 |
||
|
||
|
||
On Saturday the 17th of March 2001 as the clock struck 4 in the afternoon, the three of us from the ICAN (Indian Currents Associate News) presented ourselves at the parlour of Rome’s prestigious Gregorian University as had been agreed upon. On announcing the name "Indian Currents" prompt came the reply from the other end of the interphone: "Yes, please wait. I am coming down".
However short the wait was, it give us the opportunity to take stock of the imposing massiveness of the University edifice, its marble flooring, the two ample flights of stairs, the majestic columns, the all too high ceiling, the expansive face of a time-honoured clock, a marble pope in cathedra, a large portrait of a cherubic figure in papal drapery etc - all bathed in the afternoon Roman sun flooding through the glass vault of the atrium.
As we found ourselves somewhat lost in the robust magnificence enveloping us, we noticed rows of scarlet boards under preparation in view of holding the 450th Anniversary of the University. A quick survey of the brochures made us realise that we were standing right in the hallowed precincts of a true Vidya-Peeth. Tens of thousands of students hailing from every land under the sun have already passed through the University’s majestic bronze portal; there have been in their ranks would-be saints and popes, heroes and martyrs, scholars and missionaries, bishops and administrators, and above all, scores of zealous pastors. Within the giant-sized, pluri-centuried and awe-inspiring ambience of this House of Wisdom, we found ourselves like puny little creatures.
It was then that the doors of one of the two lifts slid aside, making way for a benign-looking, silver-haired, frail-framed figure in black coat. We needed no cue to intuit that the internationally reputed Jesuit scholar and professor Fr Jacques Dupuis was standing right in front of us. With a perceivable gentleness he led us to one of the parlours and seated us. Then to our surprise we observed him making himself doubly sure that the parlour door was closed tight.
Jacques Dupuis (JD): Why is that Indian journalists are interested in me? Am I such an important person?
Indian Currents (IC): Yes, we think you are.
JD: It is costly to be important. Costly not in terms of money, but in other ways.
IC: You have been an inspiration for many.
JD: Yes, I hope to be in some way useful…. But you know, from India, I haven’t got many reactions to my book [Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism]. Even in the Vidyajyoti Journal [the review of the homonymous Institute of Theology of the Jesuits in Delhi] of which I was once the editor … When they got my book, they asked Fr R.H. Lesser to do the reviewing. It appeared that the staff members of the Vidyajyoti were not immediately interested in the topic. Lesser is a good writer and excellent missionary; but he is not a theologian.
IC: Could it not mean that the professors at the Vidyajyoti did not wish to openly take sides?
JD: They are afraid? ... I am not in touch with them any more.. ….. You know after I left Vidyajyoti ... I don’t have any news now…!!
IC: How many years did you work there?
JD: I am sorry now I just cannot recall the exact number. In fact I have been thinking of going for a visit to Calcutta, my province. I have so many things to do now that it is not possible to find the time for visiting my fellow-religious there.
IC: Do you belong to the Calcutta Province?
JD: Yes, Calcutta is my province. Exactly there, the City Of Joy of Dominique Lapiere and Larry Collins.
IC: Since when are you a member of the Calcutta province of the Jesuits?
JD: I came to India in 1948 and remained there till 1984. I went there as a scholastic. I taught at St Xavier’s College in Calcutta for some time, and meanwhile studied Bengali. Then I went to Calcutta University to do some studies in Indology, and then proceeded to Kurseong in the Himalayas to study theology. I still remember how my family came to India to be present for my ordination. On my completing the Licentiate in theology there, I was sent to the Gregorian University, here in Rome, for the doctorate in theology. And then I went straight back to Kurseong to teach. Yes, that was in 1959. I started straight away with Christology. I have been teaching Christology ever since.
IC: When did you start collaborating with your confrere Josef Neuner in bringing out that veritable best-seller Christian Faith?
JD: It was in 1973. Incidentally just this month its seventh revised edition is coming out, jointly published by The Theological Publications in India (TPI, Bangalore) and the Alba House (USA).
IC: Your book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism appeared in 1997. It took a full year for the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith to intervene by asking you to present your clarification. How did this situation evolve?
JD: To be more precise, the book came out in English, French and Italian simultaneously in September 1997. It was on 10 June 1998 that the Congregation took the decision to initiate a process against the book. I was informed about it through a letter of Cardinal Ratzinger addressed to my Fr General at the end of September 1998.
IC: What was the precise accusation?
lowed an agonising period of silence. It lasted 10 months. On 1 September 2000 I received an advanced copy of the Dominus Iesus and a draft of a notification of 15 pages about my book, and I was summoned to appear for an official meeting of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith with Fr General and Fr O’Collins. We were to meet Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect, Mgr Bertone, the Secretary and Fr Angelo Amato, a Consultor of the Congregation. The meeting was scheduled for 4 September and on 5 September they would be publishing the Dominus Iesus in the Sala Stampa. The notification would be discussed on 4 September and it would be published on the 7th.
IC: Why was there all this hurry and secrecy?
JD: You see, everything was very well planned - the meeting on the 4th, the Dominus Iesus on the 5th, and the notification about the book on the 7th.
IC: How did the meeting go?
JD: We had a very intense session of two hours and I didn’t talk much myself, and allowed Fr General and Fr O’Collins to do the main talking. Fr O’Collins made it clear that the errors, which the text of the notification was attributing to my book, were not in the book and, therefore, were false accusations. Anyone could verify this. The imputed errors are not found in my book. This, of course was a bit of a shock for Cardinal Ratzinger. Then the Cardinal asked me to sign the text of the notification. I had to say plainly that I was not going to sign the text, since it spoke of serious errors in my book but which are not there. Then they asked me to at least sign the statement that my book was to be interpreted in the light of the declaration Dominus Iesus. I answered, "Your Eminence, you are asking too much from me".
IC: What exactly did you mean by that?
JD: It was a polite way of saying that after all the talk, I just could not agree with what they were asking me to do. So then the three of us were told in unmistakable terms that the cardinals and the bishop members of the Congregation were insisting on publishing the notification about my book in which the errors will be clearly pointed out.
IC: Were you expecting any new move on the part of the Congregation?
JD: I was sure that there would be a new text of the notification drafted in the light of my explanations. Again I waited about three months and on 6 December 2000 I got a new version of the notification. But this time, the only one thing that I was told to do was "Please sign". There would not be any discussion and there would be no possibility of any textual alteration. I then thought to myself: If they are bent on publishing a notification about my book, they are free to do so. But why do they signature for it? If I sign what will happen? And if I were not to do it, would it make any difference?
IC: How did your General Superior see your position?
JD: The fact is that Fr General stood by me at every stage. He gave me always his moral support. I now discussed with him in detail what in practice my signature would imply. It would only signify that in the future I will take into account the Church documents, the Dominus Iesus and the notification itself. In this sense, I was disposed to sign the text. So now one can ask, how did you agree to sign the new version now, while in September you had refused to sign the earlier one?
IC: Yes, father, we are eager to hear you answer that question.
JD: The only reason was the nature of the work I am engaged in. My research is very important to me. Besides, there was a substantial change in the charges raised against my book. In the past two years and even in the first version of the notification I was repeatedly accused of writing a book containing serious errors against faith. While according to the new version, that of December 2000, the text spoke only of ‘ambiguities’ which could lead the reader into error. I accepted to sign the notification not because of any change of mind on my part, but because of human respect. It was the only way I could continue my theological research. I was also eager to show my loyalty to the Church. The letter of the Congregation had said that the notification that would be signed by me would be published in January in L’Osservatore Romano. Days and weeks passed and it was only on 26 January that the Notification was released in the Sala Stampa, and it was published in L’ Osservatore Romano. A curious thing was the fact that now they had added a new paragraph to the text signed by me in December; it was not there when I signed. This added paragraph says that Fr Dupuis has signed the document, and the meaning of his signature is that he will be bound henceforth by the norms contained in this notification. While by placing my signature I intended to say that ‘I will take the document into account’. Now, between ‘taking into account’ and ‘being bound by’ there is a big gap. And moreover, I was also ordered to have this notification printed in every new edition or any translation of my book. All these were written into the text after I had signed it.
IC: What does one make out of all these manoeuvres?
JD: Well, there are two important things here: (1) See how they had kept on accusing me of ‘serious errors against faith’, but finally they ended up saying that there were ‘some ambiguities’ in my book. (2) I do not wish to comment on the justice or otherwise of their procedure. It is incredible to think that the Pope was asked three times for his official approbation to the notifications and three times he ordered it to be published. The first version was literally set aside after a mere discussion of two hours. The text that I signed too had previously been approved by the Pope. And since they had written a new paragraph into it after I had signed, they went to the Pope for the third time to get his approbation. The printed version contains the clause "in the light of the further developments [the Pope] confirmed the present notification".
IC: Now that the Congregation has implicitly admitted that the accusations against you are baseless, should not the Congregation now apologise to you for having for so long harassed you for no fault of yours? Does not justice demand it?
JD: (laughs) Justice? Non si fa! [These things are not done!]
IC: What is your personal relationship with Cardinal Ratzinger?
JD: The only time that I have spoken to him and to his secretary was during the meeting on 4 September 2000. I have never spoken to him during the 17 years I have been teaching here in Rome.
IC: How do you look back to these past two years?
JD: These past two and a half years have been a very trying period for me. The written clarifications, the absolute secrecy, the meetings etc have been all too heavy for me. Even after the new version had been signed, I waited day after day to see it published in L’Osservatore Romano. Finally I could not bear it any longer and asked a confrere of mine to look for it everyday. It is incredible… and at long last on 24 January Fr General told me of its publication. That is the Roman way!
IC: You have said in some interviews that those two and a half years were very difficult for you...? What actually did you mean by that?
JD: Yes, of course. You can imagine the problems … Is it pleasant to be so accused of serious errors on essential points ‘pertaining to the divine and Catholic faith, incarnation, trinity, redemption, ecclesiology, revelation, and… ’? You can imagine the shock and the trauma that the accusation can create in its wake. I was forbidden to discuss the issues with anybody; I was never called to discuss the matter; I could not speak with my colleagues. Here in the Faculty of Theology no one knew anything of the content of the accusation; I was banned from discussing the issue with them. I could not even consult them about answering the questions. I have been living like this for two and a half years. You can imagine the tension.
IC: Aren’t you feeling quite relieved now?
JD: Yes. I feel that now I can freely speak out the truth. That is the first thing that I told the journalists and the General. The news of the publication of the Notification was made public at around one o’clock in the afternoon on 26 January. By 2 o’clock I was already getting phone calls from the journalists. I told them that I had first to consult my Fr General. The General told me to meet the journalists. I did not call a press conference. I told all the journalists who phoned to ask questions to come for a meeting at the Gregorian University where I would be available to answer their questions. The result of it was excellent. I told them to report exactly, and there was not one paper that misquoted me.
IC: Why were the officials of the Congregation not satisfied with your written explanations?
JD: I always had the impression that the answers, which I gave or sent – the first of 180 pages and the second of 60 - were not studied seriously. They were levelling the very same accusations without even studying seriously my answers. I wrote two articles in clear reference to the points raised by them. I replied to the questions raised by theologians and book reviewers. Most of the reviews have been very positive. Some were less positive, and some even put forward some very important questions. So I wrote a study in the Rassegna di teologia and then a little later a longer one in the Louvain Studies, replying to the questions posed in the reviews and other articles. And during the whole while the Congregation kept on repeating the same accusations… My present situation is: since officially I am no longer accused of errors in the book, but only of some ambiguities, I feel perfectly free to defend my position. And that makes a difference when we are able to express our positions and discuss them without fear.
IC: Some journalists have asked: "Why is it that they chose you to be the victim?"
JD: The reason is simple. You know very well that I am still identified with the Asian thinking, especially with Indian theology. And Indian theology has its own way, especially in the area of the theology of religions. So I think this is one of the reasons. Besides, I am in the prestigious Gregorian University. Finally there was the great success of the book and the critical acclaim it received.
IC: Did you find acceptance here at the Gregorian University?
JD: I was teaching an optional course in Cycle II of theology and I had more than 200 students; the lectures were in the Aula Magna, where anybody can have free access. So you have to take a risk. I can’t teach without saying what I think. I can’t believe one thing and then teach another. Hence my course had to be cancelled. It happened like this. In Mid-October 1999 I was to have begun my last course, as I was turning 75, the age of retirement. On 26 September Fr General was informed by the Congregation that while the investigation was in course "that religious" should not spread his ideas. The directive reached me on 2 October. I asked myself, what am I going to do now? How can I teach this course? Before each class am I going to ask myself: can I say this or can I say that? That is impossible. Then how can I teach in this situation? One cannot think one thing and teach another. I spoke with my General. He just told me to cancel the course. Then I said, I have one request. There are more than 200 students who have signed up for the course and they have the right to know why the course has been cancelled. So I requested him to ask the authorities of the University to give the essential explanation to the students. Accordingly there appeared a communication on the notice board to the effect that the course of Fr Dupuis has been suppressed as he has been questioned by the Congregation about some aspects of his book; he is to submit the explanations in three months’ time; since he has to prepare the answers, the course is suppressed. Later Cardinal Ratzinger faulted Fr General for having allowed this. The Cardinal didn’t want anything to be known to the outside world. He wanted to do everything in secret. As soon as it was announced on the notice board, journalists from various papers began calling me up for a confirmation of the notice. I must say that the press has been very sympathetic to me and to my cause, though I did nothing to achieve it.
IC: Actually, what message does Cardinal Ratzinger wish to get across to the Indian or the Asian theologians by trying to tackle you personally?
JD: That they have to stop spreading such ideas that salvation is possible through other religions, or that the other religions can also be recipients of revelation etc.
IC: And then the Pope himself is now coming up to say all this.
JD: There is a contradiction in this. The Pope insists so often on the universal active work of the Holy Spirit. He says that this takes place not only in persons, but also in cultures and religions. I don’t see how I am going against the faith when I suggest that cultures and religions have a positive role in the plan of God for the salvation of humankind. In other words I draw the conclusion from what the Pope teaches.
IC: Is it a correct procedure for the Congregation to get prior approval of the Pope before evaluating theological positions? Doesn’t it pre-empt true dialogue?
JD: Yes, am coming to that. The officials of the Congregation follow meticulously the norms which had been published in 1997 when Fr Balasuraya had been under investigation. There are definite norms for the questioning of theologians. Of course the norms have been written by the Congregation, but they have the papal approval. They follow them very closely and I cannot say that they have ever deviated from them. Whether these norms are just or not is not at issue here. I should say that in my case the Congregation followed these norms.
IC: Any civil court would agree that a person falsely accused is entitled to his good name.
JD: The faithful are not supposed to go to a civil court against the decisions of the Church court. Here the point is whether the norms they have established are in keeping with justice or not. Fr Orsy, an eminent US canonist, has clearly brought out the injustice ingrained in these norms. He raises the very question which you are asking: how is it that the Pope’s person is involved in the case from the very start itself? If the accusations made by the members of the Congregation receive the approval of the Pope before the starting of the trial, it means the absolute exclusion of the possibility for the accused to appeal to a higher authority, if he feels that he has been denied justice. And that is what happened to Balasurya! When he was condemned he said, "I appeal to the Pope" and they laughed at him. Appeal to the Pope!! You are stupid! It just doesn’t exist. Every accused and condemned should have a right to appeal to a higher authority or higher court.
IC: The Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith seems to be the inheritors of the former Inquisition.
JD: Let us not mistake the issues. There are established norms for the officials to follow. And they cannot be questioned for applying them to concrete situations. There is the question of justice and there are the norms to be followed. We have to make this distinction. Other journalists too have raised this point.
IC: When the Indian theologians lament that they are not being understood in the Vatican, do you have any sympathy for them?
JD: Of course. It is a sad experience. I have to tell you the truth. Sometimes I have the impression that they read my book before making a final declaration of the Indian Theological Association.
IC: What message do you have for your former colleagues and theologians in India?
JD: I love them. If you meet them give them my best wishes. You should thank Samuel Rayan for what he wrote about the notification. It is beautiful indeed.
IC: You said that you are happy about the response of Samuel Rayan, but honestly, did you not feel let down by the other theologians?
JD: After the notification? No. But before the notification? Yes. Perhaps my book deserved a more serious reviewing. Some reviews have been very weak. The number of book reviews in the world have been enormous; I have seen myself as many as 80 of them. I cannot say that all the 80 were all praise; without a doubt some were not.
IC: Are you researching on any new topic right now?
JD: They are not new, but the same. I hope to be able to clarify the "ambiguities" to which the notification refers. Fr General encourages me to continue my pioneering work. And that is what I hope to be doing now.
As the three of us pensively came out of the University building and were walking down towards Piazza Venezia, one broke the silence by quoting the third century theologian Tertullian: the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. Indeed it was a fair summing-up of what had been then going through our minds.
Johns Jay,
Reporting from Rome for the ICAN
|
||
|
||
|
||