By M L Satyan.
Retired Indian Administrative Officer (IAS) M G Devasagayam while addressing an audience of laity at an Indian Catholic Forum (ICF), marked the “importance of laity in the participation of Church affairs and administration”. The IAS officer and a key speaker at the forum who served during troubled times of Indian History, including the Emergency; spoke conclusively of how the Laity and the Clerics could win against anti-human politics. Adept with Canon Law, Devasagayam quoted extensively on laws on laity power.
The Forum was inaugurated by the Secretary of the Bangalore Archdiocesan Laity Commission Rev. Fr. Amarnath. Later, a committee of 16 volunteers was formed to take the ICF work forward in Karnataka. Forty-two people from different walks of life participated in the meeting. Mr. David Lobo was the Convener of this meeting.
The Indian Catholic Forum (Bangalore Chapter) session was on “Synodal Church & Secular Society”. This was a follow-up of the national meeting held in Varanasi earlier this year in which many interested persons from the south could not participate, because of the distance involved. The purpose of this session, held at Nava Spoorthi Kendra in Richards Town on October28, was to share information, create awareness, and join hands in supporting Pope Francis in his desire to create a Synodal Church.
Chhotebhai, Convener of the Indian Catholic Forum conducted a session on the synodality in the light of Vatican II. He pointed out the pre-Vatican-II concepts and the post-Vatican-II concepts on church, obedience, retaliation, marriage/family, priesthood, women and evangelization in the light of Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae. He explained about the Pyramidical, Concentric and ZED models of the church.
Later, he also took a session on the role of the Indian Catholic Forum as the Fifth Estate under the categories of Biblical Era, French Revolution, Modern Democracy and Catholic Church.
Devasahayam who has been a campaigner for Democracy and Secularism highlighted that the Synod was a call to shun “clericalism” (a policy of upholding the power of the clergy). He quoted from a preparatory document No.6, “The whole Church is called to deal with the weight of a culture imbued with clericalism that she inherits from her history, and with those forms of exercising authority on which the different types of abuse (power, economic, conscience, sexual) are grafted”
Quoting Pope Francis in his address to the Synod Fathers at Synod-2018 who had decried clericalism as: “Clericalism arises from an elitist and exclusivist vision of vocation, that interprets the ministry received as a power to be exercised rather than as a free and generous service to be given. This leads us to believe that we belong to a group that has all the answers and no longer needs to listen or learn anything. Clericalism is a perversion and is the root of many evils in the Church.”
According to Devasahayam, he said, “Fact is that there was no “clericalism” in the original Christianity since there was no blueprint of religious hierarchy handed down from heaven. As Professor Sandra Schneiders writes: “There is wide consensus among reputable New Testament scholars that there were no Christian priests in New Testament times and therefore certainly none ordained or appointed by Jesus. The priesthood does not emerge in the early church until the end of the first century at the earliest and, even at that relatively late date, the evidence is scanty and unclear.”
It is democracy that permeates the teachings of Jesus Christ. When Jesus addressed the issue of governance he said, adding, “You know that in the world the recognized rulers lord it over their subjects, and their great men make them feel the weight of authority. This is not the way with you; among you, whoever wants to be great must be your servant, and whoever wants to be the first must be the willing slave of all.” (Mark 10:42-43).
Devasahayam argued that why do we need all this bombastic and lengthy synodal exercise to undo “clericalism.”? This can be achieved by bringing Christ back into the Church through pluralism and democracy.
As last speaker, Verghese V Joseph, Chief Editor of Indian Catholic Matters walked the participants through a session on the role of media in the Catholic Church. From a media perspective, he highlighted the challenges faced by the church. He advocated shooting the message rather than the messenger. He rued the church’s contrasting media behaviour and misplaced priorities when it came to giving secular precedence over and Catholic media.
He stressed on the importance of standard operating procedures for disaster management reporting on church; evidence-based media training for media officials of the church; collaborative effort in working with the media; besides highlighting Church’s work in education, healthcare and social service.
As a way forward, he encouraged a deeper engagement with Catholic Media (Online and offline), create a positive spin on the Church and its institutions; Support lay like-minded media groups; and extensive use of digital opportunities by engaging with Catholic media.
Professor Sandra Schneiders is bang on in her observation that Jesus had neither appointed nor ordained any priest during his lifetime (and certainly during the Last Supper!). The logic of this is Christ did not preach Christianity. He only advocated a way of life, that is: (1) “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (2) “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Matthew 22:37–39). To prove point (2) he himself demonstrated “servant-leadership” by washing the feet of his disciples, including those of Judas Iscariot who he knew would betray Him.
Going by the Biblical/historical evidence that Christ did not preach Christianity, there was NO QUESTION at all of why he would institute Priesthood – an exclusive privilege which is being claimed by the Church Hierarchy over centuries. It is this systematically perpetrated myth that is the root cause of “Clericalism” projecting the priestly class super human beings with all the faults of lesser mortals (e.g. Bishop Gallela Prasad, Franco Mulakkal, Bishop K.A. William, etc). The priestly ordination itself is not supported by any Biblical evidence and was purely doctored by the church hierarchy around three to four centuries after the death of Christ. The Council of Trent (1545–63) reinforced Episcopal Jurisdiction and Clericalism. The Church’s Code of Canon Law defined the laity only by EXCLUSION: a lay person is a Catholic who is not a member of the clergy. Heretofore, the laity were constricted to the role of paying, praying and obeying – even sharper in Italian: “Pray, pay and shut up!”
Going by the above premises, the right to “break the bread” is not an exclusive domain of the priestly class. “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9).” Therefore, going by 1 Peter 2:9, we all belong to the priestly class. The first Christians went by this dictum and broke the bread among themselves in house to house prayer meets and shared all their belongings according to the members’ needs. Every now and then we talk of the first Christians by forming Small Christian Communities (SCCs) or (old wine in new bottle) Basic Ecclesial Communities (BEC) but we are asleep to our universal right to break the bread being systematically stymied, under the ruse of Synod on Synodality.
The first two lines should read:
Professor Sandra Schneiders is bang on in her observation that Jesus had neither appointed nor ordained any priest during his lifetime (and certainly not during the Last Supper!). `Not’ was missing due to a typographical error.