoral Constitution, nine Decrees, and three Declarations; obviously in descending order of import. Of these the two path breaking ones are the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” (LG); and the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World” (GS). Earlier Councils were concerned with defining doctrine or defending the faith. Vat II was not church-centric. It was existential and expansive; addressing wide-ranging issues like marriage, politics, economics, communications, non-Christian religions etc. It bore the stamp of J23’s own character

To understand the Council we need to probe the circumstances that occasioned it.  Vat II was more circumstantial than circumspectedly planned. In the language of J23, this would have been the surprise element induced by the Holy Spirit. Europe, erstwhile Christendom, was then emerging from the ravages of World War II, where “Christians” bitterly fought each other. It broke the back of Christendom – its social fabric, family values, and belief in divine providence; making an entire post-war generation cynical or skeptical about organized religion. The industrial revolution, scientific advancement, women’s liberation, sexual freedom and an atheistic Eastern Bloc left the churches empty, and increasingly redundant. There were the anti-Vietnam War flower people (hippies) in America, the Beatles in England, the Sorbonne University uprising in France and the Red Brigade in Italy. They were all anti-establishment, with which the Catholic Church was identified. On its cover page, Time magazine published, “God is Dead”. It was a challenge to organized religion.

J23 thought otherwise. He saw it as an opportunity, not a threat. He needed to re-establish the supremacy of the divine, of spiritual and moral values. The Church needed to re-invent itself, to be relevant to the modern world. It was in this backdrop that the Council was convened, and now needs to be evaluated.

4. AN EVALUATION:

I begin with the observations of that colossus among theologians, Rev Avery Dulles SJ. Speaking of LG he says, “Avoiding rigid definitions and scholastic or juridical subtleties, the Council shows a marked preference for vivid and biblical language. The mystery of the church is viewed in terms of the paradoxical union between the human and the divine. … The orientations of LG are pastoral, Christocentric, biblical, historical and eschatological. The tone of the document is moreover strongly ecumenical … It explains Catholic teaching in a way that avoids giving unnecessary offence to other modes of thought and speech. … Authority is viewed in terms of service rather than domination. In many respects the Constitution strikes a democratic note … The Constitution is a great document, eventhough, being the fruit of the Holy Spirit working in imperfect human beings, it is a stepping stone and not a final accomplishment … This Constitution deserves to be called the most imposing achievement of Vat II”[8].

I have put the preceding paragraph in parenthesis, because every word is pregnant with meaning. It captures the very essence of Vat II. In1976, when I first met prolific writer Rev R.H. Lesser at Ajmer, he had said to me that a genius is one who can put complex ideas into a nutshell, easy to understand. By that yardstick Rev Dulles’ aforesaid statement is undiluted genius.

I have heard many clergy and religious, especially the “activist” types, aver that GS is far more progressive than LG.  I would rather go along with Dulles. Without LG, GS would have no basis. As a lay leader, with 44 years of ecclesiastical involvement, I state with sorrow and anger, that the vision of LG has, over the years, been diluted, bypassed and relegated to the dustbin of history. The Catholic Church, at least in India, is not meek, humble, open, ecumenical, egalitarian, democratic, biblical or eschatological. It has instead chosen a comfort zone and reverted to tried and tested ways of institutionalization, status quoism and cultic religiosity. To be open means to be exposed. The church is afraid of exposure to science, other religions, other churches, other ways of thinking etc. Ostrich like it buries its head in the ground, surrounded by pious devotions, hierarchical and liturgical pomp, and a false sense of achievement – always boasting of its institutional services. This is because the Indian Catholic hierarchy seems sadly lacking in those qualities of J23, aforementioned. I have good personal relationships with many bishops, priests and religious. Some have even been under my tutelage. They are “good guys”. But the good is the greatest enemy of the perfect; the perfection to which the Lord invites us[9].

5. LUMEN GENTIUM:

Some quotations/ observations from LG will indicate why I find it so path breaking, especially for us laity (all emphases mine):

“Mankind today is joined together more closely than ever before by social, technical and cultural bonds”[10]. This is indicative of an expansive, broad minded and holistic approach.  The Church “becomes on earth the initial budding forth of that kingdom”[11]. It is therefore a work in progress, not a fait accompli, and therefore susceptible to change and growing pains. “In the building up of Christ’s body there is a flourishing variety of members and functions”[12]. Here again the emphasis has changed from uniformity to diversity. The Church “forms one interlocked reality which is comprised of a human and divine element”[13]. This is a humble and frank admission of human frailty, which can also be prone to error. “Many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of her visible structure”[14]. This is another humble admission that the visible, structured, organized Catholic Church is not the sole repository of truth or grace. “The Church, embracing sinners in her bosom is at the same time holy … like a pilgrim in a foreign land”[15]. Here again the Church admits that it is still a pilgrim, enroute, not yet arrived or “saved”.

There is more. “The family is, so to speak, the domestic church”[16]. The family is not just a part of the church, but a unique way of actually being church. “The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office”[17]. So the laity must speak out like the prophets did, even if those in authority don’t like it. “The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honoured with the name of Christian”[18]. Hence ecumenism, as part of our dogmatic constitution, is integral to our mission and not an optional extra. The next article goes even further and admits that Jews, Muslims, non-Christians and even those “who have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life”[19] can attain salvation through God’s grace. This is path breaking, setting aside the old claim that there is no salvation outside the church.

 Now we will see how a changed ecclesiology redefines our mission. One example will suffice. Earlier foreign missionaries traveled to distant lands, enduring great hardships, to “save the idolaters from going to hell”. There is the hoary old story of a missionary seeing a ship capsize in the ocean. Since they were already in the water he had nothing to do but pronounce the words of baptism, and thereby save a myriad souls! Sometimes an exaggeration or an apocryphal story serves to make a point. For centuries the church’s mission (shared by all other Christian churches) was primarily to save souls from going to eternal damnation. It is possible that some missionaries may have felt that the end justified the means, hence may have used dubious means to convert people. Now the converse is happening. Many “missionaries” are now at a loose end, wondering what to do, as they wander aimlessly through life.

6. ORDAINED MINISTRY:

This change in ecclesiology is now reflected in the role of its ordained members. It continues by stating, “Those ministers who are endowed with sacred power are servants of the brethren”[20]. This is a cruel joke. 50 years after the Council the ordained (clerical class) have even more firmly established themselves as the rulers, while the laity continue to be cattle class! With reference to bishops it says, “The ecumenical councils held though the centuries clearly attest this collegial aspect”[21]. This again has far reaching consequences, by asserting the collegiality of bishops, a term quite incomprehensible to the laity. Put simply it means that Jesus established the church as an apostolic one, with a group of apostles, not just Peter; with the Pope being the first among equals. It is from here that the claims to individual churches and Rites arise. In practice this means that if St Thomas the Apostle came to India and established a church, he did it in his own right, and not by virtue of some papal bull issued by St Peter or any of his successors in Rome. This is another fundamental ecclesiological change, or rather a reversion to what it should have been from the very beginning. The more we delve into LG’s teachings the more do we realize that Vat II was indeed a drastic re-orientation of the church’s orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

 In India we lament that though we have one of the finest Constitutions in the world, it is a mere scrap of paper, if it is not implemented. So too I lament that the vision of Vat II have been reduced to a scrap of paper because it is observed in the breach. Sometime in 1985, I had requested a priest to speak to us about the role of the laity according to Vat II. His reply shocked me. He had never read the documents. Nowadays my interaction with the clergy is largely limited to saying hello after Sunday Mass. Conversations are limited to “safe” topics like the weather, sports or politics. Serious discussion is taboo. Obviously the clergy cannot and will not talk about Vat II. I would throw an open challenge. How many times have we heard Vat II ecclesiology expounded in Sunday sermons? The answer would be a resounding “Seldom, if at all”. I therefore indict the hierarchy and clergy of India for their abject failure in implementing the ecclesiology of Vat II.

One should not be unduly surprised at the clergy’s apathy to expounding Vat II. Just as the bishops have been elevated to apostolic levels with the pope, through collegiality, the laity has been elevated to the level of the clergy, through fraternity. However, the clergy see this as an erosion of their authority and exalted position, and therefore resent it. In Transactional Analysis we talk of Parent-Child and Adult-Adult relationships. Most priests are distinctly uncomfortable in relating to the laity as adults. The vast majority of the laity is also quite happy remaining at the level of the child, without assuming responsibility, or seeking to grow in critical awareness. If a parent entrusts a child with a small errand, like buying a packet of milk, the child experiences a great sense of accomplishment. So too many of our lay leaders and parish councilors are tickled pink if they are tasked with organizing a parish picnic or Corpus Christi procession. They cannot aspire beyond that, which is their limit of ecclesial involvement or ecclesiological understanding.

LG delivers a hard blow to the all-powerful clergymen. It says that “Priests do not possess the highest degree of the priesthood … they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power“[22]. Despite such a strong constitutional provision, weak-kneed bishops don’t have the courage to take on their errant clergymen, as reflected in the clerical pedophile cases in the west. It becomes increasingly obvious, that just as Vatican I was considered the Council for the Pope, Vat II must be considered the Council for the bishops and the laity.

7. THE LAITY:

Chapter IV, which is captioned “The Laity”, reflects this changed self-understanding. I am consolidating some of them, for clarity and continuity of thought. “Everything that has been written so far applies equally to the laity[23]. Pastors must recognize the services and charismatic gifts of the laity[24]. The laity are sharers in the priestly, prophetic and kingly offices of Christ[25]. A secular quality is special to the laity who engage in temporal affairs[26]. The lay vocation lies in ordering temporal affairs according to the plan of God[27]. “Pastors and the other faithful are bound to each other by a mutual need”[28]. This is adult-adult inter-dependence, as in a spousal relationship, and not that of one side calling the shots. “The laity have Christ for their brother … they also have for their brothers those in the sacred ministry”[29]. Does one need further proof of the professedly fraternal relationship between the clergy and the laity.

I never address priests as “Father”. It is awkward when every body else around me is “fathering” them. But I have stood my ground. Vat II ecclesiology is again deeply rooted in scripture. In 2005 some priests (both Catholic and Orthodox) in Bhopal, M.P., were outraged at Protestant and Pentecostal pastors calling themselves “Father”.  I did not know whether to be amused or angry. Why should Catholic, or any other priests for that matter, be called “Father”?  Jesus was explicit in saying, “Call no man Father, for you have only one Father, who is in heaven”[30].  Jesus never had a paternalistic attitude.  He always had a fraternal (brotherly) approach. If we reflect deeply on the words and actions of Jesus, we find that he was very judicious in relating to people, and abjured all forms of cultic adulation or pedestalisation.

Peter, who succeeded Jesus, was also fully human.  He had learnt the lessons from his master.  That is why, when a devotee wanted to fall at his feet, he reprimanded the latter, telling him that he too was an ordinary mortal like him[31]. There is absolutely no scriptural/ biblical basis for priests to be called Father. Small wonder then that some clergy are not comfortable with Vat II ecclesiology.

LG goes on to say, “Every layman should openly reveal to them (pastors) his needs and desires with that freedom and confidence that befits a son of God and a brother in Christ. An individual layman … is permitted and even sometimes obliged to express his opinion on things which concern the good of the church”[32]. It continues. “Let pastors recognize and promote the dignity as well as the responsibility of the layman in the church. Let them willingly make use of his prudent advice. Let them confidently assign duties to him in the service of the church, allowing him freedom and room for action. Further let them encourage the layman so that he may undertake tasks on his own initiative” [33]. Need one say more?

These are the words of the Dogmatic Constitution, not of a rebellious layman. In the light of the above the Catholic hierarchy of India is guilty of gross dereliction of duty and serious acts of omission in not implementing the mandate of Vat II vis-à-vis the laity.

8. THE PAPAL EFFECT:

As things stand, what is the Catholic Church without papal leadership? In a still subservient and hierarchical church, it is the top guns that matter. A leader impacts his followers, and an effective leader can either affect great change, or stifle it. I have always held that the driver is more important than the car. A good driver can deliver, come what may. I give the example of T.N. Sheshan, the former Chief Election Commissioner of India. He did not introduce any new law. He just went by the book, and instilled the fear of hell in the political class; a tradition that his successors in office have successfully upheld. I also quote former Prime Minister of India, Sri I.K. Gujral, who once said that if you have to sweep a staircase you have to begin from the top. There is also the old adage that when a fish rots, it begins from the head. The Catholic Church is not yet ready for an Arab Spring. Tahrir Square in Cairo, or Tianmen Square in Beijing, is not the same as St Peter’s Square in the Vatican. So we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that change or cleansing in the church must begin with the one standing on the balcony of St Peter’s Square, and not from the flag waving, “Viva il papa” crowds below. Papal leadership then is critical to the church. It is in this context that we need to look at the role of recent popes, and most importantly, the incumbent Pope Francis.

As stated at the very beginning, J23 was a visionary. He opened the window. But it was Pope Paul VI who had to preside over the post-conciliar storm, which he did with sagacity. This sagacious pope did not get the credit that he deserved for bringing Vat II to fruition, and the consequent renewal of the church. Pope John Paul II, in the initial years of his papacy, did follow the path of Vat II, as reflected in the Code of Canon Law (1990) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) promulgated by him. His social doctrine and affable nature endeared him to the youth. However, with age and infirmity, he too, in the latter half of his papacy, fell back more on pious devotions and canonization of saints. He was unable to tackle the clerical pedophilia crisis that engulfed the church. It was pathetic to see him mumble and fumble at the beatification of Mother Teresa, as witnessed on TV. He was unable to let go, which is not a good sign of leadership

At his death I had written to all our Indian cardinal electors not to vote for Pope Benedict XVI (B16), which I foresaw as tragic for the church. He went so far as to term dissident laypersons “betrayers like Judas”. He had earlier expressed doubts about Vat II teachings. He seemed bent on turning the clock back. Living in papal isolation, writing theological works and unable to face a crisis squarely, he spared the church further damage by mercifully resigning. As one papal commentator said, the greatest act of his papacy was to resign. We are yet to know if he resigned out of humility (sensing his own inadequacy), or out of cowardice (unable to face crisis, scandal and opposition).

This brings us to the present incumbent, Pope Francis (PF). After the resignation of B16 I again wrote to all the Indian cardinals and published my expectations from the papacy in several journals. But never in my wildest dreams did I expect to see somebody like PF getting elected. It was a miracle. For one who has had a long association with the Franciscan way of life, his choice of Francis of Assisi was ominous for me, and my joy knew no bounds. Four months after his election I am still praying a decade of the rosary every morning for him, and always the third mystery! For Joyful it is the Nativity – the incarnate poor, so precious to Francis of Assisi. For Sorrowful it is the Crown of Thorns – for uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. For Glorious it is the Descent of the Holy Spirit – for he will require all the inspiration and strength possible for renewing the church!

For years I questioned the work of the Holy Spirit in the election of popes, and the appointment of bishops. This time I am thanking God. We are aware of PF’s lifestyle before and after becoming pope. Is he just a sweet old guy, whom the world, and powerful forces in the church itself, will tolerate, till he fades into oblivion? From the indications so far I think that it is PF himself who is biding his time, carefully assessing all the factors at play, before he actually plays his hand. It is going to be strong hand, used gently. I anticipate that he will renew the church just as St Francis of Assisi did seven centuries ago. As with J23, we should not mistake PF’s simplicity for weakness. As Mahatma Gandhi showed in our own land, it requires immense strength to be weak. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had to reluctantly admit that the “naked fakir” had made the sun set on the mighty British Empire. St Paul expressed this spiritual paradox when he said, “When I am weak then I am strong”[34].

I have earlier quoted J23 on being prepared for “the Lord’s surprise moves”. We need to fasten our seat belts because PF is poised for take off. He will strive to make the vision of Vat II a reality, because it is the work of the Holy Spirit. We need to look beyond his personal characteristics of simplicity (which has grabbed the maximum attention). Among his first remarks were to sleep well and have a good appetite. These are not off-the-cuff casual remarks. Years ago a Camoldenese contemplative monk told me that the primary requisite for a contemplative was a good appetite and good sleep, as also the ability to work hard. So PF was making a deeply spiritual statement, which the world has taken casually. His reference to food, sleep etc is also an indication of his being deeply human. From the time he has become Pope he has repeatedly referred to himself as the “Bishop of Rome”, and not as the pope. He is professing apostolic collegiality, rather than papal supremacy. This has already set alarm bells ringing. Italian liturgist Mattia Rossi said that PF’s appointment of papal advisors was a “demolition of the papacy  … with a fuzzy concept of collegiality”[35]. Jose Mujica, the professedly atheist President of Uruguay, who had a warm and lengthy meeting with PF said of the latter, “I think that if they let him, he is going to make a revolution inside the church, towards simplicity”[36]. Such expectation, as also apprehension, expressed by a Head of State, should forewarn us for what lies ahead.   

It has been reported that PF has not taken up cudgels against abortion and gay marriages, issues which dominated debate and dissent in the previous papacy. This is not as a dilution but a prioritization. Coming from a third world country, where poverty and injustice are endemic, PF has more pressing concerns.  A small incident gives another insight into his mindset. He spoke of an unwed mother being denied baptism for her child. He condemned this act saying, “This is not zeal! It is far from the Lord! It does not open doors”[37]. So PF is not moralizing. He is following a pastoral rather than a dogmatic approach. He is echoing the ecclesiology of LG that says that the church embraces sinners in her bosom, as quoted earlier. He added “We are many times controllers of faith, instead of becoming facilitators of the faith of the people”[38].

Openness and ecumenism are also hallmarks of Vat II ecclesiology. Here again we find that PF has entered into dialogue with the Coptic Church of Egypt. He is reportedly thinking about a meeting of the three monotheistic Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – in order to further world peace, as JP2 had done at Assisi. He has also categorically stated that atheists can go to heaven[39]. So his thoughts are echoing what has already been expounded in LG.

One could go on and on about PF. He has been referred to as an unconventional pope whose “change in style is a matter of substance”[40]. I would sum up PF in the words of Rev Antonio Spadaro SJ, the editor of the Vatican newspaper La Civilt Cattolica, that PF has made “significant gestures that immediately convey very powerful messages”[41]. PF has indeed restored my faith in the Catholic Church.

9. CONCLUSION:

I would conclude that LG’s ecclesiology needs to be strongly asserted and implemented. Ecclesiologists have expressed this change in the four illustrations given below. Earlier the church was structured like a pyramid, with the laity at the bottom. We were then presented the concentric model (a level playing field). Here again the laity was moved from the bottom to the periphery. No real progress. However, my self-study throws up a two-tier model with collegiality and fraternity, as stated herein above.

The second illustration shows the aloofness of the church. Churches and mission compounds were built in secluded spots, where the world would not intrude on its pristine glory. But after Vat II embraced “The joys and the hopes, the grief and the anxieties of the men of this age”[42] the church on the secluded mountaintop had to become the inserted and involved church of the busy marketplace. This did happen in the first flush of post-conciliar enthusiasm. It has since withered away. The third illustration is just two arrows that express more than a torrent of words. The earlier emphasis was on a ruling oligarchy, which now admits that it has come to serve rather than to rule.

The fourth illustration expresses the earlier authoritarian approach epitomized by the Latin saying “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” (Rome has spoken, the chapter is closed). There has indeed been a sea change in this area. The church now accepts that it is not the sole repository of truth. It acknowledges the “rays of truth” in other religions and it apologized to Galileo and the scientific world. It acknowledges the role of human sciences like psychology, sociology and anthropology. It also accepts, atleast in principle, that it should learn from the laity.  

These fundamental changes resulted in four major movements – Liberation Theology, Inculturation, Ecumenism and the Charismatic Movement. They were powerful movements that, with the passage of time, seem to have lost their cutting edge. We are now left with mere cosmetic changes, bereft of their deeper meaning. So we have priests dressing like us laity, nuns switching to saris, genuflection replaced by anjali hasta, and incense replaced by agarbattis. The external symbol has overshadowed the deeper attitudinal change. With PF now at the helm of church affairs I am looking forward to him again propelling us forward as envisaged by Vat II, and possibly head into Vat III.

July 2013

ABSTRACT

Since the writer is a layman, with no theological training, this paper is more of an experiential journey than an academic journal. It is presented from a largely lay perspective. The writer shares the belief of theologian Rev Avery Dulles SJ, that Lumen Gentium is the real watershed of Vatican II. Hence he has focused on the changed ecclesiology and self-understanding of the church, as expressed in that document, and done a critical evaluation in that light. He holds the view that without a true understanding of the deeper attitudinal changes reflected in Lumen Gentium, no true renewal of the church is possible. He also opines that in a hierarchical and clerically controlled church, change must begin from above, in which context he expresses great hope in the papacy of the present incumbent, Pope Francis.

RESUME

Chhotebhai (62) is a college dropout. He lived for 7 years in a pristine ashram, Jyotiniketan, Bareilly, as a layman under the tutelage of Fr Augustine Deenabandhu Ofm Cap. Besides the Franciscan way of life, he has also had exposure to Jesuit spirituality through 30-day Ignatian retreats under stalwarts like Frs Josef Neuner and Dan Rice.

He has authored four books including “The Trinity & Me” (1979), published by St Paul’s, “Beyond 2000: The Other Side” (2000) a Christological work published by Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, and “An Unfinished Symphony” (2011), a collection of his writings, by Media House.

He is the former National President of the All India Catholic Union (1990-94), and Director of the International Council of Catholic Men (1994-96). He has written hundreds of articles and is actively involved in social, political, civic and environmental affairs. He is a businessman by profession.

---

[1] Cf Mat 16:15

[2] Published by Godfrey Chapman Ltd

[3] Journal of A Soul Pg 391

[4] Ibid Pg 298

[5] Ibid Pg 299

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] The Documents of Vatican II, Abbot Edition, pgs 11-13

[9] cf Mat 5:48

[10] LG 1

[11] LG 5

[12] LG 7

[13] LG 8

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] LG 11

[17] LG 12

[18] LG 15

[19] LG 16

[20] LG 18

[21] LG 22

[22] LG 28

[23] LG 30

[24] Ibid

[25] LG 31

[26] Ibid

[27] Ibid

[28] LG 32

[29] Ibid

[30] Mat 23:9

[31] cf Acts 10:26

[32] LG 37

[33] Ibid

[34] 2 Cor 12:10

[35] The Secular Citizen, Mumbai dt 27/5/13, Pg 5

[36] Indian Currents dt 10/6/13, pg 48

[37] Secular Citizen dt 24/6/13, Pg 9

[38] Ibid

[39] Indian Currents 24/6/13, pg 46

[40] Ibid pg 44

[41] Ibid

[42] GS 1