HVK Archives: The Vatican Encyclical and India
The Vatican Encyclical and India - The Observer
Ashok Chowgule
()
December 12, 1998
Title: The Vatican Encyclical and India
Author: Ashok Chowgule
Publication: The Observer
Date: December 12, 1998
Instead of clarifying dialogue for Catholics, Vatican's declarations
often end up confusing them.
The present Catholic Pope is indeed a prolific writer. He has come out
with encyclicals on various issues, and has also authored books.
Perhaps statisticians can tell us if he has created a record, amongst
all the popes, in this respect. The latest encyclical - Faith and
Reason - has created unusual activity in India.
The encyclical is supposed to have a special message to India. Is this
correct? Does it really change in any significant manner what it thinks
about Hinduism? To be able to understand this, one has to see the other
documents of the Catholic church, and the pronouncements of the clergy.
Let us first see what the encyclical has to say about India and
Hinduism. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:
"My thoughts turn immediately to the lands of the East, so rich in
religious and philosophical traditions of great antiquity. Among these
lands, India has a special place. A great spiritual impulse leads
Indian thought to seek an experience which would liberate the spirit
from the shackles of time and space and would therefore acquire absolute
value. The dynamic of this quest for liberation provides the context
for great metaphysical systems.
"In India particularly, it is the duty of the Christians now to draw
from this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in
order to enrich Christian thought. In this work of discernment, which
finds its inspiration in the Council's Declaration Nostra Aetate,
certain criteria will have to be kept in mind. The first of these is
the universality of the human spirit, whose basic needs are the same in
the most disparate cultures. The second, which derives from the first,
is this: in engaging great cultures for the first time, the Church
cannot abandon what she has gained from her inculturation in the world
of Greco-Latin thought. To reject this heritage would be to deny the
providential plan of God who guides his Church down the paths of time
and history. This criterion is valid for the Church in every age, even
for the Church of the future, who will judge herself enriched by all
that comes from today's engagement with Eastern cultures and will find
in this inheritance fresh cues for fruitful dialogue with the cultures
which will emerge as humanity moves into the future. Thirdly, care will
need to be taken lest contrary to the very nature of the human spirit,
the legitimate defense of the uniqueness and originality of India
thought be confused with the idea that a particular cultural tradition
should remain closed in its difference and affirm itself by opposing
other traditions."
In a document of about 32,000 words, 262 are devoted to what interests
India, which amounts to less than 1%. One should be thankful for small
mercies. If there is going to be an openness in Christian thinking, it
should be encouraged. Of course, some of the rest of the document can
be applicable to our country. But we have to see what is the essential
message to India and the Hindus.
A careful reading of the above would clearly indicate that there is no
substantial change in the thinking of the Catholic church. It reminds
one of the book, Crown of Hinduism, by the Scottish missionary, J N
Farquhar, who worked in India in the cause of his brand of Christianity
during the period 1891 to 1923. What this book tries to project is that
while there may well be some good points in Hinduism, ultimately the
true salvation can only be achieved through Jesus Christ, who is the
crown of Hinduism. One has to wonder if the Pope is not saying the same
thing.
In writings on Christianity and Hinduism, another document that is
refereed to is the one produced at the end of the proceedings of Vatican
Council II. The most famous quotation from it is:
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these
reli-gions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct,
the precepts and doctrine which, although differing in many ways from
her own teaching, nevertheless, often reflect a ray of that truth which
enlightens all men."
This is supposed to have heralded an era away from exclusivist ideology
that is the hallmark of proselytising religions. But, there is a
qualitative difference between 'rejects nothing' and accepts everything,
and between 'a ray of that truth' and fullness that the Church says
exists only in Christianity. Like in most of the pronouncements with
respect to all the other religions, the Catholic church exhibits a great
deal of arrogance. The denial of finding true salvation in other
religion is clear when we read the very next sentence to the one quoted
just above. It says:
"Yet she proclaims and is duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ
who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God
reconciled all things to himself (2Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness
of their religious life."
At another place, the document says:
"Everyone, therefore, ought to be converted to Christ, who is known
through the preaching of the Church, and they ought, by baptism, become
incorporated into him, and into the Church which is his body."
This double-speak by the Catholic church has created confusion prevails
even amongst the clergy who are working in Asia. Recently a seminar was
organised by the FABC (Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences) Office
of Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs. Entitled the First Formation
Institute for Inter-religious Affairs (FIRA), it was held in Malaysia
from Sept. 6-14, 1998. Several participants said that they are confused
by the Church's claim to uniquely possess the full truth alongside its
openness to dialogue. For Sister Doreen from Singapore, the Christian
duty to proclaim salvation confused her, since in the end "Jesus Christ
remains the only source of salvation," she said. "How do you bring that
kind of news to the dialogue table?" she asked.
A Malaysian lay woman said that looking at the various documents of Pope
John Paul II, she sees that the pope says one thing to adherents of
other religions, which is unitive of religions, and then says something
else to us Christians. She said, "Doesn't he know that adherents of both
religions end up knowing the contents of his contradictory texts
anyway?"
Annabelle, another Malaysian, said that "the pope has double standards."
The Church's continued insistence on the supremacy of Christ shows that
its claims of learning from other religions are only words, she said. "I
am actually irritated that the Church hasn't changed," the lay woman
said.
Julius, a layman from Manila, also agreed that instead of clarifying
dialogue for Catholics, Vatican declarations end up confusing them.
"Pronouncements should be universal; one pronouncement for all. As it
is, the Church teachings on inter-religious dialogue are very confusing,
and that makes dialogue practically impossible." he noted.
Sister Meg from Thailand she said that it was disturbing to be reminded
that as late as 1995, Pope John Paul said that all salvation comes
through Christ. She said with the pope's "no salvation without the
Church and through Christ" claim, "it seems we go back to what was
proclaimed centuries ago."
The Pope's encyclical should also be seen with reference to the action
of the Church. Last year, Fr Tissa Balasuriya of Sri Lanka was
excommunicated. His alleged crime was that he did not follow the hard
dogmatic line as set out by the hierarchy in Vatican. He was reinstated
only after he gave an abject letter of apology. There is also the
question of proscribing the books of an Indian priest, now deceased, for
saying much of what the Christian apologists have interpreted as the
essential message of the latest encyclical. One is reminded of the
notorious Inquisition, on which the Church has decided to make an
inquiry.
Dialogue is the only way the members of the two faiths can comfortably
live with each other in sympathy and harmony and most of all with
tolerance of each other's beliefs and faith. Dialogue assumes that
there are differences which have to be narrowed down so that people can
live in harmony with each other. The essential difference between
Christianity and Hinduism is that the former is an exclusivist belief,
while the latter is a pluralistic belief. It is this that the Christian
churches should address. They also have to evaluate their past
behaviour and recognise the harm that they have done to what they call
pagan philosophies. Without this, the encyclical will remain only as a
document of 32,000 words of meaningless platitudes.
Back
Top
|
