From: "Santosh Helekar" <chimbel...@yahoo.com>
--- On Sun, 7/19/09, Marshall Mendonza <mmendonz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Persons like Fr Cedric Prakash or Medha Patkar are a
rarity.........They prefer to light a candle to banish the darkness
>rather than play politics or preach or just criticise.
> This is a very disingenuous assertion. Fr. Cedric Prakash is a Catholic
> priest. He is supposed to preach his religion to the masses. He is a
> regular contributor to religious news services such as South Asia
> Religious News, in which he criticizes the government, as well.
***Fr.Cedric Prakash, whom I know personally through my contacts in the
Conference of the Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI), is a Jesuit priest
defending the human rights of the people, particularly of the oppressed
people. He is doing this work as a priest, not as a "political activist".
Fr.Cedric is the Director of PRASHANT, the Jesuit Centre for Human Rights,
Justice and peace, Ahmedabad. There is nothing wrong in his work, on the
contrary it is part and parcel of his priestly ministry. His social and
political ministry is authorized by the Bishops of India.
From his writings and from the post of Rajiv Desai it is clear that he is
also politically active, in opposition to the Congress and Bharatiya
Janata parties. Moreover, Mr. Desai claimed the following from his own
personal experience regarding Fr. Prakash's political associations:
"I arranged as meeting for the Congress campaign team with him and his
band of activists, mostly left-wing ideologues and jholewalas from
outside Gujarat." (Rajiv Desai).
Mr. Desai might want to clarify to which left-wing party these ideologues
belonged.
***He is free to favour any political party that is working for the poor
masses, provided that he pays attention to the ideology behind it.
He can (and has to) reject any political party that is militating against
the minorities and against the fundamental human rights.
There is nothing wrong in being a political activist...
***He is doing the work as a Catholic priest--he is a Jesuit, hence he is
authorized by his Bishops and Superiors--in the social and political fields.
These fields are not forbidden to the Christians nor to the Catholic
priests. It is religion in life, it is evangelization of daily life, in
spite of our weaknesses.
>>>What I see as problems in a secular democracy, however, are:
1) The mixing of religion with activism and politics, and
2) Playing and taking advantage of religious identity politics
> The latter is as bad as vote banks...
***It is wrong to say that Religion has nothing to do with "activism and
politics". This is not working blindly for the "vote banks". Christian
religion is a way of life, the Kingdom of Gospel values, where there should
reign justice and love. All dogmas, sacraments and teaching should lead to a
balanced life of justice and love, in spite of our human errors and "sins".
Catholic Church has to influence even economics and politics. Politics is
our daily life, it is how life is being governed. I have a say in politics
by my voting rights as well as by influencing the people. With the
permission of the Bishop, priests can enter even partisan politics. It is
recommended to the Catholic priests not to intervene directly into partisan
politics because a priest is a "man of communion", and therefore should not
divide the people, if all the parties follow the principles of justice. In
case some party is violating human rights, then the priests can even preach
from the pulpit "not to vote for such a party". This is not "partisan
politics". Mahatma Gandhi had understood well that religion should influence
politics. We Catholics vote not only for the Catholics but for a candidate
of any religion or without religion, if s/he is a man/woman of character,
principles, justice, peace, love, respecting the fundamental human rights.
It is totally wrong to say that this is "mixing religion with politics"
(Dr.Santosh does not know either what is religion or what is politics, or
both). This is Religion, as St.James wrote: " Now what use is it, my
brothers, for a man to say he 'has faith' if his actions do not correspond
with it? Could that sort of faith save anyone's soul? If a fellow man or
woman has no clothes to wear and nothing to eat, and one of you say 'Good
luck to you I hope you'll keep warm and find enough to eat', and yet give
them nothing to meet their physical needs, what on earth is the good of
that? Yet that is exactly what a bare faith without a corresponding life is
like - useless and dead. If we only 'have faith' a man could easily
challenge us by saying, 'you say that you have faith and I have merely good
actions. Well, all you can do is to show me a faith without corresponding
actions, but I can show you by my actions that I have faith as well.'"
(cf.Jas 2:14-18a). In short, religion is to help the orphan, the widow, the
stranger, as the book of Deuteronomy was already saying.
Vatican II has put it thus: "It is very important, especially where a
pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the
relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear
distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as
a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a
Christian conscience, and the activities which, in union with their pastors,
they carry out in the name of the Church".
"The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any
way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is
at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human
person".
"The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous
and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are
devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that
both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration
for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their
service be exercised for the good of all. For man's horizons are not limited
only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he
preserves intact his eternal vocation. The Church, for her part, founded on
the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign of justice and
charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the
truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavor
the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, she respects and
fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens".
"There are, indeed, close links between earthly things and those elements of
man's condition which transcend the world. The Church herself makes use of
temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part,
does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority. She
will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been
legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on
the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods. It
is only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church
should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine,
to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in
those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a
person or the salvation of souls require it. In this, she should make use of
all the means-but only those-which accord with the Gospel and which
correspond to the general good according to the diversity of times and
circumstances" (Gaudium et Spes, The Church in the Modern World, no.76).
Mother Teresa worked for abandoned people and catered to their bodies, full
of maggots, precisely because of the Christian religion--she saw the image
of God in them and gave them human dignity, even at the last moment of
death. It is her Religion that took her to the roads and slums for the
social work. She was working as a teacher, but could not bear to see people
dying on roads... It was her special vocation within Christian vocation that
led her to devote herself to the poorest of the poor...
"Hence, I am not surprised to learn that even christians in Gujarat are
not great supporters of Fr Cedric." (Marshall Mendonza):
***People have to be politically enlightened. Christians are free to vote
for any party, provided that they follow their conscience and vote for a
candidate of good character.
> Please note the implicit assumption above that Christians, by definition,
are supposed to be great supporters of Fr. Cedric. I say the fact that they
are not, speaks to their greatness. It gives me hope that Indian Christians
and non-Christians have finally learned to value independent thinking, and
reject the impulses of conditioned communal groupism.
***Not necessarily. They should know why they are not following the advice
of Fr.Cedric. When we tell people that a candidate is not of good character,
they may reply (sometimes with innuendos or sotto voce): "But this
politician, though corrupt and immoral, does and allows us to do anything,
even against the law. So we vote for him/her. We vote for someone who
satisfies all our needs, with or without conscience. We have chosen
politicians in our likeness and similarity"... This does not give us hope
that India is growing as a democratic and secular state. This is not
greatness: India is not shining, but burning... This is not "independent
thinking", neither is this "profecy of doom", this is the harsh, painful
reality, to a great extent, in India today. This is not yielding to "the
impulses of conditioned communal groupism". We should know what is
communalism and groupism.... That is what we are complaining about every
day... I do appreciate "scientific" efforts in Dr.Santosh to find out the
truth in everything...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
