The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) in the United States of America is an association of Major Superiors of Congregations of Religious Women.  It represents about 80% of Religious Women’s Congregations, hence it is a very influential body and has an impact on the way Religious Women think about their own personal vocations and about the objectives of their Religious Congregations.  The LCWR has an influence far beyond the confines of the United States;  its views and practices influence Religious Congregations all over the world.   It is therefore very important that we understand the recent public debate about the “Doctrinal Assessment” of the LCWR undertaken by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and about the Papal decision to appoint a Commission of Bishops, including Religious Sisters and Lay persons, to assist the LCWR to review its policies and practices and to attempt to bring these into harmony with the doctrines of the Church as expounded by the Holy Father.   

Every faithful Catholic, including women who are professed “Religious” belonging to the various Religious Orders of Women, will readily agree that the Holy Father has been entrusted by Jesus Christ – nay, even obligated, by Jesus Christ, to ensure that individuals and groups of Religious remain faithful to His teaching.  This is indisputably clear in the mandate given by the Lord to Simon Peter when He solemnly informed him:  “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned to me, you must strengthen the faith of your brothers and sisters.”  (Luke 22:32)  Any intervention of the Holy Father, therefore, in pursuance of this mandate, has to be seen as an intervention by Jesus Christ himself, and should not be construed as an arbitrary interference in the internal functioning of Religious Congregations.

For many years now, beginning in the late 60s and early 70s, some Religious Congregations were emboldened to go public with views and opinions which could not be construed as ‘orthodox’ in the normally understood sense of the word.   The disassociation from their own traditions, and from the traditions of the Church were not limited to ‘Religious Lifestyles’ and practices; it also involved disassociation from the doctrinal teaching  of the Church in important matters of Faith and Morals.  The LCWR and some of its ‘leaders’ expressed opinions publicly which clearly contradicted the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church.    The Doctrinal Assessment carried out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith  (CDF)  lists specific public utterances and statements which are inconsistent with the Ordinary Teaching of the Catholic Church.  These public statements have been brought to the notice of the individual Sisters concerned and to the LCWR, but there is no evidence that the views have been revised or corrected.  One glaring example, cited by the document of the CDF is a public talk given by a Dominican Sister Laurie Brink, in 2007  in which she exhorts Religious Sisters to “go beyond the Church”  and even to go “beyond Christ.”    Such extremist views are neither grounded in Sacred Scripture nor in the Tradition of the Church.   Prima facie this appears to be heretical, to say the least.

In essence, many of the public statements of the LCWR can be construed to be calls for rebellion against  the Catholic Church, which is accused of being  dominated by a ‘patriarchal male hierarchy.’  Some of the Religious Sisters, it is stated in the Doctrinal Assessment, are averse to participating in the Eucharistic Sacrifice because it is presided over by a male priest.   Furthermore,  some of these Religious Sisters do not believe that the Eucharistic Sacrifice should form the basis of their religious lives.

Claiming to follow the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, many Religious Sisters abandoned community living with common prayers and common meals.  They preferred to live in rented apartments either singly or in small groups in order to be ‘close’ to the people and to express their solidarity with the common folk.   Such a drastic departure from the Rules of their founders, and from the traditional practices of their own Congregations is neither justified by the tradition of the Church or by the documents of Vatican Council II.     These congregations of sisters usurped to themselves the right to interpret the teachings of Vatican II even in the face of the cautions expressed by individual Bishops and by Rome.  

Rome was seen to be an autocratic, undemocratic and dictatorial centre which infringed on the freedom of individual Sisters and some of the Congregations.   What appeared to the common Catholic layman was a clear defiance of authority by the LCWR as an entity, and by some of the member Congregations.   

In a recent video, Jesuit Fr. James Martin, Contributing Editor to “America” Magazine made an impassioned defence of the Sisters.  He provided a veritable hagiography of  notable Sisters who had dedicated their entire lives in the service of the people and of the Church.  This poignant appeal on behalf of the Sisters, however, missed the entire reason for the Doctrinal Assessment undertaken by the CDF.  No sane Catholic will deny the immense and heroic contributions made by individual Sisters and by many Religious Congregations to the service of the poor and those in need of love.  Many Sisters suffered martyrdom in faithfulness to their commitments.  The Church as a whole applauds and glorifies these heroic Sisters.  The document of the CDF also does not fail to “acknowledge with gratitude the great contribution of women Religious to the Church in the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by Religious over the years.” The magnificent contribution of Religious Sisters is not the issue here.  What is causing concern to the Holy Father and to many Catholics all over the world is the open rebellion by many Sisters, and by the LCWR  against the discipline of the Church, and more importantly, against the doctrines which the Church holds to be integral to the very nature of the Church.

When the LCWR sets itself up, either explicitly or implicitly, as a parallel authority in the Church to the Conference of Catholic Bishops, or to the ordinary teaching authority of the Holy Father, there is cause for grave concern;  which is precisely what has happened.  It is not only the CDF which is deeply disturbed by the developments within the LCWR;  the entire Catholic world desires that the LCWR prayerfully review its doctrinal positions and humbly accept the structure of authority which Jesus gave to His Church.  The Church is NOT a political, or even a social, institution, whose structures and policies are defined by popular vote.  The Church is the living Body of Jesus Christ, who continues to be its Head.  The Pope only exercises his authority on behalf of Jesus, who has given him the authority to bind and to loose.   

It must be made clear that the recent decision of the Holy Father is not a spontaneous or an arbitrary decision.  It has been made after years of careful study and close dialogue with the Sisters concerned and with the LCWR under whose auspices they have been emboldened to take public positions which are in conflict with the teachings of the Church.    It must also be made clear that the actions of the Holy Father do not imply a wholesale condemnation of all the members of the LCWR or of its constituent congregations.  Like in any organism, sometimes cancerous growths occur which pose a threat to the health of the entire organism.  These cancerous developments need to be clinically treated, even removed if found necessary, for the sake of the health of the entire Body.  The current exercise undertaken by the Holy Father should be gratefully welcomed  by all concerned.  It should also serve as an opportunity for the Sisters to renew their commitment to be the handmaidens of Jesus Christ and to propagate His teachings, and not their own interpretations of His teachings.  The official interpreter of the message of Jesus Christ is the Holy Father and the Bishops, whether in national Conferences, or in an ecumenical Synod.  The Church is already being battered by demonic forces which are promoting the culture of death through contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and other abhorrent practices.  The Church can certainly do without internal dissensions which weaken her credibility and her authority.   Above all, we need to pray that the Holy Spirit unite us in one spirit and in one body.

It all began with the Women’s Emancipation Movement, which was a purely political movement to gain recognition for the political right of women to exercise their franchise at the time of elections.   It was a huge step forward in the political process of democracy.  It recognized that women had as much a right as the men to decide who their representatives in Parliament will be.  It also acknowledged that women had a right to stand for election to public offices in government.  The success of the Women’s Emancipation Movement was evident in the fact that many democracies elected women to run their respective governments:  Golda Meier in Israel, Indira Gandhi in India,  Sirimavo Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka,  Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and several others subsequently, all of whom proved to be able administrators and inspirational politicians.

Subsequent to the women’s emancipation movement  there was a movement, which can roughly be described as the movement for the sexual emancipation of women – it has also been described as the sexual revolution.  The factors influencing  this movement are too complex and too variegated to be detailed  in the limited space available to an opinion piece in a newspaper or magazine;  but the complexity involves the economic, the sociological, the cultural and the technological environments within which this movement grew and flourished. The greatest single factor, however, was the ‘invention’ of the contraceptive pill.   This medical ‘break-through’ was hailed as the most important means for women to achieve ‘sexual freedom.’  The irony of the sexual revolution, however, is that it succeeded in demeaning womanhood much more than the much maligned ‘patriarchy’ which was (and continues to be) blamed for the situation in which women find themselves.

The first, and most glaring discordance of the feminist movement is that it sought to divest sex from its biological purpose.  The more radical feminists demanded the right to indulge in sex without accepting the natural consequence of  such indulgence.   In the order of Nature, the sexual organs  and their use are ordained for a very specific purpose – viz. the generation of new life and the perpetuation of the species.  Feminism does violence to this order of Nature by refusing to accept the biological consequences of sexual activity.   A similar violation of Nature is evident in the unhealthy syndrome of eating for the sake of eating. Eating has a definite purpose, viz. the sustenance of life;  but when the purpose of eating is disassociated from this purpose in order to satisfy unnatural cravings, society sees the consequences in the disturbing numbers of obese people and the medical consequences on their health and emotional well-being.    History provides us with the example of the decadent period of the Roman Empire where the State provided public vomitoria for those who wished to indulge in unrestricted eating and drinking.    In modern times, some States have provided houses of prostitution, which also allows them to levy taxes on this activity.  They do not see the anomaly in the State taking over the function of the pimp.

The Common Sense of humankind has recognized, from time immemorial, that sex is an activity which has an inherent social purpose:  viz. the promoting of family life and the care and nurture of children.   The family is uniquely endowed with the function of bringing children into the world and of nurturing them into well adjusted adults who will contribute to social well-being.  The institution of the family is antecedent to and precedes the “Society” and the “State”.  There can be no society without the family.  Humankind has always acknowledged that the family constitutes the primary cell of society, or, to use another, but more mechanistic metaphor, the family is the primary building block of the social superstructure. The family not only provides the human environment for the healthy development of the individual, it also guarantees the emotional and the moral underpinnings of a healthy society.   The family is not comparable to a social club or a voluntary organization which is created by the explicit will of its constituent members.  The family is ordained by Nature itself and is endowed with the ability to enrich the larger social institutions and provide them with the social virtues which are indispensable for their survival.  The social virtues are nurtured and protected, first, within the family.  It is self-evident that social disintegration begins with the disintegration of the family, just as the human organism disintegrates with the disintegration of the individual cells in the body.

There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that our societies are in a state of turmoil and fundamental dystrophy.  The evidence is overwhelming by any standard.  The startling increase in violence,  the disturbing increase in the number of suicides,  the frightening increase in mental and emotional illnesses and the obvious disintegration of the family.   Any attempt to make a comprehensive diagnosis will be overly ambitious.  In any case, there are numerous studies available both with academic and with Research institutions which prove that we are living in truly horrendous times.  The political sphere is fraught with violence and there is also the potential for the outbreak of wars;  the economies of the world are on a sharp downturn, in spite of pockets of growth in some areas,  but most of all what is frighteningly evident is the tension between ideological camps and political philosophies.

Behind and beneath the apparent political and economic disintegration lies the more insidious erosion of fundamental human values.  Mistrust, hatred and violence are fuelled by what are sometimes perceived to be the promotion of “freedom” and “equality.”   One of the most deleterious forces at work in our societies is the intellectual and moral relativism which has gathered strength since the inception of the so-called ‘feminist movement’ which is touted to be a movement for the ‘liberation’ of women from what is perceived to be patriarchal constraints.  In the effort to win genuine and laudable objectives such as equality in employment and wages, equality of opportunities for higher learning and non-discrimination on grounds of sex, the feminist movement has distorted some fundamental values which destabilise the very supports of a healthy and vibrant society.  To cite just a few examples:  A recent television debate on the brutality committed on a three  month old baby girl by her own father, evoked a bizarre response from one of the panellists – a woman said to be on a Committee to prevent the sexual abuse of children, and the reputed author of an award-winning book.  She strongly condemned the abortion of female foetuses while at the same time strongly defending abortion in principle.   According to her these are two distinct issues.(sic).   She seems unable to see the contradiction in her own position.  If women have the right (choice) to abort male foetuses, why should they be denied the same right to abort female foetuses?   Freedom of choice should work both ways, should it not?   In fact, she did not realize that her proposal was, in fact, a reverse discrimination against male babies. 

Blurring distinctions    

The high decibel and strident debate about women’s rights has taken twists and turns which defy common sense.   The deliberate and abhorrent killing of innocent babies in the wombs of their mothers is justified on the grounds that women have a ‘choice’ about what to do with their own bodies.   These untenable arguments fail to recognize that an embryo, and subsequently a foetus is not a part of a woman’s body, but is an independent, autonomous and unique human person who has inalienable rights, including the right to life.   The mother is only the host, and she continues to be the host and guardian of the baby after it is born and is able to live outside the womb.   In order to undermine this self-evident truth, protagonists of abortion argue that the human being inside the womb is not a person, but just a lump of cells.  Some of them have gone as far as justifying the murder of infants even after they are born, in what is called ‘partial birth abortion.’    A baby who is perfectly healthy in every respect is brutally murdered even while it is in the process of being born.   Now two murderous doctors have advanced the argument that the killing of babies after they are born is not infanticide, but constitutes post-natal abortion!   If ever there was a crazy argument, we have it now.     

The insanity of the ‘women’s rights’ movement is also evident in the attempts which are being made to include abortion as a fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   Some members of the United Nations, under pressure from radical women’s groups are demanding that this so-called right be included in the Universal Declaration.  In defiance of all common sense, governments, most notably that of President Barack Obama are attempting to get legal recognition for what is being called “women’s reproductive rights.”   It seems to elude these zealots that  reproduction is a physiological function just like digestion, breathing and the neurological functions.   It would be entirely ridiculous for  the United Nations  to declare that gastro-intestinal,  pulmonary and  the cardio-vascular processes  are fundamental human rights on par with the reproductive rights of women. 

These irrational forces are also making strenuous attempts to foist upon the common people of this earth the fabricated rights to homosexual ‘marriage’ and to ‘euthanasia.’  They will stop at nothing to distort the Law of Nature.  Very recently, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg declared that the European Convention on Human Rights “does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.”  This reinforces the judgement of an earlier French Constitutional Court’s order upholding the French Civil Code which stipulates that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  The European Court of Human Rights expressly stated that “This is not a question of discrimination or human rights.”

Earlier, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a Resolution settling the principle that “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.” 

The Greeks had a saying that those whom the gods wished to destroy, they first turned mad.   We seem to be in the tragic situation of widespread insanity which is influencing our legislations, our judicial pronouncements and our cultural practices.  In the final analysis, judicial pronouncements and even legislative enactments only reflect the ethical standards prevalent in any society.  The cultural environment has become so toxic and morbid that it can only lead to widespread destruction – of the family, of society, of the legal systems and of legislative assemblies.   The challenge, today, is for a more vigorous revival of understanding of the ineluctable laws of Nature, and for a more informed respect for these Laws.   Every society has had a lunatic fringe which sought to upset the apple-cart.  However, the mainstream has always ensured that these fringe elements do not exert influence which is disproportionate to their numbers.

The disturbing news is that a small clique of anti-life enthusiasts is still persisting in its efforts to promote what it calls ‘physician assisted suicide.’  In Britain, the beginning of the New Year saw the publication of the Report of a Commission on Assisted Dying, headed by Lord Falconer.  Lord David Alton described this Commission as “Hopelessly biased and distorted, (the Falconer Commission) is stacked full of euthanasia sympathisers and was suggested by Dignity in Dying (formerly The Voluntary Euthanasia Society).  The funding for the Commission  was provided by Bernard Lewis and Terry Pratchett, the latter a patron of Dignity In Dying.  It is entirely wedded to introducing legalisation for assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill.”  When the Commission was established it was revealed that nine of the twelve commissioners were well-known names in the pro-legalisation lobby. The remaining three are certainly not against euthanasia.  The euthanasia lobby decided to take the “independent” route because when two genuinely independent Parliamentary Select Committees carefully examined the issue they did not recommend a change of law.  

Over 50 organizations refused to give evidence to the Commission when they saw its composition.  Instead Dignity In Dying contacted its own members asking them to give evidence to the Commission.  The British Medical Association (BMA) passed a 5 point resolution that undermined the Commission’s credibility by questioning its impartiality and independence.

The Falconer Report is intended to get around the strong opposition of the public and of the Medical Association to any attempt to change the existing law on physician assisted suicide.  Both the previous Parliamentary Select Committees carefully examined the issue and did not recommend a change in the law.  The British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges, the hospices and Disability Rights Organizations strongly oppose any change in the existing law on the ground that it would bring about negative outcomes.  

The doggedness of the anti-life movement is fuelled by a complete misunderstanding  of what “dignity” means in the context of  terminal illness.  A striking example of this is the statement of Baroness Warnock who, chillingly, said that the sick are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require.  “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.”  Baroness Warnock unashamedly proposes that certain people should be “put down”  because, according to her they have “a duty to die.”  

If one thinks that attempts such as that of the Falconer Commission are eccentric, we should keep in mind that just before Christmas the Dutch announced that they are considering mobile units to kill people in their own homes. The statistics now reveal, quite frighteningly, that 1,000 of the 4,000 euthanasia deaths in Holland each year are now done without the patients’ consent.  To add to this horrific scenario the Dutch say that 80% of people with dementia or mental illnesses are being “missed” by the country’s euthanasia laws.  This is why they have proposed these ‘death-on-wheels’ mobile units to kill the old and the helpless, because, according to them, some doctors have refused to administer lethal drugs to their patients.

Ninety-five percent of palliative medicine specialists are opposed to a change in the law, because it is evident that when physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs of the patients are met, requests for euthanasia are actually extremely rare.

On the other side of the Atlantic, The Massachusetts Medical Society recently voted to affirm its opposition to physician-assisted suicide.  The President of the Massachusetts Medical Society, Lynda Young, stated:  “Physicians of our Society have clearly declared that physician-assisted suicide is inconsistent with the physician’s role as healer and health care provider.” According to Young, “the policy expresses support for patient dignity and the alleviation of pain and suffering at the end of life.”  The Society acknowledges that palliation is an important part of the doctor’s vocation.  Doctors rightly provide comfort to the dying, even when they know that death inevitably approaches.  Unlike assisted suicide, palliative care is not inconsistent with the physician’s commitment to life and health.”  Physicians in Massachusetts thus grasp a fundamental distinction that proponents of assisted suicide elide.  That is the difference between choosing to cause death and choosing instead to provide comfort, knowing, but not intending, that death might be hastened as a result.  To acknowledge that death is inevitable is not to choose death; that fact that death occurs is not itself morally significant.  But whether we choose death or not is morally significant.  A person who purposely chooses to cause death, who makes death a reason for his actions, is not oriented toward the good.  A person who is oriented toward life is going to act very differently than a person who is oriented toward death.  One has adopted death as his purpose, death becomes a potential reason for action.  By choosing life, one becomes a person oriented toward life.  By choosing death, one becomes a person oriented toward death.

We may recall, with deep gratitude, that here in India, the entire body of doctors as well as the nurses of the K.E.M. Hospital in Mumbai solidly and publicly affirmed their opposition to “putting down” nurse Shanbaug who is comatose for the past 32 years as a result of a rape and murder attempt by a ward-boy of the hospital.   They have lovingly looked after her and are determined to look after her until she dies a natural death.  Such dedication does not attract national awards or media debates, but such is the moral stuff of which humanity is made.

The media, and specially the electronic media has an onerous responsibility to the public to inform the citizens of both sides of the moral problem.  Unfortunately, the media, both here and abroad, have elected to serve as propagandists for the euthanasia cause.   Lord Alton rightly castigates the BBC for acting in a partisan and wholly unprofessional manner in “celebrating”  the efforts of a miniscule minority to kill those who are at death’s door, and who are deserving of our comfort and love.  The World Health Organization has provided guidelines, published in 2000,  for the media in treating such sensitive issues as physician-assisted suicide.  The WHO reminds the media that “Media strongly influences community attitudes. . .  media can also play an active role in the prevention of suicide.”  “Suicide is perhaps the most tragic way of ending one’s life.  The majority of people who consider suicide are ambivalent.  They are not sure that they want to die.  One of the many factors that may lead to a vulnerable individual to suicide could be publicity about suicides in the media.  How the media report on suicide cases can influence other suicides.”   

Society as a whole, and the medical fraternity, in particular, have an obligation to openly and unambiguously affirm the sacredness of human life.  This is the very basis of human civilization and of the social values which make life on earth bearable.  Civilization is all about good healthy relationships among individuals and among families.  The virtues which sustain and promote civilization are tolerance, compassion, solidarity and honesty in relationships;  but the very foundation on which all these are based is the respect for human life.  Economic and political institutions should not only reflect this respect for human life, but they should openly affirm it.  Legislation or social practices which denigrate respect for human life will be the means by which civilization will be destroyed.  Let us celebrate Life.

The famous judgement of Jesus Christ:  “Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God”   has been generally interpreted to mean that the two spheres – the civic and the religious – have to be kept apart.  It has given rise to the political doctrine of the separation of powers between the State and the Church.   In the course of history, this interpretation has seen many convoluted practical applications in the relationship between civil government and the Church.   The Middle Ages witnessed a constant  tension between the authority of the State and the authority of the Church.  This history is as colourful in its unfolding as it is intriguing in the manifestation of the variations in the interpretation of  the judgement itself.

One of the main distortions in the understanding of the intent of Christ’s statement is that political science implicitly considered the authority of the State to be on par with the authority of the Church.  To put it crudely, the question which often tantalized the political philosophers was whether the State existed by sufferance  of the Church, or whether the Church existed by sufferance of the State.  In other words, did the King derive his legitimacy because of his installation by a Bishop, or did a Bishop enjoy his legitimacy because of the favour of the King?

Over a period of time, on the philosophical level, an understanding was reached that both the institution of government and the institution  of the Church derive directly from God; that both institutions are distinct but fully legitimate in their own rights.  Vestiges of the mediaeval conflict are still evident in the many conflicts (e.g. in China) where the State claims to have the prerogative to appoint Bishops of its choosing.  

One thing, however, is clear.  Although both the State and the Church are distinct sociological entities, they are not “on par” with one another.  There is no equivalence in their authorities, even though there is autonomy in their functioning.  It is not possible, within the confines of a brief article, to elaborate on the non-parity between the State and the Church.  However, it should be pointed out that the State is a “natural” society – just like the family; and derives from the Natural Law.  The Church is an “organization” (for want of a better word), or better still, an organism,  directly instituted by Jesus the Christ.   The respective domains of the State and of the Church are distinct but coincide in many areas.

It is necessary to study the subtle distinctions in the character and the functioning of the two distinct social entities in order to arrive at a proper understanding of the purpose of each of them.  Crudely put, the State is a temporal institution and the powers it enjoys are purely temporal.  The Church is both temporal and transcendental.  The membership of the Church transcends the present and embraces the non-temporal dimensions.   The Creed professed by the “faithful” explicitly acknowledges that we believe in the church triumphant, the church suffering and the church militant.  The extra-temporal  dimension of the church is an integral part of her being and is an expression of her “catholicity.” 

These preliminary observations are necessary to provide the context for an understanding of the furore which has been created by a young, inexperienced and over-enthusiastic priest who has entered into electoral politics, with the active support of many Catholic laity as well as some clergy.  Opinions, in the print media, range all the way from enthusiastic support to strong condemnation of the decision to enter into electoral politics.  Many believe that the presence of a priest in the Legislative Assembly will help to curb corruption, if not to eliminate it completely.  Anyway, the issue of corruption is just one of the many maladies confronting any government.

The more fundamental issue is whether an ordained priest ought to get involved in the hurly-burly of partisan political engagement.  In reflecting on the temptations of Christ in the desert after his 40 days of fasting and prayer, Pope Benedict XVI  draws attention to the temptation in which Satan offers to give Jesus power over all the kingdoms of the world.  This is a very clever ruse.  Is it not the objective of the Messiah to rule over the whole world?  A Messiah who unifies the whole earth in one great kingdom of peace and well-being?  Yet, Jesus rejects the offer because “The Kingdom of Christ is different from the kingdoms of the earth and their splendour, which Satan parades before him.”  The Pope draws pointed attention to the fact that the Christian empire attempted at an early stage to use faith in order to cement political unity.  The Kingdom of Christ was now expected to take the form of a political kingdom and its splendour.  He points out that “The temptation to use power to secure the faith has arisen again and again in varied forms throughout the centuries, and again and again faith has risked being suffocated in the embrace of power.”  “For the fusion of faith and political power always comes at a price: faith becomes the servant of power and must bend to its criteria.”  The Pope reminds us that “No kingdom of this world is the Kingdom of God, the total condition of mankind’s salvation.  Earthly kingdoms remain earthly human kingdoms, and anyone who claims to be able to establish the perfect world is the willing dupe of Satan and plays the world right into his hands.”  

Pope Benedict XVI further draws attention to the gathering of Jesus’ followers “on the mountain” (cf. Mt.28:16) when Jesus asserts that “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Mt.28:18) The Pope explains that “The Lord has power in heaven and on earth.  And only someone who has this fullness of authority has the real, saving power.  Without heaven, earthly power is always ambiguous and fragile. Only when power submits to the measure and the judgement of heaven – of God, in other words – can it become power for good.  And only when power stands under God’s blessing can it be trusted.”

The correct interpretation of the judgement “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” is, therefore, that it is legitimate to submit to civil authority, but all authority, including civil authority, has to submit to the authority of God.  Everyone is painfully aware that the problems besetting the modern world are not merely economic and political problems;  they are primarily ethical problems.  Governments which legitimize moral abominations like homosexuality, adultery, contraception, abortion, euthanasia and other evils are in direct conflict with the Kingdom of God.  Every effort needs to be made to bring the civil power into conformity with the Moral Order.  The Church offers her advice and her institutional capacities to bring about a civilization of justice, solidarity, mutual assistance and charity.  The Church is not in conflict with civil authority, per se, but she is obliged to ensure that all civil authority is in conformity with the will of God.  The challenge is huge and needs maturity and wisdom.  An ordained priest  entering into electoral politics with a limited objective is not necessarily the best way to help to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has upheld  the ban on in-vitro fertilization which is in force in Austria.  The specific challenge to this ban was contained in a petition: No. 57813/00 filed by S.H. and others v/s Austria.   Reversing the judgment given earlier by the First Section on 1st. April, 2010, the Grand Chamber unambiguously declared that the ban on in-vitro fertilization is in conformity with the European Convention (Article 8)  which protects “natural procreation” and the “natural family” (with only one mother and one father) as the model for the regulation of the techniques of artificial procreation.

What is so gratifying and very welcome is that the European Court of Human Rights has re-affirmed unambiguously that the natural family consists of only one mother and one father and that the family as the basic unit of society should be protected by the State.  

The original petition was based on the erroneous claim that every married couple had a right to have children.  From this false premise proceeded the questionable claim that every couple had the right to have children by using any methods, including the technique of causing conception to happen “in vitro” (outside the womb) by manipulating the union of a sperm (even of unknown origin) and an ovum (even of unknown origin).   The Court, accepting the submission of the Italian Government, has held that “there is no “right” of a couple to conceive a child and to make use of medically assisted procreation” under the Convention.  There is only a right to attempt to conceive a child, otherwise, in an Orwellian style, the State would ultimately have to provide for the children.  

It is interesting to note that the Court took into consideration the submissions made by the Italian and the German Governments in arriving at its decision.  The German Government submitted that under Section 1(1) of Germany’s Embryo Protection Act (Embryonenschutzgesetz) it was a punishable offence to place inside a woman an egg not produced by her.  This prohibition was intended to protect the child’s welfare by ensuring the unambiguous identity of the mother.  Splitting motherhood into a genetic and a biological mother would result in two women having a part in the creation of a child and would run counter to the established principle of unambiguousness of motherhood which represented a fundamental and basic social consensus.  Split motherhood was contrary to the child’s welfare because the resulting ambiguousness of the mother’s identity might jeopardise the development of the child’s personality and lead to considerable problems in his or her discovery of identity.  There was also the danger that the biological mother, being aware of the genetic background might hold the egg donor responsible for any illness or handicap of the child and reject him or her.  Another conflict which might arise and strain the genetic and biological mothers’ relationships with the child was that a donated egg might result in the recipient getting pregnant while the donor herself failed to get pregnant by means of in vitro fertilization. For all these reasons split motherhood constituted a serious threat to the welfare of the child which justified the existing prohibitions under the Embryo Protection Act. 

The decision by the European Court of Human Rights has fundamental implications for the family and for the institution of marriage:

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights clearly indicates that the institution of  the family is primarily for the benefit of the children.  Nothing should be permitted which will deprive the children of the nurturing and nourishing atmosphere of a family.  Any decision made by a married couple should place the interests of the child/ren first.  Nothing should be done which will militate against the welfare of the children.

The welfare of society itself depends on the integrity and welfare of the family.  Any practices which weaken the integrity of the family have a deleterious impact on society as a whole.  It seems obvious (or it should be obvious) that in order to ensure social stability and the welfare of all citizens, the family as an institution should be strengthened and protected. Social science research all over the world has consistently shown that most of the so-called “social evils” can be traced back to the disintegration of the family as the bedrock of society. 

It has become increasingly clear that technology, specially medical technology, should always subserve the interests of the family.  Medical technology should never be pursued as an objective in itself, because it leads to a complete distortion in the values on which the family and on which society is grounded.   Technology should always remain a service for the good of the family and of society.    

The submissions made by the Italian and German Governments, which enabled the European Court of Human Rights to arrive at its decision showed that moral values are basic to the welfare of society.  We cannot have good societies if we do not preserve and strengthen the moral values which underpin all societies.  The neglect or loss of moral values leads to the disintegration, first of the family as the basic unit of society, then of society itself.  It is therefore the obligation of Legislators to ensure that moral values are not ignored or disregarded in the process of enacting laws for the societies which they represent.  

Nature itself has ordained the essential elements of marriage.  The biological differences between male and female, the psychological complementarity between men and women and the eschatological purpose of the physical union between a man and a woman are clear indications of the real nature of marriage and of the family.   We can disregard these basic principles only at our own peril.  We have already witnessed the horrendous results of social instability and the virtual breakdown of the institution of the family.  We are also witnesses to the inversion of the relationship between technology and the good of families and society.  The facilitation of divorce, the legitimization of same-sex unions, the acceptance of pornography, the tolerance of casual cohabitation and other aberrations have all contributed to the overall disintegration of society.   We are literally on the brink.  Fortunately, however, there is still hope of recovery of sanity.  The decision of the European Court of Human Rights stands out as an important beacon of hope.  This decision represents the prevailing social and moral consensus of the European nations – notably, Austria, Germany and Italy.  However, this consensus relates only to the question of “in-vitro” fertilization.  It is to be hoped that Europe as a whole will soon recover its moral heritage which has been the foundation of its civilization and which ennobled it not only to provide leadership in the fields of science and technology, but which also enabled it to devise economic and political philosophies which proved to be of benefit to the whole of humankind.   

There is no doubt that Europe is in decline.  But the seeds of hope are also evident as in this particular instance of the rejection of “in-vitro” fertilization as an acceptable method of medical intervention in the family as the basic unit of society.  The need to return to its sources of moral and cultural enrichment are compelling indeed.  

The subject given to me for this presentation is problematic.  In full it reads: “Towards an Active and More Meaningful Participation of the Laity in the Church in India.”  On reflection of this theme it appears that we are talking about two separate entities viz. “the Church” on the one hand and “the Laity” on the other.  On deeper reflection, it appears that what is being requested is a strategic plan to involve the Laity in a greater measure in the work of the Church in India.  This has theological and ecclesiological implications, as all of you will readily acknowledge.

The (unfortunate) distinction between “the Church” and “the Laity” is not at all new.  It has been part of the conceptual framework for a very long time. In his Introduction to Newman’s book “On Consulting The Faithful in Matters of Doctrine” John Coulson draws our attention to  the statement of Mgr. George Talbot, a critic of John Henry Newman, who wrote about the laity in 1867:  “they are beginning to show the cloven hoof. . . . . They are only putting into practice the doctrine taught by Dr. Newman in his article in the Rambler.  Talbot then asks his celebrated question:  “What is the province of the laity? To hunt, to shoot, to entertain.  These matters they understand, but to meddle with ecclesiastical matters they have no right at all.”  Even Pope Boniface VIII’s bull Clericis laicos in 1296 said that “ . . . it is well known that the laity have always been hostile to the clergy.”  It has been the common understanding since the later Middle Ages that the laity are only “objects” of the Church’s mission -  to be educated, catechized and to assist the clergy in “their” mission in the world.  This (mis)understanding of the place of the non-ordained members of the Church continues to persist even till today.

It is very significant that nowhere in the New Testament, including the many letters written by the Apostles to the early churches, is there any mention of a category of persons within the community of the baptized which would correspond to what we today call “the Laity”.   Neither is there any indication that the  ordained ministers were considered to be a separate “caste” within the Church.  The “mission” of the Church as a whole is to preach the Good News of salvation, to bear witness to the Risen Christ and to reach out to all nations, even unto the ends of the earth.  The Gospel therefore ordains that every disciple, every follower of Christ, should in one way or another fulfil the service of transmitting the faith, of being with and through Christ, one sent to proclaim the salvation that he brings and to bear witness to his love.  This is the greatest of all services that can be rendered to others, and it is essential to the building up and growth of Christ’s Church.

The primary responsibility for proclaiming the word was entrusted to the twelve apostles.  It is of them that it was written – notice the precision and sufficiency of the words – “He appointed twelve to be his companions, and to go out preaching at his command.” (Mark.3:14)  But, though it is principally theirs, God’s design does not entrust this mission to the apostolic hierarchy alone – else why did Jesus join seventy-two disciples with them, and why did one hundred and twenty disciples receive the Holy Spirit along with the eleven apostles at Pentecost? (Lk. 10: 1 and Acts 1:15)

The role of the laity can best be understood within the larger context of the role of the Church.  It is unfortunate that the nature of the Church is not properly understood even in today’s world – either by the laity or by the clergy.  We have all been infected by the ideas of the nature of social institutions as propounded by political philosophers and sociologists.  We commonly speak of the Church as if she is a purely social (or political) institution, with all the structural limitations of those secular institutions.  Many Catholics (shall we say, most?) see the Church as just another ‘human’ structure like any other political or economic structure which has been constructed according to human plans for human purposes.   This has given rise to many problems within the Church as is evidenced by the intermittent demands for the Church to put in place ‘democratic’ processes.   Because of the inappropriate notion of “power” imported from the political philosophies, we find repeated demands from some lay people for “power sharing” with the Bishops.   Of late, many Catholic women, particularly women who have dedicated themselves to the “religious” life have become increasingly vociferous about “equality of women with men” in the “decision making processes” in the Church.  Their demand ranges all the way from their perceived “right” to be ordained as priests, to their “right” to make “policy” decisions at the highest levels of the Church.  

There is a serious lacuna in the theological understanding among the laity (as also among many of the religious women)  of the nature of the “Church” as the Body of Christ – an organism, like any living organism, which grows, changes, evolves and strives towards achieving the purpose for which it was created.  St. Paul repeatedly draws our attention to this “fact” of the Church being the Body of Christ – a living, growing, pulsating body – with many parts and differing functions. (1.Corinthians 12:12-31; Romans 12 and Ephesians 4).  Pope Pius XII provided us with a very systematic and compelling explanation of this reality of the Church in his Encyclical “Mystici Corporis Christi” (June 29,1943). Unfortunately, an explanation of this doctrine has been neglected in the present day church.  

Talking about the different senses in which the word “church” is often used, Fr. Yves Congar draws our attention to the fact that “It is plain that the word Church here signifies only hierarchical mediation, and that the laity do not form this “Church”; they simply represent the “men” on whom “the Church” acts so as to teach, sanctify and direct them: in one word, they are an object of priestly hierarchical activity. 

“This is not good theology.  In sound ecclesiology, the laity also are the Church.  Time and again lately bishops have pointed out in their pastoral letters that the Church is all the faithful united in Christ. Pope Pius XII repeated it several times, notably in his address on 20 February, 1946:  “The faithful, more precisely the laity, are in the front line of the Church’s life . . . Consequently, they particularly must have an ever more clear consciousness, not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is, the community of the faithful on earth, under the guidance of the common head, the Pope, and of the bishops in communion with him.”

Following this affirmation of Pope Pius XII to the Cardinals, many theologians, pastors and bishops reiterated this truth that the laity are full-fledged members of “the Church”, that, in fact, they constitute the Church.  The pastoral letter of the Dutch bishops in 1954 said:  “Our clergy must appreciate yet more that the laity are not simply the object of the pastoral ministry, but that they have also to take part actively in the liturgy, and in apostleship and Catholic Action as they have been doing effectively for some time in the social field;  they are adult members of Holy Church, and they wish to have their say in the building up of the mystical Body, of which they seek to be conscious members.” 

“The Church is an organic body.  On the one hand, each member, each cell of this body is living; on the other, all the members do not have the same function in the body, and so its one single soul, the Spirit of Christ, does not animate all the members for the same purpose and in the same way.  Some, the faithful laity (and the members of the hierarchy in as much as they are in the first place among the faithful) are given spiritual vitality that they may cherish, profess and bear witness to the faith.  Others, the hierarchy as such, are vitalized that they may guarantee and define the faith, and teach it with authority.  But all, complete with their differences, form one single “subject”, one single responsible person, and that is the Ecclesia, the Church.  So therefore all organically form a single subject that is responsible where witness and evangelization are concerned, proper allowance being made for the differences between the hierarchical mandate, with its pertinent powers and graces, and the simple responsibility that is common to all the faithful.”

This understanding of the “church” is reiterated by the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici by Pope John Paul II ( 30 December, 1988):  “In the context of Church mission, then, the Lord entrusts a great part of the responsibility to the lay faithful, in communion with all other members of the People of God.”

In his masterly exposition “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine” (1859) John Henry Cardinal Newman anticipated Vatican Council II by over a hundred years.  In fact he showed that the so-called “faithful” were the real “Faithful” when it came to “maintaining” and defending the Faith in the face of the wavering by the “Ecclesia docens.”   Without going into the intricacies of Newman’s arguments, which has been done excellently by Fr. Samuel D. Femiano, C.S.B. in his book “Infallibility of the Laity” it should be pointed out that the tradition of the Church confirms that the Spirit of Christ resides in the entire body of the Church – the “Communitate fidelium”  and not exclusively in the “ecclesia docens.”

Fr. John L. McKenzie, S.J. the renowned scripture scholar and author of several books on the Old Testament and the New Testament as well as of the formidable “Dictionary of The Bible” makes out a compelling case for the proper understanding of “the Church” in his book “Authority in The Church”  Fr. McKenzie convincingly shows that “The Spirit is given to the whole Church and not exclusively to the leaders of the Church. . . . . The Spirit dwells in the entire Church, but is centered in the college.  In a proper sense the Spirit is mediated to the rest of the Church from the college through the offices of proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. . . .” He tells us that “The weight of 1 Corinthians 12 falls upon the theme that the Church is one and the Spirit is one in spite of the diversity of functions and offices. . . .”

In the space of a brief presentation such as this it is simply impossible to elaborate the principles which underlie the reality of the Church as a living organism distinct from any human organization or society crafted by human ingenuity.  The Church is created by Jesus Christ.  It is Christ who gave her her “mission.” And it is Christ who sustains her and guides her through the turmoil and turbulence of the world throughout its history.   If this truth is understood and accepted by the members of the Church (I do not specify “the laity”) the Church will be better able to accomplish her mission.

This being said, I would like to draw attention to a few important areas in which the People of God (or the Christifideles Laici, if you please) need to play an important part.  I will divide these issues into two main parts:  challenges “ad intra” in which the lay faithful need to make adjustments in their understanding of the Church, and challenges “ad extra” which directly impact the mission of the Church.

Of late, there have been public expressions (demands) by some lay organizations for greater participation in the decision making processes within the Church.  Many of these demands have arisen mainly as a result of the administration of the material goods of the Church – primarily landed properties. I shall not attempt to address this issue because it has already been addressed in the fourth Session: “Temporal Goods of the Church vis-à-vis Emerging Civil Legislations in the Context of the Mission of the Church.” 

I should only like to draw attention to a very disturbing aspect of this problem viz. the demand that the Government should take complete control of the management of the material goods of the Church by establishing a body similar to the Muslim Wakft Board or the Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee or the Guruvayoor Temple Trust etc.  This demand, coming as it does from The All India Catholic Union – a lay organization recognized by the Hierarchy, is extremely disturbing. 

The notable feature of the relationship over the years between the AICU and the CBCI has been one of “confrontation” rather than one of cooperation or “participation.”  A striking example of this is an occasion at which the then President of the AICU told the President of the CBCI during a public meeting: “You represent the Bishops of India, and I represent the People of God;  so we can have a dialogue as equals.”    I leave it to your good sense to decipher the attitude underlying this statement. 

The same All India Catholic Union has now publicly announced the convening of a “Laity Synod” shortly.  As we all know, a “Synod” is an ecclesiastical instrument which is governed by Canon Law. It is necessary for the Bishops and for this Assembly of the Canon Law Society of India to take cognizance of this development, which can have serious consequences for the Church in India. This warning is given specially because of the past history of the confrontationist behaviour of the AICU vis-à-vis the CBCI.

Secondly, there is a growing tendency among some Religious women to introduce “feminist” ideological perspectives into the Houses of Formation of some Religious Orders.  The uncritical and fashionable adoption of feminism as part of religious “formation” of young women poses a grave threat both to the integrity of the Religious Orders themselves as well as to the Mission of the Church in India.

On the external front, the Church in India faces some formidable challenges in relation to her mission of salvation.  It will not be possible to elaborate on the nature of these challenges because of the very limited time available;  but kindly allow me to list a few of the more conspicuous challenges:

•There is a growing tendency to “decriminalize” certain public behaviours, such as homosexual practices in public.  A recent decision of the Delhi High Court explicitly stated that open homosexual behaviour should not be considered as a crime.

•There is an official proposal before the Parliament to “regulate” surrogate motherhood.  This proposal has been made by the Ministry of  Health and Family Welfare together with the Indian Council of Medical Research.  The Bill is titled: “The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill.”  Without entering into details of the Bill, it should be noted that surrogate motherhood is being implicitly accepted as a commercial enterprise.  

•In conjunction with surrogate motherhood, unmarried (usually college-going) girls are being enticed to sell their eggs to so-called “Infertility clinics.”

•Another assault on the integrity of the family has emerged in the form of a proposal made by the Ministry of Women and Child Development to the Law Minister to enable children who are under the ages of 12 to 14 years to have “non-penetrative” consensual sex, without fear of being prosecuted under the Law.  According to the present legal status, any sexual activities by children under the age of 16 years is a criminal offence. 

•Abortion has already been “legalized” and is widely practised.  Now there are influential forces which are trying to legalize euthanasia under the spurious claim that the “right to die” is inherent in the “right to life.”  

These are only some of the moral issues facing the Church in India (as also the Church worldwide) which demand our urgent attention.  The destruction of the family as the basic unit of society, the abandonment of marriage as a sacred trust between a man and a woman, the tolerance of co-habitation are challenges which cannot be ignored or put on the back burner.  They have to be confronted boldly and with courage.

Text of the lecture given to the Canon Law Society of India on October 25th, 2011 at the St. Pius X College, Goregaon, Mumbai during its Silver Jubilee Conference – October 19th. to 26th., 2011.

The theme of this presentation is “Towards an active and more meaningful participation of the Laity in the Church in India.”   The formidable external challenges facing the Church (in India) require, primarily, that the non-ordained (lay) Catholics be in the forefront of the promotion of the Mission of Christ in this world.  But to equip them to face these challenges effectively, the laity need the intellectual and moral formation which can only be had through creative catechesis and the sacraments.  The clergy too have an important role to play in this mission.

For Further Reading 

Pope Pius XII

Discourse to the New Cardinals,  20th February, 1946

AAS 38 (1946) Vatican.

Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, (June 29th 1943). 

Pope John Paul II

Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation  “Christifideles Laici.”

Libreria Editrice Vaticana,  Vatican City.

Samuel D. Femiano C.S.B.

Infallibility of the Laity

Herder and Herder,  New York, 1967.

John L. McKenzie, S.J.

Authority In The Church.

Geoffrey Chapman, London,  1966.

Yves M. Congar,  O.P.,

Laity, Church and World,

Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1960.

Lay People In The Church.

Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1963.

John Henry Cardinal Newman

On Consulting The Faithful in Matters of Doctrine

(edited by John Coulson )

Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1961.

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana,  1989.

Vatican Council II

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church  Lumen Gentium

Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People  Apostolicam Actuositatem.

Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World  Gaudium et Spes

“We have been opposing the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) ever since it was conceived in the mid-1980s. The people of Koodankulam village themselves were misled by false promises such as 10,000 jobs, water from Pechiparai dam in Kanyakumari district, and fantastic development of the region. We tried in vain to tell them that they were being deceived. Without any local support, we could not sustain the anti-Koodankulam movement for too long,” says Dr. Udayakumar, Convenor of Anti-Koodamkulam Nuclear Movement.

 

The people of Koodankulam know and understand that this is not just a fisherfolk’s problem, they may be displaced, and they have to deal with radioactive poison. Their joining the movement in 2007 has invigorated the campaign now. And (almost) all of us here in the southernmost tip of India oppose the Koodankulam NPP for a few specific reasons:

 

[1] The KKNPP reactors are being set up without sharing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Site Evaluation Study and Safety Analysis Report with the people, or the people’s representatives or the press. No public hearing has been conducted for the first two reactors either. There is absolutely no democratic decision-making in or public approval for this project.

 

[2] The Tamil Nadu Government G.O. 828 (29.4.1991 – Public Works Department) establishes clearly that “area between 2 to 5 km radius around the plant site, [would be] called the sterilization zone.” This means that people in this area could be displaced. But the KKNPP authorities promise orally and on a purely ad hoc basis that nobody from the neighboring villages would be displaced. This kind of ad hocism and doublespeak causes suspicion and fears of displacement.

 

[3] More than 1 million people live within the 30 km radius of the KKNPP which far exceeds the AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) stipulations. It is quite impossible to evacuate this many people quickly and efficiently in case of a nuclear disaster at Koodankulam.

 

[4] The coolant water and low-grade waste from the KKNPP are going to be dumped into the sea which will have a severe impact on fish production and catch. This will undermine the fishing industry, push the fisherfolks into deeper poverty and misery and affect the food security of the entire southern Tamil Nadu and southern Kerala.

 

[5] Even when the KKNPP projects function normally without any incidents and accidents, they would be emitting Iodine 131, 132, 133, Cesium 134, 136, 137 isotopes, strontium, tritium, tellurium and other such radioactive particles into our air, land, crops, cattle, sea, seafood and ground water. Already the southern coastal belt is sinking with very high incidence of cancer, mental retardation, down syndrome, defective births due to private and government sea-sand mining for rare minerals including thorium. The KKNPP will add many more woes to our already suffering people.

 

[6] The quality of construction and the pipe work and the overall integrity of the KKNPP structures have been called into question by the very workers and contractors who work there in Koodankulam. There have been international concerns about the design, structure and workings of the untested Russian-made VVER-1000 reactors.

 

[7] The then Minister of State for Environment and Forest Mr. Jairam Ramesh announced a few months ago that the central government had decided not to give permission to KKNPP 3-6 as they were violating the Coastal Regulation Zone stipulations. It is pertinent to ask if KKNPP 1 and 2 are not violating the CRZ terms.

 

[8] Many political leaders and bureaucrats try to reassure us that there would be no natural disasters in the Koodankulam area. How can they know? How can anyone ever know? The 2004 December tsunami did flood the KKNPP installations. There was a mild tremor in the surrounding villages of Koodankulam on March 19, 2006. On August 12, 2011, there were tremors in 7 districts of Tamil Nadu.

 

[9] The Prime Minster himself has spoken about terrorist threats to India’s nuclear power plants. Most recently, on August 17, 2001, Minister of State for Home, Mr. Mullappally Ramachandran said: “the atomic establishments continue to remain prime targets of the terrorist groups and outfits.”

 

[10] The important issue of liability for the Russian plants has not been settled yet. Defying the Indian nuclear liability law, Russia insists that the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA), secretly signed in 2008 by the Indian and Russian governments, precedes the liability law and that Article 13 of the IGA clearly establishes that NPCIL is solely responsible for all claims of damages.

 

[11] In 1988 the authorities said that the cost estimate of the Koodakulam 1 and 2 projects was Rs. 6,000 crores. In November 1998, they said the project cost would be Rs. 15,500. In 2001, the ministerial group for economic affairs announced that the project cost would be Rs. 13,171 crores and the Indian government would invest Rs. 6,775 crores with the remainder amount coming in as Russian loan with 4 percent interest. The fuel cost was estimated to be Rs. 2,129 crores which would be entirely Russian loan. No one knows the 2011 figures of any of these expenses. No one cares to tell the Indian public either.

 

[12] The March 11, 2011 disaster in Fukushima has made it all too clear to the whole world that nuclear power plants are prone to natural disasters and no one can really predict their occurrence. When we cannot effectively deal with a nuclear disaster, it is only prudent to prevent it from occurring. Even the most industrialized and highly advanced country such as Germany has decided to phase out their nuclear power plants by the year 2022. Switzerland has decided to shun nuclear power technology. In a recent referendum, some 90 percent of Italians have voted against nuclear power in their country. Many Japanese prefectures and their governors are closing nuclear power plants in their regions. Both the United States and Russia have not built a new reactor in their countries for 2-3 decades ever since major accidents occurred at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

 

In our own country, Mamata Banerjee government in West Bengal has stopped the Russian nuclear power park project at Haripur in Purba Medhinipur district and taken a position that they do want any nuclear power project in their state. Similarly, the people of Kerala have decided not to host any nuclear power project in their state.

 

[13] And finally, the Indian government’s mindless insistence on nuclear power, utmost secrecy in all of its nuclear agreements and activities, and its sheer unwillingness to listen to the people’s concerns and fears make us very doubtful about the real benefactors of all this nuclear hoopla. Is it all for us, the people of India? Or for the corporate profits of the Russian, American and French companies?  Or for the Indian military? Are the lives and futures of the Indian citizens inferior to all these?”

 

We should keep in mind the following points if anybody would like to intervene in this issue:

1. The fisher people protested against the Koodamkulam Nuclear Plant in 1989 under the aegis of Kannyakumari March. The police opened fire upon the fisher people and many got wounded and Mr. Jesuretinam lost his leg and he is permanently disabled. The police filed against the fisher people and the case went on for 6 years and finally the case was dismissed.

2. The protest continued under the leadership of Y.David but the GOI went ahead with the construction of Koodamkulam Nuclear Plant (KNP)

3. The National Alliance of Peoples Movements (NAPM) also protested against KNP many times but the GOI went ahead with the construction of KNP.

4. It was in this context Pukushima Incident took place in Japan. This has created protest all over the World against Nuclear Plants.

5. Germany decided to close down all the Nuclear Plants in Germany by 2025. People are moving out from the areas of Nuclear Plants `in Germany.

6. Vatican has constructed Solar Energy Plants in Vatican with the help of Germany instead of Nuclear Plants.

7. GOI cannot give any safety when they totally failed in BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY. Nobody in India is going to believe the promises of Safety by the GOI.

8. What safety GOI can give when KNP is dumping hot water with radiation content to the Sea? Who will compensate the fisher people in Tuticorin, Kannyakumari and Trivandrum?

9. Where will KNP dump the waste with Radiation Content?

10. Russia is not taking any liability if any disaster happens with KNP.

11. This is a new technology by the Russians. They are experimenting with it. Nobody is sure about the safety.

12. If any disaster happens, who is liable? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh?

13. Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West Bengal Cancelled Haripur Nuclear Plant all by herself? Why can't Tamil Nadu Assembly and the CM and People reject KNP? Why Prime Minister is pushing KNP upon Tamil Nadu? This is a violation  the federal system of India. It is an open violation of Indian Constitution.

14. In Jaithapur fisher people are protesting against the Nuclear Plant.

15. Why Can't GOI make Solar Energy and Wind energy? . If the same amount they are investing on Nuclear Plants, be made on Solar and Wind energy creation,  we can have Wind and Solar Energy in India.

16. If the present transmission of electricity is converted scientifically we can save 20-30% electricity of present production. The maximum nuclear energy GOI is envisaging is only 20%.

17. In the light of these the People of Tamil Nadu do not want KNP. Please stop talking about safety. 

 

The dioceses of Tuticorin and Kottar are fully involved in the struggle. The first struggle went on for 11 days with 125 persons on indefinite hunger strike and thousands sit-in-dharna supporting the fast. This led to the resolution that Tamil Nadu Assembly saying  ‘no’ to the KNP. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister has taken a strong stand against the KNP. The agitation is on and the people expect the church to render support to their cause. 

One of the implicit messages in the advertisements we see is, in effect, “You are not adequate, you are not pretty enough, thin enough, healthy enough, popular enough, rich enough.” Further, “The world is a threatening and difficult place and you are not up to the task.” And then comes the pitch, “Buy our product and you’ll make it, you’ll measure up and solve life’s challenges. You won’t be so pathetic and ill equipped.” So the basic recipe is: incite fear and push the product as a solution.

And to be fair, the advertisements often do this with humor and creativity. Further, it is not wrong to sell a product to help meet a need. Needs are simply facts of human existence and people and companies do have good products to help us meet these needs.

But in the end we need to be more consciously aware that not every fear or apparent inadequacy elicited by an advertiser is a real or legitimate fear, or actual inadequacy. We don’t all have to be young, good looking, popular and perfectly healthy to be happy. I used to be young tan and trim, increasingly now, I am old, white and fat. But God is good and I am quite happy and more blessed than I deserve. I am also reasonably healthy, despite the extra weight. And even if advertisers insist that I should look and feel as I did at 25, I’m not buying into the fear, guilt and inadequacy thing. It’s wonderful to get older. And though my outer self, my body, is less sound and sleek, my inner self is being renewed day by day (cf 2 cor 4:16). I am more alive today than I ever was at 25.

Another thing that goes unsaid is the ultimate inadequacy of anything in this world to really satisfy us. Despite the many promises of ads and other media, no one product or even a huge collection of many products can really fill the God-sized hole in our hearts. I will say, there are many things that bring convenience and comfort. But, in the end, they don’t really cut the deal when it comes to deep satisfaction. In fact, the more we have, the more dissatisfied we seem to be. This is probably due to the unrealistic expectations all these creature comforts and pervasive ads strive to create. But in the end the words of Ecclesiastes still ring true:

All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye is never satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. (Ecclesiastes 1:8-10)

Indeed, this world cannot live up to its hype. That longing in your heart which too easily is translated as “Buy a new car,” is better translated, “Seek always the face of the Lord” (cf Psalm 27:8) . Occasionally a new car is warranted but it won’t do the trick the advertisers say. A good beer, or a glass of wine can cheer the heart, but not really heal it .

So here we are in a media world permeated with many unrealistic premises. We do well to ponder the often unquestioned assumptions of these marketers, even as we enjoy and use some of their products.

On how the BJP and its friends across party lines tried to shoot down the draft Communal Violence Bill in the NIC meeting.

I must begin with a Disclaimer: I was a member of the Working Group of the  Mrs Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council which drafted the Prevention of Communal Violence [Access to Justice and Reparations] Bill 2011. I am also a member of the National Integration Council. In the council’s belated meeting on 10th September 2011 in the magnificent Vigyan Bhawan, I was the solitary Christian Member – of the other two, St Stephens College principal Dr. Valson Thampu did not attend, and Delhi Archbishop Vincent Concessao was away in Rome – to speak and support the enactment of such a Bill, which otherwise came in for a brutal drubbing at the hands of Bharatiya Janata party’s parliamentary leaders Mrs Shushma Swaraj of the Lok Sabha and Mr Arun Jaitely of the Rajya Sabha, and the party’s chief ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, leaders of most major non Congress parties and even the bosses of some Satellite TV channels. My views in this article may, therefore, be somewhat biased, and if they are, it is despite my trying hard to be absolutely neutral. I may also point out that during the framing of this draft Bill, I, together with jurists Vrinda Grover and Usha Ramanathan and activist Shabnam Hashmi,  have been a critic of many a provision relating to a feared erosion of the federal character of our governance and possible allusions to “disturbed areas” which are anathema to many of us in the civil liberties movement. The NAC accepted over 57 objections before publishing its draft Bill.

Having said that, I fear that there has been a possible attempt in some official quarters to kill this Bill even before it has formally seen the light of the day by being send to the Cabinet, then introduced in Parliament, discussed in select committees and then debate openly on the floor of the Rajya Sabha [where an apparition of a 2005 Bill still lives] before being passed and signed into law. The manner in which it was allowed to be mauled in the open meeting of the National Integration Council – just four of us really supported it, three being social activists – put a huge question mark on why the Bill was  so prematurely put before political opponents for their views, and why no one from the government or from the Congress Party spoke, or was allowed to speak, in defence of either the Bill or the rational for coming up with suitable legislation to save religious minorities of all sorts from targetted violence. 

The Bill came into being from the group experiences of the anti Muslim pogroms of Gujarat in 2002, the attempted annihilation of Christians in Kandhamal, Orissa in 2007-2008, the haunting memories of the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi and other cities, together with attacks on Dalits and Tribals over the past few decades. The government had come up with a Bill in 2005, but when it presented its version in the Rajya Sabha, it was clear that the administration was empowering governments and police rather than protecting and defending the victims. It took five years of hard labour by civil society and especially by the Muslim groups, led by the likes of former Chief Justice Ahmadi and several retired high court judges, before the government agreed there was need to revise the Bill thoroughly.

The National Integration Council took upon itself the task of drafting the proposed new Bill, together with other social legislation it was working on including the Right to Food. It set up a  working group with members Harsh Mander and Farah Naqvi as coordinators and experts and activists  representing the minorities, legal luminaries and others on the team. It took close to a year before the Bill took some share, seeing bitter and prolonged discussions between members to balance the needs of the minorities and reconciling it with  constitutional provisions and the Indian penal Code. 

It was quite clear from the beginning that there was a felt need to identify and punish targetted violence,  define who will be identified as victims and when, and how action would be taken to end impunity, enforce command responsibility, set up some mechanism to trigger state action. It was also clear that we did not want to repeat the experiments of the National Human Rights commission and the national Commission for Minorities which were either toothless, or as themselves as defenders of national honour by defending the government, or were toothless. It was also clear to us that the federal character of the state could not be trifled with. And above all, many of us were absolutely adamant that there be no reference to disturbed areas on the pattern of Jammu and Kashmir and the north eastern States which gave unfettered powers to the Armed Forces. 

Although most of the members had worked with the victims of communal violence, and therefore wanted  some universal principles and equality to be introduced both in justice and in reparations and relief and rehabilitation, we did not want fears to be expressed about possible overthrow of state governments by the Centre and the introduction of President’s Rule. Therefore it was only the second part of Article 355 which was seen as an entry point for the Central government to encourage state governments to act swiftly when communal violence went out of hand, as had happed in Gujarat and Kandhamal. 

In defining groups, it was also clear to us that most groups could be in a  minority in some state or the other, and in certain circumstances. Though Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians were the national minorities, even Hindus were a minority in as many as seven of the 35 States and Union territories of India. Other issues covered in the Bill in detail were Dereliction of Duty by public servants which was recognised  both in omission and commission. The definition said public servants who act or omit to exercise  authority vested in them and fail to prevent or offences or protect victims  or act in a malafide or predicted manner will be guilty of punishable offences. They had of course first to identify the violence as targetted. The monitoring and grievance redressal, the bill said, shall be  with the National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation (NACHJR) and corresponding State authorities (SACHJR). The monitoring mechanism of national and state authorities will also provide the “paper trail” to ensure robust accountability of public officials in a court of law.

The critical clauses related to the identification of targeted and communal violence. The Indian Penal Code contains most offences committed during episodes of communal violence. These have been appended in a schedule to the Bill and shall be considered offences when they cross a threshold of being knowingly directed against any person  by virtue of his or her membership of a minority group. Brutal forms of sexual offence as seen in Gujarat and Kandhamal have also been included in the bill, as is hate campaign and propaganda leading to alienation and targetted violence. 

Just to make it doubly sure that the Bill passed muster, the draft said advisories and recommendations of the NACHJR were not binding  on State governments. All powers and duties of investigation, prosecution and trial remained with the State governments.

The draft Bill, after being put in a legislative format by Additional Solicitor General Indira Jai Singh [she did only the formatting, not the actual drafting, it must be made clear]  the draft was put on the Internet by the National Advisory Council to garner public opinion which would be sent to the Central government together with the suggestions came. In due course, the ministries were supposed to clear it before the Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister adopted a final version for introducing in parliament.

That is why the developments in the NIC meeting surprised us.  The government had not formally intimated its position on the Bill nor had it formally sent it to the opposition parties and the state governmetns for their official opinion and suggestions other than the NAC putting it on its website. The agenda formulation too made it seem that those who were to speak had either to accept it or reject it, rather than to critique and analyse it. As the formal NIC note put it, the agenda of the meeting was “measures to curb communalism and  communal violence, approach to the Communal Violence Bill, measures to promote communal harmony and measures to end discrimination, specially against minorities, and finally, how to prevent radicalisation of youth”.

Unfortunately, barring the preliminary remarks of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the discussion, along political divides, focussed on just the Draft NAC Bill. The tone was set by Sushma Swaraj who slammed the Bill and said it did not consider people as Indian citizens but divided them on line of religion or ethnicity and language. Her party, she said, would formally oppose the Bill. Arun Jaitely followed suit, saying the federal structure would be hit. In saying so, they almost verbatim followed the propaganda that had been let loose for weeks earlier by the RSS and its wings, the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad whose leadership threatened a nationwide agitation to ensure that the bill, which they aid stigmatised the Hindu community, did not bring law. It was mostly the BJP chief ministers who were present in force barring Narendra Modi of Gujarat. They all opposed the Bill in the language similar to the Bajrang Dal and RSS. Nitish Kumar, Jayalalitha and Mayawati had stayed away, but the text they circulated criticised the Bill for infringing  on the rights of the states. The CPM – and both Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury spoke, also had grave apprehensions about the federal motives of the NAC. BJP’s allies at one time or the other, the Akali Dal and the Biju Janata Dal, also toed the line.  

What surprised observers was the stance of the UPA ally Trinamul Congress of Mamta Bannerjee which made common cause with other state governments in the issue of the rights of the states. Scholar Zoya Hasan and some media stalwarts also spoke against the Bill for a verity of reasons, but essentially implying that existing laws were more than sufficient. 

There were very few supporters. Ministers do not speak at NIC meetings as a matter of form. But other Congressmen do. They refrained this time from supporting a draft emerging out of a council headed by party president Sonia Gandhi. The support came from Muslim members Navid Hamid and Asghar Ali Engineer and a few others. The Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities, Wajahat Habibullah, repeatedly asked for permission to speak, but in the end could not. In an interview later, he said he wanted to stress issues of Rehabilitation, Accountability and the plight of Internally Displaced persons, which in fact was added on NCM’s recommendation following Kandhamal, Ahmedabad and the situation in Tribal areas of Tripura. He also referred to the agenda item on youth, mentioning the victimisation of Muslim youth arrested In the Mecca Masjid bomb blast case and the governments” arresting them under laws  on criminal conspiracy and sedition and so on.

The matter of course is not over. The debate continues even among those of us who were members of the NAC Working group. Many have called for an urgent meeting of the Working group to revisit the issues of federalism and possible encroachment of the powers of the States. There is a feeling that even if the objections have been political, there is need to make the Bill go through parliament with consensus and dialogue, and therefore there is a need to engage with the states governments and with various political parties. 

There is a definite agreement, articulated by eminent law teacher Upendra Buxi that there is need for a law to prevent targetted and communal violence. Vrinda Grover said “we must also pay heed that criticism or anxiety is being expressed from across the board and not just the usual suspects.” Vrinda and Usha Ramanathan were among the first in the Working group to flag problematic provisions.  “There is some merit in reconsidering some legal propositions presented in the final NAC draft of the CV Bill, 2011,” she says. “I am afraid the apprehension that this law is a device for the Union to usurp the power and role of the States and intrude at will, lingers on. The ill advised Clause 20 of the penultimate NAC Bill, still haunts public memory, with some reason. Despite Clause 20 having been dropped no corresponding change has been made the powers and functions of the National Authority. It is this that has invited the wrath of many regional, Left, 'secular' parties who would have otherwise been our allies and advocates of this Bill.

Most of us agree with Vrinda when she says “tampering with the federal structure will not yield anything for those constituencies who need the protection of the CV law. It will however alienate critical allies, without whose support, it is unlikely that this Bill will ever translate into law, as the numbers will simply not add up.”

All eyes are now on the NAC and the Union Government, though the hope that the Bill would be placed before Parliament, possibly as government amendments to the Bill of 2005, are fading fast.

The issue of death penalty has come to the fore with the verdict to  hang Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, convicted in Rajiv Gandhi murder. On August 11, President Pratibha Patil rejected the mercy petition of the three men who were linked to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which ordered the former prime minsiter’s killing. A woman suicide bomber blew up Rajiv Gandhi during an election rally in Sreeperumbudur near Chennai May 21, 1991. In 1998, all 26 accused in the case- including the three- were sentenced to death by a special trial court. In 1999, the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentences of four: Murugan, Santhan, Perarivalan and Nalini, an Indian woman who had assisted the killer squad. The Court stayed the execution order against the four defendants in order to give the bench time to consider their review petition. The capital punishment of the others was reduced to varying terms of imprisonment on the grounds that they had already served seven years in judicial custody as undertrials. The death sentence of Nalini, who married Murugan and became a mother in prison, was commuted to life imprisonment after her mercy petition was accepted.  Haritha, the 19-year-old daughter of Murugan and Nalini, has now appealed to Jayalalithaa and Sonia Gandhi to save her father's life.

After the President turned down their clemency petition, the court fixed September 9 as the date for the execution. Since then several political parties including the DMK, her erstwhile ally the MDMK, the PMK and many rights activists in Tamil Nadu have been mounting pressure on the State Chief Minister Jayalalithaa to intervene and save the lives of the three now lodged in Vellore central prison.  Though at first Jayalalithaa said she has no powers to stop the execution, in the face of mounting popular and political pressure she moved a resolution which was adopted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to request the President to reconsider the clemency petition. In the meantime the Madras High Court has extended the date of execution by ten weeks. The lawyers who represent the three convicted for execution had argued that there has been inordinate delay of more than eleven years in considering the clemency petition. The case has also thrown up new issues such as the legitimacy of the legislative assembly to pass a resolution seeking reconsideration of an already rejected clemency petition by the President of India, whipping up public sentiments to undo a court verdict under political or ethnic or regional compulsions an so on.  

Currently there are some 300 convicts in India who are on death penalty, waiting to be executed. Leading among them are the three condemned to death in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, Afzal Guru in the Parliament attack case, Ajmal Kasab for the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar for the 1993 bomb blast in New Delhi,  and those condemned to death for the Godhra train burning case.  As the per the Indian law, once the Supreme Court upholds the verdict of death sentence awarded by a lower court, the convicted can file a clemency petition with the President of India. Article 72 of the Indian Constitution gives the President the powers to reduce the sentence or grant a pardon to a convict, especially those involving capital punishment.  Of the 300 who are on the death row, only 26 have appealed to the President for clemency. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, from 1995 to 2006, the President has rejected seven mercy petitions and commuted two, while from1985 to 1994 the President rejected 41 mercy petitions and commuted four. 

It is seven years since India carried out an execution. The last person in India to be sent to the gallows was Dhananjoy Chatterejee in August 2004. His crime- rape and murder of a girl in 1990 in the apartment building where he worked as a guard.  The hanging of Chatterjee was the first in India since 1997, ending a de facto moratorium on executions. Though there were several persons who have been awarded death sentences by the courts and are awaiting their death, there have been no executions during the intervening period.
 

The issue of death penalty is a hotly debated one both in legal and political circles across the world. There are several international and national organisations which are campaigning for abolition of death penalty. In India, the principle of limiting the death penalty to only heinous crimes is strongly supported by constitutional doctrine. India's higher courts have routinely ruled that the death penalty must be imposed in only "the rarest of rare cases". At independence in 1947, India retained the 1861 Penal Code which provided for the death penalty for murder. During the drafting of the Indian Constitution between 1947 and 1949, some members of the Constituent Assembly proposed to abolish the death penalty. However no such provision was incorporated in the Constitution.  

Over the next two decades several private members’ bills proposing abolition of death penalty was introduced in both the houses of Parliament, but none of these were adopted. 

In spite of the ruling that sentence of death be awarded only in the "rarest of rare" cases, between 1950 and 1980 there have been hundreds of executions in the country. In the Bachan Singh judgment of 1980, the Supreme Court reiterated that the death penalty should be used only in the ‘rarest of the rare cases’. What is not clear is the exact interpretation of the phrase: ‘rarest of the rare cases’.  Despite such restrictive clauses, the Government of India has in practice sought to apply the death penalty to a wide range of offences. There are two broad categories of legislation providing for the death penalty in India: the Indian Penal Code, within which nine offences are punishable by death; and special or local legislation. At least 14 other ‘special’ or ‘local’ laws provide for the death penalty; three of these are successive anti-terror laws. 

Death penalty can be imposed for murder; for attempted murder by a person serving life imprisonment; for gang robbery with murder; for abetting the suicide of a child or insane person; for waging war against the government; for abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces; and for fabricating false evidence with intent to secure the conviction of another person for a capital offence when conviction ensues. Death sentences may also be imposed for a number of offences committed by members of the armed forces under the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950 and the Navy Act, 1956. In recent years, the list of capital crimes has expanded even further. Special courts established under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 can impose the death sentence for certain broadly defined "terrorist acts". In 1987, the Government of India passed the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987, which applied the death penalty to individuals convicted of abetting a successful Sati. In May 1988, causing death by use of illegal arms or ammunition was made a capital offence. And, in December 1988, second convictions for drug-trafficking were made punishable by death under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 1988.

The legal luminaries are aware of loopholes and inadequacies in an important matter like death penalty. In recent years, the Supreme Court has reversed two practices and decided not to impose a death sentence where the judges hearing the case had not reached unanimity on the question of sentence or of guilt. The second was not to impose a death sentence on a person who had been previously acquitted by a lower court. It is also a fact that often death sentences in India are based on circumstantial evidence due to inadequate forensic facilities, the testimony of witnesses which is crucial, faulty or poor investigation and so on. Another matter of concern is the fact that the application of death penalty is subject to human fallibility like all other forms of punishment. But unlike other forms of punishment, the death penalty is irrevocable. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice P N Bhagwati admitted the possibility of error when he wrote: "The possibility of error in judgment cannot be ruled out on any theoretical considerations. It is indeed a very live possibility … that the court or the State acting through the instrumentality of the court may have on its conscience the blood of an innocent man".  A further problem can arise due to the lack of clear guidelines. The judges in India have a great deal of discretion with regard to capital punishments, and as a result, whether a person is hanged for a particular crime or not depends largely upon the views and interpretation of the dictum ‘rarest of rare cases’ of the individual judge. 

International organizations and NGOs working for human rights are increasingly calling for the abolition of the death penalty or at least to reduce its use to only extremely limited cases. In April 1999, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution calling on all States "to establish a moratorium on executions, with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty" (Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1999/61).  The Commission also urged States "not to impose the death penalty for any but the most serious crimes" and "progressively to restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed". 

India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979. In December 2007, India voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution for a moratorium on the death penalty. At a time in which the international trend is moving strongly towards the progressive abolition of death penalty, the Government of India continues to pursue capital punishment without much hesitation. It has become apparent to the vast majority of the world's democratic States that the death penalty cannot be reconciled with liberal values and a commitment to human rights. It is high time that India makes that same recognition and joins the international movement towards abolition of the death penalty. 

One of the leading arguments in support of retaining death penalty is that it will serve as a deterrent to potential criminals and will considerably reduce serious crime. Such theories of deterrence lack empirical evidence. Sociologists and criminological experts state that death penalty cannot reduce crime. Statistics pertaining to India also show that capital punishment does not deter criminal behaviour. Amnesty International illustrates this point:  There were 962 murders registered in the former princely states of Travancore and Cochin between 1945 and 1950, a period in which the death penalty was abolished in both states. However, in the six years from 1951 to 1956 after capital punishment was restored, the total number of murders registered was 967. In short, the restoration of the death penalty did not lead to any decrease in the number of murders.

The rise of global terrorism and drug trafficking, civil war and internal conflicts are cited as necessitating strong punishments like death penalty for those who indulge in them. Factors which prompt retaining of death penalty include political and religious considerations, bias against certain religious or ideological groups, pressure to retain or capture political power and so on. But with increasing number of terrorists who wage war against the state, or are prepared to become suicide bombers to commit murders and crimes, it is difficult to imagine that death penalty will serve as a deterrent against such crime. Most of them are in any case prepared to lay down their lives for the cause they espouse, even if the state does not hand them a death sentence. 

Like all other judicial verdicts in India the fate of those condemned to death depend on the outcome of a long bureaucratic procedure. The Rajiv Gandhi assassination case is a clear example of this. There are people who favour a quick execution once the judgment has been given. They argue that there is no justification in keeping those sentenced to death in jails and spending the tax payers’ hard-earned money for their upkeep. For instance, crores of rupees are being spent on criminals like Ajmal Kasab.  They also argue that the government’s failure to comply with the court orders of death sentence should be akin to contempt of court.

For those who campaign for the abolition of death penalty globally, there is reason for hope. In 1977, only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. As of December 2010 the  figure rose to 96. Now more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. The most recent country to do so is Benin in Africa. While Benin’s penal code had allowed for death penalty to be handed down for various offences, it did not execute anyone for more than two decades. The National Assembly of Benin two weeks ago voted in favour of ratifying an international treaty banning capital punishment. So far 16 African countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, including four – Burundi, Togo, Gabon and Benin – in the last two years. The President of Mongolia has also established an official moratorium on executions. 

In the meantime, 23 countries carried out executions and 67 imposed new death sentences in 2010. At least 76 % of executions worldwide take place in Asia.  While in India death sentences are carried out only by hanging, other countries use different methods of execution such as beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection and shooting. There are those who object to the method of execution practiced in India, namely, death by hanging. Human right activists and those who advocate abolition of death penalty argue that execution by  hanging violates the universally recognised right to be free from torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 

Advocates for the abolition of death penalty argue that it is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “Those countries that still execute offenders are increasingly isolated as they battle against the changing tide of global public opinion and legal practice on the death penalty.” Amnesty International has been monitoring developments around the use of the death penalty and has been campaigning for its abolition for more than three decades. 

There is a convergence of views among many religions and enlightened leaders against death penalty. Different religions agree on the common premise that life is God’s gift and it is not the right of anyone to take it. Mahatma Gandhi said: "I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because he alone gives it". In his encyclical The Gospel of Life published in 1995, Pope John Paul II declared that in a modern society capital punishment can scarcely ever be condoned. Respect for human life precludes such practices today. The church’s rejection of death penalty is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ who challenges us to love our enemies, to practice forgiveness, healing and reconciliation. In his own death, by capital punishment, Jesus prayed for his executioners and said they knew not what they did. The Christian affirmation of life as God’s gift is the most basic premise on which church’s teachings against death penalty, suicide, murder, abortion, and euthanasia are based. Abolition of death penalty would firmly affirm that we need not take life for life, that we can envisage more humane and more hopeful and effective responses to the growth of violent crime. It will be a further testimony to our conviction which we share with the Judaic, Christian and Islamic traditions, that God is indeed the Lord of life. We cannot claim to defend life except by eliminating exercise of a judicial authorization to take human life.

For quite some time now there have been forces at work to destroy the order established by Nature and to reconstitute laws governing the family, society, human relationships, governance and economic systems.  These subversive forces are multi-pronged and multi-lateral.  Moreover, although they may appear to be unconnected they all have a common devious objective:  to alienate Man from the very core of his humanity.   These evil forces are spreading like a cancer, respecting neither cultural values nor spiritual traditions.  They are not confined to any definite geographical areas or even to any intellectual disciplines.  They are both widespread and intensive.

First came the so-called “sexual revolution”  which promised to liberate man from the shackles of his own sexuality. Modesty, decency and appropriate social behaviour were thrown out the window;  followed by the “feminist” movement which promised to liberate women from their femininity.  Then came the attack against marriage as a social institution followed by the idolization of what has come to be described as “same sex marriage” or “civil unions.”   On the economic front, systems were put into place to glorify consumerism and to make irresponsible spending an economic virtue.

   

The fruits of these economic policies are now beginning to be seen in the financial melt-down of the world’s strongest economy.

  

The social malaise has kept pace with the economic irrationality; and, in fact, has fuelled the collapse of the economic system which has been built on questionable ethical principles.  It is strange and inexplicable that much of the debate insists on separating the economic problems from the social roots which have caused those problems.  It is as if people are seeking to treat the symptoms while ignoring the causes of the economic disease.

Leaving aside for the moment an analysis of the faulty economics which have triggered the current recession, let us focus on the social forces which are undermining the stability of the economic and the political systems.  The stability of the nations, individually, and indeed, of the entire world, is deeply rooted in the ethical framework of the social systems upon which these have been built. The erosion of social values is demonstrably evident in the many legislative and judicial decisions which have “decriminalized” behaviour which is clearly and indisputably unnatural and contrary to the laws of Nature.  The deterioration started with the promotion of so-called “birth control” which, it was claimed, would restore the balance between consumption and the availability of rare resources.  Of course, this birth control programme, worldwide, was weighted against the poor and the marginalized.  This was followed by the promotion of abortion on the ground that women had the right to decide whether they would give birth to the babies in their wombs or whether they considered these foetuses to be unwanted and undesirable.  Again, the eugenic dimension of this programme was carefully hidden from view.  This was followed by the movement to kill people with physical or mental disabilities, or even those who were simply old and dependent on others for their survival.  This murderous campaign was camouflaged in language that covered up the really gruesome nature of the euthanasia movement. 

 

Now we have evidence to show that aggressive homosexual and pro-paedophile groups are attempting to popularize paedophilia as a socially acceptable activity.   Sometime in late August an organization going under the name of B4U-ACT hosted a conference in Baltimore which was committed to changing the classification of paedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which is the bible of the American Psychological Association (APA) and which currently classifies paedophilia as a mental disorder which needs psychological treatment.   The self-described paedophile and ‘gay’ activists who attended this conference indulged in the now well-known linguistic gymnastics of twisting the meaning of paedophilia.  They argued that paedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.  They argued, further, that “children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.  They even went so far as to argue that an adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative” and that the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ignores the fact that paedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.

        

This conference of ‘gay’ and pro-paedophile promoters indulged in the now well-known semantic gymnastics which has become the stock-in-trade of deviant groups.  They described paedophiles as “minor-attracted persons”  whose motives are entirely honourable but whose actions are unnecessarily disapproved and demonized by society.   They attempted to change the classification of the APA’s  DSM in order to give their activities some semblance of normality and respectability.   We can be fairly sure that their “campaign”  will not end here.  They will make an aggressive push for judicial decisions to declare their activities as normal.  They will push their agenda with unresisting legislators who will try to legislate that paedophilia should no longer be considered to be a criminal offence.   “Decriminalization” is in the air and many “learned” Judges are prone to push the ethical boundaries of decent society in order to accommodate deviant social behaviour.   Already prostitution has ceased to be a criminal activity and has been declared to be an “industry.”  Those who indulge in such sexual promiscuity are said to be “commercial sex workers.”  Open homosexual activity has now been “decriminalized” both by the judicial system and by many legislatures on the ground that such activities between “consenting adults” should not be considered to be a violation of the law.  It takes only a little further push to convince some judges and some legislators that paedophilia should also be “decriminalized.” 

Many pro-family participants at the Baltimore conference were aghast at the cavalier manner in which the ‘gays’ promoted their nefarious agenda.  “As a former law enforcement officer I’ve dealt with situations involving suicide, homicide and other violence.  That said, I’ve never felt the level of spiritual oppression and evil that I felt in that room”  said one such participant.

Civilized society is clearly under attack by the forces of evil.  It does not take any special training to see that this is happening.  We need simply connect the dots and juxtapose the various legislations and judicial opinions to see that the picture which is emerging is one that should cause serious concern (nay, even alarm) to all reasonable citizens.   Evil erodes society very slowly and very unobtrusively.   A judgement here and a piece of legislation there eventually add up to make the civilization what it is.    History bears witness to the fact that many “powerful” civilizations in the past were not destroyed by external military attacks.  They simply collapsed from the inherent contradictions which were constructed from within.  Moral depravity always preceded the demise of all great civilizations.   We are now on the brink and it is up to us to ensure that the erosion is stopped.  “Although the stupidity of advocating harmless amoral sexuality overwhelms us daily, our arrogant ‘educated’ populations say morality has no place in our sexual lives.  Just as AIDS is a natural outgrowth of amoral sexual education and media, so too is child sexual abuse.  We are breeding a new human character and child sexual abuse is increasingly part of that character.” [Judith Reisman].

Corruption has many ugly faces and most of us Indians have close encounters with it almost on a daily basis. Anna Hazare has emerged as the face of the anti-corruption movement in India. The fact that lakhs of people from all walks of life across the country and even abroad are extending support to his campaign against corruption shows how eager they are to fight the malise head-on. Most of them have either no idea or only a vague notion of the details of the Jan Lokpal Bill, which Hazare and his close advisers are adamant to get passed in parliament. 

At the outset it must be stated that there are serious difficulties to agree with the methods of arm twisting adopted by Anna Hazare and his team, and their attempt to undermine the democratic processes for enacting legislation within the constitutional framework of the country. That being so, one cannot write off Anna Hazare and the mass support he has. From a small village in Maharshtra, he has stolen national and even international limelight. He has emerged as the most courageous, determined voice against corruption. He has become the darling of the media- particularly the television channels. At a time when politicians and those who govern the country have lost credibility, and corruption has become rampant in almost all transactions, the mass movement is undoubtedly the manifestation of the public’s anger. To write it off or disparage it is tantamount to wishing away an important issue like corruption as unimportant or marginal. 

What we hear loud and clear is the Anna sloganeering, not only from Ramlila grounds but from across the country. No doubt the media, particularly the 24 hour-cable television channels have gone overboard, and their shrill voice from the Ramlila ground has been belligerent. India as of now seems to be having only one newsworthy event- the Anna Hazare agitation and the mass movement. The media have coined fancy phrases to explain the phenomenon. For a change some channels have split the screen and show snippets from protests in other cities. The uninterrupted coverage, including the debates certainly help us to be more informed, and throw light on many issues. But media must not abdicate its role and function as the watchdog of democracy, the voice of sanity, objectivity and neutrality. The Indian cricket team is perhaps the happiest lot as most cricket fans failed to notice the complete route of Team India in England. In a sense, Team Anna has ousted the world champions too. 

There must be no second thought on Anna’s campaign against corruption. It must be welcomed. His credentials as an honest citizen who is concerned with the well being of the people of this country is beyond doubt, despite the Congress Party’s unsuccessful attempt to tarnish his image and bring up corruption charges against him It did not cut much ice with the people. If Anna was corrupt, the people of his village would not have held him in such great esteem. His fan club is growing by the hour, and I read that some 22 new born children in Madhya Pradesh have been named after him. Manish Tewari has had a  metanoia and has now apologized. It is indeed a welcome gesture and an example to politicians who want to be statesmen to be willing to admit error and render apology. It is easier to show bravado and say things, but it takes a lot of courage to say sorry. 

In the beginning Anna held the centre stage, almost as the single voice of the civil society against corruption and the proponent of the Jan Lokpal Bill. Then came other voices: Aruna Roy, Arundhuti Roy, Udit Raj and other activists. Bhukari urged the Muslim community not to associate with Anna Hazare because his fans are singing Vande Mataram and calling India, Mother India. Some leaders of the Christian community are also in two minds- some willing to support Anna Hazare for the movement against corruption minus the muscle flexing and deadline against the government and the attempt to scuttle parliamentary procedure for enacting laws and the time that is required to do so. Some others blame Anna Hazare for not taking up other issues- caste discrimination, communal violence, poverty. It is unfair to demand Anna to address all the issues in his agitation. Some accused him of being hand in glove with the RSS and fundamentalist or fascist forces. Much of these allegations are attempts to tarnish his image and to whittle down the one important issue he is fighting against- namely, corruption.   

The BJP and other opposition parties are extending support to Anna Hazare and the movement. As is the custom they act in a flip-flop style and speak with equivocation..  Even as they support him they also know in the heart of heart that his demands are wrought with serious consequences for the political leaders of their party too.  But they have other goals in mind- like toppling the government or at least weakening its functioning. They use the Anna campaign as golden opportunity to malign Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his government. 

Part of the sordid drama on which much has been written already, was the fact that the Congress-led UPA government with so many intelligent, experienced and articulate leaders, including some top notch lawyers,  messed things up to a point that it was difficult to climb back. From day one it was becoming obvious that the government was over reacting. It panicked and fumbled, to say the least. By doing so they contributed more than their opponents to strengthen the Anna Hazare-led agitation and the anger against the government.  

Coming back to corruption: It has become endemic and all pervasive. Corruption  has crept into electoral practices of every political party,  and elections today involve huge exchange of money. Money passes hands from the beginning - from getting a seat to garnering votes to winning elections. Horse-trading and toppling governments with money transactions are not new to Indian politics. Today almost every transaction is mired in financial malpractices, be it a business deal, purchase of property or home, or payment of a bill or violations of laws. Money can free you from the arm of law at every step, it exonerates the biggest of criminals and it can even influence judicial verdicts. Money has two colours- black and white. Transactions are finalized on the basis of how much would be paid in black and how much in white. 

I once asked a junior Income Tax officer why she was very sympathetic to her boss who was caught and jailed for corruption. Her reply surprised me: she said the man was not taking bribes for himself, but for the bosses who are higher ups. He had to do it in a system in which most people do not have the courage to risk their lives and their livelihoods. I realized that while Raja and Kalmadi suffer for their deeds in Tihar Jail many of those who shared the goodies are walking with their heads held high. Those in Tihar Jail are certainly not innocent, but their partners in crime are probably waxing eloquently against corruption. There are parliamentarians who ought to be in Tihar Jail than where they are. The rot is quite deep and the Prime Minister has sometimes unwittingly and at other times candidly admitted the compulsions he is faced with. In short it is not easy to clean up the system. His personal reputation for honesty and integrity are beyond doubt. But he cannot abdicate responsibility for the deeds of his ministerial and party colleagues. He certainly has a duty to address the issue. With his own credentials being above board, he certainly can do more than merely plead helplessness or effect periodic cabinet reshuffles. 

Everyone knows that Anna Hazare’s hunger strike or a nationwide agitation or not even a Jan Lokpal Bill will get rid of corruption completely. But the salutary effect of the movement could be that those who have made corruption part of their lives, including political leaders who preside over much of the rot in the country, might know that the public is in a foul mood and the cloud of discontent rising at the Ramlila grounds and at thousands of spots elsewhere in the country, could change into a revolution that will seriously affect them. 

Now the caveat: one cannot certainly agree with the unrelenting position and the deadlines adopted by Team Anna. Even some of the close supporters of Anna like Justice Hegde and Swami Angivesh have started expressing voices of dissent at the unilateral position taken by Anna and his close advisers. Swami Angivesh candidly admitted that Anna Hazare is being ill-advised.  He missed a good opportunity to withdraw the fast when the Prime Minster wrote to him and made a commitment to see that a strong bill would be brought in to check corruption. The Parliament itself bend over backwards to get him withdraw the fast. 

At the time of writing, the crisis is not yet over; Anna Hazare is not yet called off his fast. The government and Opposition parties are working out various strategies to get Anna call off his fast. Almost political parties as well as a wide cross section of the civil society and religious leaders appealed to him to end the fast. But there is an element of stubborn reluctance to negotiate, and part of the blame goes to Anna Hazare’s close aides.  We are a democracy, and India’s great strength as a nation since independence has been its Constitution and the democracy. In a democracy one cannot be so unyielding and stubborn. Many saner elements are on record saying parliament process in a democracy cannot be bypassed; and that is not the prerogative even of the Prime Minister or the government. Undermining the processes of legislation and the power of the Parliament would be cutting the branch on which one is sitting. The Jan Lokpal Bill drafted by Team Anna is not a magic wand. So are the drafts of others. Muscle flexing and name calling won’t get us ahead. It can only further weaken our political framework which has checks and balances. The remedy prescribed by Anna and team should not be worse than the sickness they are trying to treat. 

Those who want to clean up the system must get back to the base of our democratic system. They must get down work at the grass roots: re-examine the credentials of the people’s representatives, check whether they have delivered on the promises they made at the time of election campaigns. If they have defaulted, betrayed and become corrupt, then the campaign should be intensified there to ensure that such people don’t get elected again. Alternatively the civil society must help identify persons of character and principle to represent them. It is there that the voters should be told to resist the temptation to take even a paisa from the candidates running for elections and desist from transacting any business with those who deal in corrupt practices.

It is essential for Team Anna need to change track. He and his followers should go beyond the Ramlila grounds; they must move to the villages, like Mahatma Gandhi, whose name is so frequently touted by Anna and his followers during the campaign. They should launch the campaign from every village across the country. They should re-read Gandhi’s maxim to uplift the villages of India and apply his talisman to examine whether at every one of our actions we keep in mind the welfare of the poor and the marginalized. Teach the masses how to hold the political leaders and people’s representatives accountable to the electorate. Use the Right to Information Act, hold public awareness programmes and provide political education to the citizens. Get every person in the country to take a pledge not to pay or receive bribe. And let us not exaggerate: it is not proper to call Anna Hazare ‘Gandhiji’ and his movement the ‘Second Freedom Struggle’. These claims are too tall and do not add credence to the movement against corruption. Anti-corruption campaign is another cup of tea. It need not be hitched to the Freedom Struggle to get prominence or national character. 

No doubt the movement against corruption has gained momentum, centerstage. But it is wrong to mix up the Jan Lokpal Bill and the movement. The focus should be more on getting rid of corruption and ensuring the country’s development than getting the Jan Lokpal Bill introduced and passed within the deadline stipulated by Anna Hazare. If legislations and enactment of laws could work miracles, India would have been different. Look at the innumerable laws we have made for ourselves since independence. What difference have they made? India must not be a law making nation, but a country of law abiding people. 

The rapidly changing political and social environment in India has thrown up new challenges for the pastoral ministry of the Church. If the Church has to remain relevant and, more importantly, influential, in these changing times, there is an urgent need to re-examine our pastoral mission and to review the strategies which we employ to make the message of the Gospel understood in the context of these changing situations. We are called upon to be the yeast which causes the dough to rise and the salt which adds flavour to the meal. It is clear that the salt and the yeast have to be introduced into the existing cultural and social milieu which determine the contemporary “lifestyle” of the citizens of this world. Otherwise the salt remains irrelevant and the yeast cannot be effective in the dough of social and cultural life in today’s world.

The current cultural environment all over the world, (including India and Goa), has been rightly described as being the culture of death. The attitudes of the people, and, consequently, the actions of their governments, are clear manifestations of this culture of death which overshadows our modern world. If we examine the culture critically, we can see, without any doubt, that the forces which are influencing our lifestyles are life destroying and socially corrosive of the values which have sustained societies up to the present times. Even a cursory glance over recent official actions and statements give us clear evidence that human beings have been degraded and social institutions are being radically altered to make them conformable to the destructive ideological forces which are becoming more and more intrusive and influential. Homosexual behaviour is now not only being condoned in society; it is actually being made the norm of sexual behaviour. Governments are actually passing legislation to make homosexual behaviour legitimate, and are imposing penalties on people who still hold that homosexual behaviour is immoral and unnatural. 

Concurrently with this trend, is the growing movement to make abortion a ‘human right.’ There are pressure groups even inside the United Nations which are trying to introduce this abhorrent idea into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are many variations on this theme. Ultra-feminist groups have already introduced the bizarre idea that women have ‘reproductive’ rights, which, according to them, should be introduced into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This ‘reproductive’ right will make it legitimate for women to murder the child in its mother’s womb on the ground that the baby is an unwanted or undesirable intruder. There are women who have actually argued in Court that pregnancy is a form of slavery. One important official in the Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services even argued in the U.S. Supreme Court that pregnancy is a disease which needs to be prevented with the help of the government. The attitude is so widespread that Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, Chairman of the Commission on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had to issue a statement which declares that “pregnancy is not a disease and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically possible.” 

There are many Catholics who consider abortion a legitimate means to ‘get rid’ of an unwanted baby. In their minds, abortion is the logical next step after the failure of contraception. The entire range of morality around the question of marriage, the family, contraception, abortion and extra-marital sexual relationships is an area which needs urgent and very energetic pastoral attention. Unfortunately, these issues hardly find a mention in our Sunday homilies. In fact, the entire question of sexual morality appears to have been swept under the carpet as if it is not polite or prudent to mention it in church or in parish circles. Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia (formerly of Denver), in his recent book “Render Unto Caesar” says: “I’ve grown increasingly tired of the Church and her people being told to be quiet on public issues that urgently concern us. Worse, Catholics themselves too often stay silent out of a misguided sense of good manners. Even those of us who are bishops can sometimes seem more concerned with discretion and diplomacy than speaking plainly and acting clearly.” 

A related area of pastoral concern is the growing tendency to treat sexual relationships as a purely commercial activity. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India, together with the Indian Council of Medical Research, has prepared a draft Bill to legitimize what is being described as ‘Assisted Reproductive Technologies.’ The draft of the Bill was published on the web site of the Government of India but does not appear to have evoked as much concern in church circles as the Lokpal Bill, which has created a furore all over the country. A retrograde piece of legislation which is much worse that the problem of corruption is being glossed over by the citizens in general. There is something seriously wrong about our priorities. As pastors we need to take a closer look at the social issues which are undermining the integrity of our families and of our society.

As part of the pastoral challenge to preserve the integrity of society by promoting social morality, we have also to take cognizance of the recent movement to promote euthanasia, or what is being euphemistically called ‘death with dignity.’ It is a tragic irony of our times that there are people who consider the murder of infirm, old and dying persons as an act of mercy which upholds their human dignity. There could be no clearer symptom of the insanity of our culture of death than the popularity which the euthanasia movement seems to be gaining day by day. At one end of the spectrum we have the feminists who consider the murder of the children in their wombs as their right on the grounds that they have a right over their own bodies; at the other end of the spectrum we have mad men and women who make it their business to decide who will live and who will die. They arrogate to themselves the ultimate right to decide whether a particular individual who is suffering from a terminal medical condition has the right to continue to live.

The Pastoral Imperative for the Church.

Under the given circumstances, when the family as the basic unit of society, and the primary unit of the Church is under attack by evil forces, pastors need to re-evaluate their strategies for the intellectual and spiritual formation of the lay faithful. It is clear that the obvious gap between the liturgical life of the Church and the everyday life of the faithful needs to be bridged. Too often the liturgical life is unable to influence the ordinary life of the Catholics. In fact, most of the laity do not even see any connection between the liturgy and their daily lives. This is starkly evident in the fact that Catholics, specially those in prominent public positions are in the vanguard of the movements which undermine the integrity of the family and of society. They sometimes display crass ignorance of the doctrines of the Church in regard to abortion, cohabitation, homosexuality, contraception and the divine institution of the family. At other times they make a false and untenable distinction between their ‘private’ beliefs and their public support for legislation which is clearly calculated to destroy the family. They argue, for example, that they privately believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, but declare that they do not want to impose this view on the rest of society, so they vote for legislation to legitimize homosexuality. Similarly, they support legislation to promote abortion or euthanasia on the ground that their own ‘private’ beliefs should not influence so-called public opinions on the subjects. Such attitudes can only be described as dishonest and arising out of a lack of personal convictions about fundamental truths.

The pastoral challenge is to show that there can be no dichotomy between eternal truths and political philosophies. If a political programme violates moral principles, it simply cannot, and should not, be promoted.
 

The purpose of the Homily.

Within the traditional understanding of the Church, the Homily which follows the Readings is intended to ‘expose’ and explain the meaning of the Scriptural texts and to interpret them in the light of contemporary realities. The Word of God is supposed to be applied to contemporary life and to transform individuals into missionaries for the evangelization of society. It is not enough that the sacred texts are interpreted as an exegetical exercise; they have to be applied to social and cultural realities so that the Word of God becomes a transformative influence in the world. “I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! (Lk. 12:49). The Homily is an opportunity to fan the flames of truth and to spread the conflagration so that the whole of society is consumed with the truth and the love of the Gospel. Unfortunately, because of indeterminate circumstances, the Homily has been transformed into a sermon. The clergy, by and large, have become “preachers” and indulge in sermonizing and oratorical histrionics instead of being the Ministers of the Word, who show the laity how the Gospel can be applied to social, political and cultural systems in order that they may be transformed into instruments of salvation and the bringing about of the Kingdom of God. The Word of God is supposed to be salvific, which means that it ought to ‘convert’ the kingdom of this world into the kingdom of God. This can only happen when the laity are truly the salt and the yeast of the Gospel and when they influence their lives in their families and in their societies from within in a transformative way. It does not need to be demonstrated that the ‘sermons’ which are ‘preached’ in our churches and chapels are, very largely, irrelevant to the problems plaguing our social, political, economic and cultural lives. Congregations sit through these sermons politely out of a sense of loyalty to the discipline of the Church. They are not motivated to engage in activities which will transform social, political and economic structures which are the embodiment of social sin. 

It is not only the laity who miss out on the relevance of the Gospel for the purpose of transforming social life; the clergy, by and large, do not seem to have either the courage or the pedagogical skills to show how the gospel message has to be applied to the social, political and economic systems in our society. There appears to be some hesitancy to “proclaim” the Gospel as was done by the Apostles and the early Church. Many factors contribute to this hesitancy – the desire not to appear to be “activist”; the fear of confronting the political system or the legal practices which are in place; the misguided (and misplaced) belief that there should be a clear “separation” between church and state: between religion and society. In effect, the Catholic laity have been confirmed in their implicit belief that their religion should not be brought into their working and professional lives. There is a comfortable buffer between religious belief and social practice. This is often described as “tolerance” of other beliefs and practices, and an unwillingness to challenge the morality of prevailing customs such as homosexuality, cohabitation, abortion, euthanasia, child labour, sexual exploitation of children and women. 

In the words of Jesus in the parable of the sower, His seed often (too often!) falls by the wayside, where the birds of the air eat it, or among thorns, where they are choked as soon as they begin to take root, or among rocks where they cannot take roots. Only some of His words fall on fertile ground where they take root and yield abundant fruit. As sowers of the word of God, pastors are required to prepare the soil to receive the seeds of the Gospel. Only then will the Gospel yield fruit in abundance. 

In the many public debates which are occupying space in the newspapers and on television channels, it is truly disappointing to see that Catholics – even those who are academically qualified and hold prominent positions in society – are unable to articulate the Catholic position on important issues like contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, child sexual abuse, prostitution et cetera. More often than not they flow with the tide of “public opinion” and take positions which are inconsistent with the teaching of the Church. Obviously, there has been a failure of catechesis, and this can be traced back to the irrelevant “sermons” which have become the staple of our Sunday Masses.

Even on so-called “ecclesiastical” issues which are publicly debated in Catholic periodicals and journals, one discerns that the faithful are often ignorant about the “real” nature of the Church. For example, one finds some Religious women arguing for the ordination of women on the ground that this will bring about “equality” of women with men. They have absorbed the absurdity of the feminist claim that women have to be “equal” with men in every respect notwithstanding the biological, emotional and psychological differentiation which Nature herself has imposed on man and woman. Obviously, once again, there is a serious failure of catechesis in the so-called “formation” of (some) nuns. 

What becomes strikingly evident is that these protagonists of false doctrines see the Church from a purely sociological perspective. They view the Church as any other human society or organization. They equate “leadership” with the exercise of “power” as in political structures. They seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Church is an “organism” – the Mystical Body of Christ - and not merely a social organization. They ignore the fact that the Church is of divine origin, unlike social, political or cultural organizations which are the result of human ingenuity. They ignore the fact that the Church, which is the organic Body of Christ, is immortal and that she transcends the limitations of time and space. The transcendental dimension of the Church is often forgotten or perhaps ignored in the public statements made by some of these nuns and by many lay Catholics. There is an urgent need to re-educate the laity and the Religious women about the mystery of the Mystical Body of Christ. A deeper understanding of St. Paul’s exposition of this mystery as well as a careful study of the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII: “Mystici Corporis Christi” (June 29th. 1943) seems to be an urgent need of our times.

The latest mantra that is being chanted by the LGBTQI lobby is that deviant sexual behaviour is a matter of ‘orientation,’ and that such deviant sexual orientation is predetermined. They are using this excuse to demand a change in the existing laws of marriage and to brand as persecutors or ‘homophobes’ those who hold the contrary view that homosexual behaviour is not normal. As soon as the New York State Legislature ‘legalized’ what is called ‘same sex marriage’ there were public celebrations all over the world, including in some parts of India. This is a classic example of distorting facts to push an unacceptable agenda. Since the early 1990s numerous studies attempting to establish a genetic cause for homosexuality have not proven to be valid or repeatable – two important requirements for study results to become accepted. In the U.S.A. two leading national psychiatric and psychological professional groups agree that, so far, there are no conclusive studies supporting any specific biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. (American Psychiatric Association, “Fact Sheet on Gay Lesbian Bisexual Issues” May 2000; and “American Psychological Association Online: Answers to Your Questions/Topic – Sexuality/What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?”) It is terribly unfortunate that grossly ignorant and highly irresponsible Hollywood actresses like Lady Gaga are being publicly idolized as oracles of knowledge about the scientific aspects of the predetermination of sexual ‘orientations.’ In fact, solid scientific studies have not been able to show any such predetermination. E.g. from the 1991 Hypothalamus (Brain) Study, Simon leVay, who self-identifies as gay, said: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work; nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” Another Chromosome Study by Dean Hamer – also a gay man – made in 1993 said: “environment factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay . . . I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.” 

Because of the crass stupidity of people like Lady Gaga, many people, who are otherwise reasonable, are led to believe that some people are “born gay” and therefore cannot change their sexual behaviour. Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued in the gay magazine Frontiers that sexual orientation is not fixed. And lesbian columnist author Camille Paglia argues that homosexuality is not normal and that it is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.

There are numerous other scientific studies (too numerous to be cited in the limited space allotted to this article) which clearly dismiss the widely held view that homosexual “orientation” is genetically predetermined and cannot be changed. This fallacious belief is gaining ground and is also influencing legislators and prominent citizens who help form public opinion, including members of the Judiciary. It is urgent that the facts are presented to the citizens so that they can make up their own minds on the issue.

In a landmark study in 2007, Drs. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse concluded that it is possible for homosexuals to change their physical attractions and that such efforts to bring about change do not appear to be psychologically harmful. Entitled “Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,” (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 200.) this groundbreaking research has been hailed by experts from both sides of the debate as being the most methodologically rigorous to date.

In conjunction with the dissemination of biological and psychological facts about homosexual behaviour, there are two other aspects which need to be considered carefully: 1.What is ‘normal’? and 2. What is a ‘gay right’?

Hysterical attempts are being made by the so-called Gay Rights Activists to convince people that homosexual behaviour is ‘normal’ (and therefore not ‘unnatural’). The obvious corollary to this assertion is that if homosexual behaviour is normal then by all the rules of logic, heterosexual behaviour should be categorized as abnormal. The two behaviours are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be ‘normal’ at the same time, just as something cannot be both black and white at the same time. The National Aids Control Organization (NACO) in India’s latest surveillance data shows that India is home to an estimated 4.12 lakh MSMs (Men having Sex with Men) of whom 2.74 lakh have been identified. According to these statistics, around 4.2 % of all sexually active males in India are believed to have sex with other men. Even by statistical standards, a miniscule 4.2% of the population practising MSM cannot be held to establish the standard of “Normality” in matters concerning sexual behaviour. It is therefore simply astounding that some officials of the NACO claim that homosexual behaviour is natural. The illogical approach to the problem (yes, problem) of homosexual behaviour has led to the distortion of both logic and of common sense. Public statements are now being made, even by persons in authority, that people with homosexual tendencies should be treated as ‘equals’ with heterosexuals. Such advocacy lacks conviction because it is both illogical and intrinsically absurd. One can emphatically agree that people with homosexual tendencies should be treated with the respect due to every person, and that they should not be discriminated against in matters of employment or social relationships. In a civilized society any discrimination based on sexuality, religion, caste, language or ethnicity is intolerable. But to equate respect with equality is to indulge in sheer fantasy. Which brings us to the claim that there is such a thing as “Gay Rights.”

The so-called Gay Rights movement is attempting to gain political mileage by claiming that people with homosexual ‘orientations’ should be “given” equal rights with non-homosexuals. The fundamental fallacy of such a demand is that “Rights” are not “bestowed” by any human authority – not even by governments. Rights are inherent in Persons by virtue of their being Persons. These rights have to be ‘acknowledged’ by society and upheld by public authorities. Rights accrue only to persons and not to non-human beings such as animals, fish, birds, insects, trees or any of the millions of living species. To speak of ‘animal rights’ therefore, is fanciful and intellectual poppycock. It is an abuse of the language. It is quite legitimate to speak of women’s rights or children’s rights because women and children are human persons, but to speak of animal rights is sheer absurdity.

Secondly, Rights are inherent in Human Persons and are not to be attributed to physiological processes or psychological “orientations.” This is why the campaign for the so-called ‘reproductive rights’ of women is so irrational. Reproduction is a physiological process just as is breathing, digestion, or other processes. To claim that the process of reproduction can be made the subject of a “right” is as absurd as to claim that the process of breathing or of digestion and other physiological functions can be made the subject of “rights.” We have not yet heard the feminists claim that they have mammary rights!

The confusion in the minds of many people arises from the imprecise use of the language, which is itself the result of confused thinking. The word “Right” is a much misused word which is very loosely used to promote questionable political causes. Even an otherwise ‘educated’ person like the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indulges in nonsensical propaganda claiming that ‘gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.’ As a lawyer by training, and holding such an important position, she should know that nowhere in the International Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations is there any mention of ‘gay rights’ being part of Human Rights. But, of course, everybody knows that Hillary Clinton, and her boss Barack Obama, who is also a lawyer, put their political agenda ahead of legal rectitude. Her espousal of so-called gay rights, like her espousal of abortion and euthanasia is not only anti social; it is politically destructive of social order and harmony.

When Bernard Kilroy spoke to me on telephone from England, I knew little about the subject of his conversation. He was trying to tell me about the plight of the Palestinian people and the discriminatory way they were being treated. Bernard and his wife Janine have visited the Holy Land several times and have promoted and financed a bursary at the Bethlehem’s Catholic University. I could recognise the concern in his voice, and decided to study the issue further. Realising that many of the readers of this column may not also have much idea about the difficulties faced by the people of Palestine, particularly the Christian community there, I thought of devoting this article to highlight the issue.

Perhaps the only time in the year most of us remember the people of Palestine is during the prayers of the Holy Week, or during the Good Friday annual collection which is taken out for the Holy Land/ Jerusalem. But the Christians of Palestine and their plight figured more prominently in the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East held from 10 to 24 October 2010 at the Vatican on the theme: "The Catholic Church in the Middle East: Communion and Testimony. 'The multitude of believers were of one heart and of one soul' (Acts 4, 32)."

Another event which recently drew attention to the plight of the Christians in Palestine was a Candlelight Vigil and a prayer held on Palm Sunday, 17 April, at the Sacred Heart Cathedral premises in New Delhi. The event was to express solidarity with Palestinian Christians who face restrictions to enter the places of worship in and around Jerusalem, especially during the Holy Week. It was organised by a newly formed ecumenical forum called Indian Solidarity Ecumenical Network – Kairos Palestine (ISEN-KP), initiated by the National Council of Churches in India, the Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India for Justice, Peace and Development, the YWCA of India, the National Council of YMCAs India, and the Palestine-Israel Ecumenical Forum.

Archbishop Vincent Concessao of Delhi led the candle light procession and prayer, which was attended by the Palestinian Ambassador to India, leaders and representatives of churches and representatives of a few NGOs.

Speaking at the service, Palestinian Ambassador Mr Adli Sidiq described Palestine as a land of peace that has witnessed the peaceful coexistence of people belonging to different religions. He also recounted the valiant participation of Christians in the Palestinian national movement and in the current resistance to Israeli occupation. He appreciated the content of the Christian ecumenical document, The Moment of Truth, which declared unequivocally ‘that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives the Palestinians of their basic human rights, bestowed by God.’