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

QUO VADIS MATER ECCLESIA?

This title is in Latin, meaning “Where are you going, Mother Church?” I have never studied Latin, so if my grammar is incorrect I hope to be pardoned. “Quo Vadis” is the name of a famous book and movie, based on an encounter between St Peter, the first pope, and the risen Christ. Peter asks Christ where he is going; to which Christ famously replies “Roam Vado Iterum Crucifigi” “I am going to Rome to be crucified again”. Peter who was trying to avoid walking the path to Calvary now repents and proceeds to Rome, where he is crucified upside down. This exchange is recorded in the apocryphal “Acts of St Peter” (Vercelli Acts XXXV).

But the query itself is not apocryphal. Peter actually asks Jesus this during the latter’s farewell discourse, when he says “Lord where are you going?” (Jn 13:36). To this Jesus replies, “Now you cannot follow me where I am going, but later you shall follow me” (Jn 13:37). In the context of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI my question is not who will be the next pope, but “Quo Vadis Mater Ecclesia?” If the second question can be answered then the first one will be easy.

To find an answer one needs to delve deep into church history in the light of modern reality. If not, we are bound to repeat the blunders of history. I begin with the resignation. The media has used three words to express peoples’ reactions – SHOCK or SURPRISE at the act, or SPECULATION at the consequences. Just one word expresses my feeling – RELIEF.

This may sound cowardly now that the incumbent is on his way out. But I have consistently and publicly held this position. Before the last Papal Conclave in 2005 I had written to all the Indian cardinals pleading with them not to choose the “panzer cardinal”, as Benedict was then known; and to opt for Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria or the one in Sao Paolo, Brazil. On the occasion of 50 years of Vatican II in November 2012, I had again written that the present pope lacked the virtues of his three predecessors - the simplicity of John XXIII, the sagacity of Paul VI and the dynamism (in his earlier years) of John Paul II. I also expressed these thoughts in the chapter “If I Were Pope” in my book “An Unfinished Symphony” published in 2011. So I have been clear with my own Quo Vadis.

If readers are still wondering at my sense of relief, this is why. I do not find anything said or done by the incumbent to commend him for posterity. On the contrary, he raked up enough controversies to set half the world against the Catholic Church – the Muslims, Jews and non-Christians by his insensitive utterances. Nor did he gain friends in Africa or South America with his observations on AIDS, condoms or ex-communication for abortion. While towing a hard-line on women’s ordination and clerical celibacy, he was allegedly much too soft on clerical paedophilia, even resulting in the recall of his Nuncio (ambassador) to staunchly Catholic Ireland. He went to the extent of labelling dissenters as “betrayers like Judas”. So why should I not be relieved?

Church history is replete with the misdemeanours of various popes. I will leave that for another article. For now all that I am averring is that a pope is not an indispensable commodity. He is infact disposable. The second reason for being relieved is a more practical one; what I saw of the latter half of John Paul II’s pontificate. I was a great admirer of the first half. His pink catechism touched the world. His social doctrine was loud and clear. He supported the Solidarity Movement in his native Poland that ultimately saw the collapse of the authoritarian Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union. He had a world presence and impact. I was privileged to receive communion from his hands during his first visit to New Delhi in 1986, and even kissed his feet. But I was dismayed at his second visit where, as a State guest, he proclaimed that the third millennium should see the conversion of Asia. What horrified me was to see a mumbling and fumbling old man at the beatification of Mother Teresa. What message did millions of TV viewers get? So I am relieved that, like Nebuchanezar, Benedict saw the writing on the wall and quit while there was still daylight.

So we are back to Quo Vadis. Where does the Catholic Church want to go, if at all? Would it prefer to be an ostrich burying its head in the sand? Is it ready to engage with the reality of an information explosion, or an increasing religious redundancy? How will it relate to, or reach out to, other religions, the natural and behavioural sciences, sexual ethics, the aspirations of women and youth? Will it shirk its duty, or, like Peter, walk the path of the crucifixion? 

The Catholic Church is the single largest entity in the world. Its impact, as we have seen in the case of John Paul II, is not limited to itself. Hence the choice of the next pope cannot be left to the deliberations of a handful of cardinals who will be in the Sistine Chapel. Each and every one of us Catholics, Christians and citizens of the world has a role to play and a voice to express in the election of the next pope. It is encumbent on us to immediately mobilise public opinion and debate.

Just a thought. In Sunday sermons I have often heard enthusiastic clergymen extol the virtues of modern martyrs like Abp Romero and Dom Helder Camarra. These Latin Americans had boldly stood for the rights of the poor and oppressed, and paid with their lives. Had they been alive in 2005 would the then cardinal electors have chosen one of them instead of Joseph Ratzinger? A sobering thought. Quo Vadis?

Having studied something of the history of the papacy I can unhesitatingly state that for almost 15 centuries it was mired in controversy, palace intrigues, invading armies, imperial intervention, nepotism, hedonism and simony. It struggled against heresies and schisms, while simultaneously fortifying itself from the buffeting storms outside. The papacy and hierarchy cocooned itself against its own inadequacy. In the process it became corpulent and opulent; a far cry from the carpenter of Nazareth who had no place to lay his head.

Then in the 13^th century God called a young man, Francis of Assisi, with the message, “Go and repair my church”. He never became a priest, but he had the courage to confront the pope and the cardinals. His absolute poverty and simplicity shook the conscience of the cocooned church. He once took a companion on a preaching mission. They travelled the whole day without saying a word. At the end the puzzled companion said that they had not preached anything. To that Francis replied, “Our life and presence have spoken more than a multitude of words”. The companion no longer needed to ask Francis “Quo Vadis”?

Francis was followed by a galaxy of great saints, many of who were founders of religious orders; like Sts Dominic, Alphonsus Ligouri, Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross etc. Their presence was a much needed course correction for the church.

There were other factors that also forced the Catholic Church out of its shell. The printing press was the first knowledge revolution, even making the Bible accessible to the common man. This was followed by the Protestant Reformation, the exposure to other religions through colonial expansion, the French and Industrial Revolutions, the challenges of Karl Marx and Charles Darwin, Women’s Suffragacy etc. All this culminated in the refreshing renewal of the Second Vatican Council.

This ushered in inter-religious dialogue, ecumenism, interaction with the sciences, a destructuring of an institutionalised church, de-latinisation through inculturation, as also liberation theology and the Charismatic Renewal. Unfortunately, over the last 25 years there has been a gradual regression into the old cocoon; being satisfied with pious devotions like novenas, rosaries, pilgrimages etc. It was afraid to answer the question that the world posed to it – “Quo Vadis”?

Today we are in the midst of an IT/ ITES revolution, a knowledge explosion and an unbridled social media. The tweets on Pope Benedict’s resignation are far from flattering.

Church leaders, both cleric and lay, must stand up and be counted. Do we need another Francis of Assisi? Do we need John the Baptist, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, “Prepare a way for the Lord, make his paths straight” (Lk 3:4). Do we need the Prophet Jeremiah to whom the Lord said, “Look, today I have set you over the nations and kingdoms, to uproot and to knock down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” (Jer 1:10).

Will we see any of such true Christians elected as the 266^th pope? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind that reiterates “Quo Vadis Mater Ecclesia?” Each one of us must find the answer in both prayer and enlightened debate. Only then can we proclaim that we are Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice.

FEBRUARY 2013

PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE - ALL TENSE

This is not about grammar, which is not my forte.  Nor is it about glamour. (Hard to believe that he who recently demitted office reverted to wearing red shoes - yuk).  This is a hard-boiled reflection on the papacy – its past, present and future.  As the 115 remaining cardinals in the consistory prepare to enter the Sistine Chapel, we need to push hard for pristine values that should be at the core of the papacy, Catholicism, Christianity and the entire world.

It is therefore imperative for every world citizen, not just the Catholics, to reflect deeply, and pray earnestly, for a new pope who should be the Vicar (representative) of Christ, rather than a Shepherd (we are not dumb sheep) or a Roman Pontiff (Rome is just an accident of history, and we have had enough of stiff and starched pontiffs). The only thing I like about Dan Brown’s writing is his statement that “history is written by the victors”.  This appears equally true for the history of the papacy.  Fortunately, I have with me a book “A Compact History of the Popes”, written by Rev P.C. Thomas, and published by St. Paul’s.  I have no reason to doubt its authenticity or bias in favour of the victors, the triumphalistic Catholic Church of the recent past.  This article is heavily dependent on the information contained in that book, and is duly acknowledged.

Indeed, we need to learn the lessons of the past, lest we commit the same blunders.  The history of the papacy, more particularly from the 4^th to 16^th Centuries, is far from flattering.  Papal elections have been fraught with violence, murder, cloak and dagger style intrigue, nepotism, simony, debauchery and all out wars.  Blatant evils of the past have, in more recent times, made way for subtler moves that may not attract media attention, or are difficult to prove.

In the past, the church and the papacy struggled for survival, against brutal Roman persecution (so why call ourselves Roman at all?)  Then there was the evolution of dogma, the Arian and Nestorian heresies.  The Canonicity of the Holy Bible (which books or texts were to be decreed as divine inspiration) was next.  Then came the great Schism of the East in the 11^th century, resulting in the separation of the Orthodox Churches. The 16^th Century saw the revolt of Martin Luther, resulting in the Protestant Reformation.  As I said in my earlier article “Quo Vadis Mater Ecclesia?”, Marxism, Darwinism, the French and industrial revolutions, the printing press, woman’s liberation, etc all challenged the Church, and its entrenched teachings. Space constraints prevent me form giving more details, but students of Church History will bear me out, that I am not making wild allegations.

The 20^th century saw popes like Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI seeking answers and trying to make the Church relevant to the times – resulting in the epochal pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).  Unfortunately, in the second half of his papacy, John Paul II started retracting into a shell (like a threatened tortoise).  Benedict XVI turned the clock back further with his golden crockery (poor butler), red shoes ((poor chambermaid) and jaundiced yellow views (poor us)!

I would love to believe that the past is behind us. It isn’t.  It is still staring us in the face.  Hence the need to focus attention on it.

This brings us to the present.  What do we see around us in both Church and the World?  The Catholic Church has already regressed on the wished for renewal of Vatican II.  What happened to ecumenism, dialogue with other religions, liberation theology, inculturation, biblical spirituality?  All gone down the drain, because of its “threat perception”.  What of the world?  From the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, we now face the sceptre of terrorism, most often linked to Islamist groups.  America’s armed response in Iraq and Afghanistan has only aggravated the situation.  With social networking and information technology, there are no more secrets.  We don’t need butlers to spring leaks. There are enough eyes in the sky and spies on the ground.

In world society we see other subtle changes.  There is the entire gamut of sexual ethics and norms.  There is a growing religious apathy or redundancy, especially among “developed” or affluent nations.  Earlier one prayed to God for rain; now one has to just switch on the tube well.  There is a growing assertion of women’s rights.  Oligarchies are now being asked for transparency and accountability.

Can the oligarchical, cocooned, defensive Catholic Church remain untouched by what is happening in the world and society?  To remain indifferent or distant would be to its own detriment.

To the future then.  We need a pope who can, not only guide and lead the Catholic Church, but also be a person who can interact with the world (specifically the Islamic world).  No “clash of civilizations” please.  We also need a figure who can empathize with what is happening in society, and make religion relevant to the modern human being, including women and youth.  This is not a tall order.  I often tell people that I follow Jesus not so much because he is the son of God, but because I see him as the perfect human being.  I can model my life on his words and actions.  I see in him the answer and solution to all my problems.  Jesus always referred to himself as “Son of Man”, Bar-e-nasa in his native Aramaic, or Aam Aadmi in today’s parlance.  In fact, the great mystic St Theresa of Avila in her classic “Interior Castle”, clearly states that the first room in the castle is the humanity of Jesus.  That is the stepping stone to divine intimacy and ecstasy.

So what kind of a pope am I looking at?  I am for a 6 H Pope - one who is Human, Humble, Honest, Holy, Harmonious and Hardworking.   This may sound like stating the obvious.  History is eloquent testimony that this has not been so.  Sadly, one does not even see these qualities in many of our cardinal electors, bishops or clergy.  So where will the pope come from?

Who should be Pope?  As per Canon Law he is the “head of the College of Bishops” (Can 331).  “If he does not have the episcopal character, he is immediately to be ordained bishop” (Can 332:1).  This clearly indicates that the choice of pope is not restricted to the cardinal electors, or even the bishops.  So the net may be cast much wider, beyond the 115 men in the Sistine Chapel.  Again, history is replete with instances of men who were not cardinals, or not present in the consistory, being elected popes.  In some cases humble monks declined or deferred the election.  We have instances were 3 or 4 persons were simultaneously claiming to be the pope.  There have been vacancies in the papacy for over 4 years.  On the other hand some papal electees actually died before they could be consecrated.  Some popes have had tenures as brief as 10 days.

Despite such vagaries the church is alive and affirms its “apostolic succession”.  So what is papal history saying to us?  It reminds me of the adage, “Haste makes waste”.  What is the hurry in electing a pope?  What is the imperative to have a new pope before Palm Sunday or Easter?  Why this inordinate haste?  Do we doubt God’s providence? Can we not learn from the past?

I believe that the office of the pope has far reaching consequences, beyond the pale of the visible Catholic Church.  This requires time, reflection, prayer and informed debate.  In a federal democracy like India we find that after a period of political turmoil or uncertainty, President’s Rule is imposed for a 6 month cooling off period.  In like manner I would feel that the collegial Catholic Church needs a 3 to 6 month gestation period.  Public opinion must be built up.  Sounding boards should be heard.  Issues should be raised and analyzed.  Wide ranging consultations should be held.  A sustained prayer campaign should be launched.  Why is the CBCI silent? Only then should a pope be elected.

All this may sound like wishful thinking.  Today’s dreams become tomorrow’s reality.  So I dare to dream; as the first pope, St. Peter, said we would, if we are filled with the Holy Spirit.  Whether the next pope is white, brown, yellow, black or red (I mean his skin not his shoes) is immaterial, provided he has the 6H formula; and an extended period of discernment is facilitated.

Having studied the past, and analyzed the present, I am tense and apprehensive about the future.  Many of past papal elections could in no way be attributed to the working of the Holy Spirit.  To the contrary.  So this time around I sincerely hope and humbly pray that 230 ears (each cardinal presumably has 2) will be open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.  Till then, like an expectant mother, I am tense.

MARCH 2013

“IF I WERE POPE!”

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