When I first read Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar’s piece “The Pope’s moral blunders on outsourcing” (STOI 2/8/09) I was furious with the Pope for blundering into an area that is not his core competence – economics. I was inclined to believe Aiyar’s opening line that religion and business rarely mix well.
I belong to a Christian family that has been doing business for 150 years, hence am acutely conscious of how difficult it is to do business, while upholding religious or moral principles. On the other hand, being in the literary field, I also believe that it is important to go to the actual sources of information, to arrive at the truth. Accordingly I went to the Vatican website to see for myself the papal encyclical that Aiyar has quoted.
It was promulgated by the present Pope on 29/6/09, entitled “Caritas in Veritate”. That is the Latin title, which in English would read, “Love in Truth”. The title is misleading. It is infact a socio-economic treatise from a moral or spiritual perspective, in response to the current world economic crisis.
It was now my turn to be furious with Aiyar, for a blatant distortion of truth. I was shocked at how Aiyar has grossly misinterpreted the encyclical, and arrived at his own distorted conclusions. It seems to be a deliberate attempt at defaming and maligning the Pope, and thereby the billions of Catholics worldwide.
To begin with, Aiyar bases his arguments and conclusions on just one line from a 48 page encyclical. Even a dispassionate reading of that one line alone proves quite the contrary to what Aiyar has tried to deduce. Infact, Aiyar advances all his own opinions, and then quotes the Pope towards the end of his article. By then he has already prejudiced the reader into seeing the Pope’s statement in the light of his (Aiyar’s) own terribly subjective observations. Aiyar is entitled to his opinions, but he has no business to palm them off as the Pope’s teachings. Let us examine some of them.
He alleges that the Pope criticises western countries for outsourcing business to developing countries. He opines that this has an ethnic slant that echoes the concerns of the western white labour aristocracy. He wonders why westerners don’t protest outsourcing to other white countries like Poland, Latvia and Bulgaria. Why is the protest aimed only at black, brown and yellow nations, queries Aiyar? Colourful adjectives. But not from the Pope, who has made no such observations or insinuations. Aiyar goes on to say that the Pope has “parroted the bogus claims of the white labour aristocracy”. How has Aiyar arrived at such bogus conclusions?
The “offending quote” used by Aiyar from para 40 of the encyclical states; “The so-called outsourcing of production can weaken the company’s sense of responsibility towards the stakeholders – namely the workers, the suppliers, the consumers, the natural environment and broader society – in favour of the shareholders, who are not tied to a specific geographical area and who therefore enjoy extraordinary mobility”. Aiyar’s entire hypothesis is based on this one quote! It is infact the antithesis of what Aiyar labours to portray. If Aiyar were to read what the Pope had said before and after this particular quote he would have understood it in its correct perspective. The Pope expresses genuine concern for the stakeholders (black, brown and yellow workers included) and is infact urging restraint on the shareholders (the capitalists, who in the context of outsourcing would largely be the white Anglo Saxon). So Aiyar has got his colour fix all wrong.
This is what the Pope says in the next line; “Business management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the stakeholders – the workers, the clients, the suppliers.” So the Pope is actually speaking up for the underprivileged, the colour of their skin notwithstanding.
As for the so-called white labour aristocracy, the Pope says; “National labour unions, which tend to limit themselves to defending the interests of their registered members, should turn their attention to those outside their membership, and in particular to workers in developing countries where social rights are often violated” (Para 64). So Aiyarji, the Pope is actually advising the white labour aristocracy to expand their area of concern to all those black, brown and yellow workers, who may not be privileged aristocratic trade unionists!
Aiyar concludes his piece with another personal opinion, that it is a perversion of morality to penalise non-American workers in order to promote US jobs. I agree. So does the Pope. Aiyar ends by advising the Pope to have the courage to say so in his next encyclical. The Pope doesn’t need Aiyar’s advice, because he has said much more than Aiyar in support of the underprivileged and marginalized, in his present encyclical. Aiyar could perhaps take a leaf out of the papal encyclical for his next piece, and courageously admit that he was wrong about the Pope, just as he had earlier admitted that he was wrong in projecting Mayawati as India’s next P.M. We are all human, and prone to error. What say Aiyarji?
# The writer is a former National President of The All India Catholic Union, that represents 17 million Indian Catholics in public life.
August 2009
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
“WHERE WAS GREAT GRAND DAD?”
The months of May and June 2007 have been a time of turmoil for me. On the 9th of May I was sitting in Nanarao Park, in my home town Kanpur. I was not afflicted by the scorching heat, but by concern about my Great Grand Father, Manuel Xavier de Noronha (MX). No, he wasn’t kidnapped, but I was wondering where he was on that day in 1857 – 150 years ago?
That was the eve of the First War of Independence, which the British termed the Sepoy Mutiny. We were, 150 years later, commemorating the martyrs who had laid down their lives for the freedom of the country. Present with us was one of the descendants of Tantya Tope, who along with Nanarao Peshwa, led the revolt in Kanpur on the night of 4th June 1857. The memorial service was held in the shadow of the old Banyan Tree where the British hanged 150 freedom fighters, after they had recaptured Kanpur (then known as Cawnpore). That was the spot where the Bibighar once stood, the place where British women and children were quartered, and later slaughtered, by the freedom fighters.
Before that Nansaheb had granted safe passage to the British to sail along the Ganga to Allahabad. The British had embarked on their boats with their families, when the Indian troops fired on them, quite literally massacring them. The place came to be known as Massacre Ghat. On reconquering Kanpur, the British first made the mutineers /revolutionaries lick the blood on the parapet of the well where the British women and children had been slaughtered, before they hanged them.
And there I was sitting with other citizens, all eulogising the bravery of the freedom fighters, and condemning the cruelty of the Gora Sahibs. All very politically correct; but how true? As Dan Brown of “The Da Vinci Code” notoriety very correctly says, “History is written by the winners”. In 1857 the British finally won, and they wrote the history of the uprising, quite obviously from a very British point of view.
There were no Indian historians around, to record the Indian version. May and June saw many contemporary historians writing about the tumultuous events of 1857, and refuting the British versions. In their writings it is the British who were cruel and ruthless. Which ever side we take, there was bloodshed and killing, mostly of innocent persons, including women and children. I am a believer in Gandhian non-violence, and recall how Gandhiji suspended the freedom movement after the violence in Chaurichaura. Never mind the historians. Gandhiji always insisted that the ends do not justify the means. Violence has no winners – only losers, mostly the innocent.
Where was MX in all this? He had learnt photography from the Portuguese in his native village of Aldona in Goa. Family legend says that he led a caravan of 300 bullock carts. He travelled to courts of Rajas and Nawabs, taking their photographs. He reportedly charged the princely sum of Rs 200/- per photograph150 years ago! This was before the invention of celluloid or cameras. He fabricated his own cameras, and gold and silver nitrate solutions, for making the positives and negatives on plate glass. The negatives looked like ghosts, so he was sometimes beaten up for removing the “souls” of the royal subjects!
In the course of his travels, and three years after he left Aldona, MX’s caravan arrived in Cawnpore in 1857. He immediately got sucked into the vortex of the violence. He reportedly took photographs, which are unfortunately lost to posterity. What was MX’s role in 1857? What of the retinue of 300 bullock carts, or whatever remained of it after 3 years of intrepid adventure? How many people were with him? Were they Konkani speaking Goans like MX? Were they Catholics or Hindus? My father, who was born in 1897, (just 40 years after the war, and therefore a credible testator) told me that at that point in history Christians were identified with the British, and given protection by them. So where was MX? On which side was he, if at all he did take sides. There are two strands of written evidence.
The first is a souvenir published by the Aldona Association of Bombay in 1943. It mentions 3 persons on the village’s Roll of Honour. Two were patriots/ martyrs, and sandwiched between their names is that of MX. It states that he saved 80 lives during the 1857 war, and was mentioned in the writings of Rudyard Kipling (of Mowgli fame). Kipling does write about an elephant going berserk in the house of a Goan family in Cawnpore. That was MX’s family. But which 80 lives did MX save? Were they his native Goans, his fellow Indians, or the British? I really don’t know; which is why I am in turmoil.
The other shred of historical evidence is a letter dated the 3rd July 1880, written by one Col Mowbray Thomson, Resident with the ex-King of Oudh, and Superintendent, Government Pensions. He states that one Col. Wilson of the 64th Foot was mortally wounded in a skirmish with the Gwalior Contingent, and “Noronha behaved gallantly as well as compassionately in staying with him till he was safely carried off the field and into the Fort where he died a short time afterwards”. Gallantry and compassion are words that are seldom used in tandem, much less in war! So MX must have been an exceptional person. It would seem that human life was more precious to him than violence, no matter how highly motivated.
But the mystery of MX still deepens. He was born in Aldona on the 30th October 1825. So he would have been just 29 years of age when he left Goa; and 32 when he arrived in Cawnpore. He established business in Cawnpore in 1858 under the name and style of M/S M X de Noronha & Son. From photography he branched out into auctioneering, printing, brick kilns, running the post and telegraphs, generating and supplying electricity, real estate, etc. This is what we know about MX.
What we still don’t know is what happened to him and his retinue between 1857 and 1858? He did not return to Goa then. So where was he? The British ran away to Allahabad. Had he been a British supporter he would have been killed by the freedom fighters. Sitting in Nanarao Park, commemorating the martyrs, thoughts were swirling around my head. Then I got a brainwave. Nanarao Peshwa and Tantya Tope were Marathas, and spoke Marathi. MX was a Goan and spoke Konkani, akin to Marathi. So did Nanarao find in MX a kindred spirit, and grant him and his retinue protection? I would love to know the answer.
Perhaps the people of Aldona, and Goa, would find MX’s story inspiring and intriguing. But going by the records, MX had imbibed the spirit of adventure and entrepreneurship from his native village of Aldona. In the 1943 Aldona Souvenir, Dr. Thomas C D’Silva MBBS writes, “In trade and commerce, the Aldonense (Aldonkar today) has usually blazed the trail; he may be called the pioneer among Goans”. In the same souvenir, Luis Jose D’souza MA, MSc, writes: “At a time when the so-called Novas Conquistas (New Conquests) were as unknown to the Goans as Bombay was, the Aldonense with his characteristic daring and unsurpassed spirit of pioneering, penetrated the ‘unchartered area’. He went as a businessman…. Their means of transport were the oxen. Many of us still remember the caravans of oxen with bags slung across their backs and bells jingling from their necks, trudging their way wearily over hills through malaria-ridden jungles plying their trade…. They left us a legacy of daring, love of work, integrity of character, unsurpassed qualities of leadership, and above all a marvellous spirit of self-confidence”.
I don’t have all the answers to the questions about my great grand dad. But I know enough to follow in his footsteps. May his life and struggles be an inspiration to the youth of today, especially of his native Goa, in this sesquicentennial year of his arrival in what was then Cawnpore.
* The writer is a Gandhian social activist; community leader, and a businessman by profession.
JULY 2007
That was the eve of the First War of Independence, which the British termed the Sepoy Mutiny. We were, 150 years later, commemorating the martyrs who had laid down their lives for the freedom of the country. Present with us was one of the descendants of Tantya Tope, who along with Nanarao Peshwa, led the revolt in Kanpur on the night of 4th June 1857. The memorial service was held in the shadow of the old Banyan Tree where the British hanged 150 freedom fighters, after they had recaptured Kanpur (then known as Cawnpore). That was the spot where the Bibighar once stood, the place where British women and children were quartered, and later slaughtered, by the freedom fighters.
Before that Nansaheb had granted safe passage to the British to sail along the Ganga to Allahabad. The British had embarked on their boats with their families, when the Indian troops fired on them, quite literally massacring them. The place came to be known as Massacre Ghat. On reconquering Kanpur, the British first made the mutineers /revolutionaries lick the blood on the parapet of the well where the British women and children had been slaughtered, before they hanged them.
And there I was sitting with other citizens, all eulogising the bravery of the freedom fighters, and condemning the cruelty of the Gora Sahibs. All very politically correct; but how true? As Dan Brown of “The Da Vinci Code” notoriety very correctly says, “History is written by the winners”. In 1857 the British finally won, and they wrote the history of the uprising, quite obviously from a very British point of view.
There were no Indian historians around, to record the Indian version. May and June saw many contemporary historians writing about the tumultuous events of 1857, and refuting the British versions. In their writings it is the British who were cruel and ruthless. Which ever side we take, there was bloodshed and killing, mostly of innocent persons, including women and children. I am a believer in Gandhian non-violence, and recall how Gandhiji suspended the freedom movement after the violence in Chaurichaura. Never mind the historians. Gandhiji always insisted that the ends do not justify the means. Violence has no winners – only losers, mostly the innocent.
Where was MX in all this? He had learnt photography from the Portuguese in his native village of Aldona in Goa. Family legend says that he led a caravan of 300 bullock carts. He travelled to courts of Rajas and Nawabs, taking their photographs. He reportedly charged the princely sum of Rs 200/- per photograph150 years ago! This was before the invention of celluloid or cameras. He fabricated his own cameras, and gold and silver nitrate solutions, for making the positives and negatives on plate glass. The negatives looked like ghosts, so he was sometimes beaten up for removing the “souls” of the royal subjects!
In the course of his travels, and three years after he left Aldona, MX’s caravan arrived in Cawnpore in 1857. He immediately got sucked into the vortex of the violence. He reportedly took photographs, which are unfortunately lost to posterity. What was MX’s role in 1857? What of the retinue of 300 bullock carts, or whatever remained of it after 3 years of intrepid adventure? How many people were with him? Were they Konkani speaking Goans like MX? Were they Catholics or Hindus? My father, who was born in 1897, (just 40 years after the war, and therefore a credible testator) told me that at that point in history Christians were identified with the British, and given protection by them. So where was MX? On which side was he, if at all he did take sides. There are two strands of written evidence.
The first is a souvenir published by the Aldona Association of Bombay in 1943. It mentions 3 persons on the village’s Roll of Honour. Two were patriots/ martyrs, and sandwiched between their names is that of MX. It states that he saved 80 lives during the 1857 war, and was mentioned in the writings of Rudyard Kipling (of Mowgli fame). Kipling does write about an elephant going berserk in the house of a Goan family in Cawnpore. That was MX’s family. But which 80 lives did MX save? Were they his native Goans, his fellow Indians, or the British? I really don’t know; which is why I am in turmoil.
The other shred of historical evidence is a letter dated the 3rd July 1880, written by one Col Mowbray Thomson, Resident with the ex-King of Oudh, and Superintendent, Government Pensions. He states that one Col. Wilson of the 64th Foot was mortally wounded in a skirmish with the Gwalior Contingent, and “Noronha behaved gallantly as well as compassionately in staying with him till he was safely carried off the field and into the Fort where he died a short time afterwards”. Gallantry and compassion are words that are seldom used in tandem, much less in war! So MX must have been an exceptional person. It would seem that human life was more precious to him than violence, no matter how highly motivated.
But the mystery of MX still deepens. He was born in Aldona on the 30th October 1825. So he would have been just 29 years of age when he left Goa; and 32 when he arrived in Cawnpore. He established business in Cawnpore in 1858 under the name and style of M/S M X de Noronha & Son. From photography he branched out into auctioneering, printing, brick kilns, running the post and telegraphs, generating and supplying electricity, real estate, etc. This is what we know about MX.
What we still don’t know is what happened to him and his retinue between 1857 and 1858? He did not return to Goa then. So where was he? The British ran away to Allahabad. Had he been a British supporter he would have been killed by the freedom fighters. Sitting in Nanarao Park, commemorating the martyrs, thoughts were swirling around my head. Then I got a brainwave. Nanarao Peshwa and Tantya Tope were Marathas, and spoke Marathi. MX was a Goan and spoke Konkani, akin to Marathi. So did Nanarao find in MX a kindred spirit, and grant him and his retinue protection? I would love to know the answer.
Perhaps the people of Aldona, and Goa, would find MX’s story inspiring and intriguing. But going by the records, MX had imbibed the spirit of adventure and entrepreneurship from his native village of Aldona. In the 1943 Aldona Souvenir, Dr. Thomas C D’Silva MBBS writes, “In trade and commerce, the Aldonense (Aldonkar today) has usually blazed the trail; he may be called the pioneer among Goans”. In the same souvenir, Luis Jose D’souza MA, MSc, writes: “At a time when the so-called Novas Conquistas (New Conquests) were as unknown to the Goans as Bombay was, the Aldonense with his characteristic daring and unsurpassed spirit of pioneering, penetrated the ‘unchartered area’. He went as a businessman…. Their means of transport were the oxen. Many of us still remember the caravans of oxen with bags slung across their backs and bells jingling from their necks, trudging their way wearily over hills through malaria-ridden jungles plying their trade…. They left us a legacy of daring, love of work, integrity of character, unsurpassed qualities of leadership, and above all a marvellous spirit of self-confidence”.
I don’t have all the answers to the questions about my great grand dad. But I know enough to follow in his footsteps. May his life and struggles be an inspiration to the youth of today, especially of his native Goa, in this sesquicentennial year of his arrival in what was then Cawnpore.
* The writer is a Gandhian social activist; community leader, and a businessman by profession.
JULY 2007
UPTIGHT ABOUT TITHES
Tithing is the ancient Biblical practice of giving one tenth of one’s earnings to God’s representatives, the Levites. They were descendants of Levi, one of the 12 sons of Jacob, and therefore one of the 12 tribes of Israel. They were by birthright an intermediary priestly class. According to the Mosaic Law the Israelites were to pay tithes to the Levites in lieu of spiritual ministry rendered, especially at the Tent of Meeting (Num 18:21). This was not only their pay; it was also their heritage (inheritance/ assets/ social security). They were not to have any other heritage in the Israelite community (Num 18:24).
What got me uptight about tithes was a recent article in a leading Catholic journal advocating tithing to the Church, in order to be a better Christian, and to get an “exceeding great reward” from the Lord. The author of this piece, who is reportedly a theatre personality, rather theatrically/ dramatically interprets the biblical promise to state that the “reward” would be a “rapidly increasing money supply”! That turn of phrase got my goat. This is typical of media savvy tele-evangelists who tirelessly remind their audiences to pay tithes to them; assuring them of prosperity in return thereof. This is referred to as the “prosperity gospel”, which is a far cry from the gospel of service and sacrifice preached by mainline churches, be they Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. Talk of “rapidly increasing money supply” is more appropriate to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, than to a proponent of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Proponents of tithing take their cue from the incident of Abram (not yet Abraham the chosen one) giving “a tenth of everything” to Melchizedek (cf Gen 14:20); the A-M episode. It is seen as a worthy precedent of tithing, for which Abram is assured of a great reward, theatrically transliterated into “rapidly increasing money supply”!
This is investment at best, and inducement at worst. Invest 10% in God (church/ priest) and rapidly increase your money supply! If such be the motive for tithing, then it is a selfish financial motive, which by no stretch of the imagination can be termed a virtue or sacrifice. It is pure Laxmi Puja.
To arrive at a better understanding of tithing and its relevance today we need to first see the A-M episode in its actual context. We must look at Jesus’ own views on tithing and the Mosaic Law. We also need to study current church teaching as found in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council (Vat II) promulgated between 1962 – 65; The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 25/1/1983; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated on 11/10/1992.
Let’s begin with Abram. What were the circumstances and context in which he gave one tenth of everything to Melchizedek? This incident occurs just after Abram (then a regional chieftain) defeats 4 regional satraps (kings) with his force of 318 men. By today’s military standards Abram would have been a Major in the Indian army, if he had just 318 troops under his command. Melchizedek encounters Abram when the latter is flush with victory, and blesses him. The former was the King of Salem (possibly modern day Jerusalem), and some sort of priest, unlike the latter day hereditary Levites. The Bible now matter-of-factly states, “And Abram gave him a tenth of everything”.
How much can be read into such a statement and incident, to make it a precedent for all time? In the very next line we read that King Bera of Sodom, whom Abram had saved, asks for his share of the war bounty. Abram returns Bera’s belongings, less expenses incurred in the campaign and wages for his men (cf Gen 14:21-24). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary states that Abram was giving a tenth of the captured booty to Melchizedek (JBC 2:23). The Dictionary of the Bible edited by Rev John McKenzie SJ also endorses this view, and goes a step further. It suggests that the A-M episode is actually an interpolation (a latter day insertion) as it is out of sync with the verses before or after it, where the interaction is between Abram and Bera (DOB Pg 563). So we are treading on very thin ice when using the A-M episode as a precedent for tithing.
I shall take one more step with Abram. It is about the “reward” and “money supply” mentioned in the very next verse – Gen 15:1.Though there is proximity of verses, there is a time gap, thereby making the two incidents unrelated. The verse begins with “Sometime later…”. When Abram does hear God talk of reward he replies in dismay, “What use are your gifts, as I am going on my way childless?” (Gen 15:2). There is therefore no connection between the tithe and the money supply.
What of Jesus’ approach to the Mosaic Law in general, and tithing in particular? He paid scant regard to the Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. His Sermon on the Mount heralds the new covenant, giving the old covenant a decent burial. He unequivocally states; “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete (fulfil) them” (Mat 5:17). Moses’ “eye for an eye” is replaced by Jesus’ “turning the other cheek” (Mat 5:40).
Do I still hear some whispers about the greatness of the Mosaic Law? According to it, menstruating women and pork are both “unclean”. Should we then ban Whisper ads on TV wishing women a happy period? Should we remove pork salami from the Vatican’s breakfast menu?
Jesus came down heavily on practitioners of tithing on two occasions. Both concern the Pharisees, his arch enemies. In the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector the Pharisee boasts of paying his tithes (cf Lk 18:13). Jesus condemns this hypocritical self-justification. He is harsher still when he says, “Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay your tithe of mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law – justice, mercy and good faith. … You blind guides, straining out gnats and swallowing camels” (Mat 23:23). A little explanation is necessary. Tithing covered big things like cattle, grain, oil etc, not small condiments like mint (pudina) and cumin (jeera). But the overzealous Pharisees tithed these small things, while missing the larger picture. This is why Jesus refers to the tiny gnats and the huge camels. Overzealous proponents of tithing today who go for the peripherals and miss the core content of the Gospel are in grave danger of being pharisaic blind guides. Jesus’ attitude to the constricting Mosaic Law is summed up in his declaration that “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27).
What do contemporary church documents say about tithing? Precious little. The CCC, which is the latest of the contemporary documents, refers to modern phenomena like drugs, tobacco and rash driving (CCC 2290), but it is silent on tithing. So too with Vat II and Canon Law. This is not to deny one’s responsibility for supporting the church and its ministers.
The Vat II “Decree on the Ministry & Life of Priests” (PO), Chapter III, talks of “The Means of Support for Priestly Life”. It states that priests are worthy of receiving a just recompense, for the labourer deserves his wages” (PO 20). The recompense should be enough to have an annual vacation (PO 20) and social security (PO 21).
Book V of Canon Law is entitled “The Temporal Goods of the Church” (Canons 1254-1298), Here is what some of them say. “The church has the inherent right to require from the faithful whatever is necessary for its proper objectives (Can 1260). “The faithful are to give their support to the church in response to appeals…” (Can 1262). “The diocesan bishop… has the right to levy on public juridical persons subject to his authority a tax for the needs of the diocese” (Can 1263). This last canon does not apply to the laity. So the laity are obliged to support the church for “whatever is necessary”, but this cannot assume the form of a tax, levy or cess, like tithing. If I recall correctly, in India, only the Government has a right to levy taxes.
From the biblical and ecclesial let us also examine tithing from a socio-economic dimension. The following factors were inherent in tithing:
1. The priests were considered superior. They alone could enter the Tent of Meeting. Others were considered unworthy of entering into God’s presence. But when Jesus died on the cross “the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mat 27:51), signifying the removal of the obstacles between God and man. Vat II’s “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” (LG) emphatically states in Chapter IV, that the laity have an equal dignity, sharing in the “priestly, prophetic and kingly functions of Christ” (LG 31). So the question of superiority no longer arises.
2. In Mosaic times the Priests made the rules, the Kings actually ruled, and the Prophets interpreted the rules in specific circumstances. In modern society these three functions are now that of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary respectively. Unfortunately, despite Vat II, the hierarchically dominated Catholic Church is loath to involve the laity in the democratisation process. When an incensed cleric once told the late Rev Amalorpavadas, the great champion of the laity, that the church was not a democracy, the latter retorted; “The church is more than a democracy, it is a community”. I wonder if in the remaining years of my life I will get to see the true democratisation of the Catholic community in India.
3. The third development, again a fruit of democracy and the French Revolution, is the modern welfare State. This is different from ancient monarchies that were primarily concerned with the welfare, longevity and stability of the king, for which the subjects had to pay their lagaan (taxes). India, as per its Constitution, is a secular, socialist republic. Being secular, it separates religion from governance. Being socialist, it has an obligation to see to the welfare of its people. To meet the demands of development and welfare, the Sate levies taxes. We pay direct taxes like Income Tax, Wealth Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Service Tax and Value Added Tax. We also bear the burden of indirect taxes like Customs, Excise, Central Sales Tax, Octroi, and personal taxes like House tax, Water Tax, Stamp Duty etc. An honest taxpayer could be paying up to 70% of his actual income and expenditure in various forms of tax that contribute to the exchequer, and thereby to society. An honest tax payer is fulfilling a great social need – the type of justice and mercy that Jesus found wanting in the tithing Pharisees (cf Mat 23:23). This makes tithing redundant.
Finally, let us examine “what is necessary” for the functioning of the church. Let us not err in equating the church with the clergy. Every baptised person is a member of the church. Who needs our assistance- the clergy and bishops; or the dalits, tribals, socially deprived, exploited and landless, whose cause we constantly trumpet before the Government? How many dalits and tribals can afford an “annual vacation”? How many have “social security”? The balance of convenience rests in favour of the poor and marginalised, rather than the clergy and the bishops, who are the landed gentry, not the tillers of the soil. If the bishop lives in a palace is it just to expect a tithe from a hutment or slum dweller? If lakhs of rupees are spent on the formation of a priest, is it fair to ask the illiterate masses to donate for his seminary training? If the clergy have the latest motor vehicles (no second hands for them), should the man who wearily trudges to church be expected to tithe for the Pastors’ Fund? Some mischievous youth call it the pastor’s fun!
Water always finds its own level – from up to down. The flow of funds in the church should be like water – from those who have to the have-nots, be they clergy, religious or laity. Since the hierarchical Catholic Church in India has the choicest pieces of land, prestigious institutions, and multi crore annual donations in foreign currency etc, I would count it among the haves, though there are worthy exceptions.
I would thus conclude hat the A-M episode cannot be taken as a precedent for tithing worthy of emulation. The Mosaic Law has served its purpose. Jesus equated tithing with religious hypocrisy. The contemporary teachings of the church do not advocate tithing. A modern welfare State has by and large assumed the role of the benefactor of the poor. The hierarchical church in India is not poor. On all these counts I cannot subscribe to the theatrical support for tithing. I am really uptight about tithing and advocacy of the same in any form.
* Note: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the Dictionary of the Bible quoted above are standard reference books in Catholic seminaries. Biblical quotes are from The New Jerusalem Bible, again a scholar’s delight.
# The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union, and has been active in organised lay ministry for the last 40 years.
What got me uptight about tithes was a recent article in a leading Catholic journal advocating tithing to the Church, in order to be a better Christian, and to get an “exceeding great reward” from the Lord. The author of this piece, who is reportedly a theatre personality, rather theatrically/ dramatically interprets the biblical promise to state that the “reward” would be a “rapidly increasing money supply”! That turn of phrase got my goat. This is typical of media savvy tele-evangelists who tirelessly remind their audiences to pay tithes to them; assuring them of prosperity in return thereof. This is referred to as the “prosperity gospel”, which is a far cry from the gospel of service and sacrifice preached by mainline churches, be they Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. Talk of “rapidly increasing money supply” is more appropriate to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, than to a proponent of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Proponents of tithing take their cue from the incident of Abram (not yet Abraham the chosen one) giving “a tenth of everything” to Melchizedek (cf Gen 14:20); the A-M episode. It is seen as a worthy precedent of tithing, for which Abram is assured of a great reward, theatrically transliterated into “rapidly increasing money supply”!
This is investment at best, and inducement at worst. Invest 10% in God (church/ priest) and rapidly increase your money supply! If such be the motive for tithing, then it is a selfish financial motive, which by no stretch of the imagination can be termed a virtue or sacrifice. It is pure Laxmi Puja.
To arrive at a better understanding of tithing and its relevance today we need to first see the A-M episode in its actual context. We must look at Jesus’ own views on tithing and the Mosaic Law. We also need to study current church teaching as found in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council (Vat II) promulgated between 1962 – 65; The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 25/1/1983; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated on 11/10/1992.
Let’s begin with Abram. What were the circumstances and context in which he gave one tenth of everything to Melchizedek? This incident occurs just after Abram (then a regional chieftain) defeats 4 regional satraps (kings) with his force of 318 men. By today’s military standards Abram would have been a Major in the Indian army, if he had just 318 troops under his command. Melchizedek encounters Abram when the latter is flush with victory, and blesses him. The former was the King of Salem (possibly modern day Jerusalem), and some sort of priest, unlike the latter day hereditary Levites. The Bible now matter-of-factly states, “And Abram gave him a tenth of everything”.
How much can be read into such a statement and incident, to make it a precedent for all time? In the very next line we read that King Bera of Sodom, whom Abram had saved, asks for his share of the war bounty. Abram returns Bera’s belongings, less expenses incurred in the campaign and wages for his men (cf Gen 14:21-24). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary states that Abram was giving a tenth of the captured booty to Melchizedek (JBC 2:23). The Dictionary of the Bible edited by Rev John McKenzie SJ also endorses this view, and goes a step further. It suggests that the A-M episode is actually an interpolation (a latter day insertion) as it is out of sync with the verses before or after it, where the interaction is between Abram and Bera (DOB Pg 563). So we are treading on very thin ice when using the A-M episode as a precedent for tithing.
I shall take one more step with Abram. It is about the “reward” and “money supply” mentioned in the very next verse – Gen 15:1.Though there is proximity of verses, there is a time gap, thereby making the two incidents unrelated. The verse begins with “Sometime later…”. When Abram does hear God talk of reward he replies in dismay, “What use are your gifts, as I am going on my way childless?” (Gen 15:2). There is therefore no connection between the tithe and the money supply.
What of Jesus’ approach to the Mosaic Law in general, and tithing in particular? He paid scant regard to the Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. His Sermon on the Mount heralds the new covenant, giving the old covenant a decent burial. He unequivocally states; “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete (fulfil) them” (Mat 5:17). Moses’ “eye for an eye” is replaced by Jesus’ “turning the other cheek” (Mat 5:40).
Do I still hear some whispers about the greatness of the Mosaic Law? According to it, menstruating women and pork are both “unclean”. Should we then ban Whisper ads on TV wishing women a happy period? Should we remove pork salami from the Vatican’s breakfast menu?
Jesus came down heavily on practitioners of tithing on two occasions. Both concern the Pharisees, his arch enemies. In the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector the Pharisee boasts of paying his tithes (cf Lk 18:13). Jesus condemns this hypocritical self-justification. He is harsher still when he says, “Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay your tithe of mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law – justice, mercy and good faith. … You blind guides, straining out gnats and swallowing camels” (Mat 23:23). A little explanation is necessary. Tithing covered big things like cattle, grain, oil etc, not small condiments like mint (pudina) and cumin (jeera). But the overzealous Pharisees tithed these small things, while missing the larger picture. This is why Jesus refers to the tiny gnats and the huge camels. Overzealous proponents of tithing today who go for the peripherals and miss the core content of the Gospel are in grave danger of being pharisaic blind guides. Jesus’ attitude to the constricting Mosaic Law is summed up in his declaration that “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27).
What do contemporary church documents say about tithing? Precious little. The CCC, which is the latest of the contemporary documents, refers to modern phenomena like drugs, tobacco and rash driving (CCC 2290), but it is silent on tithing. So too with Vat II and Canon Law. This is not to deny one’s responsibility for supporting the church and its ministers.
The Vat II “Decree on the Ministry & Life of Priests” (PO), Chapter III, talks of “The Means of Support for Priestly Life”. It states that priests are worthy of receiving a just recompense, for the labourer deserves his wages” (PO 20). The recompense should be enough to have an annual vacation (PO 20) and social security (PO 21).
Book V of Canon Law is entitled “The Temporal Goods of the Church” (Canons 1254-1298), Here is what some of them say. “The church has the inherent right to require from the faithful whatever is necessary for its proper objectives (Can 1260). “The faithful are to give their support to the church in response to appeals…” (Can 1262). “The diocesan bishop… has the right to levy on public juridical persons subject to his authority a tax for the needs of the diocese” (Can 1263). This last canon does not apply to the laity. So the laity are obliged to support the church for “whatever is necessary”, but this cannot assume the form of a tax, levy or cess, like tithing. If I recall correctly, in India, only the Government has a right to levy taxes.
From the biblical and ecclesial let us also examine tithing from a socio-economic dimension. The following factors were inherent in tithing:
1. The priests were considered superior. They alone could enter the Tent of Meeting. Others were considered unworthy of entering into God’s presence. But when Jesus died on the cross “the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mat 27:51), signifying the removal of the obstacles between God and man. Vat II’s “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” (LG) emphatically states in Chapter IV, that the laity have an equal dignity, sharing in the “priestly, prophetic and kingly functions of Christ” (LG 31). So the question of superiority no longer arises.
2. In Mosaic times the Priests made the rules, the Kings actually ruled, and the Prophets interpreted the rules in specific circumstances. In modern society these three functions are now that of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary respectively. Unfortunately, despite Vat II, the hierarchically dominated Catholic Church is loath to involve the laity in the democratisation process. When an incensed cleric once told the late Rev Amalorpavadas, the great champion of the laity, that the church was not a democracy, the latter retorted; “The church is more than a democracy, it is a community”. I wonder if in the remaining years of my life I will get to see the true democratisation of the Catholic community in India.
3. The third development, again a fruit of democracy and the French Revolution, is the modern welfare State. This is different from ancient monarchies that were primarily concerned with the welfare, longevity and stability of the king, for which the subjects had to pay their lagaan (taxes). India, as per its Constitution, is a secular, socialist republic. Being secular, it separates religion from governance. Being socialist, it has an obligation to see to the welfare of its people. To meet the demands of development and welfare, the Sate levies taxes. We pay direct taxes like Income Tax, Wealth Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Service Tax and Value Added Tax. We also bear the burden of indirect taxes like Customs, Excise, Central Sales Tax, Octroi, and personal taxes like House tax, Water Tax, Stamp Duty etc. An honest taxpayer could be paying up to 70% of his actual income and expenditure in various forms of tax that contribute to the exchequer, and thereby to society. An honest tax payer is fulfilling a great social need – the type of justice and mercy that Jesus found wanting in the tithing Pharisees (cf Mat 23:23). This makes tithing redundant.
Finally, let us examine “what is necessary” for the functioning of the church. Let us not err in equating the church with the clergy. Every baptised person is a member of the church. Who needs our assistance- the clergy and bishops; or the dalits, tribals, socially deprived, exploited and landless, whose cause we constantly trumpet before the Government? How many dalits and tribals can afford an “annual vacation”? How many have “social security”? The balance of convenience rests in favour of the poor and marginalised, rather than the clergy and the bishops, who are the landed gentry, not the tillers of the soil. If the bishop lives in a palace is it just to expect a tithe from a hutment or slum dweller? If lakhs of rupees are spent on the formation of a priest, is it fair to ask the illiterate masses to donate for his seminary training? If the clergy have the latest motor vehicles (no second hands for them), should the man who wearily trudges to church be expected to tithe for the Pastors’ Fund? Some mischievous youth call it the pastor’s fun!
Water always finds its own level – from up to down. The flow of funds in the church should be like water – from those who have to the have-nots, be they clergy, religious or laity. Since the hierarchical Catholic Church in India has the choicest pieces of land, prestigious institutions, and multi crore annual donations in foreign currency etc, I would count it among the haves, though there are worthy exceptions.
I would thus conclude hat the A-M episode cannot be taken as a precedent for tithing worthy of emulation. The Mosaic Law has served its purpose. Jesus equated tithing with religious hypocrisy. The contemporary teachings of the church do not advocate tithing. A modern welfare State has by and large assumed the role of the benefactor of the poor. The hierarchical church in India is not poor. On all these counts I cannot subscribe to the theatrical support for tithing. I am really uptight about tithing and advocacy of the same in any form.
* Note: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the Dictionary of the Bible quoted above are standard reference books in Catholic seminaries. Biblical quotes are from The New Jerusalem Bible, again a scholar’s delight.
# The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union, and has been active in organised lay ministry for the last 40 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)