Indian Church refuses to endorse political party in election
Assam Christians outraged by Hindu leader’s “divisive” remarks
Moral theologians address challenges in biomedical ethics in India
Persecution of Christians has worsened around the globe, according to new study
Pope to Cardinals-elect: Keep your eyes raised, your hands joined, your feet bare
Tribal Christians avoid travel fearing attack in India’s Manipur
Pope Francis’ visit to Singapore ‘has revived the faith of our people,’ cardinal says
Cardinal Dolan: Harris received ‘bad advice’ to skip Catholic charity dinner
Srinivasan Jain, the popular TV anchor with NDTV, has done a tremendous service to the Constitution of India and thereby, to the people of India. In a hard-hitting exposé on his weekly segment ‘Truth vs Hype,’ released November 19, Jain talks about the so-called ‘Forced Conversions’ with incontrovertible facts and the falsehoods and myths that are built around the issue. A good part of his expose is an interview with Ashwin Kumar Upadhyay, the petitioner in the current case on ‘forced conversions’ in the Supreme Court. Jain directly takes on Upadhyay and the 65-page petition submitted by the latter to the Supreme Court. Jain emphatically states that not a single example cited by Upadhyay in the petition comes under the ambit of ‘forced conversion.’ In fact, Jain proves that one of the examples is completely fake. Upadhyay however, continues with his rant without being able to authenticate or substantiate or furnish a single bit of evidence to prove his points, as Jain says, in an absolutely ‘flimsy’ petition. Who is this Ashwin Kumar Upadhyay? He is obviously a member of the BJP and an advocate in the Supreme Court. His claim to fame comes from the several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) he has filed – many of them are apparently frivolous and are summarily dismissed by the courts and even at one time referred to a PIL as Publicity Interest Litigation. The point of the matter however, is not whether one has the right ‘to convert another’ but
To be honest, I have never been an admirer of Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, I must say, given the experience of him as the head of Vatican’s influential Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), I have had some strong prejudices.However, having been around during the time of his passing on and having heard some of the personal sharing, I have a different view of the man. In addition, death always gives one a different perspective.Christianity is all about an encounter with a personWhat struck me first was a full-page advertisement and a quote from Pope Benedict that it carried on the L’ Osservatore Romano. It said, “We have believed in God’s love. At the beginning of being a Christian there is not an ethical decision or a great idea, but the encounter with an event, with a person, that gives life a new direction and a decisive direction.”In fact, “ultimately, through all his theological work he sought to show how Jesus Christ is the centre of all things and gives direction and a greater horizon to human beings in an age beset by the trivialising of life and the constant reduction of the human person to something less than what Christ reveals we can be”, observed Patrick Burke, a close associate of Pope Benedict, while he was a cardinal. And his final words will remain a lasting memory of this man’s deep faith: ‘Lord I love you’.Fat
Esth. 4:14 “For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and your father’s family will perish. Who knows? Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for just such a time as this.”To all those who hold a position of authority in the Church,All the forms of protests and dissents are almost always seen by autocrats as an act of indiscipline. The dissenters are branded as enemies and are then eliminated for the betterment of the societies they govern. However for the people who protest, it is a struggle for meaningful existence in their space and time. When farmers were protesting in Delhi some time back, they were branded as anti-nationals and the rulers tried everything to brand and destroy the dissent because it was indiscipline and an act against the nation because they were speaking against the rulers.When fishermen protested in Vizhinjam, they too were branded as anti-nationals and to certain extent the administration was successful in dividing and destroying the dissent. For the government, it was as an act of indiscipline-nothing else. However to the people who were affected, it was a struggle for meaningful existence and survival.When Church is at the forefront leading the dissent against the administration and the rulers in the strike regarding buffer-zone issue; again for the ruling government, it is an act of indiscipline with vested interests. However for the people, it i
A Malayalam saying goes like this: “Even when a son beats up his mother, there will be two factions – one that supports the son and the other, the Mother.” That seems to be the case with the ending of the 140-day Vizhinjam Port protests. Some believe that it was a giveaway under pressure and others thnik that the protesters did win most of their demands. The Indian Express reported on December 8: “The protest council did not gain anything during its 140-day-long agitation,” said V- MAC president Elias John….However, the Latin Archdiocese claimed that through the 138-day-long agitation they had created awareness among the public. In a video, Latin Church Vicar General Father Eugene Pereira also claimed that the decision to end the agitation was not taken by the government alone.” Only history will tell us the truth. Whether the arguments of the pro-port activists or the agitators will stand the test of time, however, is not merely a matter of academic interest. It is a life and death question particularly for the fisherfolk who live on the coast of Thiruvananthapuram district in Kerala and victims of development projects elsewhere in the world. The real winner is… However, look closely and critically, the real winners are Post-Truth and the politician-corporate nexus. Just to revise what post truth is, the dictionary says, it is ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to
It was ‘Constitution Day’ once again on 26 November, as the nation remembered with profound gratitude the day in 1949, on which the Constituent Assembly ‘adopted, enacted and gave to ourselves’ a meaningful Constitution. The day was also a reminder that ‘Constitution Day’ for the citizens of India cannot be relegated to just one day- it has to be observed every single day; and secondly, the Constitution belongs to ‘we, the people of India’ and we should never allow it to be desecrated by anyone at any time! Setting the tone for the day, was a momentous address delivered by the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud in the Supreme Court of India. CJI Chandrachud who took over the reins of the Apex Court just a couple of weeks earlier began his address by stating that the Constitution of India was a social contract between those historically in power and those who had been marginalised. Highlighting the need to enhance the representation of marginalised communities in the legal profession, he said, “The story of the Indian constitution is not just a story of legal text but is a story of human struggles and sacrifices, on undoing the injustices against the marginalised communities of society– the women, the Dalits and the disabled. The marginalised were the first to bring ideas or equality and liberty in the Indian law. The first wave of resistance against colonial power came from indigenous communities.” He went on to add that, “It is essential that th
