Pope to India:

Religious freedom, please:

While protecting the right of each citizen to profess and practice his or her faith, they also facilitate efforts to build bridges between minority communities and Indian society as a whole, and thus foster national integration and the participation of all in the country's development. The disturbing signs of religious intolerance which have troubled some regions of the nation, including the reprehensible attempt to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions on the fundamental right of religious freedom, must be firmly rejected as not only unconstitutional, but also as contrary to the highest ideals of India's founding fathers, who believed in a nation of peaceful coexistence and mutual tolerance between different religions and ethnic groups.

India to Pope, "Shut up" :

Lashing out at the Pope for his reported remarks about anti-conversion laws in India, the BJP said that Benedict XVI, the Head of State of Vatican, should not interfere in the internal affairs of India.

"Pope is not only a religious head, but also the leader of a nation," BJP National Secretary L Ganesan said in a statement while sharply reacting to Pope's reported remarks while receiving India's new envoy in Vatican on Thursday.

Criticising the reported remarks of the Pope, Hindu Munnani leader Era Ramagopalan said that the Pope's remarks were "unacceptable".

Pope to Indian: "Let's make you the prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples."

To succeed Sepe, the long-standing buzz was also confirmed: the new Red Pope is Cardinal Ivan Dias, the veteran of Vatican diplomacy who has served as archbishop of Bombay since 1996. Dias, shown at left, turned 70 last month. He was elevated to the College at the mega-consistory of 2001.

Comments

[guru]

can the vatican grant me permission to build a hindu temple in their state?

[your friend]

Why have you not written under "pope to India" India's oficial reaction but written reactions from political parties ( that too not official )? Half truths, convenient truths, what you are sermoned is the truth... do you happen to be a co author of the book abt hinduism the church has been distributing in India?

[Richard]

I see the Hindu apologists are out in force - with the same line employed elsewhere. As in, "why can't we build a Hindu temple in the Vatican?"

1) Vatican City has about 110 acres, virtually every foot of which is built over, leaving no room for a Hindu (or any other) temple. But of course this is a strictly pragmatic argument. Perhaps more relevant is the fact that the Vatican has no Hindu residents, and therefore no one with any interest in building a Hindu temple. But I am sure there opportunities to build one throughout the rest of Rome, if you're interested.

2) It would help if everyone understood that what the Catholic Church means when it speaks of "religious liberty" has some overlap with secular notions but is not the same thing. Consider what Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty said:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

So mainly what's at stake here is freedom from coercion when it comes to religious belief. What the Indian states are doing is, in effect, coercive. Being able to build temples or churches is really almost beside the point.

Secondly, religious liberty as the Church defines it is on a higher level ordered to the seeking of truth, which is found in Christianity and most completely in the Catholic Church, in which subsists the Church of Christ. Elements of truth do indeed exist in Hinduism, but only in fragmentary form.

[JonathanR.]

"can the vatican grant me permission to build a hindu temple in their state?"

The Arabs are already building a Grand Mosque in Rome. Get in line, bub.

"Why have you not written under "pope to India" India's oficial reaction but written reactions from political parties ( that too not official )?"

Oh, you mean, the response most likely to be coated in diplomatic politesse?

When you want to see a man's face, you do not stare at his mask....

How's that for a guru proverb?

[Nathan]

Wow, I can really see where the pope's hypocritical remarks about tolerance originate if you can spew that junk that only christianity holds the truth. What bile, all religions have their own worth; Not only christianity

[Michael Barber]

I've got tons of details over at my site on the appointment of Dias - who he is, what he has done, and why it is so important.

Make no mistake - this is a CRUCIAL appointment.

[Richard]

Hello Nathan,

No one here is saying that only Christinaity holds the truth. Only that it holds it most completely.

From Nostra Aetate (#2):

The Catholic Church rejects nothing fo what is true and holy in these religions. It has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless reflect a ray of that truth which enlightends all people. Yet it proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 1:6).

Likewise, as you can see, the Church is not saying these other, non-Christian religions have no worth, either.

[guru]

Thanks for your post Richard. There were no christians but there were churches built in India. So there goes your argument. How do you convert people if you don't start?

Jonathan, I was talking abt Vatican, an independent state. They are building many mosques in India and churches too... and your point is???

Richard, thanks for saying you guys respect other religions. Kindly do a search and find out what the book Haqeeqat distributed by the church has to say abt my religion. its downright malicious and illegal by the penal code of India, in place since the british days. In a vast and complex country like India, this is the last thing we need. And of course this happens in the poorest of places, where people are easily 'persuaded'.They are also easily incited when they hear their wives have desires for the naked holy men. This creates social tensions. I Assume you dont want to convert people by slandering other religions and of course not by material temptations. So the proposed laws only try to stop this. These laws are already in place in some states since 1968 and the supreme court of India has upheld ther constitutional validity.So the pope teaching us our constitution is ignorance. funny that, coming from the enlightened.

Jonathan, since you don't want to see the 'mask', ignore the pope's sermon, read the book Haqeeqat to see the real face. then you read the real reaction of India and then you have the truth. Fair?

Christians make up abt 2% of India and their numbers are growing faster than the rest 98%. Hardly a sign of persecution. before you start hindu bashing again, check out who is the PM of India, and the president and the head of ruling party and the army chief... we are more of a democracy than you ever will be. thats why your sermon is not welcome. it breaches diplomatic protocol, shows the holy man to be ignorant, seen as creating undue infulence when all other democratic avenues are open and stinks of hypocricy.

[trip]

1) Your belief that your faith is seperior to mine and the only truth is your personal view. I won't brand you a fundamentalist for your superiority complex as I come from an environment of tolerance, however you are quick to brand opposition 'apoligists'. Think abt it.

2) The church should and must promote the truth, must tell people, christian and hindus to search for it. However, seeking the truth does not mean saying dirty things abt other faiths. It also does not mean you target the desperately poor and make them follow your faith by giving conditional 'humanitarian' aid. if this is pursuit of truth, then we've seen it in Goa during the portuguese occupation. thousands of hindus died in this pursuit. Add to that the millions in south america and other places. You should know best abt religious coercion. btw, the law tries to stop these activities, already illegal under various other common criminal codes. So what are you screaming abt? your inability to accept opposition? one would expect a faith (recently) talking abt humanity, peace and such things to be more open to opposition and able to introspect. probably these new ideas are yet to take root.

have any of you guys read the proposed and existing laws and the back ground? The holy man has not as pointed out by Guru. what gived him the right to lecture others? just because some in India follow his faith?

and whats with this majic wand of superiority? my faith superior, my freedom of religion superior... if its superior we'll see it. it will shine like a star and we'll be drawn like ants. don't try to rise by telling me i am on lower ground. i'm walking my path, you walk yours.

[Mark Andrews]

guru & trip,

Please try explaining away Mother Theresa.

Namaste,

Mark

[Gashwin]

Hmm -- seems like some of our interlocuters here have been leaving messages of a similar nature at my blog. As I said over there ... we're really not speaking the same language in this discussion (sloganeering rather than discussion really). As to this book, "Haqeegat" (Hindu/Urdu for "truth"), this is the first I've heard of it. I'll be in India shortly (was supposed to leave today but the flight was cancelled) , so maybe I can find a copy after I arrive ... (maybe guru can point me in the right direction? :))

Amy, I loved the way you strung together these stories. I too think that appointment of Dias to Propaganda Fide is very significant. I think it signals the importance of the subcontinent in the continuing conversations about religous pluralism, as well as the more no-nonsense approach of this Pontificate when it comes to issues of religious freedom.

I really do think that in India, many don't understand the idea that propagation (without coercion) of the faith (any faith), and the freedom to change religion is a fundamental aspect of religious freedom.

[Gashwin]

Hmm --- I posted a comment here but it doesn't seem to have taken. Briefly repeating:

--- don't think we're talking the same language at all with trip and guru.

--- really don't think many Indians understand religious freedom as encompassing the freedom to change religion or to propagate one's own religion

--- Amy, loved the way you strung these stories together. I too think the Dias appointment is very important, signalling the continued importance of the subcontinent when it comes to the whole question of religious pluralism.

[trip]

Mother teresa? sure! she was a lady who did not abuse other religions to promote hers, which she did through noble means. she was respected by all Indians. None of the activities carried out by her will be affected by any new law. No law is trying to ban any conversion or propagation of religion (prove me otherwise, if you can't admit Pope is wrong). namaste.

[Kensy]

guru, trip -

Have either of you guys seen for yourself or obtained information from a reliable source as to what the book 'Haqeeqat' contains?

In any case, EMI (the publishers of 'Haqeeqat') are not Catholic. Blaming the Church for that is like blaming the Indian Government for the actions of the Pakistanis.

Kensy

[R]

The presence of conversions does not necessarily correlate to a total absence of restrictions on religious freedom-after all, there are Christians in places like North Korea or Saudi Arabia, which definitely *do* restrict religious freedom. So that's a weak argument on your part.

And the Vatican is not a normal state. It is, as people have pointed out, a small landmass, smaller than some farms, smaller than many university campuses, smaller than the majority of towns and cities in the world. In addition, it's a community with no born citizens. No one marries and sets up a home there, no one has children... it's a small place designed specifically for Catholics, especially clergy, to live. People come there because they are Catholics. There's a difference between not having houses of worship for other religions within a tiny community like that and putting restrictions on religion throughout a vast country like India. If Hindus were subject to restrictions on practicing their faith throught Italy, then we'd have a comparable situation on our hands.

[Trip]

Hi Kensy,

First of all the law does not differentiate whether the perpetrator of the crime is Hindu or Catholic. It was also comforting that EMI and the church are enemies. probably they are maligning your religion too and trying to convert people to some evil cult.

Secondly i did not blame the church for the book, but for interfering in the matters of a sovereign state to protect the criminals.

The information available on the net with page numbers is reliale enough as the police have verified the malicious content. As i've pointed out above, the pope never verified facts before the sermon ( no pun ).

If the vatican is not a normal state, it should keep quiet and become normal first before lecturing others. All the limitations of land etc are nonsense, as its not the land we are discussing, but religious freedom. It does not require land. it requires that you respect other religions. again, its just an argument. What i'm coming to is that my problem is that the teachings say that your faith is superior to mine. Read richard's post above, and the book haqeeqat. if this is what you plan to teach the poor people from a poor land, you create nothing but trouble. and when a law tries to stop such activities ( and such activities only ), we get a sermon. thiis is hypocricy. this is my problem. people think they are above the law because they have foreign influence, this is my problem.

[R]

Religious freedom does not mean respecting other religions in the way you talk about. You can be wholly contemptuous of another religion and still protect religious freedom. Religious freedom means the absence of legal restrictions on the practice of religion. That's all.

You say this law is not restrictive of religious freedom. Can you provide a link to the text of this law so we can judge for ourselves?

[IndianCatholic]

Trip & Guru,

We are indeed talking different languages.

The quote from Nostra Aetate is not meant to imply the superiority of the Catholic Church over other religions, with a condescending attitude but on the Truth as an objective reality. The emphasis is on the Truth.

Consider an analogy. If a scientist discovers a completely new phenomenon and is certain it is true wouldn't he naturally say he knows and understands the truth regarding that phenomena and try to proclaim it? Now it is for the other scientists to verify his claims and his justifications.

The right response to the Church's claim it possesses the Truth, is to try to understand what it means by that statement.

I acknowledge that a lot of harm has been done by publications like Haqeeqat which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church or its teachings. If the gospel is True, it is indeed "good news" to you or me or anyone with a good will regardless of whatever religion one belongs to. Missionary activity is only an opening up of the truth that the listener is already in touch in the depths of his heart.

In his book Truth and Tolerance, Cardinal Ratzingers approaches the question of salvation from the perspective of man’s search for truth and love. “How do we know that the theme of salvation should only be tied to religions? Do we not have to approach it, in a far more discriminating manner, from human existence as a whole?”. He concludes that “ salvation does not lie in religions as such, but it is connected to them, inasmuch as, and to the extent that, they lead man toward one good, toward the search for God, for truth, and for love.”

Rather than espousing a shallow false unity that ends in relativism, Cardinal Ratzinger puts the search for truth as the purpose of inter-religious dialogue. "..the encounter of the religions is not possible by renouncing the truth but only by a deeper entering into it" (p. 109, Many religions, One covenant).

"What we need, however, is respect for the beliefs of others and the readiness to look for the truth in what strikes us as strange or foreign; for such truth concerns us and can correct us and lead us farther along the path…. Furthermore, I need to be willing to allow my narrow understanding of truth to be broken down. I shall learn my own truth better if I understand the other person and allow myself to be moved along the road to the God who is ever greater, certain that I never hold the whole truth about God in my own hands but am always a learner, on pilgrimage toward it, on a path that has no end (p. 110).

[M]ission and dialogue should no longer be opposites but should mutually interpenetrate. Dialogue is not aimless conversation: it aims at conviction, at finding the truth; otherwise it is worthless. Conversely, missionary activity in the future cannot proceed as if it were simply a case of communicating to someone who has no knowledge at all of God what he has to believe… We are not telling the other person something that is entirely unknown to him; rather, we are opening up the hidden depth of something with which, in his own religion, he is already in touch. The reverse is also the case: the one who proclaims is not only the giver; he is also the receiver.[112-113]

And oh, Amy, Guru's contention that it was not India's reaction but that of BJP's is true. The anti-conversion laws are effective only in states where the BJP or its allies rules(d). The current central government is quite unlikely to pass a nationwide anti-conversion law.

[mark j]

Wow, did this post get linked on some Hindu nationalist site?

The basic problem, as I see it, is this. The high caste Hindus enjoy treating the Dalits and Sudra like crap. But they also don't want then converting to other religions. So they pass these repressive "anti-conversion" laws to keep the low caste Hindus in their servile state. Frankly, if I were a Dalit I would convert to Christianity and Islam in a second, and lots of Dalits have come to the same conclusion. Which is why the Brahmins have to "keep them in their places" with illiberal laws.

[Gashwin]

Indian Catholic thanks for that very lucid and succinct comment. I was thinking of "Truth and Tolerance" as well but didn't have a copy handy (everything's packed away right now ...)

[And hey, if you're interest in further conversations with an Indian [American] Catholic convert, drop me a line ... ]

Mark J: yes, I think the casteist dynamics are unacknowledged by those who consider conversion in terms only of spiritual violence.

[trip]

I whole heartedly agree that anyone not happy with their faith should change it. I'm a low cast hindu myself from the Thane district of Maharashtra. Then why don't we? for the same reason colored people don't, but tired of your monopoly on truth chose to have separate churches instead. mission accomplished.

Lot of questions are being thrown at me, i'll ask only one, if the law is unconstitutional ( which guarantees freedom to follow and propagate religion ), then why not challenge it in court? In short, if the law curbs religious freedom, it will not stand a challenge in the courts. Since the 500 odd organizations are NOT doing that, there's your proof on the content of the law. so what do we do instead, we petition Pope and Bush ( bush!)

Wrong facts again. we should do some non religious reading from time to time. the laws in Orissa and MP were enacted by the then Congress (UPA now) govts in 1968. the latest US report on religious freedom says the law is not being misused! and that too in states ruled by Hindu fanatics...what may be their ulterior motives...

I agree we are talking different languages. you are talking abt the idea of truth and other philosophy, which is nice but irrelevant here. I'm saying your facts are wrong and after noone has acknowledged that there may be malpractices carried out by the men of God, I've realized you live in denial too. I know personally one case where a needy young man was given a free seat for higher education in return for... guess what! India allows seats to minorities in institutions run by them for their development, and not to use this as a carrot. I've personally spoken to a lady from the aboriginal community in Thane district who said they chose THE faith because they were given bicycles and sacks of grains, but were now in trouble because noone would marry their kids ( no higher class catholics will marry a low class catholic ) and the food had stopped coming in too. Your failure to acknowledge such possible issues ( others are complaining for decaded abt them ) and unwillingness to prove that the law curbs freedom stinks of malice now.

I'm all for religious freedom for EVERYONE. But i think you are just taking potshots without establishing any facts.

BTW when richard called me an apologist, i found it very funny. As a low cast Hindu, in Indian contest, i can't be an apologist, but i'm sure there's a word for people who brand other people... i'm glad the days of the stake are over...

[mcmlxix]

"I'm glad the days of the stake are over." Trip, you would't be branding other people would you...that would be hypocritical after all.

[trip]

No it is not. it is the same as reminding me of the bad things in my faith. its just a fact mate. dual standard is hypocrisy.

[IndianCatholic]

Feel free to correct if the facts are wrong. As Trip said, the anti-conversion laws in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh were enacted by the Congress govts in 1968 but both in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, not a single case had been framed under this Act for more than three decades (Walter Fernandes, The Hindu, November 10, 1999). The recent focus on the anti-conversion law is because the BJP government has passed one in Rajasthan (waiting approval of the President). Gujarat is trying to formulate one. The BJP ally in Tamil Nadu had passed one too but repealed it due to fear of loss of votes from the minorities.

The exact clauses of the law vary from state to state but is similar to the bill passed recently by the Rajasthan legislature that goes "no person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise any person from one religion to another by use of force or by allurement or by fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion." It provides for a jail term of two to five years and a fine of up to Rs 50,000 (~$1100 but a huge amount in India) for conversions by allurements, fraudulent means or by force. In Madhya Pradesh (I believe in other states too), the conversion has to be authorized by the Superindent of Police, District Magistrate etc that no force or allurement is involved. Now priests or nuns could be imprisoned for "force" or allurement as almost every Christian mission activity could be interpreted as "force" or "allurement". However, it is interesting to note that the bill provides for people to return to the faith of their "forefathers," or "original religion" meaning tribal Christians could be re-converted in mass re-conversion programs by VHP to their original castes without undergoing the hassles in dealing with the civil authorities.

The law criminalizes three types of overt acts (1) Allurement covers any offer of temptation by way of a gift or gratification, either in cash or kind or grant of material benefit, monetary or otherwise.(2) Force has been defined to include threat of injury of any kind including threat of divine displeasure or social ex-communication. (3) Fraudulent means covering misrepresentation or any other fraudulent means. The extremely vague and ambiguous definitions of the terms allurement, fraudulent means and force, make the possibilities of selective use or abuse of the law very real.

Just as "there may be malpractices carried out by the men of God" , there may be malpractices carried out by civil authorities too. In Madhya Pradesh, one of the States in which the anti-conversion had been enacted decades ago, two priests and a nun were sentenced to imprisonment on the charge of forcible conversion by a Raigarh court. This despite a written communication sent to the District Magistrate, the SDM and the SO (Police) claiming they had changed their religion voluntarily and without any allurement (Times of India, August 22, 2002).

The Constitution of India does give the right of propagation of one's faith. But in a 1977 judgement in the Rev Stanislaus versus the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme court upheld the constitutional validity of conversion-prohibiting laws enacted by Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. “What the Constitution grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets,” the court had ruled. (Economic Times May 20, 2006)

The court did not consider the fact that the right to speech and expression and the right to propagate religion have to be read together. When so read, the natural principle is that the right to freely disseminate information about one's faith does not merely consist of the right to inform people about their religion, but also includes the right to inform them in such a manner as to invite or persuade others to share one's belief and join one in one's faith. By denying the 'right to convert' the court was reducing the right to propagate religion to a mere slogan. (Combat Law, Human Rights Magazine, March 2003).

I would rather leave the legal battles for the lawyers but my main intention is to make clear the basis of the charitable activities as far as the Catholic Church is concerned:

"Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practised as a way of achieving other ends. But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God. Those who practise charity in the Church's name will never seek to impose the Church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. (Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas est )

One example of such a life spent among the dalits or untouchables, at a time when both "high class" Christians (St. Thomas Christians with 2000 years of tradition), and high caste Hindus would have nothing to do with them is that of Blessed Kunjachan who was beatified recently.

If we possessed the Truth, Trip said at the beginning,

"it will shine like a star and we'll be drawn like ants".

Any takers for the challenge?

[nanny]

IC,

what you are suggesting is that the path found by your faith is a good one (i'm sure it is), and that others should understand it before rejecting it. i totally agree.

now which law stops anyone doing that?

- Nanny

[Richard]

Hello Trip,

BTW when richard called me an apologist, i found it very funny. As a low cast Hindu, in Indian contest, i can't be an apologist, but i'm sure there's a word for people who brand other people... i'm glad the days of the stake are over...

Nothing wrong with being an apologist.

We have more than a few Catholic ones posting around here.

If your faith tradition won't grant you the power, we're happy to assign it to you in honorary status - because, ultimately, an apologist is merely one who argues in defense or justification of a cause. Even if it's not in an oficial capacity.

Fortunately, we seem to be fresh out of stakes. I will make do instead with the very salient points made by IndianCatholic's last post.

[Catholic Mom]

whole heartedly agree that anyone not happy with their faith should change it. I'm a low cast hindu myself from the Thane district of Maharashtra. Then why don't we? for the same reason colored people don't, but tired of your monopoly on truth chose to have separate churches instead. mission accomplished.

Huh? I am not sure what this comment about colored people means? I am sure Cardinal Arinze might find it interesting. As a Catholic woman of color (a light hue of brown) I find it a puzzling comment. I think it reveals the same level of ignorance towards Catholics that the writer accuses Catholics of having towards Hindu.

[trip]

So many people, so many questions. i can't answer all, simply because nobody gave the slightest acknowledgement of problems created due to malpractices by missions. we are convinced its impossible. So useless to continue.

Mom, i admit i know little abt ur realities, however i just meant to say that ill treated people do NOT have to change faith, and nobody has to tell them that from some assumed higher ground. I'm sorry if I said something offensive.

IC's post actually has facts. that should a cause to celebrate. although he too conveniently glosses over the real issue of poor victims and whats their redressal? Not everybody can wait till judgement. All the best to all and goodbye.

[nikhil]

when the pope comments that christianity is the truth and hinduism is a pagan blasphemy,it shows the tolerance of the vatican.They should learn to live with the world,not just form opus deis

[vaz]

in reality none of you practice your religion as if you did you'd be tolerant without relyin on some kachha baniyan(underwear) brigade or some papal head to reinforce your insecurities

if some dude wrote a book make him answerable, the church and teple cannot be pulled up for just about everything as no two temples or churches even mosques ur gurudwara think alike