WAS IT REALLY THAT EARLY?

To a large extent I would agree with Farrukh Dhondhy’s piece, “Leaving Office Early” (HT 15^th February), on the unexpected resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Some of his statements bear repetition: “Nothing becomes Benedict’s office as his leaving of it … he has through his resignation demonstrated for our sceptical times that the papacy is not a throne, but a grave responsibility … No other religion in the world today has the means to boast of such a humble and at the same time grand gesture. Even calling it a gesture is an impertinence … With enhanced respect there is a pontiff who resigns power through awesome humility”.

Dhondhy describes himself as a non-ritualistic Zoroastrian, author and columnist, based in London. I am also an author and columnist, but happily resident in the country of my birth. I am a Catholic, a believing yet questioning one, who also does not give too much importance to rituals. As an “insider” there are many more things about the papacy and Catholicism that I could now share. Here I would differ from Dhondhy’s simplistic observation that the Catholic Church has been both persecutor and persecuted. Such a statement could very well apply to every religion, nation or even married couples. In this context, what distinguishes Catholicism from the others is that it has the best-documented history, hence been under the microscope of both friend and foe.

With the advent of perpetual protestor, Anna Hazare, in the public space, the politician has become the favourite whipping boy, often with good reason. Similarly, after the Reformation and Renaissance in Europe, Catholicism became the soft target, again, often with good reason. But it would be grossly unfair to demonise Catholicism just because we do not accept homosexuality or abortion. Nor does Islam. Would columnists have the guts to criticise Islam in similar vein?

In all humility I accept that there are many failings and shortcomings in the Church, but that does not warrant demonising it. Even fiction writer Dan Brown had to name his book on the Vatican “Angels & Demons”! I too would not like to demonise, trivialise or even pedestalise Catholicism. I believe in pragmatic existentialism, which has more than fifty shades of grey, and very little in black and white.

For example, it would be grossly unfair to label Catholicism as anti-science. One Galileo fiasco does not a summer make. Infact Nicolas Copernicus (1473 –1543), a Polish monk, who was a renowned mathematician and astronomer, a century before Galileo, (1564 – 1642) established that the earth orbited the sun, but he was not “persecuted” by the church. Sylvester II, the 139^th pope, a Frenchman, had doctorates in maths and science. He is credited with inventing the pendulum clock in 1003. Likewise, the 183^rd pope, John XXI from Portugal, had studied medicine before he became pope in 1276. He was more interested in science than religion. He was actually working in his laboratory during a storm, when the roof caved in, causing his death. The Vatican infact has its own department of science, and even an astronomical (not astrological) observatory. Here in India the Jesuits (St Xavier’s) have imparted the best scientific education to millions. Likewise, the Salesians (Don Bosco) have trained the best technicians. So no demonisation please.

The same goes for trivialisation. This has assumed monstrous proportions with the mad race for “breaking news” on TV channels, which have little or no time for verification or straining out fact from opinion. TV hogs end up gulping the tea with the tealeaves!  That causes heartburn. The same goes for the twitter bugs. Most have an uninformed opinion. Most of the tweets about the pope’s resignation, published in HT on 12^th February were in exceedingly poor taste. Again, had such remarks been made about some other religious leaders, there would have been bloodshed. So Dhondhy was right in saying that there are no Catholic jihadis or terrorists. Thank you sir.

At the other end I am also against pedestalisation of the papacy, or any other religious authority, for that matter. We pedestalise a person when we put him “up there”, beyond reach or reason, while we ourselves remain “down here”, to merely pray, pay and obey, as we lay people call it.

St Peter, the first pope, was fully human, his frailty often manifest. He tried taking up a sword to protect Jesus, and was rebuked for doing so. Shortly after that came his infamous triple denial of Jesus, just before the crucifixion. Jesus trusted his sincerity, despite his frailty. A study of the history of the papacy reveals that several of them, especially during what were termed the “dark ages”, were shady or downright evil characters. We need to remember this to avoid repeating such historical blunders.

Now to the present. There is speculation of an African or a Latin American becoming pope. Why not? For centuries the papacy was a near monopoly of Europe, or even Italy. But Peter himself was from Palestine in the Middle East. The 11^th, 87^th and 90^th popes (Anicetus, Sininnius and Gregory II) were from Syria. The 14^th, 32^nd and 49^th popes (Victor I, Meltiades and Gelasius I) were all from Africa. But they were probably from the Semitic races, the North African Arabs, and not from the Negroid races.

Among the amazing papal elections was that of the 20^th pope, Fabian. He was a simple farmer, a bystander, when a dove descended on him. It was interpreted as divine intervention, and he was straight away ordained deacon, priest and bishop, all in one go. At the other extreme was the 130^th pope, John XII. Because of his influential father he was made pope when he was just 18 years of age. To put it mildly, he was immoral to the core. A study of papal elections down the ages shows that all kinds of factors were at play, not all of them divine.

To revert to Dhondhy, the Catholic Church has ”settled down”.  The fireworks may be missing.  But settling down also leads to comfort, complacency and compromise.  Since the Catholic Church is the single largest organised entity in the world, its global impact cannot be minimized.  So who gets to be the 266^th pope is certainly a matter of concern, not just to Catholics, but to all world citizenry, for which we need to express ourselves.

Oh yes, Mr. Dhondhy, it was not really a case of leaving office early. As the saying goes, it is better to retire when people ask why, rather than later, when they ask why not?

FEBRUARY 2013