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