Rev Dr Jojo Parecattil CMI
Dharmaram, Bangalore
Pope Francis in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti no 277 says, “The Church esteems the ways in which God works in other religions, and “rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions.” Is this repetition of the teaching of Vatican II, what is the difference? How do you see the step of the Pope?
In my opinion, it is in continuation with the teaching of Vatican II, but adding deeper insights and forward looking vision. In the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate, 1965), Church formally opened the topic of its interfaith stance. We know as it is a ‘Declaration’ it’s not the same as a ‘Dogmatic Constitution.’ Constitutions are fairly finished documents, whereas declarations blaze a trail, but welcome refinement and progress. In Nostra Aetate no 2, Church accepts that there are truths and holy elements in other religions. Fratelli Tutti no 277 is going further and expressing it more emphatically. The Pope emphasises the direct involvement of God in other religions. It is not a passive activity, rather an on-going dynamic act of God.
We can also look at it as the continuation of what Pope Francis said at his general audience on April 3, 2019, while reflecting on his visit to Morocco (from March 30-31). “No one should be afraid that God has allowed there to be different religions in the world.” “But we should be frightened if we are not doing the work of fraternity, of walking together in life” as brothers and sisters of one human family, he said. His focus is on fraternity; though belonging to different religions, all of us are sisters and brothers, created by one God, and redeemed by one Saviour. We believe that Christ is the unique saviour. We also believe that all are God’s children and are saved through ways which are known only to God.
After the Council there was an enthusiasm for inculturation and interreligious dialogue pioneered by Cardinal Parecattil and Fr Amalore, why have such endeavours dampened?
I think it is due to the tension between the different schools of thoughts and approaches, such initiatives did not continue with the same enthusiasm. It is from the basic assumption of the Council that ‘there is truth in other religions,’ the Church in India in its pluralistic religious context started various initiatives to assimilate some of those elements, in order to enrich her own faith. Both Cardinal Parecattil and Fr Amalore were leading those movements of inculturation, indigenisation, and promotion of inter-religious harmony and dialogue, by developing an Indian Christian theology and spirituality. “The Church is not going to strike deep roots in the Indian soil until and unless we take pains to Indianise her as far as possible, especially in regard to her liturgy and thought patterns.” “If the pagan religions of Rome could be exploited and harnessed to the needs of Christianity, it is much more in the fitness of things to draw on the rich resources of Hinduism which is pre-eminent among all non-Christian religions,” were some of the deep convictions of the Cardinal Parecattil, with which he pioneered such initiatives in the Church.
Of course, in the first attempt, their initiatives might not have been perfect. Indian Church too is a human reality. Therefore, in my humble opinion, there should have been constructive criticisms, to correct the initial inculturation efforts and perfect them instead of putting a full stop for them. One should humbly realise and admit that perfection in any field is a gradual and ongoing process.
Raimundo Panikkar spoke of “The Unknown Christ of Hinduism” as the theory of the “presence of Christ” in the religious traditions. Panikkar wrote: “There is a living presence of Christ in Hinduism.” What do you think and why?
Raimundo Panikkar strongly believed that Christ is already working in Hinduism and declared that a good Hindu is saved by the Unknown Christ of Hinduism.
Instead of introducing Christ to his Hindu brethren, his whole concern was to unveil Christ hidden in them. I too hold on to his opinion that Hinduism can lead one to Christ.
God created human beings in his ‘image and likeness.’ I cannot claim that God created only Catholics with His image and likenesses and people of all other faiths are deprived of this divine imprint. Surely, the Spirit is working within every human being, so also in every religion. Nobody can stop God the Father from His salvific acts of mercy prepared eternally for His children irrespective of their religion or denomination. I strongly believe that Christ belongs to all people and the whole world and not exclusively to the Catholic Church.
In our theology, especially when it comes to the liturgical matters, we always glorify the mystical elements of our Christian faith, and also very faithfully, we celebrate it with all rituals and rubrics. This mystical dimension of our faith has a biblical and magisterial foundation. If Christ is a mystery and the mystical element of Christian faith is well approved by all, then why are we bothered on making ‘absolute claims’ that contradicts its mystical dimensions? On one hand, I pretend as a proclaimer of great mysteries, and on the other, conveniently, I also pronounce absolute claims, like, Christ belongs to the Catholic Church alone; no religion has any share in it. Is Christ the monopoly of the Church and Christians? If Christ is a mystery, is it possible for me to have a perfect understanding about Him?
Can any theologian deny the fact that Christ did reveal Himself to Gandhiji, about whom Dr. S. Radhakrishnan proclaimed to the world on his day of assassination, by saying that ‘today the world has lost one of the most practicing Christians?’ A great testimony of a Hindu about the ‘living presence of Christ’ in another Hindu!
Hence, I strongly believe that Christ is Almighty, and never in my philosophising, I want to make Him a limited God. The way God works in the Church may be different from that of other religions. Who am I to set limits on God? It is even sinful for me to dictate to God on His modalities of functioning in other religions.
The Charismatic movement in India was apparently against any interreligious dialogue and was in a more fundamentalist mood of rejecting other religions, as a teacher of Hinduism what is your perspective?
Let me make a small correction; I am not a teacher of Hinduism, but a teacher of Indian Philosophy. As part of that I teach Hindu philosophy presented in the Vedas, Upanishads and other schools of Indian philosophy.
Now, coming to your question, my perspective is not different from that of the Church. I admit that Charismatic movements have made significant contributions in building up the faith of the ordinary faithful. But condemning the faith of others can never be justified. A priest, who is ordained in the Church is supposed to follow faithfully the teachings of Church Magisterium. In a Charismatic Centre, if a particular retreat preacher is not preaching the Bible according to the teachings of the Church, it is against the profession of faith which he made on the occasion of his Ordination.
It often seems that some of those who follow the charismatic movements are exclusive in their attitudes and approaches. They try to convince the public that God works only in their centre or through specific persons or else the public might turn to other places and persons. They seem to be marketing their centres by making absolute claims on God. This style may be reflected on absolute claims about religion as well. Instead, a genuine charismatic movement should imbibe the presence of the Spirit who works in all human beings.
Do you think our Church is becoming more communal and fundamentalist in its approach?
On the one hand, we are living in a globalized world. On the other hand, we are living in a polarised society, where people are becoming more and more communalistic and fundamentalistic in their approaches. We know that Church is both divine and human. If we are not vigilant, there are all possibilities of such communal and fundamentalist elements creeping into the Church.
Jesus’ approach is very inclusive. He taught us to call God as our Father and pray to Him as His beloved children. He did not teach us to call Him as MY FATHER or YOUR FATHER, rather OUR FATHER. It is an inclusive prayer. It is filled with inclusive words and expressions. Give US OUR daily bread, and not give ME MY daily bread; forgive US OUR sins, and not MY sins; deliver US from the evil ones, and not deliver ME from the evil ones. The exclusive words like my, mine, etc., are not in it. Therefore, this prayer helps us to grow day by day in the inclusive spirit of Christ. One, who prays it thrice in his daily liturgy, six times in his rosary, and perhaps many more times as his personal prayer matures, shall repeat it by imbibing its inclusive spirit so that he may be devoid of all the communal and fundamentalist attitudes.
Justin the martyr writes that, in Apology “The Christ whom Socrates knew in part (apo merous) – for he was and is the Logos present in all things (ho en panti on), and it is he who by means of the prophets foretold the future, and by means of himself, being made like to us, gave us his teaching.” The Western Church has borrowed Greek philosophy and the great writers, why are we so hesitant to such a creative thinking in India?
We may be hesitant to do it because we are not convinced of becoming an Indian Church with its own theology and spirituality. Though at times, we proclaim that we are Indian in culture still there is a long way to attain that great ideal. We have borrowed from the East and the West, and yet we are reluctant to accept the noble thoughts and traditions which are in tune with the spirit of the Gospels from our Mother Land, India. St Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio, recognizes that “A great spiritual impulse leads Indian thought” (72). If we absorb those impulses, “Someday Buddha and Confucius may be to the Eastern Catholic theology what Plato and Aristotle were to St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine” (Fulton J. Sheen, Treasure in Clay, 137). It will give Indian roots to our Christian faith.
The Bible gives us plenty of examples: “Truly I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” (Mt 8:10). “Woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire” (Mt 15:28). “Go and do likewise” (Lk 10:37). That “the gift of the Holy spirit had been poured out even on the gentiles” (Acts 10:45). What do these saying tell you about a theology teacher and believer in Christ?
Let all the theologians and the faithful, ‘who have ears to hear, listen and understand it!” (Mt 11:15). It is not for anything else but with regard to the matters of faith that Jesus praised the gentile Centurion and the Canaanite woman above the Israelites. It is with regard to the humanitarian attitude of a gentile Samaritan that Jesus asked the Israelites to do likewise. In Acts of Apostles, we read that together with Peter the believers also amazed: “the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the gentiles.” (Acts 10:45). In the Fratelli Tutti of Pope Francis, we see a new Peter who is getting astonished at the out-pouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit on the gentiles. I think the present successor of Peter is also inviting all the theologians and the believers to join with him in this great process of seeing the Work of God in other religions.
Even after two millennia, theologies and faith formulas are not giving ears to those teachings of Jesus. Jesus could find expressions of great faith in the gentiles (Mt 8:10, 15:28). Unfortunately, many followers of Jesus are still struggling to find better expressions of faith and humanitarian attitudes in others than that of theirs, which is worth to do likewise (Lk 10:37). We always think that what we do is the best and perfect and this thought pattern shall be reversed.
What is incarnation for you and how does the Church get incarnated in India?
Incarnation is a divine act of God becoming human. By incarnation, God took flesh and became one of us and dwelt among us. It is only through inculturation, Church can get incarnated into Indian context. It is not an option, but an imperative, as we live with people of other faiths who form 98% of the Indian population. In this form of inculturation, there should be an incarnation of Christian faith and life into Indian cultural context, for a better experience and expression of Christian mysteries.
Jesus was incarnated on this earth as an Asian. Later, when that faith spread to Europe and other parts of the world, it was labelled as Western, just because it got incarnated into Western philosophy, theology (Greek Philosophy – Logos) and culture. Identifying Christian faith either with Western or with some other theologies and practices is not what we need today. As St John Paul II demands, “In India particularly, it is the duty of Christians now to draw from this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in order to enrich Christian thought” (Fides et Ratio 72). To have native roots, Indian Church has to be more and more open to Indian culture and engage itself with it to adopt divine forms, which are not alien to it.
Cardinal Parecattil was convinced that “If Christ were to become incarnate to our country today, He would have chosen the local dress, would have whispered the local dialect; He would have been an Indian in its full sense.” It is an imperative that currently, we need to incarnate ourselves in India with local dress, dialect, theology, liturgy and spirituality for the incarnation of Christian faith in our mother land.
Leave a Comment