To a historic Synod by the Laity
Indian Currents Interviews John Dayal, Immediate Past
President, All India Catholic Union, and Member, National Integration Council
and National Monitoring Committee for Minority Education, government of India
Indian Currents: What was the context of the first Laity
Synod in Delhi
John Dayal: The obvious pretext is, of course, the fact that the world is
celebrating the Golden Jubilee of the
Second Vatican Council where the Holy Father, the good Pope John XXIII and his successor Pope Paul VI, in council
with the bishops of the world – for the first time reflecting the diversity of
the Catholic Church with a considerable number of prelates from Africa, Latin America and Asia – unfolded
the future role of the Church, the clergy, and importantly for us, of the Laity.
The historic First Laity Synod called by the All India Catholic
Union -- which came into being in 1919 and is one of the oldest Lay movements
in the world -- was born out of the experience
of the Catholic lay leadership at the national as well as the grassroots
level, with the Hierarchy and the state. Both were often very frustrating. If
the Laity, and indeed the Church at large, were playing little or no role in
the affairs of the State at any level,
our frustration with our role within the Church had been increasing. I was National
President of the AICU for four years, and for eight years before that worked as
National Secretary and national Vice President. We saw how the Hierarchy had
not fully understood the presence and role of the Lay members within the Church
at all levels, from the Parish to the Diocese and all the way to the Catholic
Bishops Conference structures. This was also true of the central bodies of the
two Oriental Churches which are today present not just in Kerala but through
several dioceses in the rest of India, and therefore interacting with non-Malayali
Laity in its jurisdiction as well. In the Latin Churches in several state
conferences, many diocesan Bishops were seen as virtually not tolerating any
assertion by the Laity that it had constitutional rights in the functioning of the
Church as Baptised Faithful. In several cases we found that Bishops and Parish priests
refused to acknowledge lay activists, much less allow them to participate in
Parish Councils, which were a canonical necessity but often did not exist, and Catholic
Associations which were arbitrarily dissolved soon after they were set up.
The AICU leadership was also concerned with issues of the faith
and leadership formation of the Laity. We had seen in many dioceses that the Laity was not aware of its canonical
rights, sometimes not even of its rights and duties as citizens of India. The
AICU has had several training programmes, but it was felt that there needed to
be deeper introspection for the evolution of new policies which we could then
share with then Hierarchy. Such introspection and dialogue would also help
resolve the sometimes seen mutual hostility in some dioceses between the Bishop
and clergy on the one hand, and the Laity on the other.
Once we started the process, we discovered that there was
perhaps ignorance also at the highest level about the status and role of the Laity
not just among the clergy and Religious, but even among the Hierarchy. Our
people in some dioceses were told by the clergy and Hierarchy that we could not
even call our proposed gathering as “Synod” since the Bishops alone could convene
such a meeting. We challenge this understanding and went ahead.
The Delhi meeting for two days at the diocesan pastoral
centre Navinta on 30 June and 1 July 2012 is the first of four regional
meetings planned before we meet for the actual Synod, the wiser for the
experience of sharing viewpoints and discussing major issues across he country.
The Consultations were preceded by a study through a national level survey we
launched some months ago, and whose results are being tabulated.
IC: As a participant
what do you say about the Synod and its deliberations?
JD: I think the first consultations were a great success and
now there is much clarity in how we should progress towards the remaining three
regional consultations and then the actual Synod, perhaps towards the end of
the year or early next year. The dates are of course to be decided by the
national leadership,. The AICU’s yearly general body meeting this year also has
to elect its national leadership for the next two years.
The first big success was in overcoming the initial suspicions
of the Hierarchy about our motives and designs. The presence of Conference of Catholic
Bishops of India president Telesphore Cardinal Topo, who was once also
president of the Catholic Bishops Conference, and archbishops and Bishops
reflecting the presence of the Syro
Malabar, Syro Malankara and Latin rights in the northern region, was a great signal that the Church spiritual
leadership is now willing to listen to our voice. The assurances given by each
one of the Bishops was evidence of it.
The speeches were friendly, though the matter of Rites did
excite a sharp response by newly
appointed Syro Malabar Archbishop of Faridabad and the northern region,
Archbishop Kuriakose Bharanikulangara. The issue was a perhaps acrid reference
to confusion created in some dioceses now given over to the Oriental Churches.
This only added to the intensity of the discussions and dialogue.
IC: What are the main topics the Synod discussed? And what are
the conclusions?
JD: We discussed Canon law and the Documents of Vatican II, of course, which was
the main purpose. But we also discussed the role of Church, Laity in governance
and human and Constitutional rights, and
explored the potential of existing and future media in expanding the role of
the collective Church in society and nation-building. We had people, experts in
their fields, to address the representatives in the consultations. We have tabulated the suggestions, but as
these are the first of the
consultations, there has been no formal statement.
But one thing is clear. The Laity assures the Hierarchy of
its cooperation and collaboration, but is equally keen to carry out its
functions assured in the statutes of the Church. The Hierarchy is responsible
for issues of faith and spirituality, and governance in those matters. But
matters in the secular sphere are the prerogatives, if not the sole preserve,
of the Laity which must be trained to fulfil such functions.
It is clearly also understood that the Laity is eager to
assert its rights without acrimony, and expects the bishops to increasingly
involve the Laity in Parish councils, the finance committees at the parish and
diocesan level, and in a consultative way in other areas of work, including the
running of institutions and development
and social work agencies.
IC: What does the Laity suggest to the Hierarchy for a more
participatory Church?
JD: The first step is of course to train the Laity in its
role, familiarise it with Canon law, Vatican II and the Social Teachings of the
Church. Dioceses must have such training programmes and the AICU offers its
expertise in this matter. Bishops should ensure that parish priest help form Catholic
Associations, apart from the mandatory Parish Councils and Finance committees.
The Bishops then have the role to follow suit at the diocesan level. The AICU offers its help to all Church
agencies in training priests and Laity in matters of human and civil rights,
running of institutions, and faith formation.
IC: How does the Hierarchy respond to the demands /
suggestions of the Laity?
JD: Some of these are revolutionary ideas, and not every
Bishop is a revolutionary. Over all there is great acceptance of the demands of
the AICU and a great and sympathetic understanding of the feelings of the
Faithful in the Parishes and Dioceses. But we recognise and understanding that
some of the Bishops are more mellow and understanding than others. We have
great hope from the younger Bishops, some of whom are there in their late
Forties or early Fifties and have a quarter of a century ahead of them in a
leadership role in the Church at the diocesan level. We hope to be able to move
them to act on their pledge.
IC: Is there a mistrust between the Hierarchy and the Laity?
What are the major reasons?
JD: Nationally speaking, the answer is No, there is no
mistrust, just a matter of different understandings occasionally of the Documents
and Canons of the Church. But at the dioceses
and parish level, there is unfortunately our experience of a distrust in some
places. It is difficult to generalise, but some of the senior and more
assertive Bishops perhaps are loath to let go, or are not open in affirming
their faith in their people. There are suspicions where Catholic children are not
admitted in Church run schools. The poorer Laity feels disappointed when the Church
does not help, at least adequately, those in need. The more committed members
of the Laity feel frustrated when they are denied a role in the running of the Church
in its secular work. There have been the occasional instanced of direct
confrontation, and sometimes the language used is not pretty. The situation in
mission dioceses in north India is different, and is cause of concern for
another set of reasons. But relations are not at breaking point. The Delhi
consultations for the Synod show a mutual eagerness to dialogue, which indeed
is the main demand of the AICU and at all levels. I personally hope mutual acrimony,
misgivings and differences will a thing of the past, and soon. I personally
have excellent relations with much if not all of the Hierarchy in India., We
are looking forward to the actual Synod and the remaining consultations.
IC: Is the existence of three Rites in the Indian Church a
problem for better Laity-Hierarchy working together? What do you suggest for
better relationship?
JD: Rites are a historical
entity. We know the universal Catholic Church has several rites, and Oriental Churches
exist in many western countries, especially in East Europe, North Africa and
West Asia exclusively or in co-existence with the Latin rite. In fact, in the
United States, almost every Oriental Church has
dioceses, and there never has been a serious problem. Kerala too has, at
the end of the day, the existence of three simultaneously different and
overlapping jurisdictions of the Latin, Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara Catholic
Churches. Acrimony and confrontations are, hopefully, a thing of the past, and
creative cooperation and collaboration between
separate hierarchies and jurisdictions is on display.
But in the Latin Church
in north and west India, there are areas of ignorance leading to
distrust between Laity, and sometimes clergy, of the different Rites. The
formation of the Syro Malabar dioceses in northern India has left a trail of avoidable
misunderstandings, if I may say so. Such differences have not always been
openly voiced, though there have been a few isolated cases of aggressive behaviour
in some parishes. But the concurrence of Rome to the establishment of Oriental
Dioceses is final, and we have to learn to live with them. Personally I am a strong
advocate of the involvement of the Laity of the three Churches in the leadership
of the AICU and in its work. We seen the same
rights from each of the three Rites.
IC: Like the Hierarchy that is divided into three Rites, so
too the Laity. How can you develop a strategy that is acceptable to the Laity
from the three Rites?
JD: Unity will come from working together. This will take
training and time. Transparency and an openness to dialogue is the first step. The
Hierarchy and Clergy of Oriental Churches in north and west India must
cooperate with Latin bishops an ensure that their Laity is participating in the
secular programmes called by the Latin Laity of the States and districts over which their Rite
has jurisdiction. In Delhi, for instance, which has a large number of Malayali
migrants belonging to the Syro Malabar Church, their participation in secular advocacy
programmes for Human rights for Dalit Christians and similar secular issues
becomes imperative. Without their participation, we will fail to muster the large
numbers which are required to show our earnestness to the government. The Oriental
Bishops have a great responsibility in this work.
IC: The Laity demand more say in the running of the Church
institutions and financial management. The Hierarchy doesn’t trust the Laity
much. How can there be better understanding and coordination?
JD: This will take time. The progressive shortage of
religious and clergy to run institutions will, in a historical way, ensure the
eventual Laity succession to such offices. But Hierarchy must not be afraid to hire
Principals and administrators from the Laity. We need to work together for the
sake of a vibrant Church and its continuing role in nation building.
IC: Do you think the
Synod can bring in changes in the functioning of the Church?
JD: Of course that is our hope and desire, otherwise we
would not have proceeded on the path of calling the Laity Synod. We understand
and accept this is not possible in a month or a year. It will take time. But
we, like the Hierarchy, are an old organisation and have the patience to wait,
the earnestness, and the eagerness to make the wait as short as humanly
possible. We believe the Holy Spirit will guide us on the right path.
IC: Do you think the issue of leadership is a problem for
the Laity?
JD: Leadership is of many kinds, but we cannot para-drop
leadership. We have to catch them young and develop leaders in the secular
field, and within the Church beginning from the grassroots. An empowered Laity
can undertake this mission. It is also the duty of the clergy and Hierarchy to
collaborate with the Laity in this. The AICU is an open, and open-minded, organisation
and is taking urgent steps in Laity formation and development of leadership. We
have grown and become increasingly self sufficient in the past years, and
tribute must be paid to every National president in the modern age, beginning
with George Menezes of Mumbai, chhotebhai of Kanpur, Norbert De Souza, Dr Maria
Emilia Menes and the incumbent president, Prof
Remy Denis, for this, assisted as they were by their national executives
and the leadership at diocesan and parish levels across the country. I had also
tried to do my bit during my days in office.
[This appeared in Indian Currents, 8 July 2012]
No comments:
Post a Comment