Bishop Bosco Puthur
Melbourne, Australia

How was the recent Synod of Syro-Malabar Church?
To me, the recent session of the Synod of the Syro-Malabar Church was a wonderful experience of synodality. Synodality means walking together, praying together, thinking together, sharing together and making decisions together.

How was it different from the earlier Synods?
We are still in a learning process. Our Synodal system is of very recent origin; has only twenty-five years of history. We have to learn the process of talking, praying and walking together. It’s like a young child learning to get up and walk. In the process it may fall sometimes. This recent crisis has brought us into the realization of what synodality should be. The situation of the Syro-Malabar Church is quite different from most other Oriental Churches. Until recently we didn’t have a common head. We didn’t have a Synod. Each of our dioceses/eparchies had developed its own system for its administration. We rarely thought that we are a Synod and that we are responsible for each other as a whole. What happened in the Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese? I thought that it is their concern, not mine. And they too thought that it is their concern and not of others. I remember a poem German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller wrote:

“First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

More or less that was our situation in the recent crisis. The Synod first thought that it is an Ernakulam issue, and not of the Syro-Malabar Church. But now we understand that it is an issue that concerns every believing Christian, not only in Kerala, but even beyond. That realization brought us into a perspective of real oriental ecclesiology and synodality.

Are you saying that synodality was not properly understood? Are we not conscious of our responsibility to walk together and dialogue together?
Exactly! Until now, I never thought that we could interfere in the affair of another diocese, except when the bishop concerned requests to interfere. But now, Rome has made it very clear that in the situations like this, the Synod has the right and duty to intervene, taking into consideration appropriate canonical norms.

There was a feeling that the Synod was always trying to conform to its own Major Archbishop and later on the Synod came into a different mood of approaching an issue on its own merit. Is that true?
We are not defending anybody or offending anybody. Earlier we did not know what the real problem was. The first time when the committee delegated by the synod and later the permanent Synod members approached the Presbyteral Council of the Archdiocese, it seems, there arose some misunderstanding and confusion. Their competence was put into question. That sort of misunderstanding was there. Then there was the question of timing; studying the problem, analyzing the situation; definitely not only of understanding the problem, but also the people affected by it.

So I think, it was not a question of defending anybody or offending anybody. The synod was concerned with the good of the whole Church, not only of the bishops or of the Archdiocese of Ernakulam –Angamaly, though it is the most important Archdiocese in the Syro-Malabar Church. It has to be taken as a part and parcel of the whole Syro-Malabar Church.

When there is understanding and listening, there exists the possibility of openness of agreeing on issues. When you opened up, there was lot of opportunity to get the issue resolved and the people were ready to accept. Is that the truth?
Definitely, dialogue and listening are essential parts of solving any human problem. That is what has now happened in the Church. Earlier we were not prepared enough for such a dialogue. Personally I didn’t have the background for it. Even now I don’t know in detail all the issues involved. Formerly, I was not feeling myself being part of the problem. Now I understand that I too am part of the problem. All the more I also have the duty of being part of the solution.

Don’t you think that kind of a dialogue within the Synod has to break out into the clergy and the laity? How successful are you in that breaking out, going out and listening?
I think we need to have a better system of listening to the whole people of God. We have to yet evolve a methodology of addressing the reality in that direction.

In that sort of a dialogue, you have the problem that it always ends up in dialectics. Dialectics need not necessarily bring about convergence.

Dialectics can also be progressive, evolving into convergence. Then it can be mutually beneficial as it reaches a more fruitful higher stage. See, what usually happens when we argue. When my opponent talks, more than attentively listening to him, I am thinking of how I should counteract and defend my own position. That’s a lack of proper openness in listening and it becomes hindrance that inhibits solutions. We often emotionally shout at each other. Then there is no listening to the other side. There are a lot of emotional feelings in human relationship, good and bad. It is a way of expressing oneself. I would say, dialogue has not only intellectual dimension but also emotional. Understanding the emotional hurt or the pain of the other person requires empathy.

When we come together and express others pain, that itself is a form of healing. In dialogue there is yet another dimension of listening to the interiority and the mystery of talking to each other. The mystery of accepting the other and trying to understand the other, that is spirituality. Is that not important?
Yeah, definitely! Taking extreme positions is very hurtful and dangerous. The Church is not a political entity. It is the body of Christ and the Holy Spirit is the heart and soul of the Church. As we are all related to each other through the Spirit of God, so the differences can be solved, because, that which unites us together is more powerful than that which separates us. The Spirit of God works in humility and that’s what the bishops meant when in the final statement of the Synod we said that in humility we confess our failures and acknowledge what is the will of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, listening to the people of God and to the priests at large.

During the Synod, there were some demonstrations. At times, when people get emotionally upset, they will protest. How are the leaders of the Church understanding this kind of protest and anger? Couldn’t they be signs of mistrust in the Church?
I would say it is. But we live in a world that is highly manipulated by social media, which makes it very difficult to discern what is true and what is not. The Australian bishops during their ad limina visit to Rome in the month of June had a three hours informal chat with Pope Francis. He told us bishops that we should keep four relationships very sacred: relation with God in Jesus, relation with fellow bishops, relation with our clergy and relationship with the people of God. Pope asked us: ‘Are you playing hide and seek with yourself? Are you transparent with yourself? Are you men of duplicity?’ Pope said that the ‘clergy should be able to talk to you without inhibition, not behind you.’ Pope Francis himself told, please you can talk anything in front of me, but please don’t talk behind me. So, that atmosphere of mutual trust has to come in every diocese and in every religious community where we can in fraternity and friendship share our concerns, our joys and anxieties. When that does not happen, there will be emotional outbreaks of anger and frustration. But the difficult question is, how can we discern what is really the voice of the people of God, because now a days the situation is so complex, confusing and often manipulated. We have truth, half-truth and non-truth, all being cleverly mixed up especially through the media. Pope Francis said, if you listen to the weak and vulnerable in the community, especially the very young, the old and the sick, then you will get very close to the truth, not the manipulated truth, but the real down to earth truth. Unfortunately, some protests are highly emotional, which comes from frustration.

That happens because there is no mechanism that could help to win the trust of the people of God. That credibility deficit is indeed a problem. Will it be addressed?
I have to tell you frankly, when there are serious problems in a diocese, usually nobody approaches the Synod, may be due to lack of adequate knowledge about the functioning of the Synod. When a problem is not solved at the local level in a diocese, people concerned could, with due discretion, approach the Synod at the right time. If they feel that the Synod is not dealing with the matter responsibly, they could then approach the Apostolic See through the Apostolic Nuncio. In my opinion ecclesiastical disputes shall not be brought to the public media, which would complicate the matter. Maybe, in the land deal issue, if the concerned parties had shown from the very beginning mutual trust and openness to solve the issue internally that would have been an exemplary Christian approach.

From a different point of view, I am very disturbed. Because, the language within the Church was so vitiated with animosity, revenge and nasty speaking. How did that happen?
It happened for different reasons, for good or bad, with reason or without reason. A good number of frustrated elements within the Church and outside used the media. Media, especially social media, is just waiting for some soap opera that can entertain people. The Church became its willing prey. Most of the faithful are pained by that. Do you think if the media had made use of a similar situation in some other religious communities, it would have been tolerated? I wonder!

If the media are polarized, this will happen. It happens even in the case of the Hindu community or the Islamic community. Doesn’t it?
Media, which is called the Fourth Estate, has to stand for truth and justice. Unfortunately, some in the media look for scandals. For them good news is no news; bad news is good news. So they are in search of bad news, because that is more sensational.

Look at the gospel, before it became good news, it was bad news: violence, betrayal, crucifixion, everything was bad news. How did the evangelists manage to convert them into good news? How do you convert bad news into good news?
One day in my mobile phone I got a message that said, life experience is like photos taken with role films of the olden days. There the pictures are in the negative. White appears as black and black appears as white. Thereafter you take the film into the dark room of the studio and wash it in chemicals. Then it comes out as a beautiful picture. In the same way, you have bad experiences in life, and if you go to the dark room of your prayer and wash them in God’s grace, they become beautiful. In the Joyful Mystery of the rosary, we meditate on Jesus’ birth in a manger. Imagine, a husband and a wife today not finding a room to give birth to their firstborn! Will it be a joyful experience? It was the most painful and humiliating experience for Mary and Joseph, but they converted that bad experience into a joyful mystery with faith and confidence in God’s grace. I think, in the Church too any bad experience has to be addressed with humility and trust in God’s grace and in an attitude of prayer, discerning what the Spirit of God wants of us. I think that is the primary role of the Synod in the Church, and this Synod could in humility transform some bad news into good news through mature discernment in the Spirit. That’s what we learned. Although it was a painful experience for us, I think it turned out to be a good lesson. We became more mature, more prayerful, more humble and more listening to the Spirit of God and each other. We understood that, even in apparently divergent positions, coming to convergence in unity, brings hope and good news to the people of God.

Some of our priests concluded that certain intruders created all the troubles. How can we handle this?
Unfortunately, this happened even in the college of apostles. Jesus was praying the whole night and chose His twelve apostles. But in the most critical moment of the Lord, Jesus asked them to keep vigil and pray with Him, but they slept. People like Peter betrayed Jesus thrice, not just once. His most beloved apostles, John and his brother Jacob, wanted to get the first and second seats beside Him. Lastly, there is Judas! Without understanding the message of joy and hope of the resurrection, Peter said, I am going for fishing. There, even Thomas failed and joined the band. We are after all fragile human beings. We forget sometimes that we are called today to be the fishers of men. In such situations intruders from outside can easily manipulate us.

In history, papacy too had very bad days and very bad type of Popes as well. But see how papacy evolved in the modern times to be a spiritual force for the whole world. Do you think that kind of an evolution has taken place in episcopacy as well as in priesthood?
Let us remember that the most important call in the Church is the call to be holy. The call to holiness that we receive in baptism is a call to discipleship. Being a priest, the ministerial priesthood, is great. But it’s an outcome of the first call. The call to holiness, whether you are a priest, bishop, Pope or a lay family person is the most important call in the Church. If we forget it, then we fail in our way of life, especially those of us who are leaders in the Church. Spiritual leaders should never forget that first of all they are called to be holy. They have to stand before others as examples of how others should follow Jesus step by step. The Synod is a moving together step by step towards Jesus. Pope Francis said in the first week of his Petrine ministry that the Church is “walking with the Lord and walking unto the Lord.” I think synodality should be understood as always being with Jesus, walking with Him and walking unto Him. During the last session of the Synod I thought that we were like the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They were walking away from the Lord, the Jerusalem event, they were afraid, they were disputing and they couldn’t even see Jesus was present with them. But only when they listened to the Word of God and experienced the presence of Jesus in the breaking of the bread, then their eyes were opened and they understood what the resurrection faith really is, what the discipleship of Jesus is. They immediately rushed back to Jerusalem and shared the experience of a having met with the risen Lord. In the Synod one of the bishops said that we are the Easter people, we are the people of hope. As a bishop, as a priest and as a believing Christian, I would like to say that we should share that sort of hope within the Church, because Church is the body of Jesus Christ.