Bp Sebastian Adayanthrath

Pope Francis has appointed 75 laypersons of the Synod of Bishops to be held in the Vatican in October giving voting rights. How do you evaluate this decision, which is unprecedented and revolutionary?
I have been watching the present Holy Father very closely and I find some fascinating features in him. The first one is that he is a highly feeling person; he listens to his heart more than he listens to his head. The Pope looks at the world and he strongly feels that we can have a different world if only we set up our priorities differently. What we preach and what we practise have become totally different and the Holy Father would like to touch on the very core of this malaise: for example a priest speaks about pastoral compassion in the church and he talks about Jesus welcoming sinners to his community. When the same priest comes to the school, someone comes for a sweepers job and he pulls out the format where one needs to describe his qualification, his approach to results based management etc. How can we reconcile?
As a priest and a bishop, I often hear about the mother church. In reality, can we approach the church as a mother where it often prevents its own personnel by rules and regulations? Pope Francis wanted to show to the world the church is not only a mother in words but action. Such action needs structural change and it is painful. By doing this he has invited a good number of critics, even those who work very close to him.
As he continues to age and ill health catches onto him, he could also feel that some of the good changes he has introduced in the church will vanish with him. It has happened in the history of the church and the history of the world. The present pope not only wants to be seen as a charismatic leader who introduced earth shaking changes in the modalities of Christian living but one who integrated these changes into the very structure of the church so that the changes will continue to influence the future generation.

“India is slowly waking to the rude reality of promises, which were not kept up, the captain of the ship refusing to meet the press.”

Structural change refers to the transformation in the structure of a society. This type of change includes changes in the structure of social institutions or the rules by which they are run. Structural changes are thus long term and permanent changes. By introducing the above factor he is telling the world the real synod means a gathering of the people of God. After telling the whole world that we should listen to each other as a church, what if we listen only to the clergy and persons higher ups in the church. As someone once said: where is the half of the church in this synod hall? Don’t they have a voice? Don’t we have a right to listen to them? The Pope is addressing this critical issue.
In short, this inclusion of women has opened our eyes and told us that church is a higher and mystical reality than often thought. The Holy Spirit guides it and my strong belief is that the Holy Spirit is actively working in the church through our present Holy Father.
In a lecture delivered in Turin on May 11, Cardinal Gerhard Müller the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (2012-2017) criticised the Pope. He said: “We also have an example of this in matters of faith, given that Paul openly resisted. Peter when he allowed himself a dangerous ambiguity in the “truth of the Gospel” (Gal 2:11-14). “Our affective and effective attachment to the Pope and our bishop or pastor has nothing to do with the unworthy personality cult of secular autocrats, but is brotherly love for a fellow Christian who has been entrusted with the highest responsibility in the Church. It can also fail in this. That is why loving admonition promotes the Church more than slavish hypocrisy.”

How do you comment on this criticism?
When we hear this criticism, it may seem to us that the Cardinal is doing this as an adversary to the Pope. Cardinal clarifies his stand: “a bishop cannot be the Pope’s adversary. It is against his mission. There is no theologian or Cardinal who is more favourable to the papacy than I am. I have written books on the sacramental structure of the Church following Vatican II”. So this criticism is made as a friend and collaborator in the church’s ministry.
We all are human and we can make mistakes. We may propose different sets of priorities. Cardinal is of the opinion that criticism can help to enlighten the mission of the church. Cardinal sees the mission of the Pope – as the principle and visible centre for the unity of the Church through faith in Christ, the word of God made flesh, we read in the Vatican II constitution Lumen Gentium- is therefore on the theological level, more than on the sociological or social level.
Cardinal takes his argument forward: “Pope Francis is a preacher who uses simple words, and has this ability to address simple people, not just theologians and intellectuals. However, it is also very necessary to be able to respond to our modern world, a post Christian and anti-Christian world in which we live especially in the West, by proclaiming Jesus Christ.
Cardinal states that ecology is an important theme, as well as climate and migration. However, these themes should not make us forget the love of our neighbour is based on the love of God. This transcendental, divine dimension must be emphasised and elaborated upon.
Pope Francis has always held the following understanding: The Catholic Church needs theologians who know how to transmit the truths of faith in a way that will speak to people today, help them live the faith in their daily lives and inspire them to share the Gospel with others. “The community needs the work of those who attempt to interpret the faith, to translate and retranslate it, to make it understandable, to expound it in new words; it is a work that must be always done again, in every generation,” the pope told staff from Milan’s archdiocesan seminary in a text given to them June 17.
In his approach to theology, the Holy Father comes very close to what Archbishop Romero said fifty years ago: “We cannot do everything, and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that. This enables us to do something, and to do it very well. It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way, an opportunity for the Lord’s grace to enter and do the rest. We may never see the results, but that is the difference between the master builder and the worker. We are workers, not master builders; ministers, not messiahs. We are prophets of a future not our own”. The Holy Father is constantly reminding the world to translate their love for God into acts of Mercy for everyone in the world.
I live in Karnataka and most of the people here are either Hindus or Muslims. Christians are only a minority. Whenever I meet our Hindu friends or Muslim friends, they tell me “what a fantastic leader we have in our Pope. He is consistently talking about issues, which are vexing our world. He is concerned about humanity. They tell me that they read his interviews and interventions and they wish they had similar leaders in their faith journey.
It is so true that the present Pope has taken different priorities on his shoulders. He is trying his best to make Christianity relevant to modern people. He is trying to talk to a world which is not concerned about the theological arguments rather concerned about how we deal with modern issues “ new form of slavery, profit as the be all and end of all every activity, where we love things more than people and the ultimate aim is how to use people for one’s benefit”. The Holy Father wants a change in this regard.

In your state of Karnataka the Congress won, why do you think the congress won and what is its impact for the rest of India. The state was ruled by the BJP, what is your political attitude in India democracy? What is the role of religion in politics?
There are a few factors which helped the congress to win in the recent elections in Karnataka. First of all the ground work was well done. Months before the elections each constituency was well visited by the experts and they assessed pros and cons in the constituency and built up their strategy accordingly. It was a well oiled and well run election machinery.
Many attribute the success behind the elections partly to the Jodo March undertaken by Mr. Rahul Gandhi. It really created a momentum and asked people to make a decision on what kind of India we want in the future. His march touched the grounds and sometimes it shook the grounds. The Manipur crisis made people rethink their political stand. Also the way they treated Mr. Rahul Gandhi where they disqualified him as a member of parliament through a legal system which was not transparent. People were telling in loud terms that they are watching all these very closely.
The election results are a sign that India considers its constitution as a sacred book for it assures freedom and safety to every citizen. Multi religious practices are the very fabric of India and community harmony was the sacred rule in most of the communities. The election results were a message that they would like to keep their country that way. People have started thinking differently. The party, which was ruling Karnataka for the last few years, had a religious ideology to back their political stand. People are beginning to say no to it through the ballot box.
Regarding the impact, I am sure that it will have a huge impact for the rest of India. India is slowly waking to the rude reality of promises, which were not kept up, the captain of the ship refusing to meet the press, unholy and unjust relationships with the corporate world, selling of public undertakings at their whims etc. We will have to see what the future months hold for India. Many are sensing a wind of change.
In terms of political development, Catholic social teaching endorsed democracy on the condition that it constitutes a protection of human dignity and the moral law, and valued common good over individualism. Gandhi made the following statement: “if there is no inclusion of religion with politics, no one can achieve the almost aim. Hence he says, “Polity without religion is a phenomenon of great worries. According to him, the people who don’t believe in the religion in politics, they don’t know religion” In other words religion has a great role in politics which is corrective and creative. All religions uphold the human dignity of the human person and his or her right for existence. When politics goes against this natural principle, religion should enter there and speak for those who have no voice. In other words, religion should act as a watch dog for politics.